Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[2]: qumran (was ruth)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu, mc2499 AT mclink.it
  • Subject: Re[2]: qumran (was ruth)
  • Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 11:54:03 -0400


Dear Ian,

Thank you for your interesting comments on DSS, which were however not
really relevant to my own posting. My own argument would be that the
Kittim, whether Seleucids or Romans, would not have been the original
referents of Habakkuk's prophecy. For I am assuming that Habakkuk's
primary intended reference in 1:6 is to the Babylonians of
Nebuchadnezzar's time. This would apply even if Habakkuk is dated
along with other prophetical books in Hasmonean times; these are
presented as referring to the Babylonian exile. We need to distinguish
here between the literal referents in the story as presented by the
prophet, who must surely be the real Babylonians, and any possible
symbolic reference to the Seleucids. But the DSS commentary on
Habakkuk takes a different perspective (reference time etc) and so
uses different tenses.

Peter Kirk





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page