¹ Cf. my study Erscheinung, Wesen und Ideologie der Assoziation von Hirbet Qumran nach dem “Manual of Discipline” (iQS), Ph.D. Thesis (Basle, 1962/63), p. 320^*, n. 342, and “Referat,” ThLZ 89(1964), 464ff. English translation of Thesis is forthcoming in AGSU (Leiden, E.J. Brill).

² “Community” corresponds here to German “Gemeinde”; cf. E. Kornemann, κοινóν, Pauly-Wiss., Suppl. IV(1924), 917, and R. König, Grundformen der Gesellschaft Die Gemeinde(Hamburg, 1958), 35ff.; the transition is open, however, to the meaning of “Gemeinschaft,” as defined by F. Tönnies, Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, 8th ed. (Leipzig, 1935), with correctives of others, such as H. Schmalenbach, “Die soziologische Kategorie des Bundes,” Die Dioskuren, Jahrb. f. Geisteswiss., I(Munich, 1922), 35–105.

³ Kornemann, ibid.

⁴ For applications and meaning of to koinon cf. E. Ziebarth, Das griechische Vereinswesen, Preisschriften der Fürstlich-Jablonowskischen Gesellschaft 34 (Leipzig, 1896); F. Poland, Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens, Preisschriften der Fürstlich-Jablonowskischen Gesellschaft 38 (Leipzig, 1909); Kornemann, op. cit., 914–41; Regling, κοινν, Pauly-Wiss., XI(1922), 1053ff.; Kornemann, “Concilium” and “Commune,” both in Pauly-Wiss., IV(1901), 803ff., 777; G. Busolt and H. Swoboda, Griechische Staatskunde, HAW IV: 1, 2 vols. and indices (1920ff.), per indices; E. Schwyzer and A. Debrunner, Griechische Grammatik, HAW II: 1, 2nd vol.(1950), 175; F. Poland, Σύνοδος, Pauly-Wiss., 2nd Ser., IV (1932), 1425ff.; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century After Christ, I–II (Princeton, N.J., 1950), per index, in particular vol. II; M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, I–III (Oxford, 1941), per index; F. Hauck, κοινός, ThWNT, III, 790; W. Bauer, Griech.-Deutsch. Wb. zu den Schriften d. NT, 5th ed. (Berlin, 1958), art. κοινός. To the instances listed by Hauck should be added Si.50:17 (κοινῆ-yaḥdaw).

⁵ First published by E. Renan, CRAI (Paris, 1888), 12f., reedited several times, last by H. Donner and W. Röllig in Kanaanaische und Aramäische Inschriften, Vol. I (Wiesbaden, 1962), 13, with commentary in Vol. II, ibid. (1964), 73f.

⁶ Cf. lines 2, 5, 7, 8.

⁷ The root seems to have been a common Semitic word וג meaning app. “body” from which many words have been derived; cf. Koehler-Baumgartner, Lex., 173–75, 1061.

⁸ Cf. also Donner-Röllig, I, 30 (No. 164, 3), and Hi.30:5 (in the Hebrew text only).

⁹ Cf. Donner-Röllig, II, ibid.

¹⁰ Cf. Donner-Röllig, II, 73.

¹¹ Cf. Jer. 16:5; Am.6:7, notwithstanding the slight difference in vocalisation. For further use of חזומ (Palmyra!) cf. Donner-Röllig, II, 73, G. Dalman, Aram.- Neuhebr. HW., 3rd ed. (Göttingen, 1938), 253; J. Levi, Chald. Wb, reprint (Cologne, 1959), vol. II, 68f.

¹² Cf. section iv of this paper.

¹³ There was recognition of the outstanding value of iQS as by far superior to the rest of Qumran scrolls from Cave i almost immediately after their accessibility cf. for instance Albright, W. F., “Current and Forthcoming Publications of the Schools,” BASOR 119 (1950), 4f.)Google Scholar. Meanwhile the relatively old age of iQS has become more and more clear. So O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 3rd ed. (Tübingen, 1964), 873, in his verdict on the age of the DSS, especially based on his well balanced evaluation of the more recent discussion in the field, has somewhat changed his position (cf. Einleitung, 2nd ed. [1956], 796f.) and is now inclined to allow an older date of origin which is perfectly agreeable with the one reached on account of palaeographic observations by a group of scholars, foremost F. M. Cross (cf. his “The Development of the Jewish Scripts,” The Bible and the Ancient Near East, Essays in honor of W. F. Albright [Garden City, N. Y., 1961], 158ff.). This also suits my attempt to date iQS by internal evidence. Both the social structure and the language of the Qumran Association suggest that this group originated in the Ptolemaic era of Palestine, i.e., before 200 B.C., whereas iQS may be assigned to c. 150 B.C. (cf. Erscheinung, 73^*f., 170^*). Because of the significance of iQS, research regarding the Qumran Association has to begin with this document. This holds true for this paper also.

¹⁴ Cf. iQS vi, 13 and Erscheinung, 307ff.

¹⁵ Cf. Erscheinung, 140–56, 239^*–47^*, 340–444, 296^*—322^*.

¹⁶ Cf. note 1.

¹⁷ Cf. Schwyzer (v. n. 4), vol. I, 200 (n.2), 309, 471f., vol. II, 465f., 474 (n.5!), and Chadwick, J. and Baumbach, L., “The Mycenaean Greek Vocabulary,” Glotta 41 (1963), 211Google Scholar. For formation, meaning and etymology of yaḥad cf. Erscheinung, 135–39. 237^*f.

¹⁸ Cf. iChr. 12:18; Dt. 33:5 (?).

¹⁹ Cf. Erscheinung, 288ff. For instances in Qumran literature other than iQS cf. K. G. Kuhn et al., Konkordanz zu den Qumrantexten (Göttingen, 1960), 87ff.

²⁰ So it has occasionally been retraced to the Essene koinōnia. Cf. in particular H. Braun, Spätjüdisch-häretischer und frühchristlicher Radikalismus, Jesus von Nazareth und die essenische Qumransekte, Vol. I (Tübingen, 1957), 77ff. Cf. also Erscheinung, 135ff. pass.

²¹ Cf. Erscheinung, passim to p. 314, and ThLZ (v. n. 1).

²² Cf. for instance J. Maier, Zum Gottesvolk- und Gemeinschaftsbegriff in den Schriften vom Toten Meer, Th.D. Thesis (Vienna, 1958), 112, 227 (n. 466) and elsewhere; and, by the same author, Die Texte vom Toten Meer, Vol. II (Basle, 1960), 11. Cf. also his more readily accessible paper “Zum Begriff ךחי in den Texten vom Toten Meer,” ZAW 72 (1960), 148–66. Useful: Koffmahn, E., “Rechtsstellung und hierarchische Struktur des ךחי von Qumran,” Biblica 42 (1962), 433–42Google Scholar. For further discussion and literature cf. my Erscheinung, 288ff. and per index of authors.

²³ Cf. Erscheinung, 288ff.

²⁴ ךחיל The article is made certain by the context. Cf. also the approximate parallelism of the two instances.

²⁵ The article and the first half of ךחי preserved, the remainder has already been restored by W. H. Brownlee, “The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline,” BASOR Suppl. St. 10–12 (1951), 30f.

²⁶ ךחיל above לאדשיכ הלא: explaining gloss; “When these (the fifteen men) are extant for the community in Israel”; cf. Erscheinung, 27, 31, 86.

²⁷ For more functions of the דחיח הצע cf. Erscheinung, 221ff., 253ff., and “Excurs םיכך(ה).”

²⁸ ךחי was probably understood as an absolute value like קדצ in קדצ יבב (iii, 20.22) or תםא in תםא ךחי in ii, 24 and similar constructions.

²⁹ Cf. Erscheinung, 51^* (n. 65).

³⁰ I.e., were truth etc. rule, as is obvious from v, 3. Cf. also Erscheinung, 289, and similar chains, as, for instance, v, 2$; viii, 2.

³¹ Cf. Erscheinung, 157ff.

³² Cf. Erscheinung, 161ff.

³³ Cf. Erscheinung, 124ff., 140, 203ff., 257ff.

³⁴ Expression of reciprocity. For the genitive-cstr. והעדל שיא קרצ תכשחמ cf. vi, 7.

³⁵ Elucidation to תםא רחיב. Cf. further Erscheinung, 213ff., 257ff.

³⁶ Resumption of the subject as contained in לזכה. For its meaningful contrast to לוע דשכ דזם (xi,9) and המר דזם (xi.10) cf. Erscheinung, 478.

³⁷ It may perhaps be better not to follow P. Wernberg-Møller, The Manual of Discipline, STDJ I (Leiden — Grand Rapids, Mich., 1957), 24, G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1962), 74, and others in their somewhat simplifying approach. “Eternal” means in 1QS םלןע (cf. my Erscheinung, 42). It may also be pointed out again that iQS reflects ideas according to which God “elects” and converts his people (the members of the Qumran Association) out of the generations of perishable human flesh (cf. iii,14; xi,9ff.; cf. further Erscheinung, 198ff., 329ff., 393ff., 405, 411ff.).

³⁸ The context of this instance has been generally misunderstood. It should read: ושפכ הלעג איכןחמא דח[יכ אןכז] אול וכל תורירשכ חכלל ל[א תירככ] אוכל םאומה לןכן כשחת י אןל םירשי םען ןיח כישמל קזח אול קרצ יףפשמ תעד זרךםיכ “But whosoever rejects (refuses) to come in God's covenant (cf. i,16) since he wishes to live in the stubbornness of his heart, he must not come in the community of his truth, for his soul has an aversion to the chastizements which result from the benefaction producing penal laws. He did not encourage the man who intended to convert his life. He must not count himself under the sincere (people) …” ii, 25-iii, i. Cf. further Erscheinung, 40f. and 51^*–61^*.

³⁹ God guides.

⁴⁰ Cf. Erscheinung, 206–26.

⁴¹ Correctly recognized by K. Schubert, Die Religion des nachbiblischen Judentums (Freiburg-Vienna, 1955), 76,228, and by R. Wolf, Aqua Religiosa. Die religiöse Verwendung von Wasser im frühen Christentum und in seiner Umwelt, Part i, Th. D. Thesis (Leipzig, 1956), 90. The meanings “disposition” or “sentiments” are classical (cf. Koehler-Baumgartner, Lex., 878 b).

⁴² Grammatically these two (interdependent!) instances belong to section 3. But the subtile difference between לא and חמא has been observed by the people behind iQS (cf. Erscheinung, 207ff., and regarding God's relationship to דזא cf. 68^*—86^*).

⁴³ There cannot be any doubt of this meaning of חיכ in this context, and none has been voiced, as far as I know. Cf. the following passages, and the whole section of ix,3–6+viii, i–16a (in this arrangement! Cf. Erscheinung, 167^*ff.).

⁴⁴ Cf. below.

⁴⁵ Cf. for instance G. Molin, Die Söhne des Lichtes (Vienna-Munich, 1954), 119ff.; F. Nötscher, Zur theologischen Terminologie der Qumrantexte, BBB 10 (Bonn, 1956), passim; M. Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins (London — Edinburgh, etc., 1961), 75ff. For discussion of the relationship of ideas and institutions of the Qumran Association according to iQS to the respective ones as contained in the OT cf. Erscheinung, 445–515, 323^*–32^*.

⁴⁶ Re older literature cf. O. Michel, οἶκος, ThWNT V, 128 (n.29). M. Black: “Like Qumran, the Primitive Church was a neo-Levitical community” (op. cit., 88 and elsewhere).

⁴⁷ Good the warning in G. H. C. MacGregor and A. C. Purdy, Jew and Greek: Tutors unto Christ, 3rd. ed. (Edinburgh, 1959), 371f.

⁴⁸ Notwithstanding the fact that the concept of הדע in iQS is relatively weak (cf. Erscheinung, 100–03, 447–51).

⁴⁹ םישןדק (xi,8). Regarding this name and the whole passage cf. Erscheinung, 215^*–17^*.

⁵⁰ Cf. further Erscheinung, per “Sachregister”: “Allerheiligstes.”

⁵¹ There has obviously occurred an expansion in the employment of τò ἱερὁν from its original meaning as approximately synonym to τὸ τέμενος towards that of “temple” in the widest sense (cf. G. Schrenk, τὸ ἱερόν, ThWNT III, 231f.). We can further observe a spiritualization of the idea of “temple” in writings of Philo and of the Stoics and others mainly dependent on the latter. So a very common motive is the κόσμος as τò ἱερóν or οἶκος ò οἶκος (cf. the discussion by Schrenk, op. cit., 241, 237f.).

⁵² The transition of the meaning of οἶκος from “temple” to “religious community” (“Verein”) appears to have been fluent and is sometimes scarcely noticeable. Cf. the early instance of 396/395 B.C. in IG II², 1237 = Syll.³, 921.33 and 41, first recognized by R. Schoell, Sitzungsber. phil.-hist. Kl. Bayer. Ak. d. Wiss. (Munich, 1889), II, 1, 1ff, and Uv.Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Aristoteles und Athen II (Berlin, 1893,) 259ff., but unacceptable to W. Dittenberger. His objections are untenable, however. Cf. also A. W. Van Buren, οἶκος, Pauly-Wiss. XVII, 2 (1937), 2123. For the “frequency” of the use of οἶκος as a “term for an association” in Ptolemaic Egypt cf. A.D. Nock (as referred to below in n. 57) on p. 75. Cf. οἶκος = “family” 4th-ist cent. B.C.; for instances see Liddell-Scott, 1205 (under οἶκος, iii).

⁵³ Cf. Nock (as below in n. 57) pp. 75 and 80ff. Not noted in W. Erichsen's Demotisches Glossar (Copenhagen, 1954), 283ff. and re per 132f., however.

⁵⁴ Cf. Koehler-Baumgartner, Lex., 123a.

⁵⁵ Despite M. San Nicolà's claims (Ägyptisches Vereinswesen zur Zeit der Ptolemäer und Römer, II, 1 [Munich, 1915], 42f., 103), we should point in this context to the development of employment and meaning of συναγωγ in practically the opposite direction (cf. F. Poland and S. Krauss, συναγωγ, Pauly-Wiss., 2nd s. IV, 1284ff.).

⁵⁶ Cf. Nock (as below in n. 57), 39, 42.

⁵⁷ In “The Gild of Zeus Hypsistos,” HTR 29 (1936), 39–88 & photography. Since the main responsibility for the commentary lay with Nock, I have used his name for reference.

⁵⁸ Nock's text, P. Lond. 2710, 8.

⁵⁹ Without having had knowledge of P. Lond. 2710, I have claimed two meanings for הקשמ “drink” and “banquet” (cf., re iQS vi,20 and vii,20, Erscheinung, 160f., 249^*f.), although the latter has not yet been instanced as far as I can see. One should also note that πσις carries these two meanings too (cf. Liddell-Scott, 1453). An equation such as this would also allow for the fact that in neither case cultic ceremonials were of any importance. What we have before us are regular meals taken among “brethren” (φρτρα acc. to P. Lond. 2710, 14; םיחא or םיער ace. to iQS vi, 10 and more often). Cf. Erscheinung, 250f., 273^* (n.59!), 414f.

⁶⁰ Cf. Nock, op. cit., 42, and above, n. 13.

⁶¹ The context demands to read συνταγματαρχσειν although Nock, op. cit., 51, hesitates. Cf. the foil, notes.

⁶² The original σχματα is probably correct as leading beyond the previous interdict. For σχμα “formation,” cf. Xenophon, An. i, 10.10.

⁶³ By claim to a more venerable descent. Regarding parallels cf. iQS vi, iff. (4!) (cf. also vi, 8ff.; v, 23ff. and my commentary in Erscheinung per “Stellenverzeichnis”) and Luke 14:7–11. A brother and a friend are συγγενεῖς (cf. Luke 14:12).

⁶⁴ The context seems to suggest “banquet-hall” or “drinking-party” rather than “festival meal” (Nock, 42,53).

⁶⁵ The passage probably refers to the necessity of orderly and decent conduct during the meals, when larger groups of men had assembled. Cf. the regulations re common life (incl. meals!) in iQS vi, i(end)–i3, and Nock's problems, ibid., 53.

⁶⁶ Nock's explanation (53) is too far-fetched. Again the discipline during the course of meals seems to have been meant. Cf. also similar situations in the life of the Qumran Association acc. to iQS v,25-vi, i; vi, iif.; vi,25(end)—27; vii,4f.; vii,8; vii,9f., etc.

⁶⁷ Apart from foregoing suggestions this translation is gratefully based on that of Nock (41f.), the masterfulness of which becomes the more obvious the more one penetrates into the text and the problems involved.

⁶⁸ Cf. my Erscheinung, 8^*ff. passim (notes throughout).

⁶⁹ Nock, 75.

⁷⁰ Cf. iQS passim, in particular ix,21-x,8; ii,25, as quoted above (cf. n. 37).

⁷¹ Cf. Erscheinung, 135–66, 237^*–50^*.

⁷² Cf. Nock's discussion which concludes, “there is nothing against the hypothesis of a hitherto unknown temple” (op. cit., 55–72; underlining by me), the existence of which one would understand from the context in lines 8 and 9 of the papyrus.

⁷³ Cf. in P. Lond. 2710, 4 σνοδοσ and φρτρα in line 14. A change of sociological termini is nothing unusual in Greek texts from Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt (cf. also Nock, 52). It should also be noted that the Qumran Association used only such expressions and terms for self-denotation which would not allow any inconsistencies with regard to its self-understanding as the legitimate “Israel” (cf. Erscheinung, chs. i-ix).

⁷⁴ Op. cit., 80ff.

⁷⁵ iQS v, if.; vi, 13f.; v, 8 and more often. Cf. Erscheinung, chs. ii and vi.

⁷⁶ Cf. iQS ii,9 and Erscheinung, 43^* (n. 26), 193, 260^* (n.479) and more often per “Register.”

⁷⁷ Nock and his co-editors have probably been right in treating associations of (more) Egyptian origin together with those of (more) Greek background, although they still correctly try to differentiate (op. cit., 72ff.). It should be said, however, that scarcely any institution of either background seems to have been completely exempt from a certain amount of synthesis. In this regard Rostovtzeff's criticism of San Nicolà's study (v. n. 55) seems unjustifiable (cf. Rost., v. n. 4, iii, 1388f., n. 105). For further reference on Graeco-Egyptian religious associations cf. W. G. A. Otto, Priester und Tempel im hellenistischen Aegypten (Leipzig, 1905–08), I, 125ff., and A. E. R. Boak, “The Organization of Gilds in Greco-Roman Egypt,” Tr. Amer. Phil. Ass. 68 (Philadelphia, 1937), 212ff. Cf. further S. Krauss, Synagogale Altertuemer (Berlin-Vienna, 1922), 112, on the Jewish koinon at the temple at Leontopolis; H. I. Bell, Cults and Creeds in Graeco-Roman Egypt (Liverpool, 1953), in particular 25ff.; and L. Mitteis and U. Wilcken, Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde, reprint (Hildesheim, 1963), I: 1, esp. 2–28 on the situation of Ptolemaic Egypt in general. For further reference, cf. H. Bengtson, Griech. Gesch., HAW III:4 (1965³), 417ff.

⁷⁸ Sidonian background of Phoenician traders at Athens has been attested by an inscription of the 4th century B. C. found near the Parthenon (cf. Dittenberger, Syll.³, I, 185 [in particular, lines 10 and 30], and Busolt, v. n. 4, I, 296 [n.2], 300 [n.4]). Nevertheless, the precise origin of the group called τò κοινὸν τῶν Σιδωνίων can only be surmised, mainly, because of the relatively loose employment of the name ם(י)כ(ו)ד(י)צ/Σιδóνιοι (older form) / Σιδóνιοι (younger form) by Phoenicians, other Canaanites, and Greeks alike; cf. O. Eissfeldt, Phoiniker (Phoinikia), Pauly-Wiss., XX (1941), 354; Honigmann, Sidon, Pauly-Wiss., 2nd ser., II (1923), 2225; W. Pape and G. Benseler, Wb. der griech. Eigennamen, reprint of 3rd ed. of 1911 (Graz, 1959), II, 1384. The allusion of our inscription to the “Era of Sidon” (line 1) does not help us either. The date given, though it may well be correct, is not identifiable as yet (cf. Donner-Röllig, II, 73), and the era could have been used for dating by non-Sidonians also.

⁷⁹ Cf. nn. 21 and 73. Re the synthesis of Jewish and Greek ideas and institutions, and terminology sedative N. A. Dahl, Das Volk Gottes (reed. Darmstadt, 1963), 92–104.

⁸⁰ Cf. Erscheinung, 169^*–71^*.

⁸¹ Schürer, Gesch. d. Jüd. Volkes, I, 3rd and 4th ed. (Leipzig, 1901), 268–70; Kennedy, “Money” in J. Hastings et al., A Diction, of the Bible, III (Edinburgh, 1900), 425f. See also description in B.U. Head, Historia Numorum (Oxford, 1911 2), 807ff.

⁸² For translation of derivatives of into Hellenistic Greek, Jewish writers preferred words of the group formed around κοινωνóς (cf. F. Hauck, κοινωνóς etc., ThWNT, III, 800–04), although רכח and הרןכח originally did not mean “community,” but “society, fellowship, cooperative.” One should note, however, that, like words immediately related to κοινωνς, terms around could and did assume a wide range of meanings, among them also that of “community,” “members of a community,” etc., so that could, in fact, serve as a synonym to both, κοινóς/τò κοινóν and רחיה also (cf. Hauck [v. n. 4] and as above, and last, but not least, iQS xi,8). The inaccuracy involved in the preference of רכח and הרןכח can be easily understood when one recalls, for example, the experiences of the Romans in the interpretation, application, and partial equalization of τò κοινóν with terms of their own. Re C. Rabin's untenable conclusions (Qumran Studies, Scripta Judaica II [Oxford, 1957], passim, esp. pp. 31ff.) cf. Erscheinung, per “Autoren” -index. Note also the analogous development of meanings in the formation of the Coptic equivalent √ ŠBR (cf. W. E. Crum, Copt. Diet. [Oxford, 1939], 553).

⁸³ Regarding certain inconsistencies in the application of the terms ὁ ναός and τὸ ἰερόν to the respective parts of the Jerusalem temple cf. G. Schrenk (v. n. 51), 234, and O. Michel, ναός, ThWNT IV, 886ff.

⁸⁴ Hellenistic origin of the spiritualization and somewhat unorthodox and irregular application of the terms for “temple” and “The Holy of Holies” was already assumed by H. Wenschkewitz in his important treatise “Die Spiritualisierung der Kultusbegriffe Tempel,” Priester und Opfer im Neuen Testament, Angelos 4 (Leipzig, 1932), 70ff. With regard to other sectors of the life of the Qumran Association according to iQS, in particular the use of cult-terminology (sacrifice, atonement, etc.), a similar spiritualization has been shown by the present author in Erscheinung, esp. ch. iv. Thus the changes in meaning and application of שדןקה etc. are by no means exceptional. The Qumran Association in certain respects has, indeed, been a forerunner of the Early Church, the greatest result of Greek and Jewish synthesis.