This chapter looks at the use of "Israel" terminology and its relationship to eschatology in the Dead Sea Scrolls, focusing on the sectarian scrolls. The chapter argues that the Yaḥad understand the exile as ongoing—even those in the land remain in exile, while the returns of Ezra-Nehemiah and the Second Temple are inadequate or worse. They understand Israel's restoration as contingent on a return to virtue and obedience—which they believe has begun with their own group's divinely initiated return to proper halakhic practices. The Yaḥad therefore present themselves as the vanguard of the restoration of all Israel, which includes the return of the northern tribes remaining in exile and the elimination of the disobedient among their Jewish contemporaries. They represent their separation from their contemporaries as having visibly rejoined the rest of Israel in exile, where their obedience serves as a atonement for the rest of Israel—atonement the Second Temple could not manage—thereby initiating the restoration of all Israel.

Although the Gospel of Mary is a dialogue gospel, the text’s narrative frame is just as integral to understanding the message of the gospel as the eschatological teachings in the dialogues. The narrative frame includes Jesus’ departure, Mary’s intervention, and the ensuing dispute among the disciples. This chapter explores possibilities for what was contained in the missing opening pages of the Gospel of Mary, firmly situating the text within the dialogue gospel genre. It then analyzes the Saviour’s farewell discourse, which encourages the disciples to be active participants in the Christian message of salvation. The section on Mary’s intervention focuses on her relationship with the male disciples and her relationship with Jesus, and argues that the Coptic manuscript heightens animosity between the disciples in contrast to the earlier Greek versions. Mary’s relationship to Jesus, on the other hand, is one of succession. The final part of the narrative frame sees the disciples split into two factions, with Mary and Levi on one side and Peter and Andrew on the other. It is unclear at the ending of the gospel whether the disciples are reconciled, and this is explored in light of other dialogue gospels such as the Pistis Sophia.

Although the Gospel of Mary is a dialogue gospel, the text’s narrative frame is just as integral to understanding the message of the gospel as the eschatological teachings in the dialogues. The narrative frame includes Jesus’ departure, Mary’s intervention, and the ensuing dispute among the disciples. This chapter explores possibilities for what was contained in the missing opening pages of the Gospel of Mary, firmly situating the text within the dialogue gospel genre. It then analyzes the Saviour’s farewell discourse, which encourages the disciples to be active participants in the Christian message of salvation. The section on Mary’s intervention focuses on her relationship with the male disciples and her relationship with Jesus, and argues that the Coptic manuscript heightens animosity between the disciples in contrast to the earlier Greek versions. Mary’s relationship to Jesus, on the other hand, is one of succession. The final part of the narrative frame sees the disciples split into two factions, with Mary and Levi on one side and Peter and Andrew on the other. It is unclear at the ending of the gospel whether the disciples are reconciled, and this is explored in light of other dialogue gospels such as the Pistis Sophia.

A symbiosis in music between performance and composition prevailed throughout the nineteenth century. It was particularly evident among conductors. Conducting did not emerge as a distinct profession until the last quarter of the century. But even then, those who sought to make conducting a career either dabbled in composition or harboured lifelong hopes to succeed with their own music. The instincts of a fellow composer dominated the approach to interpretation from the podium.

In Johannes Brahms’s circle of close friends and colleagues, there was perhaps no better example of this link between composing and conducting than Otto Dessoff (1835–92). Dessoff is remembered only as a conductor, despite many fine works to his name. It was to Dessoff that Brahms entrusted the first performance, in 1876, of his First Symphony Op. 68Dessoff was born in Leipzig to Jewish parents; he met Brahms in 1853 but became a close friend in the 1860s, after they both settled in Vienna.

Throughout his lifetime, Brahms accompanied dozens of singers in a variety of settings, ranging from huge public halls to his friends’ homes, and conducted many others in choirs. Some of those working relationships were one-offs, arising from the widespread practice of including a set of piano-accompanied songs within most concerts and the expediency and cost-effectiveness of using local talent. Others were deep, enduring partnerships; the timbres and interpretative approaches of those singers are surely ingrained in his vocal music. Overall, Brahms’s singers were generally not part of the international operatic elite associated with Verdi, Bizet and Massenet. Figures like Julius Stockhausen (1826–1906) and Raimund von Zur-Mühlen (1854–1931)were almost exclusively concert singers and, later on, teachers. Most hailed from German-speaking territories, reflecting Brahms’s own concert career.