[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
pNahum
> If the commentary to Nahum 2:11b, which refers to "the coming of the rulers
> of the Kittim. But then she [Jerusalem] shall be trampled under their
> feet...", can be interpreted in a concrete manner to refer to Pompey and
> AEm. Scaurus, we have a clear earliest date for the writing of the Pesher Nahum.
In addition to the lack of syntactic connection between
"Kittim" and the "trampling" phrase, some further
observations on this quotation from pNah 3-4 i 2.
First, the word translated above as "coming" of the rulers of
the Kittim is ayinMWD, "standing". Is this a conquest
or a favorable intervention? (There is BH support for
both senses.) The expression "under their feet", above,
is not in pNah.
Secondary literature on pNah seems fixated
on equating a reference to Kittim as "Roman period
date". But Kittim as Romans appear already
in Dan 11:30, with a Kittim (Roman) intervention
against Antiochus IV. Daniel appears to be a mid-2nd
BCE text. Daniel is also a Qumran text. So awareness of
Romans as superior in power to Seleucids and a
literary reference to Romans as Kittim are around as
early as the mid-2nd BCE.
The lacuna prohibits certainty on the subject being trampled,
but I would not assume (contrary to unanimous restorations)
that the subject is Jerusalem (though that is
possible). Most _other_ imprecations in pNah seem focused
against the "Seekers-of-Smooth-Things," the group
presently in power in Jerusalem (in the world of pNah)
and there is no imprecation against "Jerusalem",
as such, elsewhere in the text. The SST
are named prior to the lacuna and may be the object of
imprecation in this particular pesher interpretation as well.
Is it the Congregation of the SST to be trampled?
A final point on Kittim is that this reference at 3-4 i 2
is the only Kittim reference in pNah. As in Daniel,
there is this single passing reference to Kittim,
once, in pNah, as an aside. The alleged "Kittim"s
in the first column (1-2 ii) that are found in
English translations simply do not exist as
readings, nor is there sound reason to restore
Kittim at any point in that column. There is no a quo
63 BCE date in 4QpNahum.
Greg Doudna
gd@teol.ku.dk