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 --
> 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.
What will you demonstrate? The implication of the import of the benu? Or
shall I demonstrate the re-import of the date?
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)
