[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: orion 1QM i,1; The 'armies (?) of the Kitti'im of Assur'



    [The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set]
    [Your display is set for the "ISO-8859-8" character set]
    [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]


-----UrsprŁngliche Nachricht-----
Von: RGmyrken@aol.com <RGmyrken@aol.com>
An: orion@mscc.huji.ac.il <orion@mscc.huji.ac.il>
Datum: Sonntag, 13. Dezember 1998 02:07
Betreff: Re: orion 1QM i,1; The 'armies (?) of the Kitti'im of Assur'


Russell,
that any Roman art of war could have been adopted by Jewish military after
the first contact first seems to be logical. In col. i,1-3 the only possible
reference to Romans are the assumed independent army units via the mentioned
plural and the important ^—Assur^“-allusion, whereas the latter links to those
^—coming like Assur^“ - a reference to perfect brutality as well as to an
expedition-route up to Jerusalem via Syria like the ancient Assyrians (cf.
the pesharim to Is 10). These together with the Cypriote background of the
Kitti'im-allusion and its 'Islanders-coming-over-the-sea' -symbolism forms
the backbone of the assumed Roman influence in column 1, which seems to be
safer than the Seleucides counterpart based upon nothing but de Vaux^“s (?)
directive to stay close to events in the early 2nd c. BC. But most scholars
seem to forget that  Macedonia already became Roman province in 148 BC, Asia
in 129 BC. Therefore the Seleucides of the late 2nd c. BC are to be seen as
nearly controlled by the Romans, their true followers in the all-important
imitatio Alexandri.
Which of the in col. i,1-3 cited enemies are fact and which are fiction (and
why!) that^“s not the last but the next key to unlock the secrets of column
1.
Unfortunately I don^“t know your article (is it available online?), therefore
I can^“t follow your differentiation  between Roman warfare of the 1st c.
BC/CE in the moment. But I think it relates i.e. to the important
development from the ^—maniples^“- to the ^—cohorts^“- tactic, part of C. Marius
^“ extensive army-reform in 104 BC, adopted by other Roman commanders like
Caesar, Crassus and Pompey in the middle of the 1st c. BC.
Despite the unquestionable influence of Roman warfare on the War Scroll we
shouldn^“t play down its Parthian components, see e.g.  Xerxes^“ subdivision
of the army in units to 10. 000, 1.000, 100 and 10 men (Herodot, His vii,81)
and the important col. vi, 15f. about heavy cavalry perfectly styled as
Parthian ^—kataphractes^“, who again "have smashed our horsemen to pieces"
(Cicero, Ep. ad Att. V17.4 from 08/16/51 BC).

Dierk

____________________

Dr. Dierk Vandenberg
Heinrich-Heine University
Duesseldorf, Germany
haGalil@gmx.net
____________________