[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: pNahum

David,
     What you are saying fills in some gaps in my knowledge and makes me 
feel that you are on the right track. Too much of what I read now seems 
like the authors are forgetting history and trying to make everything 
sound like magic. Over the years I've tended to ignore the magic, and 
look for a real fit for things in the reality of history. 
     Josephus may have been the "Quisling" of his time, but the people 
who were paying him to write wanted slanted history, but accurate slanted 
history. In general he did his job very well.
     Being familiar with the transitory nature of Master's Thesis, would 
it be proper or ethical for me to request a copy, if I promised to never 
tell a soul?
     Good luck in your future endeavors.
Dick Ferman
     

On Fri, 11 Oct 1996 DKaufman@aol.com wrote:

> According to Vemes p. 337, the text commenting on "Whither the lion's den and
> the cave of the young lions?" reads as follows:
> 
>      [Interpreted this concerns Deme]trius king of Greece who sought, on the
> counsel of those who seek smooth things, to enter Jerusalem. [But God did not
> permit the city to be delivered] into the hands of the kings of Greece, from
> the time of Antiochus until the coming of the rulers of the Kittim. But then
> she shall be trampled under her feet...
> 
>      My Master's thesis, From Tennes to Leontopolis, I believe provides a
> perfect explanation to this. I argue that the Hasmoneans were supported by
> Rome from the start. Their opponents would have viewed them as connected to
> the Romans. Hence, calling them "Rulers of the Kittim" makes perfect sense.
> Assuming that this is correct, then the narrative simply describes the events
> 164-159 BCE and does this in detail. In 164 BCE Antiochus did indeed sack
> Jerusalem. Demetrius, who took over soon afterword, supported Alcimus and
> does not appear to have sacked Jerusalem. However, in 159 BCE, when Alcimus
> died, the "Rulers of the Kittim," the Hasmoneans, took control of Jerusalem
> and entered the Temple. They certainly trampled both Jerusalem and their
> opponents under their feet. This, at least in my mind, easily explains this
> passage in Nahum and does so without having to twist much of anything to fit.
> Simply plugging the names from my thesis into the passage makes it read like
> accurate history.
>      As for Daniel, I believe that the same occurs there. The Kittim and that
> which is associated with the Kittim refers to Rome and their "rulers," the
> Hasmoneans. 
> 
> Just a few thoughts,
> -David Jay Kaufman
> HUC-JIR Jerusalem
> Rabbinical Student
>