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

Re: orion 1QM i,1

    [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: Donnerstag, 17. Dezember 1998 18:25
Betreff: Re: orion 1QM i,1


Vegetius, a contemporary of Eusebios of Caesarea and Epiphanios of Salamis,
wrote his_Epitoma rei militaris_ just half a millenium after the relevant
events in the 4th c. CE. Hitherto Cato^“s lost book is not to be verified by
this Vegetius, who should be exclusively handled as a secondary source. In
contrast to this the primary sources are Polybios, J. Caesar, Fl. Josephus,
Tacitus and Arrian. The rest of secondary sources are Appian, Plutarch,
Cassius Dio, Sueton, Nikolaos of Damaskus, Cicero, Livius, Velleius
Paterculus, Florus, Eutropius, R. Festus, Orosinus, Frontinus ...
N.B. I use the Latin edition of the_Epitoma rei militaris_by Carl Lang,
Stuttgart 1885.

Ultimately the already earlier expected ^—diplomatic part^“ of your hypothesis
As far as I remember me, Wacholder._Eupolemus_Cincinnati 1974, guesses if
Eupolemus, probably the head-ideologue of the ^—Reform-Zadokites^“, was the
notorious ^—Man of Lie^“ of the DSS. If there is at least a little substance
in his arguments, then your Roman connection of the Maccabees directly leads
us into the dead end. However, we better should analyze the tactics in 1QM
vs. Polybios in the first place.
N.B. It is usual in times of Civil War that most of the travelling diplomats
are officers. But doubtlessly it would be a nice surprise if 2 Macc 11:15-17
refers to "the (Bogdim of the) House of Absalom and those of their
persuasion" in 1QpHab v,8ff. (vs. Maier et al.); "These did not believe what
they heard in the end of days from the Righteous Teacher" (Eisenman_
JJHP_p.95, Leiden 1986).

Thanks for the rest of references to the Roman client king Deiotarus.
The mentioned King Bogud in Spain [ Bell. Alex. 62] and King Juba of Numidia
[Bel. Afr. 48] were both paid with armors for their friendship to the
Romans, the first ^—favoured^“ Cassius against Marcellus and the latter Scipio
against Caesar.
So there is no war of imitatio Romani without Roman participation to be seen
between 200 BC and 100 CE ...
N.B. Antiochus IV^“s half Royal Guard dressed up as Romans or Roman
mercenaries (in Polybius 30.25.4) reminds me on King David^“s Krethi and
Plethi. However, Antiochus IV^“s other half Royal Guard possibly was
recruited of Royal penguins (smile) ...

No doubt the passages in question are 1QM i,4 and 1 En 90:13ff. (sorry).
Nevertheless I^“d like to point out to the importance of the ^—Horn^“ symbolism
in the DSS; cf. 1QH xv,22f.; 1Q28b Frg. 27+25,26; 4Q174 i,7; 4Q381 Frg.
46,2.6; 4Q491 Frg. 4,4; 11Q11 iv,7.
N.B. Unfortunately you didn^“t continue the Parthian question, though it has
its relevance to both the assumed Judas- and Antigonos-source of the War

Shabbat Shalom


Dr. Dierk Vandenberg
Heinrich-Heine University
Duesseldorf, Germany