So let me ask this: what would be the proper definition of a Messiah or messiah in this context?
Thanks, Barb Leger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I agree with Ian and Greg that there is no real basis for interpreting > 1QSb as addressed to the high priest. On Greg's comments on 1QSa, I think > there's a pretty good case to be made that both priestly and lay messiahs are > referred to, as conventionally interpreted. Most superficially, other Serekh > texts distinguish the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel. But also, the (priestly) > Messiah seems particularly associated with the "[sons] of Aaron, the priests" > at 1QSa ii 11-13, while the "[Me]ssiah of Israel" is especially associated > with the "chiefs [of the clans of Israel]... in their camps and in their > marches." This latter figure appears to be a military messiah; the "camps" > here are the mobile camps of the deployed legions -- I don't think the term > royal messiah can be justified by the context. Military matters of course > figure large in 1QSa, especially throughout column i. The relevant > comparison to the two Messiahs in 1QSa appears to be 1QM ii-ix, wherein the > high priest serves in the temple (ii 1-3) and the prince of the congregation > commands the army in the field (v 1). > One could of course argue that in 1QM xiii-xix the high priest also > serves as commander-in-chief. But in this primitive early section of 1QM one > lacks the advanced serekh terminology or military organization seen > throughout 1QSa. 1QSa appears contemporary with the "tactica" of 1QM ii-ix, > where priestly and military leaders appear separately. > > Best regards, > Russell Gmirkin > > > On a separate matter, it has been held unanimously (so far > > as I know) in all discussions that 1QSa refers to two > > figures, a high priest and a royal messiah. I have also > > studied this point and have wondered if this too is a > > mistaken reading of that text, and there is no royal messiah in > > 1QSa at all. 1QSa may refer simply to the entrance of the > > high priest, who sits, blesses, etc. followed by others who sit > > after him. The 'anointed one of Israel' has been assumed to > > be the 'royal messiah', a figure distinct from the high priest, but > > I think that is textually very questionable. The 'anointed one of > > Israel' appears to me to read better as simply the high priest > > himself, and there is no second personal figure. > > For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ---------------------------------------------------------------- For private reply, e-mail to Barbara Leger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILER BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
