Returning to the discussion of 1QSb, Russ Gmirkin wrote ...
> To my mind, a title "Messiah of Aaron and Israel" -- referring to a > single individual -- makes no sense. It just seems unintelligible and > self-contradicting, on a common sense level. Where, in the HB or the Qumran > corpus (excluding the phrase in question) is Aaron synonymous or > interchangeable with Israel? I just don't consider it a serious possibility, > but perhaps this is a mistake on my part - my approach here is somewhat > superficial (as I indicated in my original posting). I realize a subsequent post of yours, Russ, seems to have modified or backed off somewhat from your position here. Herb Basser's post was interesting and valuable and indeed called attention to new information not previously emphasized, giving comparative parallels which increase the impression of plausibility of a single-figure reading of 'messiah of Aaron and Israel'. To those posts I can add: note the use in CD itself: 'he (God) turned his attention to them (the remnant of Israel) and caused to grow out of *Israel and Aaron* a root of planting ...' (CD 1.7). Here there is a single 'planted root' which grows out of 'Israel and Aaron'. The expression 'Israel and Aaron' does not require or imply that Aaron is synonymous or interchangeable with 'Israel' any more than 'Ephraim and Judah' as the constituents of Israel require those two terms (Ephraim and Judah) to be synonymous or interchangeable. > In 1QSa we have references to both a Messiah (ii 12) -- the priestly > Messiah? -- and a "Messiah of Israel" (ii 14, 20). It seems to me first of > all that if a high priest who is "Messiah of Aaron and Israel" were to have > his title foreshortened, it would be to "Messiah of Aaron"; it is difficult > to understand a foreshortening in the other direction. Possible mistaken assumed false premise. Why assume anything was 'shortened'? Why not 'expanded'? Another point: your rendering in English of 'Messiah' should be looked at closely and questioned; it may be tendentious. This has been a point made by Fitzmyer. We are so conditioned anachronistically by the equation 'Christ' is 'Messiah' that a simple 'anointed one' seems to be naturally rendered as capital-M 'Messiah' with all the freight and baggage that term has come to carry. Yet this may be Christian anachronism rather than defensible in terms of the Hebrew texts themselves. I think 'anointed one of Israel and Aaron' is simply a way of speaking of a high priest--in CD, an eschatalogical high priest who is expected to save Israel--but there is no evidence that this expression in the Qumran texts refers to the Davidic messiah as we think of it. I don't mean to express this dogmatically and would be open to a good argument establishing this point, but that is how I see it at present. > Secondly, in 1QSa ii > 13-15 we first have "the chief priest of all the congregation of Israel" who > enters, with his colleagues, and "After", the Messiah of Israel. Again, in > ii 17-21, first the priest blesses firstfruit of bread and wine, and > "Afterwards" the Messiah of Israel. In both cases these read best as > distinct actions by different figures IMO, the text regulating the sequence > of events. There are syntactic issues here; issues of rendering the sense of the Hebrew. > need not get into specific historical context here. The main thing is that > 1QSa has very strong affinities with 1QM ii-ix, especially column ii, and > should be interpreted in that light. And in 1QM ii-ix there appears a > separation of powers between the high priest now presiding in Jerusalem's > temple and the army commanders in the field. I think 1QSa also reflects this > partial separation of temple and military command and that the Messiah of > Israel of 1QSa to refer to the lay military commander. (I have not quoted much of Gmirkin's preceding argument leading up to this for space considerations, which may have omitted some of the strength of his argument. Anyone seriously studying this issue should of course consult Gmirkin's full post.) The problem I see with this argument is that there is no evidence the 'anointed one of Israel' is a military commander, instead of the high priest himself. The military commanders, including the 'prince of the congregation' (i.e. the 'davidic messiah', as we think of it) are in 1QSb, among the chiefs of the tribes who are subordinate to the high priest. In other texts one of those military commanders becomes a prominent personal figure, the Prince of the Congregation, the Branch of David. But in 1QSb this distinct personal figure has not emerged. He is simply among the nameless, non-individualized military commanders who are subject to the high priest, the 'anointed one of Israel'. Greg Doudna For private reply, e-mail to "Greg Doudna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILER BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
