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
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'
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
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
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
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
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
