No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 August 2011
The last lines of CD plate xi (lines 21–23) have baffled commentators although the text is practically intact, except for a lacuna at the very end of line 23. The words employed in the passage by themselves are easily understood. It is their combination which causes difficulties. Especially the latter part of the passage under review—xi. 22b–xii. 1a—as yet has not been convincingly interpreted. The legal matter there dealt with remains unexplained. When editing CD for the first time S. Schechter frankly admitted: “The meaning of the law is entirely obscure to me.” And with C. Rabin's painstaking edition at hand H. Bardtke still maintains: “die Vorschrift Zeile 22b–23 kann nur unbefriedigend erklaert werden.” In view of this impasse a new attempt at a solution may be permitted.
1 Schechter, S., Fragments of a Zadokite Work. Documents of Jewish Sectaries, vol. I (Cambridge, 1910), ad loc.Google Scholar
2 Bardtke, H., Die Handschriftenfunde am Toten Meer, 2. Aufl. (1961), p. 269.Google Scholar
3 This aspect of the covenanters’ literature will be discussed in more detail in a separate publication. The present author has dealt with some instances of such a reinterpretation in: “The Calendar Reckoning of the Sect from the Judean Desert,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 4 (1958), pp. 184 f.Google Scholar
4 Rabin, C., The Zadokite Documents, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1958), ad loc.Google Scholar
5 Ginzburg, L., Eine unbekannte juedische Sekte (1922), p. 101.Google Scholar
6 But cf. also 2 Ki. 5:18; 19:17 = Is. 37:38, where the same terms are applied to idol worship.
7 Op. cit., p. 102.
8 The few sporadic instances in post-biblical literature, adduced by Ginzburg (ib.), in which kbs designates ritual “washing with water” as against rḥṣ — “submersion in water,” cannot match this obvious dependence.
9 In a few cases rḥṣ describes the washing of parts of sacrificial animals (Ex. 29:17; Lev. 1:19; 9:14).
10 Segal, M. H., Sefer Berit Dameśeq. Hašiloaḥ 26 (1912), ad loc; S. Schechter, op. cit., ad loc.Google Scholar
11 See Zeitlin, S., The Zadokite Fragments (Cincinnati, 1952), ad loc.Google Scholar
12 lege 
, and cf. CD vi. 1; vii. 5. Ḥfṣ may refer to the preparation of things, especially food, needed on the Sabbath (cf. CD x. 22). But see Ginzburg, op. cit., pp. 82–83.
13 It was a Samaritan custom to call for prayer with trumpet-blows. See S. D. Luzatto, Karme Šomron, p. 20; in Kirchheim, R., Ševa’ Masaktwt Qeṭanwt (Frankfurt, 1851).Google Scholar
14 Mish. Suk. 5,3: Bab. Tal. Shab. 114b.
15 In many Jewish communities the usage prevails to this day.
16 CD v. 4: 
lege cum Schechter, Rabin: 
Ib. vi. 16: 
lege cum Rabin: 
Ib. vii. 11: 
lege cum Rost, Rabin: 
(Rost, L., Die Damaskusschrift [Berlin, 1933]).Google Scholar The contrasting phenomenon may be observed in 1QS ix. 20, where 
should be read, instead of 
(Rabin, op. cit., p. 25; Wernberg-Møller, , The Manual of Discipline [Leiden, 1957], p. 42).Google Scholar
17 H. St. J. Thackeray's translation in the Loeb edition.