[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion-list 1QM Col. ix.3-5; War Scroll string
[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]
> Dierk van den Berg suggests that the army of the Sons of Light was
> subdivided into four hosts, based in part on analogy affinities between
> War Scroll (especially column 1) and Jub. 38, where the sons of Jacob
> into four groups of three to fight enemies on four sides of the fortress
Seemingly not based in part on analogy affinities, but on dependence between
the War Scroll (columns 1ff.) and Jub. 37f. (enemies of and reason for the
war; tower/camp symbolism). Moreover, there's no space left for vanderKam's
speculation on 1Macc 5, for the important Moab is missed here.
> However, it is likely that Jub. 38 simply draws on the wilderness camp in
> Numbers, where three tribes were assigned to each side of the camp. This
> also the source for the idealized tribal organization of the Sons of Light
> into four divisions of three tribes each at 1QM iii 14, each with a banner
> of the camp chiefs of the three tribes." Clearly the stationary camp of
> Sons of Light was laid out in a square, after the model in Numbers,
> also influenced by the famed square camps of the Roman legions (described
> at length in Polybius book 6).
... more probable influenced by 11QT's construction of the Temple.
The arrangement of the 1QM camp with three
> tribes per side was theoretical, since the army from Jerusalem consisted
> of Levites, Judahites, and Benjamites (1QM i 2),
Cf. 11QT's tribe symbolism...
> but perhaps these banners
> still existed for morale purposes - could troops have been assigned
> membership in a unit of Simeon, e.g., for defensive deployment on a
> side of the camp?
We talk about an unrealistic scenario in which the tribe symbolism works.
>What is significant is that (1) these are banners of the
> "camp chiefs" -- that is, relating to the stationary camp of the army at
> rest; (2) such terms as "chiefs of the three tribes" only occur in col.
> iii-iv, not in col. v-ix which deal with deployment of the army on the
> of battle.
On 'generals' cf. col. ii 4.
On the battlefield we have seven legions of 4000 troops each in
> four lines of a 1000, as in the 2nd century Roman legions.
The third stage of redaction merely has seven divisions (probably
strategiai) 'dressed as Romans'.
Otherwise we are forced to assume, that the redactors have read Russell's
really excellent articles in the DSD.
> In columns iv-ix we do occasionally have the term "camps" applied to the
> mobile army in the field, contrary to Dierk's view that 1QM vi 10 gives
> instructions for the cavalry to "take up position on all [four] flanks of
> [stationary] camp." 1QM vi 8-10 is quite explicit in naming _two_ flanks:
> "right" and "left", "one" side and the "other", on the "first flank" and
> "second flank" of the line facing the enemy army. 1QM vi 10 can thus only
> refer to "position on all [both] flanks of the [mobile] camp."
1QM vi 8 says:
(8) And *seven cavalry formations* shall take up position [ ] on the right
and on the left of the [battle] <formation>
(That doesn't mean four lines of 1,000 foot each but seven lines in the
... (9) ... Two hundred (of the wing) cavalry shall go out with the
(Good God - what a massive cavalry attack, isn't it?)
And thus (10) shall they take up position on all the (four) flanks of the
(For in line 8 both *wings* are already guarded with cavalry we see here in
line 10 not again the same but the other *flanks*, i.e. the remaining three
flanks/sides of the field camp; that's a logical conclusion.)
> 1QM does use both definitions of camp, both that of a fortified
> stationary field camp and a mobile camp (the army in battle maneuvers).
I don't think so.; see above.
> a very relevant parallel, consider the use of the term 'camp' at 1 Macc.
> 6.32, 33, 38, 40, 42, 48. At 6.32 the term is used to refer to the
> stationary camp of Lysias at Beth-zur. At 6.33, 38, 40, 42, 48 it refers
> the armies in motion on the road to Beth-Zachariah (e.g. 6.42 "And Judah
> his camp approached the battle..."). Here the same terminology is used to
> refer to the camp at rest and in motion.
Whenever Russell assumes 'camp in motion' both APC and RAPC point out to
Russell also writes:
> Romans and Greeks alike had the same three phases of battle, namely
> (following the lucid account at Bar-Kochva, _Judas Maccabaeus_ 21-26)
> exchange between skirmishers, (b) a cavalry attack on the flanks, and (c)
> clash of the heavy infantry.
Russell is mistaken here, for
(1) The opening of a battle with skirmishers is an exception and refers to
an infantry battle on rough terrain or at a pass.
(2) A battle starts in general with a cavalry attack on *one* flank of the
Dierk is mistaken in saying cavalry attacks
> typically came first. Dierk's contention that the opposing army in the War
> Scroll lacked cavalry is also mistaken. 1QM vi 9 has the skirmishers
> accompanied by cavalry: this was required to defend against counterattacks
> by the enemy cavalry. And 1QM ix 6-7 has the cavalry of the Sons of Light
> active at the enemy wings, contrary to Dierk's reading of col. iii-ix.
The answer is: cavalry attack comes first (see above), but the War Scroll
passage seemingly refers to an underlying tactical concept of combined arms
group, which allows tactical and strategic flexibility: 1,000 mixed foot and
250 mixed cavalry - an utmost modern kind of independent regiment. High
probably the priestly redactor was unable to understand the military sources
used, therefore he sends out a very small cavalry unit of 200 together with
a Thousand of lights. Doubtlessly nonsense, not only because of the
different speed of foot and horse, but because of the low number of cavalry.
They would be dead before they reach the middle of the space between the
> Finally, Dierk suggests that the seven divisions of the War Scroll army
> enter the battle in a sort of single file, only the first engaging the
.... only the first corps, i.e. seven lines of 1,000 foot plus 250 cavalry
> If Lysias was forced to march his chiliarchia in sequence due to terrain
> (as inferred by Bar-Kochva from 1 Macc. 6.40), this would scarcely become
> basis for all subsequent general tactics of the Jewish army. For one
> Lysias marched all his chiliarchia side-by-side in the broader parts of
> to Beth-Zechariah (as inferred by Bar-Kochva from 1 Macc. 6.38). It was
> in the narrow defile that Lysias was forced to march the chiliarch in
> sequence (and indeed in a narrow column of only 32 phalangites abreast).
> was most likely this difficult terrain and consequentially unusual
> formation that prompted Judas Maccabaeus to ambush Lysias' army at this
> location. This vulnerable, relatively defenseless military formation of
> Lysias' army would scarcely have been thereafter adopted as the standard
> formation of the Sons of Light!
The only vulnerable formation in the battle was formed by Judas' center. It
is remarkable that 2 Macc turns the defeat of the Jews into a glorious
>Finally, historical allusions indicate that 1QM 2-9 was written in
> winter 163 BCE, and the final redaction of the War Scroll in summer 163
> before the battle with Lysias in late summer / early fall.
Has the redaction something to do with ravaging of crops during harvest?
I can't believe how one can be so sure in dating an at least threefold
redacted scroll, part of a unique war literature.
Apropos historical allusions:
To which decisive battle refers the hymn in col. i 5-9,?
And when was the Jubilees tradition formed? or the Book of Jubilees written?
Finally, what was the prize of seven disciplined legions?
For private reply, e-mail to "Dierk" <haGalil@gmx.net>
To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to email@example.com with
the message: "unsubscribe Orion." For more information on the Orion Center
or for Orion archives, visit our web site http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.