Balaam's Kittim Oracle

Banyai Michael banyai at t-online.de
Mon Sep 30 07:29:33 EDT 2002


It is simply so that none of these materials pertaining to different
epochs have a draw on the question what a Kittim in an 11 century BC
document would mean.

If we admit (what I don´t) that Gen. table of the nations is hellenistic
as you wish to

If we take the prophetic texts of the 8-7th century to pertain to a
Cypriotic Kition (what I don´t)

Even this doesn´t mean that  a Kittim of the 11th century would have the
same geographic meaning.

As an example take the similar situation of our sources pertaining Kaphtor
from different historical periods:

Josephus (1st century AD) : Kaphtor is Kappadokia

Kings and else Biblical sources: Kaphtorites are by the Philistines (or
identical with)

Egyptian LB sources and earlier Akkadian ones: Keftjw is Krete.

One source is probably wrong (Josephus), two other behold right, each for
itself and its historical period.

So what is the whole discussion about, attempting to demonstrate that an
11th century Kittim would have to be the same as a 8th century Kittim
(what is obviously archaeologically impossible). We can on such a basis
ask than why do such long extinct peoples as Amalekites and Kenites appear
at all in a "hellenistic" paper. Why does Agag appear (strictly bound to
the Saul story as all other peoples were), and an all-Israelite king who
is not at all on the hellenistic agenda before Judas Maccabeus?

Take a look, how many people would follow with a low-dating of the
Deuteronomic books after Judas Maccabeus, and after already the
Septuaginta existed.

One can make ones´points also on the short way with a perfectly
halftransparent methodology. One calls this half-transparent methodology
common-sense.

All the best,

Bányai Michael



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list