Although it has long been acknowledged that 1QS, 1QSa, and 1QSb are part of the same manuscript, most scholars follow J.T. Milik’s interpretation of the columns of 1QSa and 1QSb as appendices to 1QS. This article examines the circumstances out of which this “appendix hypothesis” emerged, highlights its weaknesses, and takes up Philip Alexander and Geza Vermes’s call to consider the sections of the scroll together by proposing that 1QS-1QSa-1QSb is a composite work that its editor has unified through superscriptions. This study also examines the formatting between 1QS, 1QSa, and 1QSb and the evidence of a recension concerned with introducing the activity of the sons of Zadok and reframing the material for the Maskil throughout the scroll to propose that the heterogeneous and sometimes inconsistent contents are presented by its redactor as a single work rather than three distinct works in a single scroll.

中文翻译：

---

一份工作还是三份工作？将 1QS-1QSa-1QSb 作为综合作品阅读的提案

尽管人们早已承认 1QS、1QSa 和 1QSb 是同一份手稿的一部分，但大多数学者都遵循 JT Milik 对 1QSa 和 1QSb 列的解释作为 1QS 的附录。本文考察了这种“附录假设”出现的情况，强调了它的弱点，并通过提议 1QS-1QSa-1QSb 是一部复合作品，来响应 Philip Alexander 和 Geza Vermes 的呼吁，即一起考虑卷轴的各个部分。编辑器已通过署名统一。本研究还考察了 1QS、1QSa、