Marcus Wood: your post is thought-provoking as usual.
> 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.
If the Kittim of pNah 3-4 i 3 are the Romans, then would not the
Kittim of pHab be also, by definition? I see these two texts as
very closely similar, parallel, and contemporary texts, and the
Kittim would be the same between these two texts. At
pNah 3-4 i 11-12 the 'priests of Jerusalem' losing their wealth
is a borrowing or paraphrase of a closely similar unit at
pHab 9.4-7, so much so that it is practically certain that
the wealth of the the priests of Jerusalem in pNah will also
go to the Kittim (and therefore 'Kittim' will have existed
twice in the pNah column, not just the one visible attestation).
As for the Roman identity of the Kittim of pHab, the reasons
that convinced me that is correct are the worship of the
weapons and the Republican-era Roman coins from the Atkinson
1959 article argument; parallels with Roman description in
I Macc. 8 and Kittim of pHab; being the world power;
'isles of the west'; and the parallel with pNah, and also
other reasons for supposing these texts to come from
mid-1st BCE. As I read it, the text (pHab) implies an
existing power, an existing Kittim, not a future or
eschatological Kittim.
As for the Kittim of Dan. 11.30, I believe the argument for
Roman identity there is not the LXX reading you note, but
rather the correlation between the Roman order to Antiochus
IV to withdraw from Egypt, and the Kittim who fulfill this
role relative to the Antiochus IV character in Daniel. I'm
sure you know of this and am curious how you would interpret
this differently.
As for the Kittim of 1QM and 4QpIsaA, etc., contrary
to common thinking I don't think those are Seleucids; I
think those are Romans too; I think all Kittim in the
late-end Qumran text compositions (yachad texts) are
Romans. There is a question that must be answered
concerning why one cluster of texts has the Kittim defeated by
the Prince of the Congregation/Davidic Branch, whereas
another cluster (pHab, pNah) has the Kittim as invincible
conqueror, but the notion of development or change
in identity of the Kittim is not necessarily the best solution
to the question.
I would be interested in your comment on the argument
for the Kittim/Roman identity of Atkinson 1959
('The Historical Setting of the Habakkuk Commentary' in
Journal of Semitic Studies 4: 238-263), especially
Atkinson's discussion of Republican Roman parallels
with the pHab allusion to worship of standards/weapons.
On the CD 'head of the kings of Yavan' reference, while
I think that is Pompey, I don't think the CD expression
requires the 'head' to be of Yavan personally, only in
command of them. The reason why Pompey would be
referred to in such a way is explicable in terms of the
wordplay of the pesher. Although it is conjectural, I
imagine 'Yavan' meant 'Greeks' and 'Kittim' (in the world
of these texts) may be a sobriquet for 'Romans' without
necessary genealogical connection, although Romans
themselves (by some other eponym) and Greeks probably
would have been regarded in some family tree affinity.
To Russ Gmirkin: Dupont-Sommer's arguments
are not anachronistic but quite consistent within his own
framework, for he does not date the composition of CD
to 63 but later. Any charge of anachronism should be
directed not toward Dupont-Sommer but toward
someone who does date CD to 63 who uses arguments
anachrnistically. (For anyone interested, the best statements
of Dupont-Sommer's arguments on Pompey as the 'head
of the kings of Yavan' are Dupont-Sommer, 'Quelques
Remarques sur le Commentaire d'Habacuc, à propos d'un
livre récent', Vetus Test. 5 [1955]: 116 [long footnote]; and
'Les Écrits Esséniens Découverts Près de la Mer Morte
[2nd edn; Paris], 1960: 356-358.)
You also questioned whether Pompey used auxiliaries
from 'Yavan' lands in his army. John Leach, _Pompey
the Great_ (London 1978) p. 76, 'The troops at his
[Pompey's] disposal comprised the three legions of
Q. Marcius Rex already stationed in Cilicia (about 15000
men); the bulk of Lucullus' army... levies from the Asian
kingdoms still in alliance, of which the most important were
the Galatian cavalry ... (That was Pompey starting out, 66.)
Josephus, Ant. 14.48 says Pompey's army that came to
Judea in 63 had 'auxiliaries that came from Damascus [perhaps
belonging to the last Seleucid deposed by Pompey in 64?],
and the other parts of Syria, with the other Roman legions
which had brought with him'.
Leach also discusses at p. 89 the way 'kings and petty
rulers of all sorts flocked to Amisus' where Pompey was
the winter of 65-64 to offer their allegience to Pompey.
'Head of the kings of Yavan' as an expression which is
punning 'poison' as 'head' and 'wine' as 'Yavan' seems
accurate and descriptive as a way of speaking of
Pompey, the most powerful figure in the East.
Greg Doudna
For private reply, e-mail to "Greg Doudna" <[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)
