¹ Cf. J. M. Grintz, Sinai 32, 1953, pp. 11 ff., 27 ff. (Hebrew); Marcus, R., The Qumran Scrolls and Early Judaism, Biblical Research, 1, 1952 pp. 12–17.Google Scholar

² Cf. Barthélemy— Milik, Qumran Cave 1, Oxford, 1955, pp. 46, 82–91; J. T. Milik, Le Testament de Levi en Araméen, RB, 62, 1955, pp. 398–406; and also RB, 63 (1956), pp. 49–67.

³ Cf. Flusser, D., The Apocryphal Book of Ascensis Isaiae and the Dead Sea Sect, IEJ, 3, 1953, pp. 30 f.Google Scholar

⁴ Fragments of the Damascus Covenant were also found among the scrolls in the Qumran Caves. Cf. RB, 63, 1956, p. 61; M. Baillet, ibid., pp. 513–523.

⁵ Cf. Segal, M. H., The Habakkuk Commentary and the Damascus Fragments (A Historical Study), JBL, 70, 1951, pp. 131Google Scholar ff.; J. M. Allegro, Further Light on the History of the Qumran Sect, ibid., 75, 1956, pp. 89 ff.; Milik, J. T., Dix ans de découvertes dans le désert de Juda, Paris, 1957, pp. 51 ff., 103 ff.Google Scholar; Cross, F. M., Ancient Library of Qumran, New York, 1958, pp. 82 ff.Google Scholar

⁶ Cf. Flusser, D., The Judean Desert Sect and its Views, Zion, 19, 1954, pp. 89–103 (Hebrew).Google Scholar

⁷ Yadin, Y., The War of the Sons of Light with the Sons of Darkness, Jerusalem, 1955. pp. 189 ff. (Hebrew).Google Scholar

⁸ For a different reading cf. Cross, F. M., Qumran Cave 1, JBL, 75, 1956, pp. 124 f.Google Scholar

⁹ Cf. Barthélemy—Milik, Qumran Cave 1, Oxford, 1955, pp. 107–118Google Scholar; also, Kuhn, K. G., Die beiden Messias Aarons und Israels, Theologische Literaturzeitung, 79, 1954, pp. 760–761Google Scholar; idem, The Two Messiahs of Aaron and Israel, in The Scrolls and the New Testament, New York, 1957, pp. 54–64Google Scholar, 256–259; Schubert, K., Zwei Messiasse aus dem Regelbuch von Chirbet Qumran, Judaica, 11, 1955, pp. 216–235Google Scholar; Ehrlich, E. L., Ein Beitrag zur Messiaslehre der Qumransekte, ZAW, 68, 1956, pp. 234–243Google Scholar; Richardson, H. N., Some Notes on IQSa, JBL, 76, 1957, pp. 108–122Google Scholar; Van der Woude, A. S., Die Messianischen Vorstellungen der Gemeinde von Qumran, Assen, 1957, pp. 96–106.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cf. Wieder, N., Journal of Jewish Studies, 4, 1943, p. 168Google Scholar, n. 2; and the detailed treatment by Silberman, H. L., The Two “Messiahs” of the Manual of Discipline, VT, 5, 1955, pp. 77–82Google Scholar; Van der Woude, ibid., pp. 27–43, 75–89.

¹¹ Cf. Tosefta Sotha xiii:I; Tosefta Yoma iii (ii), 7; B. Horayoth 12a; B. Yoma 52b; B. Kerithoth 5b; Yer. Sheqālim vi:I; Yer. Sotha viii:3.

¹² The term anointed () for an anointed High Priest is found many times in the Mishnah. Cf. Horayoth ii, passim; Tos. Shebouoth i, 6, etc.

¹³ Cf. Mishnah Horayoth iii, 3 —”And who is the Prince ()? This is the King.”

¹⁴ Also, Mishnah Megillah i, 9; Tos. Megillah i, 19; etc.

¹⁵ Cf. Yadin, op. cit. (supra n. 7), pp. 189 ff.

¹⁶ Cf. Milik, op. cit. (supra n. 9), pp. 118–130.

¹⁷ Cf. ibid., p. 119.

¹⁸ “There shall step forth a star out of Jacob and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel.” This scriptural passage (Num. xxiv, 17) has a central place in the messianic homilies of the Sect. Cf. 4Qp. Gen. xlix; 4Q Testimonia recently published by Allegro, see also below. On messianic exposition of the same passage in rabbinical writings, the Pseudepigrapha; and early Christianity, cf. Rabin, C., The Zadokite Documents, Oxford, 1954, pp. 30 f. Num. xxiv, 17 is also cited in the prayer before battle in 1QM XI, 6–7, but there it does not seem to have any messianic associations. Cf. also Yadin, op. cit. (supra n. 7), p. 323.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Cf. CD XII, 22–24; XIV, 18–19.

²⁰ Deut. xvii, 17, and there it is distinctly said about the King. Cf. also note 13 above.

²¹ Cf. Milik, op. cit. (supra, n. 9), p. 121. On the other hand, I cannot agree with Milik's identification of the hero mentioned in the prayer before battle in 1QM (XI, 6 ff.) with the prince or the Anointed of Israel. Cf. Yadin, op. cit. (supra n. 7), pp. 285, 330–331.

²² So also in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs; see also below. In rabbinical writings, on the other hand, the King takes precedence over the High Priest (Tosefta Horayoth ii, 9; Bab. Horayoth 13a).

²³ Cf. Allegro, J. M., Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature, JBL, 75, 1956, pp. 174 ff.Google Scholar; Yadin, Y., IEJ, 7, 1957, pp. 66–68Google Scholar; Schubert, K., Die Messiaslehre in den Texten von Chirbet Qumran, Biblische Zeitschrift, 1, 1957, pp. 177–197.Google Scholar

²⁴ Cf. 1QM I, 5; XVII, 7–8.

²⁵ The reading of Allegro (ibid.) is erroneous, as already noted by Yadin (ibid.). The words for “and there will not be cut off an enthroned one to David” are a paraphrase of Jer. xxxiii, 17. Cf. also Ps. cxxii, 5.

²⁶ The of Gen. xlix, 10; this term was already understood as meaning the Kingdom of the House of David in the Bible (Ps. lx, 9 = cviii, 9). The same Hebrew term is mentioned in Num. xxi, 18. That scriptural passage is interpreted in CD VI, 3–11 to relate to the Book of the Law and the Leaders of the Sect; and there, the Staff is the Interpreter of the Law (CD VI, 7). The term is also intended for Moses in rabbinical tradition (cf. Targum to Deut. xxxiii, 21). The Exposition of in one biblical text about the Interpreter of the Law does not necessarily entail the same exposition in another text. Here cannot mean anything but the Covenant of Kingship. Cf. also the use of the same term in relation to the rule of the future king the Shoot of David in the same fragment.

²⁷ The feet () are those mentioned in Gen. xlix, 10. According to the interpretation of the LXX and the Targum, feet here mean descendants. The families of Israel () may be compared to the chiefs of the families of Israel who according to the Rule of the Congregation are the leaders and will sit before the anointed of Israel (Col. I, 14; Col. II, 14–15 almost certain reconstruction). According to this interpretation the families of Israel, i.e., the members of the Sect and their leaders are to be considered as legitimately having the authority of Davidic Kingship until the coming of the anointed of righteousness, to whom and to whose descendants the covenant of kingship was given for everlasting generations. Yadin, op. cit. (supra n. 23), reads , in accordance with the Samaritan Recension of Gen. xlix, 10. The degel is one of the military formations mentioned in the Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light. From the photograph of the fragment we are not in a position to decide which of the readings is better. But even so there are many difficulties in Yadin's reading and interpretation.

²⁸ The words represent the words in Gen. xlix, 10, and their interpretation on the coming of the future anointed king is according to the exegesis of the Targum and the Midrashim. Cf. Posnanski, A., Schilo, Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Messiaslehre, Leipzig, 1904. For the expression “ cf. 1QS IX, 14.Google Scholar

²⁹ This term is founded on Jer. xxiii, 5. Cf. also “ in the Eighteen Benedictions (the ‘Amidah).

³⁰ Cf. 2 Samuel vii, 11 ff.; 1Q Benedictions Col. V, 20 ff.; 4QF1, 1 ff. (Cf. infra, n. 32.)

³¹ Cf. 4QF1, 2.

³² Allegro, op. cit., calls this Text 4Q Florilegium, abbreviated to 4QF1.

³³ Cf. n. 31.

³⁴ The lacuna is at the beginning of the line. There is room for about two words including the two letters . It is at present impossible to decide whether the words “which … in the end of days” apply to the Shoot of David or to the Interpreter of the Law, although I think the latter more probable.

³⁵ Am. ix, 11. Here and in CD VII, 16: on the other hand M.T. .

³⁶ The connecting word “That is” rules out the possibility that the repetition is a scribal error. The first time, the tabernacle of David is mentioned in its original biblical meaning; whereas the second mention probably hints at its homiletical exposition. The words, “that is,” probably show that it was an exposition well known among the members of the Sect (cf. CD VII, 15 ff.) so that it was enough merely to hint at that exposition. See also below.

³⁷ The future Davidic king is here probably intended. In 1Q Benedictions too (Col. V, 20 ff.) the delivery of Israel from the yoke of the nations is attributed to the prince of the congregation, i.e., to the future Davidic king.

³⁸ The restoration is after 4QF1, 3–4:

³⁹ The use of the formula “the anointed ones of Israel and Aaron” implies an intentional avoidance of any direct reference to the Davidic future king. This avoidance is especially noticeable in the texts from the Rule of the Congregation and the Benedictions, dealt with above. In general the Scrolls display a favorable attitude to David, and cf. 1QM XI, 1–3; even in CD V, 1–6, where David's actions are criticized, we find a sentiment favorable to him.

⁴⁰ Cf. supra, II.

⁴¹ Cf.n. 27.

⁴² Cf. also n. 18.

⁴³ Cf. supra.

⁴⁴ Cf. n. 36.

⁴⁵ Cf. Allegro, op. cit. (supra n. 23), p. 181.

⁴⁶ Cf. the Ordinances for the King in Deut. xvii, 18–20, also Deut. xxxiii, 10 in the blessing of Moses on the tribe of Levi.

⁴⁷ Cf. D. Flusser in, Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in Memory of E. L. Sukenik, Jerusalem, 1957, p. 86, n. 5; p. 87, n. 8 (Hebrew).

⁴⁸ Cf. infra note 100.

⁴⁹ Allegro, op. cit. (supra n. 23), p. 176 proposes to identify the Interpreter of the Law with the teacher of righteousness. On previous proposals that the teacher of righteousness is a Messiah redivivus, cf. infra note 72. Wieder, N., The “Law-Interpreter” of the Sect of the Dead Sea: The Second Moses, Journal of Jewish Studies, 4, 1953, pp. 158–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar, identified the Interpreter of the Law with the prophet who will herald the coming of the two Messiahs (1QS IX, 11); while Schubert (supra n. 23), is inclined to identify with the future prophet, the Teacher of Righteousness. See also Flusser, ibid, (supra note 47); Cross, ibid, (supra note 5), pp. 171–173.

⁵⁰ Cf. 1QS VI, 6:

⁵¹ Vide infra.

⁵² We need not take into account the possibility that the texts which expressly mention the future ruler of the House of David are earlier than the others and that the expectation of a ruler from the House of David progressively lessened because: (a) The major texts (in the present state of publication) are those which do not mention expressly a future Davidic ruler; and it does not seem probable that future publication will alter the situation much, (b) The Sect was established under the leadership of the priests, sons of Zadok (vide infra), and they, hoping for the end of days in the near future, were surely not interested in stressing the importance of the future Davidic king, (c) After the decline of the Hasmonean dynasty and the beginning of Roman oppression, we find evidence of messianic yearnings connected with the House of David in sources which definitely do not belong to the Dead Sea Sect or its adherents (for the first time in the Psalms of Solomon, especially Psalms xvii and xviii), whereas in the earlier apocalyptic literature the Davidic Messiah is not mentioned at all. Cf. also infra n. 106. I am dealing with the historical development of Davidic Expectations in detail, in my book, The House of David from the Fall of the Kingdom of Judah to the Fall of the Second Commonwealth and After, Jerusalem, 1959 (Hebrew).

⁵³ Cf. Charles, R. H., The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, London, 1908Google Scholar; Jonge, M. De, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Leiden, 1953, and there pp. 10–12 a review of the different views.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Charles, R. H., The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, London, 1908, pp. XXIII–XXXIII. The notation of the different recensions and Mss. is according to this edition.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Charles, Testaments, pp. XCVII ff.; idem, the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 2, Oxford, 1913, p. 294.Google ScholarAptovitzer, V. (Parteipolitik der Hasmonäerzeit, Wien, 1927)Google Scholar goes even further in his conclusions than Charles. According to Aptovitzer the Testaments are a polemical treatise against the adversaries of the Hasmonean rulers (ibid., pp. 82 ff.). The starting point of the debate, according to Aptovitzer, was the exposition of Ps. cx, 4, “The Lord bath sworn and will not repent thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek”; the Hasmonean party claimed that according to this verse a priest would be the Messiah, while their opponents thought the same verse meant that the Messiah (who would be from the tribe of Judah) would also be a priest. According to Aptovitzer the book of Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, which speaks of a king from the tribe of Levi, was composed inside the Hasmonean party, whose adherents claimed that the king would arise out of the tribe of Levi and the tribe of Judah together, and that the Hasmonean rulers were not only the descendants of Aaron but also the descendants of Judah. On the other hand their opponents, whose opinions are stated, according to Aptovitzer, in some of the Midrashim, admitted that the Messiah would be descended from the two tribes, but claimed that it was David who traced his descent both from Judah and from Levi. Aptovitzer's whole edifice lacks any factual basis, and he twists the sources he uses in order to “prove” his points. Cf. Klausner, J., Qiryath-Sefer, 5, 1929, pp. 348–350Google Scholar; Segal, M. H., Tarbiz 21, 1950, pp. 135–136 (Hebrew).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ K. Kohler, Jewish Encyclopedia, xii, pp. 113 f.; Ginzberg, L., Eine unbekannte jüdische Sekte, Monatsch. z. Gesch. u. Wissensch. d. Judenth., 58, 1914, pp. 403–411.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Cf. Beasley-Murray, G. R., The Two Messiahs in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Journal Theol. Studies, 48, 1947, pp. 1–12. (This paper was not available to me.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁸ Cf. Segal, M. H., Tarbiz 21, 1950, p. 134Google Scholar (Hebrew); Higgins, A. J. B., Priest and Messiah, VT, 3, 1953, pp. 323 f.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Grintz, J. H., Sinai, 32, 1953, pp. 30Google Scholar f. (Hebrew), already pointed to the fact. Cf. also, Kuhn, ibid, (supra n. 7); and lately Van der Woude, ibid, (supra n. 7), pp. 190–216. Van der Woude's book arrived in Jerusalem after the paper had already been forwarded to the editors, and it agrees in some details with those reached independently in this paper.

⁶⁰ Charles considers as a “foolish interpolation” the inclusion of Judah, Reuben, Dan and Joseph in this verse and thinks that the verse deals only with the supremacy of Levi (Greek Versions, p. 13; Testaments, pp. 13 f.), while De Jonge (Testaments, p. 88) thinks that only Reuben, Dan and Joseph are interpolated. But it is most probable that the four tribes were here mentioned as an allusion to the four standards: the standard of the camp of Judah, the standard of the camp of Reuben, the standard of the camp of Ephraim-Joseph, and the standard of the camp of Dan, according to which the children of Israel pitched camp round the tent of meeting in the desert (Num. ch. ii). Cf. Segal, op. cit. (supra n. 58), p. 132.

⁶¹ ἀρχιερέως χριστοῦ so in most Greek Mss. and the Slavonic Version. One Greek Ms. (h): ἀρχιερεὺς χριστοῦ— “The high priest of the anointed”; which is meaningless, and which Charles corrects to ἀρχιερεὺς χριστός— “The anointed high priest.” According to the emendation of Charles the meaning of the text is that the anointed high priest, i.e., the Hasmonean ruler, shall sacrifice until the end of days. Not only is Charles’ reading based on the one Ms. in which these words are corrupt, but as we have already seen (supra II), the expression “anointed priest” necessarily means the high priest at the end of days.

⁶² The expression, “for on your behalf he will die in wars visible and invisible,” is difficult. Charles (Testaments, p. 16), retranslating it into Hebrew, proposes — “will stand forth” instead of —”will die,” and at the beginning of the verse — “his arm,” “his might,” instead of — “his seed,” and interprets his emended text on the wars of the Hasmonean high priests. Not only are the emendations and interpretation offered by Charles improbable in. themselves, but the verse as a whole is intended for Judah and not for Levi. The one who fights these wars is the future king from the tribe of Judah.

⁶³ Cf. Charles, Testaments, p. 16.

⁶⁴ And if we retain the present text, the words, “because him hath God chosen” signify the reason why Judah was given a special blessing.

⁶⁵ We may assume that the Greek translator understood the Hebrew as accusative and translated “καί τόν Ιονδαν.” Cf. Grintz, op. cit. (supra n. 1), p. 31.

⁶⁶ Cf. Charles, Greek Versions, pp. 25–26.

⁶⁷ The words, “after the fashion of the nations to all the nations” represent a dittography in the Hebrew text. The correct reading is no doubt “like all the nations” and it applies, as Dr. D. Flusser has pointed out to me, to the king who shall arise from Judah. Cf. Deut. xvii, 14, “I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me”; I Sam. viii, 5: “Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.” The phrase, “A king like all the nations shall arise from Judah” tallies with the Scriptures. On the other hand, priesthood after the fashion of the nations, which means equating the priesthood with the priesthood of idol-worshippers, does not harmonize in any way with the views of the author of the Testaments.

⁶⁸ Charles, Testaments, p. 45; followed by many others.

⁶⁹ Cf. Ginsberg, op. cit. (supra n. 56), pp. 407 f.

⁷⁰ Cf. Manson, T. W., Journal Theol. Studies, 48, 1947, pp. 60–61 (this was unavailable to me); Grintz, op. cit. (supra n. 1), p. 32.Google Scholar

⁷¹ The description of the degeneration and decline of the high priesthood in these chapters, and in the Testament of Levi ch. xvii, is parallel to the description in the Psalms of Solomon ch. viii. These descriptions are founded on the deeds of the hellenizing priests in the days of Antiochus IV, but are very much exaggerated. Their origin is in the polemical literature of the first Hassidim. This literature was most probably read by the sectarians and used in their accusations against their opponents the priests of Jerusalem; we need not regard these descriptions as intended to mean specific Hasmonean rulers.

⁷² Charles, Testaments, pp. 62 f., regards the evil priests as the hellenizing priests in the time of Antiochus IV, while the new priest who shall arise after them is, according to him, the Hasmonean house and especially John Hyrcanus. But in the Testament of Levi, ch. xviii an eschatological priest is described and even if we did not know about the points of contact between the Dead Sea Sect and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs it would be impossible to agree with Charles' identification. Dupont-Sommer (Nouveaux aperçus sur les manuscrits de la Mer Morte, Paris, 1953, pp. 64–84)Google Scholar identifies the seven anointed priests in the Test, of Levi xvii as the Hasmoneans. The first he identifies as Judas Maccabaeus and the seventh as Aristobulus II. The new priest, according to Dupont-Sommer, is the teacher of righteousness who (according to him) was killed during the time of Aristobulus II and was expected to rise again as the anointed one (ibid. p. 79). However, the identification of the anointed priest in Testament of Levi xvii which Dupont-Sommer offers is unfounded, and, what is more, based in some places on a misinterpretation of the text. Cf. also Otzen, B., Studia Theologica 7, 1954, 146 f.Google Scholar; Cross, ibid, (supra note 5), pp. 118 f. The theory that the new priest is the teacher of righteousness redivivus (a theory first propounded by Schechter, S., Documents of Jewish Sectaries I, Cambridge, 1910, pp. XII ff.)Google Scholar is also doubtful.

⁷³ Barthelémy-Milik, op. cit. (supra n. 2), p. 88. Milik reads the first letter but seems better. Grelot, P., Notes sur le Testament aramëen de Levi, RB 63, 1956, p. 396Google Scholar, n. 2 offers the reconstruction:

explaining it as pointing to two kingships, the kingship of priesthood and the kingship of the sword. But while the proposed reconstruction of the beginning of the line is very plausible, his reconstruction at the end of the line and the way in which he explains the whole, are most improbable. The reconstruction and explanation offered in the text above, which are in complete concord with the Testament of Judah xxi, 2, are to be preferred.

⁷⁴ Charles, Testaments, p. 91.

⁷⁵ The Armenian Version is much shorter, “And after these things shall arise a star of peace and he shall walk with men in meekness and righteousness and the heavens, etc.”

⁷⁶ πατρός ἀγίον—the expression in its present form is Christian.

⁷⁷ So in some Greek Mss. (c, h, i); in the others we have, “This fountain unto life for all flesh.” According to Charles (Testaments, p. 97) the whole verse is an interpolation. In the Armenian Version we have, “Then a branch shall go forth from me.”

⁷⁸ Charles, Testaments, pp. 95 f.

⁷⁹ De Jonge, Testaments, pp. 89 f.

⁸⁰ In the Hebrew text instead of i.e., instead of . In some of the Dead Sea Scrolls (so the Isaiah Scroll A) the is sometimes written with a short stem and is almost indistinguishable from the .

⁸¹ Cf. supra, III.

⁸² After this paper was completed a study by Schubert, K., Testamentum Judah 24 im Lichte der Texte von Chirbet Qumran, appeared in the Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 53, 1957, pp. 227–236Google Scholar. Schubert also points out the close similarity between Test. Judah xxiv and the messianic expectations of the Dead Sea Sect. He even attempts to reconstruct the Hebrew original of this chapter, drawing upon the theological terminology of the Sect. His conclusions are founded on the Hebrew text that he reconstructed. This experiment is most enlightening; but on the other hand if we recast the Testaments into a proposed Hebrew original we cannot, in the present state of research, use that reconstructed text to prove a point.

Schubert is inclined to regard Test. Judah xxiv as referring to the anointed of David, and only in verse 1 does he find an intimation of the two anointed ones. Schubert's theory is based on: (1) a reconstruction of verse 1 as follows, being an emendation of which the Greek indicates). Here Schubert seems to find a clear inference to Num. xxiv, 17, “There shall come a star out of Jacob and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel,” and as this biblical text is connected, in the writings of the Sect, with the expectations of the anointed ones of Aaron and Israel (vide supra), the beginning of Test. Judah xxiv points to the same figures. (2) Schubert's theory is also based on several terms or expressions which are traditionally connected with the Davidic Messiah; some of these in verses 5–6, verses which are undoubtedly intended for the Davidic future king; but one of these terms appears according to Schubert in verse 4, which in the Greek versions belongs to the first part of Test. Judah xxiv, i.e., that part of the chapter which I regard as applying to the anointed one of Aaron.

It is especially on these two points that Schubert's reconstruction is, at least, unfounded: (1) In verse 1 he retranslates the Greek into Hebrew, (and a man shall arise from my tribe [= ]); but the Greek σπέρμα usually means seed, and never a tribe or sceptre. If we reject this unfounded emendation there is nothing more to support Schubert's view that in this verse the sceptre of Num. xxiv, 17 is mentioned or even implied. (2) In verse 4 Schubert translates, (sic.) (He is the “shoot” of the God most high). The Greek word βλαστός which Schubert translates as (the inverted commas are in Schubert's German translation) is used in the LXX for some Hebrew words connected with growth and sprouting, but never for The word for in the LXX is usually ᾽Ανατολὴ. Cf. also Van der Woude, ibid, (supra notes 9, 59) pp. 206 f.

⁸³ Charles, Greek Versions, p. 138.

⁸⁴ The verse which comes after these cited above, Dan v, 11, “And the captivity shall He take from Beliar; the souls of the saints, and turn the disobedient hearts unto the Lord and give to them that call upon Him the eternal peace,” evidently concerns God, and not the human savior, even though in the text that is before us it is written that He shall turn the disobedient hearts, “unto the Lord” and not “unto Him.”

⁸⁵ Charles, Greek Versions, pp. 155 f.

⁸⁶ Segal, op. cit. (supra note 56), p. 133. If we follow Segal's suggestion, we have only to read instead of i.e., the error was already in the Hebrew text of the Greek translator.

⁸⁷ ἀνατελεῖ—this word may mean “arise” as well as “raise up.”

⁸⁸ σωτηρίαν— so in the Greek Mss. c, g, h, i, and in the Armenian Version. We have to prefer this reading to the reading of Ms. b—σωτῆρα, only according to the reading of this one Ms. can we interpret the verse to mean that the Lord shall raise up the savior of Israel from the two tribes. The reading in Mss. a, d, e, f—σωτήρ has a Christian character, for according to this reading the verse means that there shall arise (cf. the preceding note) from the two tribes the Lord savior of Israel.

⁸⁹ According to the translation of Charles, Greek Versions, pp. 211 f.; Testaments, pp. 195 f.

⁹⁰ Cf. Charles, Testaments, p. 191. Christian interpolations are also found in the Testament of Benjamin xi, 2. In one of the Mss. (c). we find: “And there shall arise in the end of days one beloved of the Lord from the tribe of Judah and Levi, a doer of His good pleasure in his mouth.” In other Greek Mss. and the Slavonic recension we have here a passage most clearly pointing to Paul. On the other hand in the Armenian version Benjamin says about his own tribe: “And I shall no longer be called a captain of robbers and a wolf on account of your ravages, but one beloved of the Lord and a doer of the good pleasure of His mouth” (cf. Gen. xlix, 27; Deut. xxxiii, 12). Cf. also Charles, The Greek Versions, pp. 230 f.; Segal, op. cit. (n. 56 supra), p. 133, n. 17.

⁹¹ Table summing up the attitude to Levi and Judah in the different Testaments:

⁹² According to Jub. xxxii, 8–9, Levi officiated as a priest in Bethel before his father Jacob and also received from his father tithes. Cf. also Jub. xxx, 18–19; 32:1.

⁹³ Cf. supra, I.

⁹⁴ The wondrous councillor whose supernatural birth is described in The Thanksgiving Scroll (1QH III, 10 f.); cf. also, Licht, J., The Thanksgiving Scroll. Jerusalem, 1957, pp. 51 76 ff. (Hebrew).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ The Son of Man in the Ethiopic Book of Enoch, chs. xxxvii–lxxi (The Similitudes of Enoch). Cf. Rowley, H. H., The Relevance of Apocalyptic², New York, 1946, pp. 58 ff.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Cf. Volz, P., Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im Neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, Tübingen, 1934, pp. 173 ff.Google Scholar; Klausner, J., The Messianic Idea in Israel (Trans, from the 3rd Hebrew Ed.), New York, 1955, passim.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Cf. Cant. Rabba 2: 29; Bab. Sukkah 52b, etc. Cf. Ginzberg, op. cit. (supra n. 56), pp. 411–428; Grintz, op. cit. (supra n. 1), p. 32. Some hints of a priestly Messiah are probably also found in Karaite literature; cf. Wieder, N., The Doctrine of the Two Messiahs among the Karaites, Journal of Jewish Studies, 6, 1955, pp. 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹⁸ Cf. Hebrews, passim. Cf. also Yadin, Y., The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Epistle to the Hebrews, Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jerusalem, 1957, pp. 36–55Google Scholar. On efforts to find the conception that the Messiah is also a priest, in other books of the New Testament, cf. Friedrich, F., Beobachtungen zur messianischen Hohepriestererwartung in den Synoptikenn, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, 53, 1956, pp. 265–311, esp. pp. 275 ff.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ The Hasmoneans, who were provincial priests and belonged to the division of Jehoiarib (1 Mace, ii, 1) most probably did not belong to the house of Zadok. The fact that the blessing, “to Him that chooseth the sons of Zadok to be priests,” which comes in the song of praise at the end of the Hebrew Ecclesiasticus (li, 12) is not repeated in the later prayers, and that the whole song of praise does not come in the Greek translation of Ecclesiasticus, may show that from the time of the Hasmoneans and onward the sons of Zadok did not generally officiate as high priests. The special emphasis in the writings of the Dead Sea Sect that the men of the Sect separated themselves from the remainder of the nation under the leadership of the sons of Zadok (“When they shall gather [in the assembly to] walk according to the Law of the priests sons of Zadok and the men of their covenant who forsook [the way] of the people, they are the men of His counsel who kept His covenant in the midst of wickedness”; Rule of the Congregation Col. I, 1 f.; cf. for the proposed readings 1QS V, 1–3; etc.) also probably shows that the Hasmoneans did not belong to the family of Zadok. And one of the reasons for their severe antagonism to the Hasmonean high priest (The Wicked Priest 1Q p. Hab. passim, cf. Segal, M. H., The Habakkuk Commentary and the Damascus Fragments, JBL, 70, 1951, pp. 137 ff.) was most probably that in their opinion the Hasmoneans were not properly qualified to act as high priests.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ On the status of the priests in the Sect, cf. 1QS II, 19–21; IX, 7; Rule of the Congregation Col. II, 13–14; CD XIV, 3; and especially on the status of the sons of Zadok, 1QS V, 2–3; Rule of the Congregation, passim; etc. On the leadership of the Sect from its foundation by the son of Zadok, cf. supra note 99. It is most probable that the founder of the Sect, the Teacher of Righteousness, as well as the Interpreter of the Law (the leader of the Sect after him) belonged to the high priestly family of Zadok. That the Teacher of Righteousness was a priest we learn from the fragments of a Pesher to Psalm xxxvii published by Allegro (PEQ, 1954, pp. 69–75) where it is said, “its interpretation concerns the priest the teacher of righteousness” p. 71, Col. II, 15). Cf. also 1Q p. Hab., II, 7–8; and further fragments from p. Ps. xxxvii (Allegro, J. M., JBL, 75, 1956, pp. 94–95). The Interpreter of the Law was also most probably a priest, as we learn from the fact that the interpretation of the law was one of the offices of the priests (cf. 1QS V, 9–10; VI, 6; CD XIII, 1–3; XIV, 6–8); this is affirmed by his position, in the various texts dealt with above, as the leader who is to stand at the end of days together with the Davidic king.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ On the history of the Sect cf. the works mentioned in note 5 supra.

¹⁰² Cf. Gen. Rabba 65: 18 — Jakum of Zeraroth (i.e., Alcimus) was the nephew of Rabbi Jose ben Joezer of Zeredah, etc.

¹⁰³ Vide CD I, 7–10, and cf. supra note 100.

¹⁰⁴ Cf. Liver, J., The Problem of the Genealogy of the Davidic Family after the Biblical Period, Tarbiz, 26, 1957, pp. 229–254Google Scholar (Hebrew; English summary ibid, pp. I–III).

¹⁰⁵ Vide 1QS IX, 10–11, “until the coming of a prophet and the anointed ones of Aaron and Israel,” and cf. 1 Mace, iv, 46. See also Silberman, op. cit. (supra n. 10), where this question is dealt with in detail.

¹⁰⁶ The expression anointed one nevertheless occurs in the Book of Daniel. In Dan. ix, 25 “one anointed the prince” is mentioned and in verse 26 it is said, “And after the three score and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off.” No eschatological ruler is meant here but only a king or high priest, according to the usual meaning of this term in the Bible. The period of the first of these anointed ones is after the Babylonian exile and he is usually identified with Cyrus (cf. Isa. xlv, 1), Zerubbabel or the High Priest Joshua. The other anointed one is usually identified with the High Priest Onias IV who was removed from office by Antiochus IV. Cf. Montgomery, J. A., The Book of Daniel, Edinburgh, 1927, pp. 378 ff.Google Scholar; Bentzen, A., Daniel, Tübingen, 1952, pp. 74 f.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ For the belief in a future king from the House of David among the Hasmoneans and their adherents, we may turn to the words that the author of the First Book of Maccabees puts into the mouth of Mattathias in his last speech to his sons, “David for being merciful inherited the throne of kingship for ever” (1 Mace, ii, 56), which furthermore implies a belief in the eternity of the House of David. In the same trend he tells of the confirmation of Simon in his office,“and the Jews and the priests are well pleased that Simon shall be their prince and high priest for ever until a true prophet shall arise” (1 Mace, xiv, 41). Appointing a permanent order “until a true prophet shall arise” may be regarded as proof that the Hasmoneans distinguished clearly between the duration of their rule and the future salvation; for the coming of the true prophet is the first stage towards that end. Compare the use of that same formula in the Dead Sea Scrolls (cf. supra n. 105). On the other hand, the fact that the Hasmonean rulers proclaimed themselves kings and the early Halakhah regards them as the legitimate kings for their time (cf. Alon, G., Sinai 12, 1943, p. 25 ff.; Hebrew) may teach us that the Hasmoneans and their adherents, as well as the people and the Pharisee rabbis, regarded the hope for the renewal of the Davidic kingdom as an expectation for a distant future age. And cf. the Baraitha in Bab. Talmud Sotah 48b, “Come and hear: When the First Temple was destroyed, the cities with pasture land were abolished, the Urim and Thummim ceased, there was no more king from the House of David. And if anyone incites you to quote ‘And the governor said unto them that they shall not eat of the most holy things till there stand up a priest with Urim and Thummim’ [reply to him] as when one man says to another ‘until the dead revive and the Messiah son of David comes’ (i.e., it is only a phrase for the very remote future)”; also cf. Yer. Kid. 4:1. On the other hand the pious author of the Psalms of Solomon, who wrote at the time of the last Hasmonean princes, after the Roman conquest of Jerusalem, and hoped for redemption and salvation in the near future, accuses the Hasmonean kings of having usurped the throne reserved for the descendants of David (Ps. xvii). Cf. also supra n. 52.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Cf. Flusser, op. cit. (supra n. 6), pp. 97 ff.