Greg,
The CD passage is very interesting, especially for me due to the reference
to the 'one who preaches lies to them' in the next few lines, but I think
it doubtful that Yavan would be applied to a Roman, directly or indirectly.
You begin with the stipulation in these texts that the Kittim are the
Romans. My own research has cast some question over this - I could find no
single decisive reason in pHab as to why this should be the case and was
merely left with the overall impression gained. I do agree that the
reference in pNah is applied to the Romans and is probably a specific
reference to Pompey. However, the description of the Kittim in other texts,
incl. 1QM and some of the Isaiah pesharim suggest that the reference is
also applied to Seleucid Greeks in the DSS. I argue that there is an
evolution of 'Kittim' within the pesharim and that there was no single
understanding of the term. Possibly the best solution to all this is to
follow Josephus Ant. I, vi, 1 where he refers the term to any sea-peoples.
It is true that a link is made between Kittim and Yavan in Genesis 10.
Nevertheless, there is no clear evidence for understanding Kittim in the
Hebrew Bible as referring to Romans. The Daniel reference, so frequently
cited, is as I have argued previously on Orion dubious, since the LXX which
incorporates 'Romans' is a loose reading of the Hebrew phrase and removes
the term 'ships [of Kittim]' for a verb form ('go forth'). On Yavan
specifically we need to examine the remaining biblical evidence. The LXX
and Vg evidence is clear, continually reading Yavan (ywn) in those
instances where it specifies a nation as Hellas and Graecia respectively
(eg Isa 66:19; Ezek. 27:13; Dan 8:21 etc.). Otherwise it is simply
transliterated as Jovan. The Daniel 8:21 reference is particularly
noteworthy since this seems a clear reference to Alexander the Great as
King of Greece. Also of relevance is the distinction made between 'Kittim'
and 'Hellas' in I Macc. 1:1 - references to Macedonia and Greece as a whole
respectively. In this connection C.C. Torrey a long time ago argued that
there is an evolution of the term Yavan/Hellas to encompass the Seleucid
Empire itself. C.f. "Yawan and Hellas as Designations of the Seleucid
Empire," JAOS 25 (1904), 302-311.
To conclude then: (1) there is danger in necessarily applying the term
Kittim to Romans; (2) paralleling Yavan with Kittim/Romans while
accentuating the Genesis connection ignores the remaining biblical evidence
which exclusively identifies Yavan with Greece. Finally, where the
pesharist (at least) refers to Yavan, he upholds the Biblical picture -
albeit coloured by Maccabees - and suggests a Seleucid/Greek
identification.
Marcus Wood
Durham, UK
Greg Doudna wrote:
> At CD 8.8-13/ 19.20-26 there is a conqueror
> figure called 'the head of the kings of Yavan'.
> Ever since Dupont-Sommer 1950 (primarily from
> Dupont-Sommer) there has been an argument that
> this figure is Pompey. There is a good argument
> in favor of the Pompey identification in Michael
> Wise's current _The Messiah Before Jesus_
> (1999: 159-161).
>
> However an objection raised by Rabinowitz 1953
> and others since has been that the 'head' (R'sh)
> of the 'kings of Yavan' would be, as Rabinowitz
> put it, 'primus inter compares', i.e. himself of Yavan.
> (Therefore the figure would not be Pompey, a Roman.)
>
> Dupont-Sommer disputed that this was a requirement
> of the syntax and wording. Wise argues that the CD
> passage is actually a sort of clumsy reinterpretation
> of a generation-earlier genuine prophecy of the
> Teacher of a northern/Syrian/Seleucid conquest
> which the Teacher's followers interpreted,
> _ex eventu_, after the fact, as being fulfilled by
> Pompey. (Wise reconstructs an exegesis on how
> this reinterpretation could have come about.)
>
> No one, it seems, has disputed the pivotal point:
> that Romans would not be included in a meaning
> of 'Yavan'. The question here is: what is the basis
> for this assumption?
>
> Let us stipulate, as is widely acknowledged, that
> the Romans are referred to as the 'Kittim'. Gen. 10:2,
> the Table of Nations, has the Kittim as a son of Yavan.
> Therefore by this structure the 'Kittim' would be
> descended from Yavan. It is true that when the
> Table of Nations was written the 'Kittim' are
> not Romans. However in the world of texts
> such as pHab and pNah (and by analogy and
> argument, CD is in this same context as well)
> the Romans are 'Kittim'.
>
> On what grounds is there an assumption that
> Romans-Kittim would not be descended from,
> --one from among--Yavan? If Romans are among
> Yavan, then Pompey as the 'head of the kings of
> Yavan' would remove Rabinowitz's objection
> as to 'primus inter compares' and all of Dupont-
> Sommer's other arguments would have great
> force (Pompey was in fact the leader, formally,
> of all of the eastern kings of Yavan, by the Decree
> of Manilius of 66, which was confirmed by
> acclamation wherever he went, etc. Furthermore,
> if Pompey picked up mercenaries from these subordinate
> kings in his eastern campaign, then by the time he
> got to Damascus and then went on to Judea, he
> would literally be the head of armies with
> contributions from subordinate kings of Yavan).
>
> (I see no reason why 'Yavan' is limited to
> Seleucids in any text. In 4QpNah two Seleucid
> kings are named as 'kings of Yavan' but that is
> because they happened to be the 'kings of Yavan'
> who impacted Jerusalem.)
>
> If Pompey or the Romans were *not* included
> within an ancient understanding of the range of meaning
> of 'Yavan'-people (in the world of texts such as
> CD, pHab, and pNah), how else *would* Romans
> be named or construed genealogically? ('Kittim' makes
> them biblically Yavan-people; Gen. 10:2.)
>
> In other words, what is the basis in fact to the alleged
> objection that Pompey cannot be the referent of
> CD's 'head of the kings of Yavan' on the grounds
> that a Roman figure (supposedly) is non-Yavan?
> What is the evidence or reason to suppose the Romans
> were outside the spectrum of meaning of 'Yavan'?
>
> (4QpNah 3-4 i 3 has wording referring to
> something <Jerusalem, by reconstruction> not
> being given 'into the hand of the kings of
> Yavan from (M-) Antiochus until ('D) the
> standing of the rulers of the Kittim'. The syntax
> is amenable to being read with the activity of the
> rulers of the Kittim either being within the 'kings of
> Yavan', or exclusive to it. This is the analysis of most
> who have examined this syntax closely (e.g. Carmignac),
> not just me. Therefore the answer to the
> question of whether the Romans would be included
> or excluded in the meaning of 'Yavan' to the ancient
> authors of CD receives no help from these words
> in pNah.)
>
> I think Romans ('Kittim') would be regarded as 'of
> Yavan', simply because that is where they would
> fit in the Table of Nations, and there is no reason
> to suppose Romans would not be. Can anyone
> offer counterargument?
>
> Greg Doudna
For private reply, e-mail to marcusemwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web
site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
(PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
