Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Four Beasts in Daniel

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard AT ont.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Four Beasts in Daniel
  • Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 08:25:06 -0500

Dear Yitzhak,

Geza Vermes' translation of the DSS has a lengthy introduction where
he identifies Kittim of Dan 11:30 as the Romans:

... But from the second century BCE, Jewish writers also used
'Kittim' to denote the greatest world power of the day. In 1
Maccabees (1:1, 8:5), they are Greeks; Alexander the Great and
Perseus are called kings of the 'Kittim'. In Daniel 11:30 on the
other hand, the 'Kittim' are Romans; it was the ambassador of the
Roman senate, [Popilius] Laenas, brought to Alexandria by 'ships of
Kittim', who instructed the 'king of the North', the Selecuid monarch
Antiochus Epiphanes, to withdraw at once from Egypt. The term
'Romans' is substituted for 'Kittim' already in the old Greek or
Septuagint version of Daniel 11:30. None of these texts is critical
of the 'Kittim'. They are seen as the ruling force of the time, but not
as hostile to Israel. In fact, in Daniel they humiliate the enemy of
the Jews. (4th ed, p. 33)

There are various problems with Vermes' treatment. He first
(before this quote) notes how Josephus refers to the maritime people
as "Kittim". Then he goes back to the 2nd century BCE to use it to
refer to the ruling power of the day. Then in Daniel it is Romans,
while 1 Maccabees it is still Greeks. So how is it the ruling power
of the day if we both agree that Daniel was authored before 1
Maccabees? I find the following suggestion much more persuasive:

http://orion.huji.ac.il/orion/archives/2000b/msg00131.html

I note that "cyym ktym" is a problematic pair of words. If it meant to
say "ships of ktym" it should have said "cyy ktym". As it stands now,
and in view of the above suggestion, we can suggest that this is the
result of haplography: "cyym mktym" -> "cyym ktym". Also, perhaps
this was further complicated by the identification in Roman times of
"ktym" with the Romans and the understanding that this does indeed
refer to Popilius. Since the ships were known to not have departed from
Rome, "cyym mktym" appeared wrong to a later editor.



HH: Thanks for the information. My reaction is that this suggestion from the Orion list, that the term refers to a layover in Greek Delos that the Roman ships had, cannot overthrow the authority of the ancients. It would also seem to be a strange way to write. If the ships were full of Romans, why would you describe them as Greek, unless the term could bear both senses? That is what seems more likely. "Kittim" seems to be a plural formation and probably referred to a large geographic area. The Jews in very ancient times may not have had much to do with these people or this part of the world.

HH: The phrase in Dan 11:30 does not have to be problematic. The term KTTYM first occurs in Genesis 10, which is a genealogy of people and includes many other terms with an -YM ending. Although the NIV does not treat Gen 10:4 this way, in Gen 10:13-14 it treats these -YM-ending names as true plurals:

Gen. 10:13 Mizraim was the father of the Ludites, Anamites, Lehabites, Naphtuhites,
Gen. 10:14 Pathrusites, Casluhites (from whom the Philistines came) and Caphtorites.
HH: Also, it treats a number of subsequent Gentilic (-Y endings) names as plurals:

Gen. 10:16 Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites,
Gen. 10:17 Hivites, Arkites, Sinites,
Gen. 10:18 Arvadites, Zemarites and Hamathites. Later the Canaanite clans scattered

HH: So it is possible that both "Dodanim" and "Kittim" were originally plural names. However, the variant "Rhodanim" refers to Rhodians, according to ISBE, which thinks that the people of Rhodes (Rhodians) are the true referent for "Dodanim." The LXX translates the term as RODANIM at both Gen 10:4 and 1 Chron 1:7. If this is the case, then at Dan 11:30 there could be apposition: "ships, Kittites, will come."

Yours,
Harold Holmyard







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page