"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)

From: JJR
Home: St. Louis, MO USA
Subject: Props to Peter
Date: 5-17-2012
First, props to Peter for the excellent essay on an important topic. After you narrowed down the suggested time frame to 160 - 141 BCE, I went hunting in 1 Maccabees for the actually battle this mobilization relates to. The War Scroll gives several markers to work with. Right in the beginning, the text tells us who the "sons of light" were going to war against: "the company of Edom [Idumean] and of Moab and of the sons of Ammon and the company of Philistia, and against the companies of the Kittim of Ashur." 1QM, Col. 1, emphasis added. Kittim is the general name for foreign enemies used by Jewish nationalists. Ashur was chief God of the Assyrian pantheon. The Assyrian kingdom was long-since gone at the time of the DSS community so the reasonable assumption is that the "Kittim of Ashur" means the party then in control of the territory of the old Assyrian Empire, i.e., the Seleucids. A little later we have "the rule of the Kittim will come to an end, wickedness having been defeated." Given Seleucid control over Israel during the first portion of the second century BCE, this statement reinforces the perception that the "sons of light" are going to war with the Seleucid kingdom.

Later, we are even given the first military target: "During the first year they shall wage war against Aram-Naharaim." 1QM, Col. 2. Aram-Naharaim = Mesopotamia, which again strengthens the conclusion that the Jews are going to war with the Seleucids; however, surprisingly, the Jewish military is taking the fight to the Seleucid kingdom's home turf. This means the leader of the sons of light was mobilizing his army for a war on foreign soil. That is rather specific information. In 150 BCE, Jonathan Maccabees led his army east into Seleucid territory against King Demetrius Soter. He was there supporting the claim of Alexander Balas to the throne. Balas was a rank pretender to the Seleucid throne allied with Rome. The combined armies of Balas and Jonathan Maccabees defeated and killed Demetrius Soter in battle. I haven't been able to find out the exact location of that battle. If you know Peter, the information would be helpful. Here is what 1 Maccabees has to say about Jonathan's mobilization of the military prior to moving east to face Demetrius Soter.
Joanthan put on the sacred vestments in the seventh month of the year one hundred and sixty at the feast of Booths, and he gathered an army and procured many arms.
1 Maccabees 10:21. This is the only time the Maccabean army marched into the heart of Seleucid territory for battle during the sugestion time frame (to my knowledge). It also fits your time frame. Jonathan was high priest in 150 BCE. I suggest the War Scroll was his military order to all Jews as national leader and, also, the religious leader. He assumed the role previously held by the Teacher of Righteousness (who was his father).

From: Peter
Subject: Dating the Army of the WS
Date: 5-18-2012
As I said in the comment I posted here and clumsily deleted, the battle with the Seleucids in 150 BC is recorded but not named (for a location) from what I can tell. Dupuy and Dupuy mention the unnamed battle in the Encyclopedia of Military History, but only as the precursor to Balas' defeat at the Battle of Oenoparus near Antioch in 145. Bar-Kochva does not mention the battle's name or place either but relates the anecdote about Balas' hermaphrodite cavalry guardsman, Diophantus, as an indication that the permanent units of the Seleucid guards at the time were made of Macedonian military settlers--even at this late date! I found that interesting even if irrelevant here. The sources for Balas, as you probably know, are Diodorus, Justin, and Josephus (Antiquities) for a possible clue to the location of the battle in 150 BC.

From: JJR
Home: St. Louis, MO USA
Subject: Reply
Date: 5-18-2012
This website says Demetrius Soter died in battle near Antioch. That page lists the sources at the bottom. I checked the cite it has to livi but Livi does not give the location of the battle and death of Demetrius Soter in Periochae. Josephus says Soter was defeated at Antioch but not killed. Josephus then speaks of Jonathan later winning a great victory against the forces of Demetrius at Kadesh, then returning to Jerusalem in glory ... but Josephus never says Jonathan killed Demetrius Soter in battle (as is stated in 1 Maccabees). I think Josephus left this fact out (perhaps not wishing to pump up the credentials of Jonathan too much). My best guess is that Soter died at the battle of Kadesh, which is east of Israel in the Seleucid kingdom (although I'm not sure you could say Kadesh is in Mesopotamia).

From: JJR
Home: St. Louis, MO USA
Subject: Reply
Date: 5-18-2012
Josephus' discussion of Jonathan Maccabees against Demetrius Soter is found at Antiquities XIII 5:5-8.

Peter, how can you be so definitive in your conclusion of 160 - 141 BC? Does it build off the conclusion that the Jewish army modeled itself after the best Seleucid units and something changed in the Seleucid military after 141 that does not match up with what you see in the War Scroll?

From: Peter
Subject: Dating the army of the WS
Date: 5-20-2012
The dating rests on the probability of two factors:

1) Loss in battle. The shock of being beaten at Beth Zachiriah in 162 by troops that I Maccabees seems to say were completely Romanized. For this conclusion I am agreeing with Sekunda's interpretation of how quickly the Antiochus IV would have moved to fully adopt the system of Roman organization in conjunction with trying to hastily (in a relative sense) equip his infantry. He faces some criticism on this score, but to my mind, it is logical that the Seleucids would not have hesitated to dump phalangial tactics and equipment after their poor showing ever since Magnesia. Also the weakness of the phalanx was well understood, and I doubt they would have tried to use it in Judea. At this point the Jews would have been in a high state of anxiety about organization for battle and in the mood to go fully over to Roman modeling just as the army that had recently beaten them had. In other words, they were psychologically condition by the loss to emulate their enemies, a smaller version of the Greek's imitating the Romans. In 160, they lost their inspired leadership, via Judah's death in a major battle, delivering a second shock. At this point the Jews likely fragmented as a cohesive force, probably causing some serious physical and mental retreats and attempts at self-examination, which is the normal pattern in history for armies that lose major battles. It doesn't always work (think of the French in the Hundred Year's War), but, nevertheless, people start thinking about why their particular organization did not work and the enemy's did. This is why I give 160 as the likely start date, given the psychological milieu in which the WS seems to have been produced.

2) Psychological state: the zeitgeist. The document seems to have been produced with large numbers in mind and in a mood of religious purity; in other words there is a certain solidarity at work that an isolated community with limited followership would likely not have mustered. That tells me it is probably not the work of a group that sees itself in opposition to the political power; in fact it appears to be a "crusading" army. The early Maccabees were such a force--a "crusader-like" force. After Simon took the High Priesthood in 141, or thereabouts, the zeal to write such a document would have been diminishing. Certainly this eschatological theme could have, and did, return later; however the context matters. To me the document clearly describes an army trying to organize along Roman lines with Greek equipment. The thrusting spear and the thureos are dead giveaways that this was the case. That would almost certainly place it in the early phase of "Romanization," one mirroring the Ptolemaic and Seleucid armies. Combine that with the "crusader-like" theme, and the period you get is 160 BC to 140 BC. Had it been a later phase of religious zeal, I think the WS would have described a clearer Roman panoply, probably with more Marian organization. The most likely period for the WS authorship is therefore the first two decades of the Maccabean emergence.

From: Peter
Date: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 06:33:39
There are other factors that suggest the dating, such as the heavily Hellenistic (and optimistic) enumeration of cavalry proportions for the army. The later jews could barely field effective cavalry, so there is little doubt that the authors of the WS were trying to achieve the standards of Romanization evinced by states like Pergamum. This again suggests a mid-second century provenance.

From: jjray
Date: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 10:53:33
I think you have the floor pretty well nailed down. Does this statement accurately summarize your point: the War Scroll describes a Jewish army imitating a Seleucid army that has been Romanized. " I Maccabees 6.35 suggests the entire Seleucid army was armed and armored in Roman fashion by the time of the Battle of Beth-Zacharia in 162 BC." Should that date not be 164 BCE? The Maccabean army lost to the Seleucids @ Beth Zachiriah in 164 so the Maccabees had not Romanized as off that date, which gives us the floor.

I think we can move forward from 164 BCE and the Battle of Beth-Zacharia. This appears to be the first time Judas Maccabeus tried to fight a conventional battle instead of using guerrilla tactics. 1 Maccabees 6:35 specifically says the Greeks were organized in phalanxes and mentions the use of war elephants. That seems to indicate they hadn't Romanized yet so fair to say the Jewish army had not either. In 161 BCE, Judas Maccabee defeats and kills general Nicanor in the Battle of Adasa. I don't know what conclusion to draw from this battle. Judas supposedly only had 3000 men yet crushed the Greek army. Maybe Nicanor was commanding the Greek 'B' Team? After the defeat of Nicanor, King Demetrius invaded Israel the following year. This time he crushed the Maccabean army and killed Judas in the process (Battle of Elasa). 1 Maccabees 9:4 says Demetrius had 20,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry. Can we say that Demetrius brought a Romanized army to the Battle of Elasa?

From: Peter
Date: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 11:32:55
Yes on the floor. Some notes below: <<1 Maccabees 6:35 specifically says the Greeks were organized in phalanxes and mentions the use of war elephants. >> Sekunda notes that all heavy infantry blocks meant to face each other in the battle line were being called "pahalanx," and I concur with this view. It is similar to Polybius' saying that infantry armed with spears had "pikes." It had become conventional to call the main line a "phalanx." No doubt this convention prevailed for a few generations, just as arms and armor would not have been discarded until it was clearly of no use, so military terms would have a life.

>>Judas supposedly only had 3000 men yet crushed the Greek army. Maybe Nicanor was commanding the Greek 'B' Team?<< I have read someplace (probably Bar-Kochva) that the numbers for Judas' forces are very much under-reported because the propagandist is trying to emphasize God's help. Also, there is little doubt it was the "B team." I will look into to it for unit names and get back to you. The Battle of Elasa is a good bench mark for Jewish angst. They went up against the best, and Judas made a mistake worthy of an amateur, getting himself killed in the process. As Bar-Kochva points out, the descritption of this battle tells us much about the Jewish army: they had numbers and more cavalry than you would expect (a sign they were getting more "regular" in the military sense). Both Bar-Kochva and Sekunda agree that the Seleucids were Romanized by then; they only differ in degree. Sekunda says he thinks they were fully Romanized by Beth Zacharia, and I agree with that assessment. Their main battle line would have been Thorakitai supporting the elephants, and the best troops (the Argyraspides) would have been equipped very much like Romans. This unit had already been Romanized before the Daphnae parade, which was in 165 if I am not mistaken.

I think the later date is fairly secure as well, as the WS dispositions sound like someone newly acquainted with the Romaized system. They do not yet understand what a pilum is. This adds to the other factors I've mentioned above.

On the dating of Beth Zacharia, it should be 164 BC. Need to change that in the essay. It also looks like Judas was killed in 161.

From: Guest
Date: Tuesday, May 29, 2012, 17:22:32
Definitely had the date right in the first place: 162 BCE.

From: jjray
Date: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 11:50:43
Thanks for clearing up the issue with use of the word "phalanx". It makes sense in that the writers of 1 Maccabees who aren't military professionals use phalanx in a generic fashion for a lined up body of men as opposed to a descriptive military term. If the Selecuids were already Romanized at Beth-Zacharia then we have the anomaly to explain with Nicanor in the Battle of Adasa. If the Greeks had only recently began Romanizing their units, it makes sense that a number of years would elapse before the entire military over the entire kingdom would be upgraded. Also, the troops under the personal command of the king would get upgraded first. So that could explain why Demetrius crushes Judas one year later. He showed up with the Romanized 'A' Team and in greater numbers. I'll post another comment with questions for you about the ceiling.

How do you feel about a date of 130-129 BCE for the WS? I know it is outside of your date range but this is only other time that the Maccabean army marched east into the land that could be considered Mesopotamia, this time under John Hyrcanus. He went East in support of Antiochus VII Sidetes against Parthia but Antiochus was killed. John Hyrcanus returned home to make war on the Samaritans and then, after capturing Samaria, against the Idumeans. The fact that the Maccabean army was at war over several years under Hyrcanus starting in the east then fighting enemies close to home sounds more like the battle plans outlined in the WS. These events are beyond the period covered in 1 Maccabees so that is a negative. Also, Josephus clearly states that John Hyrcanus used money taken from the tomb of King David to bring in "foreign" troops (i.e., mercenaries). Ant.13.249. It is my understanding the WS lacks reference to mercenaries.

From: Peter
Date: Monday, May 21, 2012, 07:36:31
I gave some thought to a dating for John Hyrcanus, and to my mind, it certainly is the next most likely period for the WS. Because he created an army for expeditionary use to conquer all of Palestine, it is tempting to assign the WS to his era. He too was a "crusader," but he was bent on extirpation or forced conversion of the non-Jews in the region. On one hand, I'm inclined to think the lack of mercenaries in the WS would disqulaify his period, but there is also an argument to be made that the cavalry proportions of the WS could only be attained by hiring foreigners. Bar-Kochva makes this point about the armies of Judas too, so it applies to both eras. I think it is safe to say that the WS dating could apply to John Hyrcanus, but I lean to seeing it as a product of the earlier period of Maccabean righteous indignation. As far as the panaoply itself goes, I think the WS would have described a pilum in 130 BC rather than a seven-cubit thrusting spear. The fact that it describes a spear suggests to me that the idea of Romanizing the force was brand new.

Regarding the ceiling date for the WS: I think the absence of the pilum is an important marker in the scroll. So many aspects of the WS point to Roman inspiration, the sword (matching that of the Spanish gladius) and the organizational deployment in particular. To have the the details of Romanization, yet in the absence of the most salient aspect of Roman legionary shock action, the pilum, is significant. The WS describes a thrusting spear seven cubits in length--by then an old-fashion primary arm mostly relegated to flanking medium infantry that also carried javelins (the Thureophoroi). There is no mention of javelins in the WS heavy infantry panoply, as I remember, which means the thrusting spear is intended as a primary weapon. Clearly the WS spear is not a Macedonian sarissa (pike)--it's a spear. So the WS panoply is essentially old fashion, something early in the stages of adopting "Roman" methods. To me that means the earlier the provenance after Seleucid "Romanization," the more probable.

Some follow-up notes:

Both Sekunda and Bar-Kochva date the Battle of Beth Zacharia to 162 BCE. R.E. and T.N. Dupuy (The Encyclopedia of Military History, Second Revised Edition) use the more conventional dating of the battle to 164 BCE. However, the date makes no impact on the argument.

Regarding the cavalry, Bar-Kochva says that by Elasa, Judas Maccabeus did manage to muster native cavalry--he could not have pursued Bacchides' cavalry without some significant number of his own. A point he makes that I think is important is that Judas' force numbers are stated in the Books of the Maccabees for theological reasons, to make God's intervention a centerpiece of the narrative. Case in point is when Judas stands against 20,000 Seleucids with only 800 men--this would be a suicide mission if there were no army backing up Judas. The 800 men must have been his guard unit, and by description of the battle, they were mounted, not infantry. As Bar-Kochva says, "quite a few Jewish troops were mounted" at Elasa. Bar-kochva also notes that, "at least some of the infantry and cavalrymen were Jews from abroad," and "presumably from the former Ptolemaic cleruchy in trans-Jordan led by the influential family of Tobiah, which also included horsemen." It is during the "second stage of the revolt" after the purification of the Temple during which this cavalry suddenly appears, and the logic is that Jews from outside Judea flocked to Judas after the Temple was purified. These are the ones that would have had experience with cavalry, especially if they came from Babylon, to my mind. No doubt the Parthians would have encouraged diaspora Jews to go help undermine the Seleucids. Definitely had the date right in the first place: 162 BCE.

From: jjray
Date: Tuesday, May 22, 2012, 11:47:34
Let's say Judas Maccabee had 800 mounted troops, perhaps his personal guard. It's still a big leap from the type of cavalry Judas would have possessed to the cavalry formation described in the WS. "The number of War Scroll cavalry totaled 6000 altogether in three distinct classes: 1400 heavy cavalry protecting the legions, 1400 light cavalry protecting the skirmishers, and 3200 light cavalry active at the flanks." Gmirkin at p. 105. Yes, the WS may be describing what the leader hoped to muster and not what he actually had but it defeats the entire exercise of analyzing his units if the military of the WS is thought of as a fantasy. The whole point of the exercise is the idea that it had some basis in historical fact. It is why I have a hard time accepting that a short amount of time after the death of Judas Maccabeus that the Maccabean army had 6000 cavalry. I am leaning toward a few decades later when Jonathan Hyrcanus was said by Josephus to have brought in mercenaries with the funds he plundered from the Tomb of David. An influx of mercenaries helps give us a better explanation for the large cavalry formation but pushing the date to start of Hyrcanus in the 130's comes with its own problems.

From: Peter
Date: Tuesday, May 22, 2012, 13:07:29
>> it defeats the entire exercise of analyzing his units if the military of the WS is thought of as a fantasy<<
Yes, it does. And I do think because they were never able to muster truly organic cavalry, or even the proportions of infantry, in those numbers (and the WS clearly implies organic troops)--that much of it is fantasy. What is not a fantasy, most probably, is 1) the mimicking of Roman (allied) organization and 2) the weaponry--the first is a close description in proportions for allied legions, and the second corresponds too well to actual Hellenistic panoplies to be made up.

>>I have a hard time accepting that a short amount of time after the death of Judas Maccabeus that the Maccabean army had 6000 cavalry.<<
Actually this number would be crazy hard to achieve at any point in Judean history, including for the armies of Herod the Great (whose maximum cavalry estimate is around 5000). Herod usually had a ratio of 5:1 infantry to cavalry, but sometimes he used a 4:1 ratio, both indications of Hellenistic formations (Roman formations were 8:1 or worse in infantry to cavalry). The maximum infantry Herod ever could field was around 20,000 (not too shabby for a second-tier potentate). Clearly the WS is a wish list. Its numbers may have been attainable by hiring of mercenaries (as was the case with Herod who had 500 "Babylonians" just as Antigonus had 500 Parthians). John Hyrcanus was not nearly as rich as Herod, so I would guess he and Jannai could field signifcantly less than 5000 horse. That makes the WS numbers fantastic and almost irrelevant in dating it except that the proportions do mean something.

From: jjray
Date: Tuesday, May 22, 2012, 15:25:01
Then we see the situation differently Peter. What you describe is something like Hitler in his bunker near the end of his Reich ordering movements of non-existent divisions that his advisers were afraid to tell him had been destroyed. My view of the WS is that it is the mustering order from the Maccabean leader to all Jewish troops. He knows how many horse he can field, thus, he would be lying to himself to write 6000 when he had 1000. That document was clearly intended for internal use and was not correspondence to foreign allies (given its nationalistic nature). We have no direct record of Maccabean cavalry existing other than the fact that Judas Maccabeus attacked a cavalry formation, which leads to the conclusion he had cavalry himself. Josephus' record of the battle @ Shechem with Jannai strongly infers that he had no cavalry at that time. Ant. XIII 14.

We both agree the WS is describing a second century BCE military unit. If I read your conclusion correctly, this is a phantom Jewish army that never existed. My view is that we are looking at a hoped for exaggeration of what really was attainable once the forces were pulled together. Puffery as opposed to fraud. If not 6000 horse, then 4000. That's the argument. Let's say the 800 # associated with Judas Maccabeus were mounted. You could extrapolate and theorized that the entire Maccabean light cavalry was 1000 in the years after Judas and, later, under Jonathan Maccabeus. The only way to triple that number to get anywhere close to WS numbers would be a massive influx of cash used to buy mercenaries. Josephus records Jonathan Hyrcanus coming into a hoard of cash and buying mercenaries. The problem with that theory is the WS' internal emphasis on Jewish troops. That's a definite stumbling block.

For me at least, the more important overriding question is whether or not the army described is Maccabean or some undefined Hasidim army? Once the army is placed in the 2nd century, it has to be the Jewish national army going to war against foreign enemies ... which means it is Maccabean. The Hasidim were engaged in an internal struggle for control of Israel and the Temple.

From: jjray
Date: Tuesday, May 22, 2012, 19:21:04
In rereading the WS in light of the our discussion, I noticed a point that my prior analysis neglected: "Of the thirty-five working years, the first six are to be devoted to moiblization" WS Col. 2. That is Gaster's translation. I usually rely on Florentino Martinez's translation and he does not put it so directly. So the national leader ordered a mobilization that will take six years. He wants the cavalry to rise from 1000 to 6000 and to include heavy. Could be wishful thinking (perhaps counting on divine providence) or it could be Jonathan Hyrcanus planning on raiding King David's tomb. Hyrcanus came to power in 134 BCE but did not begin his wars of conquest until 110. I'll have to give it more thought.

From: Peter
Date: Wednesday, May 23, 2012, 10:40:25
<< My view is that we are looking at a hoped for exaggeration of what really was attainable once the forces were pulled together. Puffery as opposed to fraud. If not 6000 horse, then 4000.>>
Actually this is probably right, and it is the direction I'm leaning, but probably just not articulating it very well. Not total fantasy, clearly, but very optimistic in its expectations. I would say that you are correct that it would take mercenaries to get those numbers, regardless of whether it was, Jonathan, Simon, John Hyrcanus, or Alexander Jannai. I'm certainly open to seeing it as an artifact of the later period, but in my mind, the organic character of the WS army overrides much, as it seems so emphatic on that point in describing the array. However, that does not entirely rule out regimenting mercenaries as though they were native units, like their fellow Semites, the Carthaginains, did. There is no question in my mind that this army is second century.

We know there were Hellenistic mercenaries all over the region in those days, but we don't have any unit names, from what I know, beyond the ones I mentioned above for Herod and Antigonus. However, it's worth noting that the scholars interested in this era think that the Judean cavalry were Thracians primarily but also no doubt Galatians. Both types were employed by the Hellenistic armies (as were Thracian and Galatian infantry) in the region in large numbers in the thrid and second centuries. They also provided the guard units for Herod in the first century. There was also a crack unit of Samaritan cavalry working for Herod.

From: Russell Gmirkin
Date: Tuesday, May 29, 2012, 04:49:02
I enjoyed your article and this discussion. Regarding the date of the War Scroll, you might take note of my sequel article, Russell Gmirkin, "Historical Allusions in the War Scroll," Dead Sea Discoveries 5 (1998) 172-214, where I argue that 1QM 1 contains a series of accurate sequential historical references that take us to summer, 163 BCE, just before the battle of Beth-Zechariah. Daniel and the Animal Apocalypse are also dated just prior to this momentous event. 1QM foresaw a Maccabean victory at this apocalyptic battle, but (like Daniel and AA) was mistaken in its prediction, providing a terminus ad quem. I argued that the professional organization of the Maccabean army took place in 164/163 BCE, prior to the battle of Beth-Zechariah. The Seleucid victory does not itself indicate that the Maccabeans had not reorganized the army along Roman lines. Indeed, the Maccabean willingness to meet the Seleucids (Lysias) in open battle (not their former guerilla tactics) signals that the army had already undergone a transformation.
-- Russell Gm.
(PS I'm somewhat involved in writing my next book, so I may not follow up on this posting.)

From: Peter
Date: Tuesday, May 29, 2012, 13:27:12
Professor Gmirkin, I will track down that article and read it. The limiting date of 163 makes sense in view of what you say here, and it suggests that the Jews were much more organizationally savy (from working for the Ptolemaic and Seleucid military forces?) than--perhaps--scholars have thought possible.

After thinking about my essay for a while, I have come around to thinking that the WS must have been akin to what the US Army calls a "Table of Organization and Equipment," or a "TOE." Conceptually the TOE functions as a blurprint, laying out the foundations of what operationally becomes a "Modified Table of Organization and Equipment," or "MTOE." The MTOE is what everybody uses when filling out the ranks through authorizations. In effect, the TOE is an abstraction that never has a life of its own, and it hands down what the ideal organization and equipment of the force should be. The MTOE is always different and is usually, in fact almost always, lower in numbers. The TOE lays out "requirements," while the MTOE lays out real "authorizations." Assignments of personnel and equipment go against the authorizing document. The WS seems to function like a TOE. When the Maccabees actually organized for battle, they were probably issuing orders that built units toward the abstraction in the WS.

From: jjray
Date: Tuesday, May 29, 2012, 14:29:52
Prof. Gmirkin, question for you. Peter Fromm theorizes that the army of the WS is organized to mimic a Seleucid army that has been Romanized as opposed to being directly patterned after the Romans (i.e., a copy of a copy). 1) Do you have any quarrels with that point? and 2) If the point is accepted, does it effect your timeline in any fashion? In my view, it is an important point for pushing the army of the WS out of the Roman period (i.e., mid-first century BCE) squarely into the second century BCE.

From: Russell Gmirkin Date: Wednesday, May 30, 2012, 04:17:09
Peter, you should be able to find the article on JSTOR.

The War Scroll may have been somewhat theoretical, but was not utopian or eschatological, as often asserted by those who simplistically equate the author of the scrolls with the later Essenes. In my opinion, all the available evidence indicates that the War Scroll was the military manual of the Maccabean army of 163 BCE.

My proposal was that the War Scroll was based on a Roman Tactica that the Maccabeans somehow acquired. 1 Macc. 8 extensively described the Maccabean admiration for the Romans (including their military machine) and their diplomatic mission to obtain a treaty of friendship and mutual support. I had noted that Roman organization and tactics were known in the east and that the Seleucids had already partially reorganized their army on Roman lines in the 160s BCE, something that Yadin overlooked. I only just now became aware of Nicholas Sekunda's books through Peter Fromm's article. From what I have read online from Nicholas Sekunda, Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC, he makes a good case that both Seleucids and Ptolemies had reorganized their armies along Roman lines prior to 163 BCE. I haven't read his more extensive 2006 Hellenistic Infantry Reform in the 160s BC. In any case, his research strengthens the notion that the Hellenistic kingdoms of the east had adopted Roman military models by the time that Judea was liberated in December 164 BCE and Judah Maccabee professionally reorganized the Jewish army. I'm open to the idea that the Maccabean adoption of Roman weaponry and tactics was mediated by Seleucid or Ptolemaic influences. I'm sure they, too, acquired Roman military manuals for their own reorganization.

So, jjray, I would say Fromm's theories are reasonably compatible with mine, although I'll have to think on the new data for a while (when I have the time!). I'm open to any solution that's compatible with the evidence. I tend to believe the Maccabees used a literary source (a Tactica) rather than imitating enemy forces witnessed in the field. I'm a bit skeptical that they could have acquired a Seleucid Tactica, and I don't think they were cozy with the Ptolemies either. Their direct Roman diplomatic contacts are historically certain, but not documented as early as 163 BCE. So a solution is not cut and dried.

Russell (not Professor!) Gmirkin. (I research full time and publish academic journal articles and books, but I don't teach.)

From: Peter
Date: Wednesday, May 30, 2012, 10:07:02
Russell, it does seem that the WS has the ring of a tactical manual, so that's an intriguing thought that they may have had a Roman Tactica. However, I find it revealing that they set out to copy the cavalry proportions of Roman allied legions: They certainly understood the combined-arms capabilities of their Hellenistic adversaries. They had to know that developing a Macedonian-style set of expectations for the cavalry was not going to be easy, yet they set out to try to aim for that standard.

I got the other article and am currently reading this too: http://cojs.org/cojswiki/The_War_Scroll,_the_Hasidim,_and_the_Maccabean_Conflict,_Russel_Gmirkin.

From: jjray
Date: Wednesday, May 30, 2012, 12:05:16
Yes Russell, I think your theoy and Peter's are very compatible but not completely on all fours. The only reason I waded into this subject was for research on a future planned book arguing that Mattathias Maccabeus was the Teacher of Righteousness so I'm not sure the subtle differences in the discussion at hand really make any difference. BTW, I was delighted to reader your article "The War Scroll, the Hasidim, and the Maccabean Conflict".

>> I tend to believe the Maccabees used a literary source (a Tactica) rather than imitating enemy forces witnessed in the field. I'm a bit skeptical that they could have acquired a Seleucid Tactica, and I don't think they were cozy with the Ptolemies either.<< In 150 BCE we find Jonathan Maccabee supporting Alexander Balas in a Seleucid civil war. After the victory, there is a banquet hosted by Ptolemy VI Philometor who places purple on the shoulders of Jonathan Maccabee. I assume your point of analysis is prior to 150 BCE and you reason no prior military contact between the Ptolemies / rival Seleucid factions and the Maccabees in 160's. I'm not sure that is a rock solid assumption but I have another suggestion that fits in with your theories of the desert Hasidim to an extent.

One Tobiad prince is mentioned in 2 Maccabees--Hyrcanus. Their ancestral power base was in the transjordan region south of Damascus. The Tobiads were a powerful force in Jerusalem. Also, the Tobiads seem to have intermarried with the family of Onias. Hyrcanus the Tobiad was exiled by his other family members from Jerusalem during the reign of Seleucus IV and when Onias III was in office. Hyrcanus returned to the transjordan region (Araq el Emir) and formed an army. He was said to be fabulously wealthy. I just don't see the guerrilla army of Mattathais (later Judas) Maccabeus coming into possession of a Roman Tactica and, from that alone, producing the armament necessary to field heavy infantry and, also, gaining competence in battle field maneuver of large units. The Tobiads, on the other hand, with their history as Greek clients and repute as warlords make better candidates to very quickly upgrade the Maccabean guerrilla army. I'm leaning toward the theory that the big jump from guerrillas to a conventional force organized organized around Romans style heavy infantry was accomplished by the Tobiads joining the Maccabean revolt. Initially, I would bet the heavy infantry weren't Maccabean at all, but Tobian. This theory also helps to explain how Hyrcanus became a Hasmonean regnal name. Not much is known about the Tobiads so I'm a bit stuck on generating facts to support this theory beyond general deductive reasoning as outline above.

From: Peter
Date: Wednesday, May 30, 2012, 12:58:28
Bar-Kochva agrees that the Tobiad clan was involved in filling out Judas' army, and he suggests that the heavy cavalry were largely Jews "from abroad," what Eisenman would call "overseas" Jews, including those from the Ptolemaic Cleruchy in trans-Jordan ( i.e., the Tobiad army). Some recruits also would have come from Pergamum and could have brought a Tactica with them. However, Bar-Kochva indicates that the Maccabeans seem to have suddenly acquired cavalry around 164, which in Russell's estimation would place the WS in the narrow time frame of 164-163, of course, if the WS dispositions were inspired by Tobiad military professionalism. I think this is likely. This dating makes sense in the aim to replicate Greek-style cavalry proportions, even the hope of striving for them, and it also agrees with my foucs on the idea of Roman organization involving common "Romanized" Hellenistic panoplies (e.g., the use of the thureos and the thrusting spear and not the scutum and pilum).

From: RussellGmirkin
Date: Wednesday, May 30, 2012, 13:13:49
This is an excellent suggestion. I was just musing about this very possibility myself. My own theory is that the high priest Onias II was the Teacher of Righteousness, Simon the temple captain the Man of Lies, and Menelaus the Wicked Priest, and Judah Maccabee the (later) Prince of the Congregation in 1QM and other texts. Onias II went into exile in 175 BCE, and most scholars assume his exile was in Daphne at Antioch, but I have argued that he went into exile at Araq el-Emir, which was a refuge not only for Hyrkanus but also the Oniads (Jason is known to have entered under Tobiad protection in 172 BCE). I interpret the Land of Damascus in CD as Tobiad Transjordan, where the followers of the Teacher are seen after his death. The Tobiads were in command (among other things) of a Ptolemaic kleruchy since at least the later years of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (per the Zenon papyri). Judah Maccabee conducted two rescue missions of Tobiad Jews in 163 BCE (see Maccabees on this, or my articles), a significant event that is also alluded to in 1QM 1, CD and one of the Isaiah peshers. It is entirely plausible that the Tobiads served as mediators for the Maccabean acquisition of Ptolemaic (Romanized) military organization. A slight difficulty is that the Serekh texts (1QS, 1QM, 1QSa, 1QSb) often reflect the military structures of 1QM, but show no influence or awareness of the Halachic texts or pesherim that emanated from the Teacher's circles. I consider the Serekh literature to have emanated from the Maccabean state after the liberation of Judea in late 164 BCE and before the defeat by Lysias in summer 163 BCE. I think the timeline works out pretty well. Tight, but doable.

Russell Gm

Home | Site Map | Privacy Policy

Comments UponDating the Army of the War Scroll

Comments Upon
Dating the Army of the War Scroll