Returning to the discussion of 1QSb, Russ Gmirkin
wrote ...
To my mind, a title Messiah of Aaron and Israel -- referring to a
single individual -- makes no sense. It just seems unintelligible and
self-contradicting, on a common sense level. Where, in the HB or the
Qumran
corpus
Thanks for your response, Greg.
I'll just take the opportunity to deal with the
following two matters:
1. Sons of Aaron or sons of Levi?
-
I think the most likely addressee at 1.19-3.19 is
probably the Levites (rather than 'sons of Aaron'
as Ian suggests).
Russell Gmirkin responded:
On the first question, one might point to the Oniads as figures
holding both high priestly and civil positions. The reference to
Messiah the Prince (or the Anointed Prince) at Dan. 9:25 is
usually taken to refer to Onias III, assassinated in exile in 170 BCE.
Does
David,
1QS 9:11 refers to the time when there shall come the Prophet and the
Messiahs of Aaron and Israel. The Messiah figure or figures we are
discussing are thus distinguished from the coming Prophet. J. Collons, _The
Scepter and the Star_ (1995) has a chapter devoted to the Messiahs
Russell Gmirkin said:
To my mind, a title Messiah of Aaron and Israel -- referring to a
single individual -- makes no sense. It just seems unintelligible and
self-contradicting, on a common sense level. Where, in the HB or the
Qumran corpus (excluding the phrase in question) is Aaron
Ian's question on 1QSb is insightful, and agrees with some
study I have done on this point. I think the alleged
'high priest' as the addressee of 1QSb 1.19-3.19 (Milik)
and (though with some dispute as to the begining and end
of the blessing) followed by *every* known study of 1QSb
since,
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,
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
Russ Gmirkin writes:
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.
Well, maybe they do and
