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

Re: pNahum

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

Just a few thoughts,
-David Jay Kaufman
HUC-JIR Jerusalem
Rabbinical Student