[b-hebrew] Daniel 11:29, a third campaign implied?
Lisbeth S. Fried
lizfried at umich.edu
Tue Dec 26 10:48:03 EST 2006
Hanan Eshel and his wife Estee have discussed this point extensively and
have argued cogently (imo) for a third campaign based on the DSS. Hanan
discusses it most recently in his new book on the Maccabees, but also in
articles. The new book is very good, but only in Hebrew at the moment. It
is called The Qumran Scrolls and the Hasmonian State, published by Yad
Ben-Zvi Press, 2004. The first chapter seeks to show that there was a third
using both Daniel and the DSS. The scroll that he uses is 4Q248 which
repeats part of Dan. 12:7. They argue that the King in 4Q248 is Antiochus
IV and that it witnesses to a third campaign.
Anyway, I recommend the book to all who are interested in this point and who
are willing to slog through the Hebrew. I read it with an English
translation of the scrolls handy which helped a lot.
Maybe it will be published in English one day.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On
> Behalf Of K Randolph
> Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 10:16 AM
> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 11:29, a third campaign implied?
> Steve, Anthony:
> First of all, can we recognize the ruler described in this passage?
> Unless I am mistaken, it was Antiochos Epiphanes. From history, what
> do we know about him?
> For one, he made only two campaigns against Egypt. The first he was
> successful, to the point of appointing one of the Ptolomys as his
> puppet in Egypt. However, after leaving Egypt, his puppet decided to
> cut his strings so Antiochos returned, whereupon he met with Romans
> who told him to get out, promptly. He did. He did not make a third
> Upon returning from Egypt, he took his fury out on Judea, which is why
> we remember Hanukkah.
> >From my understanding of Hebrew, I expected to see no more than two
> campaigns against Egypt and that the second one did not meet with the
> same success as did the first one. The reason for the failure was
> forces from outside of Egypt.
> As for the construct of the sentence, the negative is outside the
> comparison, so that does not change the form of the comparison itself
> nor its meaning. Whereas the positive sense indicates how the two are
> the same, adding the negative merely says that they were not the same.
> And the context defines the "they" as the two campaigns.
> Karl W. Randolph.
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the b-hebrew