Re: orion-list Head of the kings of Yavan
On 2001-07-15 Dierk van den Berg wrote: - The terminus technicus 'Kittim' corresponds to Jub's 'Mighty Men (ie professionals) of War' A euphemism in Jubilees as a technical terminus?? Kittim corresponds to professional sea-vermin. as well as to Josephus' 'Macedonians'. This is hardly Josephus's idea. In 1 Mac 1:1, Alexander the Great is said to be born in Kittim (the typical expansion of a pejorative that I mentioned), but in the same verse he is also called Alexander of Macedonia. The 'Cypriotes' in 2Macc, for example, belong in to that military category. - Romans are indeed 'Sea-people', at least after the Punic Wars, the Pirate War, the Civil War and Octavian's takeover. After a post where reading in context is emphasized? There is a substantial difference between sea-peoples used as a pejorative back then and sea- peoples used as a reference to maritime peoples, that is, people who are at home on the sea. This is a clear distinction which should be obvious from context. *As I already said*, the Romans became numbered among the vermin who operated from ships: the Kittim. The Romans, however, were not sea-peoples; they were landlubbers. They were not at home on the sea; they were rotten seamen. They couldn't balance a load to save their lives. The Romans were always losing ships because of improper lading. (Which is why some magnificent large bronzes are still here in Greece instead of in some Western Museum.) The Romans were such poor seamen that they would ship their legions across the English channel to Brittany and then march them overland -- even when the troops were urgently needed back at Rome. The trip by sea from Southern England to Italy took at most 3 days... While certainly overseen by the Romans, grain and trade shipments were mostly left to the maritime professionals: the Greeks and the Phoenicians. The Phoenicians didn't disappear from the scene merely because Carthage was taken by land and lost the 2nd Punic war. The Phoenicians held the distance and blue water trade routes under the Pax Assyriaca; they still held them under the Pax Romana... and everybody knew it. For Josephus' contemporaries, thus, only Rome was a naval power. Other ideas are illusory anachronism. Naval merely means 'related to or of a navy'. There is quite a difference between a military navy and a merchant navy -- and expertise. Josephus emends the text of Gen 10:4. By your reckoning, he is also taking a dig at the Romans. Oh, incidentally, a few items that have been left open. First, the Romans were rather good at cartography -- probably learned it from the Greeks. Latitudinally, they were fairly close -- using their mensural base of the Roman mile. Longitude, though, requires accurate clocks: the chronometer was not invented until the 17th century CE. The sea voyage from the west coast of Hibernia to Cornwall took 2 days. Hence, Roman maps show the British Isles as being a two-day march in Roman miles from the Iberian peninsula. Also, the fossil record shows that palm trees are not native to the Nile valley. Palms *are* native to the Asian side of the Eastern Mediterranean -- and have been since the cretaceous. According to fossils, the date palm arrived in the area of Judea sometime between 20 million and 130 million years ago. The date palm was indeed an import: it was imported INTO Egypt less then 9,000 years ago. Cheers, Rochelle -- Dr. Rochelle I. Altman, co-coordinator IOUDAIOS-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] For private reply, e-mail to Rochelle I. Altman [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 TRAILER BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Head of the kings of Yavan
Rochelle wrote: A euphemism in Jubilees as a technical terminus?? Kittim corresponds to professional sea-vermin. You say that notwithstanding its military dimension: the professional phalanx. Nb 'vermin': that is no scholarly way to understand the problem. as well as to Josephus' 'Macedonians'. This is hardly Josephus's idea. In 1 Mac 1:1, Alexander the Great is said to be born in Kittim (the typical expansion of a pejorative that I mentioned), but in the same verse he is also called Alexander of Macedonia. Make an electronic search through the complete Josephus - and then answer the to be found 'anachronistic' terminology . The 'Cypriotes' in 2Macc, for example, belong in to that military category. - Romans are indeed 'Sea-people', at least after the Punic Wars, the Pirate War, the Civil War and Octavian's takeover. After a post where reading in context is emphasized? Are you trying to camouflage a known phrase behind the context. SS, for example, means SS - whatever you have to say else. There is a substantial difference between sea-peoples used as a pejorative back then and sea- peoples used as a reference to maritime peoples, that is, people who are at home on the sea. This is a clear distinction which should be obvious from context. If that would be the case, then, Jos would have changed the terminology, I believe. *As I already said*, the Romans became numbered among the vermin who operated from ships: the Kittim. Pls avoid valuations like 'vermin' from the political retrospective. The Romans, however, were not sea-peoples; they were landlubbers. Yeah - they conquered Britain by tunnelling. They were not at home on the sea; they were rotten seamen. That shows less profound knowledge of Roman naval warfare. They couldn't balance a load to save their lives. That's news from kindergarten. Sorry. The Romans were always losing ships because of improper lading. (Which is why some magnificent large bronzes are still here in Greece instead of in some Western Museum.) Are you perhaps talking about the 18th/19th century? The Romans were such poor seamen that they would ship their legions across the English channel to Brittany and then march them overland -- even when the troops were urgently needed back at Rome. An argument from silence. Give us the references to the event first, please. The trip by sea from Southern England to Italy took at most 3 days... References, please. While certainly overseen by the Romans, grain and trade shipments were mostly left to the maritime professionals: the Greeks and the Phoenicians. ... the navigation was Phoenician and the construction basis of the freighters (often convoys) was Greek. Most captains were Greek by practical reason. The remake of such assimilation you'll find in the post-War USA (or CCCP): most of the specialists of the NASA - like W. von Braun - came from Hitler's Penemuende (Germany). Same it was with the jetfighters, tanks and the military organisation of independent battle groups (first introduced by the Weapon-SS in the Ardennes Offensive). So what will you demonstrate without any reference at all? The Phoenicians didn't disappear from the scene merely because Carthage was taken by land and lost the 2nd Punic war. The Phoenicians held the distance and blue water trade routes under the Pax Assyriaca; they still held them under the Pax Romana... and everybody knew it. The reference please (Carthage remained totaly annihilated after the killing of everybody). For Josephus' contemporaries, thus, only Rome was a naval power. Other ideas are illusory anachronism. Naval merely means 'related to or of a navy'. There is quite a difference between a military navy and a merchant navy -- and expertise. Josephus emends the text of Gen 10:4. By your reckoning, he is also taking a dig at the Romans. The merchand navy was by no means independent, as you try to suggest, but economical subject of the Empire. Oh, incidentally, a few items that have been left open. First, the Romans were rather good at cartography -- probably learned it from the Greeks. You mean itineraries, for only low scale information is militarily tactically to be utilized. Latitudinally, they were fairly close -- using their mensural base of the Roman mile. Sure, for they thought linear. Not simply in miles, but in miles corresponding to the day march, therefore the distortion. Longitude, though, requires accurate clocks: the chronometer was not invented until the 17th century CE. The sea voyage from the west coast of Hibernia to Cornwall took 2 days. Hence, Roman maps show the British Isles as being a two-day march in Roman miles from the Iberian peninsula. Logically - have a look, for example, at the Tabula Peutingeriana (Euphrates-Tigris area) Also, the fossil record shows that palm trees are not native to the Nile valley. Palms *are* native to the Asian side of the Eastern Mediterranean --
Re: orion-list Head of the kings of Yavan
Taking head in hand, it seems to me Dr. Altman's thesis that Kittim was a universally pejorative term involves some circularity in argument, since a fair reading of Ant. 1.128 shows no insulting content, unless one approaches this passage with a prior thesis that all references to Kittim _must_ be negative. Chetimos held the island of Chetima - the modern Cyprus - whence the name Chetim given by the Hebrews to all islands and to most maritime countries. Where is the insult here? Josephus was not that subtle. The idea that this contains a negative reference to the Sea Peoples (i.e. the late Bronze Age invasions? - the Greeks did not consider all thassalocracies bad) is a forced reading in my opinion. Dierk is clearly correct that the Kittim have military-mercenary associations in Jubilees as elsewhere. Indeed, the Kittim appear to almost everywhere have a military connotation, except Josephus, where no such association is apparent. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [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 TRAILER BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Head of the kings of Yavan
A few things have to be clarified. - The terminus technicus 'Kittim' corresponds to Jub's 'Mighty Men (ie professionals) of War' as well as to Josephus' 'Macedonians'. The 'Cypriotes' in 2Macc, for example, belong in to that military category. - Romans are indeed 'Sea-people', at least after the Punic Wars, the Pirate War, the Civil War and Octavian's takeover. For Josephus' contemporaries, thus, only Rome was a naval power. Other ideas are illusory anachronism. Dierk For private reply, e-mail to Dierk van den Berg [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 TRAILER BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Head of the kings of Yavan
Marcus, I have to reserve comment on your article on Atkinson 1959 until I find your article to see what you say. On other points see below. I wrote: If the Kittim of pNah 3-4 i 3 are the Romans, then would not the Kittim of pHab be also, by definition? I see these two texts as very closely similar, parallel, and contemporary texts, and the Kittim would be the same between these two texts. At You replied: Why 'by definition'? Surely an a priori assumption such as this is inherently dangerous. Both our areas of research have indicated that other similar terms have different meanings and applications in different texts. So your own example of Ephraim which we both accept is a simple reference to the Northern kingdom in Testimonia. Likewise Lebanon undergoes a range of different meanings in both the scrolls and targumim (Vermes has an excellent article on the latter). Why should Kittim be the same across different texts? As will become clear in a chapter in my pNah I don't think there is *any* use of 'Ephraim' in the pesharim or CD, etc. that means anything other than Samaria as biblically, although it may be a shorthand way of speaking of 'non-Judea Israel' of the Hasmonean era, in much the same way Americans would speak of 'Russia' as the other half of the world opposed to the West (when Russia is actually only one republic among many of the USSR). Both speakers and hearers in the discourse of the schematic two-superpower world consisting of 'America versus Russia' fully understand there are 'lesser' nations even though they don't get mentioned. Now on 'Lebanon', here I believe you are confusing something. You and Vermes are talking about differences in how 'Lebanon' in quotations get interpreted. That is not at all what I am talking about. I am talking about how the authors of these texts themselves use these terms. To my knowledge, no author of a pesharim text uses 'Lebanon' in any way other than to quote it and then offer an allegorical-kind of interpretation on it. The interpretations of elements of quotations do vary from text to text, and there is no dispute on that. But there is no shift in meaning by these authors of 'Lebanon' (since I do not recognize any attested use of 'Lebanon' by any of these authors in their own composition of their own sentences to start a database), nor do I accept that 'Ephraim' shows any change of meaning or referent across different Qumran texts. In the absence of demonstrable examples of changed referents or meanings of these sobriquet-like names or titles or terms, I strongly question the presumption that this is a common phenomenon. Again, I am not talking about what pesherists do in interpreting words from quotations (which does vary and cannot be presumed consistent between texts). Personally I understand pNah to come from a later time period to pHab (perhaps the Next Generation so to speak...), Here there is a difference that affects the Kittim question. If your understanding could be shown to be the case, then to me that would render a change of meaning of Kittim (or other related kinds of term) much more plausible. But the final chapter of my pNah study will make my argument that these texts are contemporary, I think perhaps to the same months. Different authors, but pNah and pHab are operating from the same contextual worlds, and same literary context, and the presumption would be the 'Kittim' between the two texts will be identical. (But I realize this follows in part from the prior arguments I have just outlined which you and others have not yet seen--and which I do not want to go into here prior to publication.) I wrote: As for the Roman identity of the Kittim of pHab, the reasons that convinced me that is correct are the worship of the weapons and the Republican-era Roman coins from the Atkinson 1959 article argument; parallels with Roman description in I Macc. 8 and Kittim of pHab; being the world power; 'isles of the west'; and the parallel with pNah, and also other reasons for supposing these texts to come from mid-1st BCE. As I read it, the text (pHab) implies an existing power, an existing Kittim, not a future or eschatological Kittim. You answered: easiest first! 'isles of the west' amounts to no more than reference to the Deut prophecy that the Kittim will come from the isles of the sea (also the origin of the eagle in pHab). OK, this point granted, although the allusion is not entirely devoid of information, as I see it. Would the authors of the pesharim use this language of the Kittim if they were Parthians from the north? I do not think so. Therefore although this allusion does not say who the Kittim are, it has some usefulness in saying who the Kittim are not (in pHab). In any case, as I say I do think that the Kittim in pHab are Romans - the existing power as you rightly point out - I just apply caution in adopting this identification since I can find no cast-iron reasons for why the
Re: orion-list Head of the kings of Yavan
Dierk, I find no reference to Pompey acquiring new auxiliaries in Cappadocia, Iberia, Albania, etc., in the literary accounts. Is there hard evidence for this or is this based on general Roman practices? Very informative posting. Russell Gm. Pompeius started his Pontus campaign with Lucullus' legions already stationed in Galatia, strengthened by called veterans of Fimbria's legions and supported by levied auxiliaries from the Asiatic clients (Asia, Galatia, Cilicia, Pamphylia, the Lycanians, Pisidians and the western Bythinians). Mommsen assumes 40-50.000 foot (ie 12 weak legions) excl. auxiliary cavalry and levied specialists, whereas Mithridates' total strength was roughly 30.000 foot and 3.000 cavalry (App. Mithr. 15.97), ie a military ratio of 2:1 in favor of the Romans. In the following course of the campaign the Roman losses (by the majority auxiliaries) became compensated by levies from new conquered regions Cappadocia, Iberia, Albania, Colchis, Little Armenia and Commagene. For private reply, e-mail to [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)
orion-list Head of the kings of Yavan
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)
Re: orion-list Head of the kings of Yavan
Dear Greg, I personally can think of no instances when the name Javan was applied to the Romans (as opposed to Kittim, which was). I'd be very interested if such examples could be supplied. 4QpNahum seems clear enough in distinguishing Yavan from the Kittim. In this passage there is no trace of an idea of Kittim as offspring of Yavan. Rather, Kittim and Yavan are simply two contemporary political designations (as they are in many other texts). I doubt Gen. 10 had much relevance to Jewish use of these terms in the period you are considering. It is helpful to realize that Javan is simply the transliteration into Hebrew of the Greek word Ionia, which was very well understood as the Greeks of the Aegean islands and coasts of Asia Minor (as opposed to the more obscure Kittim and some of the other entries in Gen. 10). I think Jubilees 9.10 illustrates this familiarity when it assigns to Javan every island and the islands which are towards the side of Lud [i.e. Lydia in Asia Minor]. No classical source ever called the Romans Ionians - the Jews would not have made so egregious an error either. Jub. 9.12, incidentally, assigns to the mysterious Meshech the more distant European lands as far as Gadir [i.e. Spanish Gadeira at the Gibraltar straits], a description that includes Italy. I think Rabinowitz's interpretation of the head of the kings of Javan has far more common sense to it than Dupont-Sommer's strained theory. Dupont-Sommer cites a great deal of irrelevant, anachronistic data. First, please note that Asia [= Asia Minor] was a Roman province with a Roman governor at the time we speak. Pompey did preside over a council of kings in Asia Minor, but the occasion was his partitioning of Mithridates' dissolved kingdom of Pontus at Amisus in 62 BCE, after the Jewish War. Dupont-Sommer also makes a big deal of Pompey assembling kings of the east for the battle of Pharsalus -- but of what possible relevance are events of 46 BCE to events of 63 BCE? Your idea that the Law of Manilius made Pompey head of the kings of the east and suggest that he used troops from the eastern kingdoms in his Judean campaign of 63 BCE. In my extensive reading of Pompey's campaigns (in both primary and secondary literature) I find no support for either idea. When you say that Pompey was in fact the leader, formally, of all of the eastern kings of Yavan, by the Decree of Manilius of 66, perhaps you could clarify that remarkable statement by listing to which kings of Yavan you refer. Again, when you suggest that Pompey picked up mercenaries from these subordinate kings in his eastern campaign and would literally be the head of armies with contributions from subordinate kings of Yavan, a listing would be helpful. Pompey's campaign is well-documented. Mostly he used legionary forces, basically the same standing army assembled from the Roman provinces for the war against the pirates in 67 BCE. To my knowledge he didn't rely on conscripting new troops in the lands he campaigned in. Perhaps Dierk could shed additional light on the composition of Pompey's army. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [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)
