93 replies to this topic

[Cool Spot]

Quote

But it didn't always mean the same thing my friend.  And that's the point.

I'd say that its contemporary use at the time of the book's composition (ie, any biblical book in which the name Tarshish appears) was well familiar to the prophet's target audience.

Quote

How about Rome?

What about it? The only time Rome appears in the bible (in my opinion) is in the New Testament, and at the time the NT was composed, everybody knew who Rome was.

[Fortigurn]

Cool Spot, on Oct 2 2003, 12:44 AM, said:

I'd say that its contemporary use at the time of the book's composition (ie, any biblical book in which the name Tarshish appears) was well familiar to the prophet's target audience.

And that contemporary use included:

• A distant eastern Tarshish
  
  
  
• Tartessus in Spain
  
  
  
• A distant western Tarshish of the isles, past Spain, and in the Atlantic
  
  
  
• A generic name for a place very far away

You see my point?

Quote

What about it?    The only time Rome appears in the bible (in my opinion) is in the New Testament, and at the time the NT was composed, everybody knew who Rome was.

Oooh, not so my friend... Check Daniel 11...

[Cool Spot]

Fortigurn, on Oct 1 2003, 09:57 AM, said:

And that contemporary use included:

•   A distant eastern Tarshish
  
  
•   Tartessus in Spain
  
  
•   A distant western Tarshish of the isles, past Spain, and in the Atlantic
  
  
•   A generic name for a place very far away

You see my point?

I'm sure the original audience was able to figure it out. :gossip:

Quote

Quote

What about it?    The only time Rome appears in the bible (in my opinion) is in the New Testament, and at the time the NT was composed, everybody knew who Rome was.

Oooh, not so my friend... Check Daniel 11...

Yes, Daniel 11 is a nice, compact, historical narrative about Antiochus Epiphanes (except verses 40-45, wherein the author guessed wrong about what would happen). But, he was from Syria, not Rome.

[Fortigurn]

Cool Spot, on Oct 2 2003, 07:43 AM, said:

I'm sure the original audience was able to figure it out. :gossip:

Exactly my point.

Quote

Yes, Daniel 11 is a nice, compact, historical narrative about Antiochus Epiphanes...

Not all about him, but he's definitely in there.

Quote

But, he was from Syria, not Rome.

He was indeed. And where were the ships from which opposed him?

[Cool Spot]

Quote

Quote

But, he was from Syria, not Rome.

He was indeed. And where were the ships from which opposed him?

Oh, I see what you're saying. Well, the Romans definitely do make a cameo appearance in the book of Daniel. But it's not much to talk about.

[Fortigurn]

Cool Spot, on Oct 3 2003, 01:10 AM, said:

Oh, I see what you're saying. Well, the Romans definitely do make a cameo appearance in the book of Daniel. But it's not much to talk about.

I think it is. ^_^

By the way, what were those ships called?

[Fortigurn]

Back to this quote from the NET:

Quote

Daniel 11:
30 The ships of Kittim [45] will go against him, leaving him disheartened.46 He will turn back and direct his indignation against the holy covenant. He will return and honor those who forsake the holy covenant.

[45]  The name Kittim has various designations in extra-biblical literature. It can refer to a location on the island of Cyprus, or more generally to the island itself, or it can be an inclusive term to refer to parts of the Mediterranean world that lay west of the Middle East (e.g., Rome).

For ships of Kittim the Greek OT (LXX) has “Romans.”  A number of times in the Dead Sea Scrolls the word is used in reference to the Romans.

This passage is very relevant to our discussion, as I have said before. What it demonstrates is the flexibility of language used in Scripture when describing certain nations and giving them names.

The word 'Tarshish' can be appled - as we have seen - to a range of different locations, even though there were probably two primary locations known to the Hebrews as 'Tarshish'.

Likewise, the ships here mentioned in Daniel 11 are called 'ships of Cyprus'. But they were not ships of Cyprus. They were ships of Rome. They were Roman vessels, but they are here called 'ships of Cyprus'.

Here we have a control text - an example of one nation's name being put for another's, on the basis that the two are related in some way. So in what way are they related?

[Fortigurn]

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia has a very useful article on 'Kittim', from which I will now quote:

Quote

1. Two Usages of the Name:

In #Ge 10:4 the word is applied to the descendants of Javan, and indicates, therefore, the Greek-Latin races, whose territory extended along the coasts of the Mediterranean, and included its islands.

By the side of Kittim are mentioned Elisha, Tarshish, and Dodanim ( = Rodanim of #1Ch 1:7), generally explained respectively as Sicily with Southern Italy, Spain and Rhodes.

]In its narrower sense Kittim appears simply to have stood for the island of Cyprus — it is mentioned between Bashan ( = Pal) and the isles of Elisha in #Eze 27:6,7, and with this #Isa 23:1,12 agree, Kittim occurring in these passages between Tarshish, Tyre and Sidon.

Like the word 'Tarshish', the word 'Kittim' is clearly used in a broad sense, whilst also having certain narrower applications.

The comment on Genesis 10:4 is noteworthy, since it demonsrates that one of the principal identities of 'Kittim', is 'the Greek-Latin races', a matter related directly to our understanding of the use of the word in Daniel 11.

Once again, Genesis 10 shows its importance as a control text in this issue of determining the identity of certain nations.

[Fortigurn]

The ISBE goes on to discuss the narrower sense of the word

Quote

2. In Its Limited Sense:

The oldest etymology is apparently that of Josephus, who connects Kittim with the well-known old Cypriote city Kition (Citium) (Ant., I, vi, 1), testifying to the settling of the Kittim on the island.

This word he further connects with Chethima, from Chethimus, and states that it was on account of Cyprus being the home of those people that all islands were called Chethim by the Hebrews.

The derivation of an ancient Chethim from Chethimus, however, would make the m to be a radical, and this, with the substitution of Ch ( = Kh) for Kittim, renders his proposed etymology somewhat doubtful.

Leaving aside Josephus' appeal to the word 'Chethima', the argument from 'Kition' is stronger, and gives us a clear warrant for identifying 'Kittim' as 'Cyprus' in a narrow sense - an identification supported by our control text, Genesis 10:4.

[Fortigurn]

Now the ISBE deals with the extended sense of the word:

Quote

3. In Its Extended Sense:

The statement of Josephus, that "all islands, and the greatest part of the sea-coast, are called Chethim ( = Kittim) by the Hebrews," on the other hand, must be taken as the testimony of one well acquainted with the opinions of the learned world in his time.

In #Jer 2:10 and #Eze 27:6 the isles of Kittim are expressly spoken of, and this confirms the statement of Josephus concerning the extended meaning of the name.

This would explain its application to the Roman fleet in #Da 11:30 (so the Vulgate), and the Macedonians in 1 Macc 1:1 (Chettieim) and 8:5 ([@Kitians). In the latter passage the Greek writer seems to have been thinking more of the Cyprian Kition than of the Hebrew Kittim.

The extended application of the word is therefore substantiated by:

• The testimony of Josephus
  
  
  
• The agreement of co-texts such as Jeremiah 2:10 and Ezekiel 27:6
  
  
  
• The historical witness of the Maccabean text

[Fortigurn]

The ISBE note on Cyprus provides useful information on the involvement of Rome with the island:

Quote

6. Cyprus and Rome:

In 58 BC the Romans resolved to incorporate Cyprus in their empire and Marcus Porcius Cato was entrusted with the task of its annexation. The reigning prince, a brother of Ptolemy Auletes of Egypt, received the offer of an honorable retirement as high priest of Aphrodite at Paphos, but he preferred to end his life by poison, and treasures amounting to some 7,000 talents passed into Roman hands, together with the island, which was attached to the province of Cilicia.

In the partition of the Roman empire between Senate and Emperor, Cyprus was at first (27-22 BC) an imperial province (Dio Cassius liii.12), administered by a legatus Augusti pro praetore or by the imperial legate of Cilicia.

In 22 BC, however, it was handed over to the Senate together with southern Gaul in exchange for Dalmatia (Dio Cassius liii. 12; liv.4) and was subsequently governed by ex-praetors bearing the honorary title of proconsul and residing at Paphos. The names of about a score of these governors are known to us from ancient authors, inscriptions and coins and will be found in D. G. Hogarth, Devia Cypria, App.

Among them is Sergius Paulus, who was proconsul at the time of Paul’s visit to Paphos in 46 or 47 AD, and we may notice that the title applied to him by the writer of the Ac (13:7) is strictly accurate.

The passage I have highlighted is of greatest importance in this quote, principally because it demonstrates that Cyprus did not fall under Roman occupation until significantly after Daniel 11, and significantly after the events which Daniel 11 describes.

The identification of the 'ships of Kittim' as 'ships of Rome' - an identification made as early as the LXX - predates the Roman occupation of the island. This is a significant witness.

[Fortigurn]

Perhaps now is the time for me to reveal that the argument I am advancing is not an argument that 'Tarshish' means 'Britain'.

This should help.

[Evangelion]

[Fortigurn]

Read carefully, we see that the word 'Tarshish' in the Bible does not mean 'Britain'.

But that it is used of Britain, I have no doubt. ^_^

[Evangelion]

[Cool Spot]

Fortigurn, on Oct 3 2003, 11:02 PM, said:

Read carefully, we see that the word 'Tarshish' in the Bible does not mean 'Britain'.

But that it is used of Britain, I have no doubt. ^_^

Okay, then.

I can't even remember what my original point was. :wacko:

[Evangelion]

[Fortigurn]

Cool Spot, on Oct 4 2003, 02:44 PM, said:

Okay, then.

I can't even remember what my original point was. :wacko:

At least I know what mine is.

[Evangelion]

[Fortigurn]

Now let's return to the word 'Tarshish', and consider what we have found. Thus far, what can we say of the scope of the word 'Tarshish'?

• It can be understood of a 'Tarshish' accessible by land from Israel, a trading nation
  
  
  
• It it identified with Gentile lands to the distant west of Israel
  
  
  
• Generally therefore, it can refer to 'a place very far away'
  
  
  
• More specifically, it is twice identified with islands to the distant west of Israel, in what the Targum indicates is the Atlantic

The use of the word 'Tarshish' must be evaluated in each different text, and its meaning in each text determined individually. Historical evidence suggests that Tartessus in Spain may have been one of the nations encompassed by this term - the combination of Scriptural texts, Scriptural prophecy, and a historical witness indicate very strongly that Britain was another.

The word 'Tarshish' does not mean 'Tartessus' in Spain anymore than it means 'Britain'. But it may well be used of these nations, just as 'Kittim' does not mean 'Rome', although it is used of this nation.

Edited by Fortigurn, 04 October 2003 - 08:55 AM.

[Evangelion]

[Gileade]

Fortigurn,

Thank you for your help on this subject, but I would like that you explain a bit more on Britain's relation to Biblical Tarshish.

Is Tarshish to be a great naval power in the later days? In the present is BRitain Tarshish
or the states and the rest of the commonwealth?


Gileade

[Evangelion]

:playball:

[Gileade]

:wall:

[Evangelion]

Hang in there, Gileade! It's not that bad! :disagree:

[Gileade]

Yeah it could be worse... and it isn't that bad after all I just have to study deeper and find out what the Bible sauys about Tarshish. .. some time later....
I just have to accept the help from u folks and disscuss it

[Evangelion]

Sorry m8, we're doing our best.

There's only so many hours in the day, you know.

[Fortigurn]

Gileade, on Oct 5 2003, 12:48 AM, said:

Fortigurn,

Thank you for your help on this subject, but I would like that you explain a bit more on Britain's relation to Biblical Tarshish.

Yep, no worries mate, I'm getting there. I just had to establish that we can't read 'Britain' into every 'Tarshish' passage.

In fact, I intend to demonstrate that we can only be certain of reading 'Britian' in two of these passages (perhaps three).

Quote

Is Tarshish to be a great naval power in the later days?

Nothing whatever is said of this.

Quote

In the present is BRitain Tarshish or the states and the rest of the commonwealth?

The only candidate for a latter day Tarshish is Britain and her 'young lions' (or 'warriors', or 'princes', as the phrase should be understood). Certainly Britain and her allies, whether Commonwealth countries or not.

[Fortigurn]

Gileade, on Oct 5 2003, 01:34 AM, said:

Yeah it could be worse... and it isn't that bad after all I just have to study deeper and find out what the Bible sauys about Tarshish. .. some time later....
I just have to accept the help from u folks and disscuss it

No probs mate, I'll see what I can write up tonight.

Just doing a little more research... last night I read through Joseph Eyre's work 'Observations Upon the Prophecies Relating To the Restoration Of the Jews' (1771), and gained some more useful data.

[Evangelion]