^{page 218 note 1} Discoveries in the Judean Desert I, ed. by Barthélemy, D. and Milik, J. (Oxford, 1955), pp. 108ff.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 2} Notably by Barthélemy in Discoveries, loc. cit.;Google Scholar during the past year by Kuhn, K. in ‘The Two Messiahs of Aaron and Israel’ and ‘The Lord's Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumran’, in The Scrolls and the N T., ed. by Stendahl, K. (N.Y., 1957), pp. 54ff. and 65ff. (revisions of his earlier Die beiden Messias', N.T.S. i (1954–1955). 168ff.;Google Scholar and ‘Über den ursprünglichen Sinn des Abendnahies’, Evangelische Theol. X (1950–1951), 508ff.);Google Scholar by Richardson, H., ‘Some Notes on _IQSa’, J.B.L. LXXVI (1957), 108ff.;Google Scholar by Black, M., ‘Messianic Doctrine in the Qumran Scrolls’, in Studia Patristica, ed. by Aland, K. and Cross, F. (Berlin, 1957), I, 441 ff. (=Texte u. Untersuchungen 63);Google Scholar by Brown, R., ‘The Messianism of Qumran’, Cath. Bibl. Quart. XIX (1957), 53ff.;Google Scholar by Gordis, R., ‘The “Begotten” Messiah in the Qumran Scrolls’, V.T. VII (1957), 19 ff.;Google Scholar and by van der Ploeg, J., Lee Manuacrits du Désert de Juda’, Bibliotheca Orientalis, xiv (1957), 122ff.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 3} Black, ‘Messianic Doctrine’, p. 444.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 1} This in spite of Barthélemy's translation, ‘lorsque’, which his Hebrew does not justify. ДН is ‘normally if’.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 2} The Dead Sea Scrolls of St Mark's Monastery, ed. by Burrows, Millar, vol II (New Haven, 1951).Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 3} This was remarked in passing by Van der Ploeg, ‘Les Manuscrits’, p. 124.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 4} , which Barthélemy restores, is not certain; one might read ; the parallel cited by Barthlemy from i QS 10. 14 is persuasive, but not conclusive (and certainly does not determine the meaning as ‘meal’).Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 5} Black, ‘Messianic Doctrine’, p. 444.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 6} Richardson, ‘Some Notes’, p. 116, n. 53.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 1} ‘Sit before’ is the regular rabbinic expression for the position of students learning from a master or from the judges ofacourt: T. Ber. ii. 13;Google ScholarErub, T.. ix. 4;Google ScholarPes, T.. ii. 11;Google ScholarYeb, T.. xii. 15;Google Scholar and esp. San, T.. viii. 2 (cf. also J. Hor. iii. 9 (45b) and parallel in Babli, B.Q.117a) which show striking parallels to the assembly described in IQSa (cp. Richardson, ‘Some Notes’, p. 121). For rabbinic court rules in general, T. San. vii. 6ff.Google Scholar and Lieberman, S., Tosefeth Rishonim (Jerusalem, 1937–1938), ad loc. (vol. II, p. 158).Google Scholar The similarities between proceedings in the assemblies of the Qumran sect and those in rabbinic courts and classrooms have now been pointed out at length by Rabin, C., Qumran Studies (Oxford, 1957), ch. vii.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 2} Kuhn, ‘Two Messiahs’, p. 56 and n. 13. The aleph of Barthélemy's in line 12 does not appear in the photograph.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 3} Richardson, ‘Some Notes’, p. 116 and n. 54, felt this difficulty and tried to meet it by reading and introducing at the beginning of line 12. He supposed referred to ‘the Messiah’. (Which? He doesn't say.) However, there is no reference to in the context and no reason for intruding the word here, save the preconceived notion that the text refers to God's begetting some sort of Messiah.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 4} ‘Two Messiahs’, p. 56, n. 13.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 5} This includes the priests and levites—the supernatural arm of the military services—and also the males below fighting age—the trainees.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 6} Line 8 will be discussed below.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 1} Exod. xxx. 14, xxxviii. 26, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 2} A later hand has written in the clumsily, as a correction, arid Barthélemy (note ad loc.) has taken it as a because it does not resemble the examples of by the original hand (!). His attempt to translate the resultant Hebrew is even less fortunate than his reading.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 1} So, especially in the niphal, Ter. viii. 8; Halah iii. 2; Bek. ii. 3, iv. 2; Tem. iii. 5; Neg. viii. 2, 7; etc. (frequent). These are in the perfect, which is the more common tense in this connexion, but the imperfect is also found, e.g. Neg. Vii. 4, 5; ix. end; etc. The plene spelling of the Qumran MS. appears also in T. Neg. iii. 5. These latter references, and a number of those in the next two pages, I owe to Dean Lieberman of the Jewish Theological Seminary and I am especially indebted to him for the information that the law of blemishes had to be taught by example, which explains the character and importance of this particular type of assembly.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 2} Cf. Lev. xiii. If.; Neg. ii. 4, xii. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 3} Above, p. 220, n. I.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 4} Zadokite Doe. (ed. Rabin), xiii. 4ff.;Google ScholarSifra, Neg. ix. on Lev. xiii. i ff. (ed. Weiss, 60b);Google Scholarbiblical basis for this opinion is to be found in such verses as, for example, Deut. xxiv. 8.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 5} Sifra Neg. end, on Lev. xiv. 55f.; (ed. Weiss 74d).Google Scholar The same ruling originally stood in the Yerushalmi, as shown by qthe Leiden MS., Lieberman, v. S., Hayerushalmi Kiphshuto (Jerusalem, 1934), Introduction, pp. 17f.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 1} Kohut, A., Notes on a Hitherto Unknoum… Commentary… by Aboo (sic) Manzur al-Dhamari (N.Y., 1892), p. 44. The Hebrew text reads: Abu Manzur probably quoted this in the fifteenth century.Google Scholar However, Lieberman, S., yemenite Midroshim (Jerusalem, 1940), pp. 18ff., has demonstrated the faithfulness with which Abu Manzur reproduced his ancient sources (e.g. a striking parallel to Barnabas viii, preserving a tradition contrary to the halakah).Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 2} ‘Messianic Doctrine’, pp. 447 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 3} See the rabbinic usage, to refer to any anointed High Priest, Hor. ii passim (and this usage is continued in the Gemara ad loc.). According to rabbinic law, it is not necessary that kings of Israel (or Judah, or both) be anointed, and kings of priestly family are specifically not to be anointed, but anointing is necessary for a true High Priest (J. Hor. iii. 3, 47 c).Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 4} See, on this point, the excellent observations of Silberman, L., ‘The Two “Messiahs” of the Manual of Discipline’, V. T. v (1955), 77ff., esp. 78–9.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 5} Sotah viii, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 6} Hor. 12b.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 7} Abot, R.N., Text A, ch. 41 (ed. Schechter, 67a) and references there.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 8} Yadin, Y., The Scroll of the War (Jerusalem, 1955), pp. 192f.Google Scholar