Dear Greg Doudna, 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). 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. 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. If I may correct you on a factual point, you argue that "The warriors are subject to the authority of, are led by, the 'sons of Aaron' (1.23) and the 'sons of Zadok, the priests' (1.24)." In the first case, the warriors are more accurately led by "the sons of Aaron... under the direction of the chiefs of the clans of the congregation"; in the second case, the "sons of Zadok, the priests, and the chiefs of the clans of the congregation." The clan chiefs are easily glossed over here, especially since Qumran studies tends to emphasize the Zadokite leadership of the Qumran "sect" and overlook the military organization (which figures prominently in 1QSa). The clan chiefs in 1QSa have accordingly been almost invisible to Qumran studies. Tribal chiefs are also mentioned alongside priests at 1QM ii 1-3. 1QM iii 14-15 refers to banners of the twelve tribes, of the "camp chiefs of the three tribes", and of the tribes. Yadin considers the tribal organization to be especially important in conscription (also prominent in 1QSa i), whereas the legionary organization (by 1000s, 500s, etc.) was used in the field. 1QM has roles for both priests and lay commanders, and I think we see the same thing going on in 1QSa. To return to 1QSa, at ii 14-17 we read, "After, [the Me]ssiah of Israel shall ent[er] and before him shall sit the chiefs [of the clans of Israel, each] one according to his dignity, according to their [positions] in their camps and in their marches. And all the chiefs of the cl[ans of the congre]gation with the wise ... shall sit before them, each one according to his dignity." [Garcia Martinez trans.] So the Messiah of Israel appears specially associated with the lay commanders of the field camps, as opposed to the high priest mainly associated with the sons of Aaron, his brother priests in the preceding lines (although this is not to deny that priests are also given a military role in both 1QSa and 1QM). The context of the "assembly of famous men" (or "men of name") in 1QSa appears to be a periodic national assembly (which includes on its agenda a "convocation for war" - i 26). 1QM ii 6-8 similarly refers to "the famous men called to the assembly" each year, along with the "chiefs of the fathers of the congregation" who oversee conscription. This assembly took place in Jerusalem, which was under the control of the sons of light, the high priest presiding over the temple (ii 1-4). There is an allusion to the Maccabean restoration of the temple in the land sabbath year of 163 BCE at ii 6, but we 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.
Best regards, Russell Gmirkin PS to answer Barb Leger's query, a Messiah can refer to various individuals anointed for office, Messiah simply meaning anointed. For instance, the Talmud refers to the "priest anointed for battle." Kings were also anointed. One has to take into account the context whenever this term is encountered. Maskil is a technical term occasionally used in Qumran texts (and in Daniel) to refer to the "wise". (I see Doudna has responded more fully to your questions.) For private reply, e-mail to [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)