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 "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)
