^{page 176 note 1} Cf. Dodd, C. H., According to the Scriptures (1952), p. 69, for a ‘most striking’ allusion to Dan. vii. 22 (Theod.) in Mark i. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 2} I take the speaker in Isa. 1xi. i ff. to be the Servant of the earlier chapters.

^{page 177 note 1} Cf. IQS iii. 13; IQM x. 10.

^{page 177 note 2} Dan. ix. 27 (‘the half of the week’) probably underlies the periods mentioned in Rev. xi. 2f.; xii. 6; xiii. 5.

^{page 178 note 1} Op. Cit. p. 70.

^{page 179 note 1} Cf. Milik, J. T., Discoveries in the judaean Desert, vol. 1 (1955), p. 121.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 2} His smiting of the ‘sons of tumult’ (Num. xxiv. 17) is brought in the same context of the Zadokite documents into relation with the smiting of the shepherd in Zech. xiii. 7 (quoted of Jesus in Mark xiv. 27).

^{page 180 note 1} Cf. Isa. lxvi. 7; Micah v. 3; Rev. xii. 2, 5.

^{page 180 note 2} Milik, J. T., op. cit. pp. 110, 117.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 3} Cf. Mariès, L., ‘Le Messie issu de Lévi chez Hippolyte’, Recherches de Science Religieuse, vol. xxxix (1951), pp. 381 ff.; J. L. Teicher, journal of Jewish Studies, vol. ii (1950), pp. 134 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 181 note 1} Op. cit. p. 107; cf. pp. 49ff., 87.

^{page 183 note 1} Cf. Manson, T. W., ‘The Argument from Prophecy’, J.T.S. vol. XLVI (1945), pp. 133ff.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 2} journal of Jewish Studies, vol. v (1954), pp. 53f.

^{page 183 note 3} Reading sukkat for sakkut, as in lxx (cf. Acts vii. 43).

^{page 184 note 1} Amos ix. 11 (cf. Acts xv. 14ff.).

^{page 184 note 2} Reading kênê for kiyyun( = kaiwan).

^{page 184 note 3} The exegetical method illustrated here differs considerably from the pesher-method; while both methods were followed in the community, they may have been kept distinct.

^{page 184 note 4} Compare the the forty years' eschatological warfare in 1QM.

^{page 184 note 5} Teicher, J. L. makes the forty years of Zad. doc. xx. 14f. run from A.D. 30 to 70 (journal of jewish Studies, vol. ii (1950), p. 121).Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 6} Cf. fragments of The Description of the New Jerusalem found in Cave 1 (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, vol. i, pp. 134f.) and Cave 2 (Revue Biblique, vol. lxii (1955), pp. 222 ff.).

^{page 184 note 7} BASOR 132 (December 1953), pp. 8ff.; 135 (October 1954), pp. 33 ff.

^{page 185 note 1} Cf. also Black, M., ‘The Messiah in the Testament of Levi xviii’, Ex. T. vol lx (1947–1948), pp. 321 f.; ‘Servant of the Lord and Son of Man’, S.J.Th. vol. vi (1953), pp. 1 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 2} Cf. also 1QS iii. 11; iv. 15–21; viii. 4–10 (the last passage applies the propitiatory language more particularly to the inner council of the community).

^{page 185 note 3} Isa. liii. 11 || Dan. xii. 3; Dan. vii. 13 f., 22. Cf. John v. 27; 1 Cor. vi. 2 f.; Rev. xx. 4.

^{page 185 note 4} Some consideration of this kind may underlie the narrative of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts v. 1 ff., although the death-penalty which they incurred was more severe than the year's excommunication from ‘the purity of the many’, coupled with the docking of one-fourth of his food-ration, prescribed in 1QS vi. 24f. for the member who ‘knowingly deceives in regard to property’.

^{page 185 note 5} Op. cit. pp. 108–10.

^{page 186 note 1} Stendahl, K., The School of St Matthew (1954), pp. 23f.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 2} Dodd, C. H., op. cit. p. 109.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 3} Rabin, C. suggests that ‘he was thought of as a precursor of the Messiah only, not as the Messiah himself’ (The Zadokite Documents [1954], p. 37).Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 4} Dupont-Sommer, A., The Dead Sea Scrolls (English trans. 1952), pp. 27, 44.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 5} Op. cit. pp. 23, 37; Rabin compares the Righteous Teacher redivivus with Elijah redivivus.

^{page 187 note 1} E.g. the similarity between the divorce halakkah of Zad. doc. iv. 21 and Mark x. 6 is offset by the dissimilarity between the sabbath halakhah of Zad. doc. xi. 13f. and the attitude mentioned with approval in Matt. xii. 11 and Luke xiv. 5.

^{page 187 note 2} Cf. Cullmann, O. ‘Die neuentdeckten Qumran-Texte und das Judenchristentum der Pseudoklementinen’, Neutestamentliche Studien fÜr R. Bultmann (1954), pp. 35 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 3} Cf. 1QM ii. 5.

^{page 188 note 1} Cf. Bornhäuser, K., Empfänger und Verfasser des Hebräerbriefs (1932)Google Scholar; Spicq, C., L. Epître aux Hébreux, vol. i (1952–1953), pp. 218, 226 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 2} Cf. Rev. xix. 11 ff.

^{page 189 note 1} Stauffer, E., New Testament Theology (English trans. 1955), p. 21.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 2} Cf. Brownlee, W. H., ‘John the Baptist in the New Light of Ancient Scrolls’, Interpretation, vol. ix (1955), pp. 71 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 189 note 3} In view of the discrepancy between Josephus's explanation of John's baptism and that implied in the N.T., it may be thought that Josephus misinterpreted it in terms of Essene lustration, which was more familiar to him.

^{page 190 note 1} Renan, E., Histoire du peuple d'Israil, vol. v, p. 70, quoted by A. Dupont-Sommer, op. cit. p. 99.Google Scholar