This chapter offers a hermeneutical profile of the Pesharim. This survey of the use of hermeneutical resources in the Qumran commentaries will show that scriptural interpretations in the Pesharim are governed by a perspective that emphasises the temporal difference between the ancient prophet and his later interpreters (including the Teacher of Righteousness). As a result of this temporal gap the Pesher commentators consider themselves to be ideally-suited to make sense of the historical experience of their movement in the light of Scripture—and vice versa.
1 Perspectivisation
In the Second Temple period, prophetic utterances and prophetic literature were considered to be directed not in the first place to the prophet’s contemporaries, but to later generations.1 The Pesharim reflect this view and employ prophetic-poetic parts of Scripture to make sense of the times in which the Pesher commentators lived.2 These times they considered to be “the latter days” (
Scriptural interpretation in the Pesharim depends on several assumptions on the meaningfulness of the base text, the temporal gap between the base text and its commentator, and the source and character of the interpretations in the Pesharim. Many modern scholars, basing themselves on references to “all the mysteries of the words of his servants the prophets” in Pesher Habakkuk,4 have surmised that the Pesher commentators considered their base texts to be initially meaningless. On this view, the words of the ancient prophets contain mysteries that their original recipients did not understand. The reference to God’s telling Habakkuk “to write down what is happening to the last generation,” but not revealing to him “the end of time,” has also strengthened this conviction.5 For adherents of this approach towards the Pesharim, the Qumran commentaries understand their base texts as codes to be cracked. Consider, for instance, F.F. Bruce’s comments on the issue:
It will be easily realized that this principle of interpretation … must deprive Old Testament prophecies of that relevance and coherence which can best be appreciated when they are studied in their historical setting…. All the prophecies, so to speak, were given in code, and no one was able to break the code until the Teacher of Righteousness was given the key. But if, as he taught, the prophecies referred to his own days and the days immediately following, then it is in the context of these latter days that the prophecies appear coherent and relevant.6
This traditional approach is problematic, though. Shani Tzoref has argued that it assumes “a kind of denigration of the prophet and its text.”7 Indeed, the Pesharim do not portray the Teacher of Righteousness as superior to the ancient prophet. Instead, the Teacher partakes in essentially the same revelation as the ancient prophet, but receives a fuller form of it.8 The view that the prophets’ words were initially meaningless does not merely belittle the importance of the prophet and his text, therefore, but also that of the Teacher of Righteousness and his interpretations. For this reason the idea of “textual multivalence” that Tzoref introduces is useful. It implies that the words of the prophets carried a meaning both in the times when they were uttered and in later periods. In Tzoref’s words, they “would make sense in regard to Assyria, but would matter in regard to the Community and its contemporaries.”9
The Pesher commentators approach the temporal distance which separates them from their base text in terms of two closely related assumptions: that God is in control of history and that the past can help to explain the present and the future. It has been illustrated in chapter 1 that this view on history resembles that of apocalyptic writings and some of the Qumran scrolls. It implies that what happened in an earlier period in history has a bearing of what will happen in a later one. Hence the regular references in the Pesharim to historical “periods” (
Pesher Habakkuk refers to the special insight imparted on the Teacher when it claims that God revealed “all the mysteries of the words of his servants the prophets” to him.11 There has been a debate on the content of the revelation Pesher Habakkuk claims was bestowed upon the Teacher.12 In the light of the preceding statement that God did not reveal “the end of time” to Habakkuk (1QpHab 7:2), many scholars have argued that God did reveal the end of time to the Teacher. Others, however, point to this interpretation of Hab 2:3a in the same column:
כיא עוד חזון למועד יפיח לקץ ולוא יכזב פשרו אשר יארוך הקץ האחרון ויתר על כול אשר דברו הנביאים כיא רזי אל להפלה “For the vision is still for an appointed time, it hurries towards the end and does not lie” (Hab 2:3a). Its interpretation: that the final age shall be long and extend beyond everything the prophets have said, for God’s mysteries are wondrous.
1QpHab 7:5–8
The idea that “the final age shall be long” derives from the base text and does not imply that the Teacher or his followers once calculated the end of time.13 What this interpretation does tell us, however, is that it is impossible in principle to know the end of time, “for God’s mysteries are wondrous.”14 This is confirmed later on in the same column, where it is said that “all the ages of God shall come according to their plan, as he decreed for them in the mysteries of his prudence.”15 Thus, 1QpHab 7 contrasts “God’s mysteries” and “the mysteries of his prudence” with “the mysteries of the words of his servants the prophets”: whereas the latter are said to have been revealed to the Teacher of Righteousness, the former are in principle beyond human scrutiny.16 What was revealed to the Teacher was not, therefore, the end of time, but the special relevance of the words of the ancient prophets for the historical experiences of the movement in the latter days. The Pesher commentators, in their turn, are implied to continue the revelation to the Teacher of the particular meaning of these ancient words.
To sum up: interpretations in the Pesharim emphasise the temporal gap that separates the ancient prophet from the Teacher and his followers. The prophet lived in an earlier period than the Teacher and uttered words that were meaningful in his own days. The Teacher, in contrast, lived in the latter days and was able to survey the whole of history. As a result he received a fuller insight in the words of the ancient prophets, even if he, too, did not know when the end of time would come. The Pesher commentators walk in the Teacher’s footsteps and continue the exegetical tradition he instigated.
1.1 The Interests of the Commentator
As we have seen in chapter 7, the main interest of the Pesher commentators is to explain Scripture in light of the historical memory of the Qumran movement, and vice versa. The narrative the Pesharim present depends on the assumption that the base texts of the Qumran commentaries are applicable to the latter days, in which the Pesher exegetes considered themselves to be living. Thus the Pesher exegetes understood their base texts to concern aspects of the past, present, or future of the historical experiences of their movement. But to these commentators the past, present, and future were no separate categories. On the contrary: there may be an earlier and a later in the latter days, but these are intricately related. Experiences considered to precede the composition of a Pesher are used, therefore, to create an expectation for the times to come.
Two examples may illustrate this principle. The first is this interpretation of Hab 2:15–16:
הוי משקה רעיהו מספח חמתו אף שכר למען הבט אל מועדיהם פשרו על הכוהן הרשע אשר רדף אחר מורה הצדק לבלעו בכעס חמתו אבית גלותו ובקץ מועד מנוחת יום הכפורים הופיע אליהם לבלעם ולכשילם ביום צום שבת מנוחתם שבעתה קלון מכבוד שתה גם אתה והרעל תסוב עליכה כוס ימין ה׳ וקיקלון על כבודכה פשרו על הכוהן אשר גבר קלונו מכבודו כיא לוא מל את עורלת לבו וילך בדרכי הרויה למען ספות הצמאה וכוס חמת [א]ל תבלענו לוסי[ף ע]ל [כול ק]ל[ונ]ו ומכאוב “Woe to him who makes his neighbour drink, mixing his poison, even strong drink, so that one may look on their feasts” (Hab 2:15). Its interpretation concerns the Wicked Priest, who has pursued the Teacher of Righteousness in order to reproach17 him in the anger of his wrath, in his house of exile. And at the time of the festival of the rest of the Day of Atonement, he appeared to them in order to reproach them and to make them stumble on the day of fasting, the Sabbath of their rest. “You are more glutted with disgrace than with glory! Drink, you, and stagger! The cup of the Lord’s right hand shall turn against you, and disgrace on your glory!” (Hab 2:16). Its interpretation concerns the priest whose disgrace is greater than his glory, for he did not circumcise the foreskin of his heart and went in ways of saturation to quench his thirst. But the cup of [Go]d’s wrath shall devour him to increase [all] his [d]isg[ra]ce and pain.
1QpHab 11:2–15
By rendering the participles in Hab 2:15 (
A second case is this interpretation of Nah 3:1–3:
הוי עיר הדמים כולה [כחש פר]ק מלאה פשרו היא עיר אפרים דורשי החלקות לאחרית הימים אשר בכחש ושקר[ים י]תהלכו לא ימוש טרף וקול שוט וקול רעש אופן וסוס דהר ומרכבה מרקדה פרש מעלה להוב חרב וברק חנית ורוב חלל וכבוד פגר ואין קץ לגויה וכשלו בגויתם פשרו על ממשלת דורשי החלקות אשר לא ימוש מקרב עדתם חרב גוים שבי ובז וחרור בינותם וגלות מפחד אויב ורוב פגרי אשמה יפולו בימיהם ואין קץ לכלל חלליהם ואף בגוית בשרם יכשולו בעצת אשמתם “Woe, city of blood! Every one of her has filled her with [lies and untru]th” (Nah 3:1a–bα). Its interpretation: it is the city of Ephraim, of the Seekers of Smooth Things in the last days, who [w]alk in lies and untru[th.] “Prey shall not cease, nor the sound of the whip, nor the sound of the rattling wheel, nor the rushing horse, nor the leaping chariot, the ascending horseman, the flashing of the sword, the flickering of the spear! A multitude of wounded and a heap of carcasses! And there is no end to the corpses, and they shall trip over their corpses” (Nah 3:1bγ–3). Its interpretation concerns the rule of the Seekers of Smooth Things, from the midst of whose council shall not cease the sword of the people, captivity, and spoil, and fire among them, and exile out of fear for the enemy. Guilty corpses shall fall in their days and there is no end to the totality of their wounded—and so they shall trip over the corpses of their flesh, because of their guilty counsel.
4Q169 3–4 ii 1–6
The woe oracle in Nah 3:1a–bα is read by the commentator as a description of “the city of Ephraim, of the Seekers of Smooth Things in the last days.”20 By applying this lemma to the city of Ephraim and the Seekers of Smooth Things, the commentator situates it in the present of the historical memory of the movement to which he belongs. The filling of the city is implied to have come true in the times of the commentator. In the second unit, the retribution to “the city of blood” foretold in Nah 3:1bγ–3 is also applied to the Seekers of Smooth Things,21 who shall receive retribution “because of their guilty counsel.” Here too, the coming true of an earlier event is meant to safeguard to fulfilment of a later one, and the commentator develops his expectation for the future of the Seekers of Smooth Things on the basis of an earlier stratum in his historical memory.
1.2 Implicit and Explicit Assumptions
Like the hypomnemata, the Pesher commentators rarely reflect explicitly on their interests and perspective. Implicit echoes of their perspective are ubiquitous in the Qumran commentaries, though. One example is the use of the quotation formula
[כי]א כ[ו]ה אמר ה׳ קדוש ישראל בשובה ונ[ח]ת [תושעון בה]שקט ובטח תהיה גבורתכמה ולוא אביתמה ות[ואמרו] לוא כיא על סוס ננוס על כן תנוסון ועל קל נרכב על כן יקלו רודפיכמה אלף אחד מפני גערת אחד מפני גערת חמשה תנוסון עד אם נותרתמה כתרן על רואש הר וכנס על גבעה לכן יחכה אדוני לחנ[נכ]מה ולכן ירום לרחמכמה כיא אלוהי משפט ה׳ אשרי כול חוכי לו פשר הדבר לאחרית הימים על עדת ד[ורשי] החלקות אשר בירושלים [“Fo]r th[u]s said the Lord, the Holy One of Israel: ‘In returning and r[es]t [you shall be saved, in qui]etness and trust shall be your strength! But you did not want this and [said:] “No! For we shall flee on horseback”—therefore, you shall flee! and “We shall ride on the swift”—therefore, your pursuers shall be swifter! One thousand (shall flee) from the rebuke of one, from the rebuke of five you shall flee, until you remain as a flagpole upon a mountain top and like a sign upon a hill.’ Therefore, the Lord shall wait to show favo[ur] towards you. And therefore he shall rise to comfort you, for the Lord is a god of justice—happy are all those who wait for him” (Isa 30:15–18). The interpretation of the matter with regard to the latter days concerns the congregation of the S[eekers] of Smooth Things, who are in Jerusalem.
4Q163 23 ii 3–11
In this interpretation, the commentator applies the lemma to a group portrayed as contemporary with the Qumran movement. By so doing, he takes up the implicit assumption that the members of the movement to which he belongs live in the latter days.
The one case of explicit reflection in the Pesharim on the interpretations developed in them is this interpretation of Hab 2:1–3:
ואתיצבה על מצורי ואצפה לראות מה ידבר בי ומה [ישיב ע]ל תוכחתי ויענני ה׳ [ויומר כתוב חזון ובא]ר על הלוחות למען ירוץ [הקורא בו …] וידבר אל אל חבקוק לכתוב את הבאות על הדור האחרון ואת גמר הקץ לוא הודעו ואשר אמר למען ירוץ הקורא בו פשרו על מורה הצדק אשר הודיעו אל את כול רזי דברי עבדיו הנבאים כיא עוד חזון למועד יפיח לקץ ולוא יכזב פשרו אשר יארוך הקץ האחרון ויתר על כול אשר דברו הנביאים כיא רזי אל להפלה אם יתמהמה חכה לו כיא בוא יבוא ולוא יאחר פשרו על אנשי האמת עושי התורה אשר לוא ירפו ידיהם מעבודת האמת בהמשך עליהם הקץ האחרון כיא כול קיצי אל יבואו לתכונם כאשר חקק להם ברזי ערמתו “I shall stand firm on my watchpost and I shall station myself in my fortress, and I will watch to see what he shall say to me and what [he shall answer t]o my reproof. And the Lord answered me [and said: ‘Write the vision down, inscr]ibe it on the tablets so that [he who reads it] may run’ ” (Hab 2:1–2) […] And God told Habakkuk to write down what is to come on the last generation, but the end of time he did not make known to him. And for what he says: “So that he who reads it may run” (Hab 2:2b), its interpretation concerns the Teacher of Righteousness, to whom God has made known all the mysteries of the words of his servants the prophets. “For the vision still has an appointed time, it will run to an end and not fail” (Hab 2:3a). Its interpretation is that the final age shall be long and extend beyond everything the prophets have said, for God’s mysteries are wondrous. “If it tarries, wait for it; it shall surely come and not be delayed” (Hab 2:3b). Its interpretation concerns the men of truth who observe the Law, whose hands will not slacken from the work of truth as the final age is drawn over them, for all the ages of God shall come according to their plan, as he decreed for them in the mysteries of his prudence.
1QpHab 6:12–7:14
As has been indicated above, the import of this passage has been much discussed. For now it suffices to say that these lines explicitly identify the interpretations of the Teacher of Righteousness as divinely inspired. The Pesher commentators, in their turn, invoke the image of the Teacher for themselves, and so present their interpretations as partaking in the same divine revelation that was imparted on the ancient prophet and the Teacher of Righteousness.22
1.3 Technical Terminology
The Pesharim use various types of technical terminology in their interpretations. A well-known case is that of sobriquets. These are a sort of code names, used to refer to protagonists in the Pesharim. Most of them derive from Scripture, but not necessarily in a direct way. Other sobriquets have different origins: “the Wicked Priest” (
This view of sobriquets as a type of technical terminology differs from Devorah Dimant’s approach towards these code names. Stressing their scriptural background, Dimant argues that sobriquets imply pesher-type interpretations of Scripture:
Another type of biblical interpretation is the use of various sobriquets in the pesharim to refer to historical persons. Most of these sobriquets serve as cryptograms for pesher-type interpretations of biblical passages…. Although these sobriquets cannot formally be considered “pesharim,” they are derived by the same exegetical principles.24
If sobriquets are tacit references to interpretations of Scripture, as Dimant argues, every passage that features a sobriquet invokes the scriptural co-text from which the sobriquet derives. In that case, sobriquets are no technical terms, but depend on the exegetical preferences of the commentators. Dimant’s view is problematic for two reasons, however. First, Dimant implies that sobriquets with a scriptural background function differently from non-scriptural sobriquets. Yet there is no reason to suppose this is the case: scriptural and non-scriptural sobriquets occur in the same contexts and fulfil the same function. Second, even if Dimant is correct that some sobriquets once functioned as hidden scriptural interpretations, this does not mean that they continued to do so. Scholars such as Philip Davies and Matthew Collins have shown that many sobriquets underwent a development before they were used in the Pesharim.25 In the early stages of this development, some of these sobriquets may have functioned as hidden scriptural interpretations. In later stages, however, they would have crystallised into technical terms. As the Pesharim often represent the final stages in this development, the sobriquets in the Qumran commentaries do seem to be used in a technical fashion. This idea gains strength from the observation that non-scriptural sobriquets such as “the Wicked Priest” or “the Lion of Wrath” occur only in the Pesharim. Hence it is justified to take the use of sobriquets in the Pesharim as a case of technical terminology that reflect the perspective of the Pesher commentators.
1.4 Paraphrase
The Pesharim often use synonyms of words from the lemma or paraphrase of the entire lemma in their interpretations. Bilhah Nitzan distinguishes between two kinds of paraphrase: “stylistic” and “exegetical.”26 The first kind refers to cases where “there is no semantic difference with the words of the prophet”;27 the second points to cases where “the act of paraphrase also contains an exegetical conception.”28 But the distinction between these two kinds of paraphrase is not absolute: even in the case of “stylistic” paraphrase, the Pesher commentators perspectivise their base texts in line with their own interests. The interpretation of Hos 2:10 in Pesher Hosea A, quoted in chapter 7,29 is a case in point: in addition to a paraphrase of the lemma this interpretation contains several elements which have no basis in the lemma and reflect the interests of the Pesher commentators. Another example of the same procedure is this interpretation of Hab 1:6a:
כיא הנני מקים את הכשדאים הגוי המר [והנמ]הר פשרו על הכתיאים א[שר המ]ה קלים וגבורים במלחמה לאבד רבים […] בממשלת הכתיאים ירש[ו ארצות רבו]ת ולוא יאמינו בחוקי [א]ל “For, behold, I raise up the Chaldaeans, that bitter [and has]ty nation!” (Hab 1:6a). Its interpretation concerns the Kittim, w[ho ar]e swift and mighty in battle to destroy many […] during the rule of the Kittim they shall inher[it man]y [lands] and they shall not believe in the statutes of [Go]d.
1QpHab 2:10–15
Nitzan points out that the paraphrase of “that hasty nation” from the lemma with “who are swift” in the interpretation exhibits no exegetical intention. But if we consider the expression “that bitter and hasty nation” as a whole, the exegetical intention of the Pesher commentator becomes clearer already: in the interpretation these words are rendered as “who are swift and mighty in battle to destroy many.” And this paraphrastic rendering of Hab 1:6a does not stand on its own, either: it is part of a larger interpretation of the lemma, which adds to the paraphrase elements without a basis in the lemma. What appears to be a straightforward paraphrase is, thus, part of an interpretation section which reflects the intentions and perspective of the Pesher commentators. This case is similar to the one we encountered in the hypomnemata (P.Ryl. 1.24):30 even when the commentator remains close to the wording and contents of the lemma, he promotes a certain understanding of that lemma by paraphrasing it in his own words.
2 Application
One of the hallmarks of the Pesharim is that they apply Scripture to non-scriptural persons and events. This application implies a particular view of time and history, which should make us wonder if “application” is the most suitable term to capture what the Pesher commentators are doing. “Application” seems to imply the notion of a fixed history to which Scripture is then applied. But this, as we have seen, is problematic. Even if there is a historical kernel in the Pesharim,31 it is clouded by a web of intertextual links between the Pesharim, other Early Jewish writings, and Scripture. What is more, the Pesharim do not merely apply Scripture to historical facts, but they may derive historical facts from Scripture.32 The Pesharim, as has been shown in chapter 7, present us not with history to which Scripture is applied, but with a historical memory constructed on the basis of and in dialogue with the scriptural base texts of the Pesharim. When I speak of “application” in this pages, therefore, I do so not because I think this term provides a wholly apt description of the hermeneutics of the Pesharim, but because I find its alternatives at least equally problematic.
One alternative is “fulfilment,” which is sometimes used to characterise the hermeneutics of the Pesharim as “fulfilment hermeneutics.”33 But this term can mean two rather different things in the secondary literature. Some scholars speak of “fulfilment” to refer to the coming true of a predicted event: Nahum predicted the fall of Nineveh; when Nineveh fell, this prophecy was fulfilled. For Michael Fishbane, the absence of such fulfilment is a trigger for re-interpreting an original prophetic utterance.34 But the situation in the Pesharim is more complicated than this use of “fulfilment” can account for: if we embrace this definition of “fulfilment,” the Qumran commentaries turn out to interpret both prophecies that have been fulfilled and prophecies that still await fulfilment.35 Other scholars use “fulfilment” to refer to the increased relevance of prophetic words for later readers. According to this view, the meaning of the words of the prophets as they are read by their later interpreters is in a way “fuller” than it was when these words were first uttered or composed. But this is not to say that their initial meaning is irrelevant. This understanding of “fulfilment” comes close to the situation in the Pesharim, as the Qumran commentaries describe the Teacher and his followers as having a “fuller” insight in the words of the ancient prophets than the ancient prophets themselves. Nonetheless, the ambiguity of the term “fulfilment” in the secondary literature has led me to speak of “application” instead.
As an illustration of this resource, which is ubiquitous in the Pesharim, consider this interpretation of Nah 3:1bγ–3:
לא ימוש טרף וקול שוט וקול רעש אופן וסוס דהר ומרכבה מרקדה פרש מעלה להוב וברק חנית ורוב חלל וכבוד פגר ואין קץ לגויה וכשלו בגויתם פשרו על ממשלת דורשי החלקות אשר לא ימוש מקרב עדתם חרב גוים שבי ובז וחרור בינותם וגלות מפחד אויב ורוב פגרי אשמה יפולו בימיהם ואין קץ לכלל חלליהם ואף בגוית בשרם יכשולו בעצת אשמתם “Prey shall not cease, nor the sound of the whip, nor the sound of the rattling wheel, nor the rushing horse, nor the leaping chariot, the ascending horseman, the blade, the flickering of the spear! A multitude of wounded and a heap of carcasses! And there is no end to the corpses, and they shall trip over their corpses” (Nah 3:1bγ–3). Its interpretation concerns the rule of the Seekers of Smooth Things, from the midst of whose council shall not cease the sword of the people, captivity, and spoil, and fire among them, and exile out of fear for the enemy. Guilty corpses shall fall in their days and there is no end to the totality of their wounded—and so they shall trip over the corpses of their flesh, because of their guilty counsel.
4Q169 3–4 ii 3–6
The commentator understands Nah 3:1bγ–3 to refer to the punishment of the Seekers of Smooth Things. It has been shown that this passage takes up language and imagery from Dan 11:32–35.36 This allusion implies an interpretation of the verses in Dan 11. As it appears, the commentator takes Dan 11:32–35 as referring to the same event as the lemma and applies both Nah 3:1bγ–3 and Dan 11:32–35 to the same event in the historical memory of the Pesher exegete. This is not to say that Nah 3 and Dan 11 describe a similar historical situation:37 within their scriptural co-texts, the historical situations described in Nah 3:1bγ–3 and Dan 11:32–35 are not all that similar. It is the exegetical interest of the Pesher exegete and his interest in the historical memory of the movement to which he belonged that led him to apply both Nah 3:1bγ–3 and Dan 11:32–35 to the punishment of the Seekers of Smooth Things.
3 Application and Normativity
The example from 4Q169 3–4 ii 3–6 exemplifies a major difference between the hermeneutics of the hypomnemata and the Pesharim. Both commentaries can take passages from the base text to be directly relevant for the time of the exegete. In the hypomnemata Homer can be taken to give normative advice (“Normativity” resource), in the Pesharim prophetic Scripture can be employed to make sense of the contemporary experiences of the Pesher commentators. But the Normativity and Application resources are not identical. They reflect different views on the temporal position of the base text author and the commentator.
In the hypomnemata, Homer often becomes a timeless source of wisdom. The hypomnema commentators surely recognised the poet as a figure from the past, but he did not belong to the past only. In many interpretations of the Iliad, Homer’s past-ness plays no role and carries no hermeneutical importance. Consider, for instance, the references to the neoteroi in P.Oxy. 8.1086. Though the concept of “more recent [poets]” seems to define Homer as a figure from the past, the commentator in P.Oxy. 8.1086 does not employ Homer’s past-ness to express a preference for his view or that of the neoteroi.38 Instead, both views are juxtaposed as alternatives. Clearer even are comments on Homer’s language. As we have seen in the preceding chapter, the hypomnemata approach Homer’s language not as an archaic dialect, but as merely different from their own koine Greek. So when Homer uses the verb ἡγεµονεύω with a dative rather than a genitive in Il. 2.816, this “case exchange” is ascribed not to Homer’s antiquity, but to his idiosyncratic use of the language.39 In the eyes of the hypomnema commentators, Homer may have been a historical person, but his language is not old-fashioned: it is simply different.40
This suspension of Homer’s past-ness in the hypomnemata also underlies those interpretations that depict Homer as a source of normative wisdom. The point of the interpretation of Il. 2.767 in P.Oxy. 8.1086 is not to urge later readers of the Iliad to do as Homer once described the Greeks did. Instead, P.Oxy. 8.1086 portrays Homer as directly summoning his readers to use mares in battle. For this commentator, Homer is not a figure belonging solely to the past. He belongs to the present of the commentator as well, where he issues normative statements on war tactics. From the perspective of the hypomnemata, the Iliad is not a writing from long-gone ages whose contents must be appropriated in later times, but a timeless source of wisdom. The hypomnema commentators do seem to have had a sense of history and Homer’s position in history, but they often suspend the past-ness of the poet and his works in their interpretations, thus evoking an image of timelessness for the Iliad.
The Pesharim take a different route. Instead of suspending the past-ness of their base texts, the Qumran commentaries emphasise it. The Pesharim reflect a view of history as being divided into divinely ordained periods. Each period resembles and is significant for understanding other periods, and the closer one comes to the end of history the fuller one’s insight in the divine plan behind the course of history becomes. This is why the Pesharim situate the Teacher of Righteousness—the implied commentator in these commentaries—within the latter days, just before the end of time. This implies that the Teacher has a fuller insight into the applicability and meaning of the words of the ancient prophets than the prophets had themselves. Habakkuk and the other prophets are portrayed as belonging to an earlier period in history. Due to this position in history they were unable to grasp the full potential of their words. Hence, whereas Homer’s past-ness plays a limited role in the hermeneutics of the hypomnemata, the past-ness of the ancient prophets and the position in history of the Teacher of Righteousness are a pivotal part of the hermeneutics of the Pesher commentators.
4 Analogy
The Pesharim often draw analogies between scriptural passages. However, due to their implicit presentation these analogies are not always easy to recognise.41 Two cases should suffice to illustrate the use of analogical reasoning in the Pesharim. The first example is this interpretation of Hab 1:17:
על כן יריק חרבו תמיד להרוג גוים ולוא יחמל פשרו על הכיאים אשר יאבדו רבים בחרב נערים אשישים וזקנים נשים וטף ועל פרי בטן לוא ירחמו “Therefore he unsheathes his sword to kill peoples and he shows no mercy” (Hab 1:17). Its interpretation concerns the Kittim, who shall destroy many by sword, youngsters, adults, and elderly men, women and children, and they shall not show pity on the fruit of the womb.
1QpHab 6:8–12
It has been shown in chapter 7 that “and they shall not show pity on the fruit of the womb” is a quotation of Isa 13:18 in the version of 1QIsaa. The connection between this passage and Hab 1:17 depends on lexical and thematic similarities.42 What is more, the quotation from Isa 13:17 fulfils a hermeneutical purpose in the interpretation of Hab 1:17. The Isaiah verse is part of an oracle against Babylon (Isa 13:1), which predicts Babylon’s destruction by the Medes (Isa 13:17). By applying Isa 13:17 (and Hab 1:17) to the Kittim, the commentator draws an analogy between them and the Medes. This analogy communicates a specific message: just as the Medes in Isa 13:17, the Kittim in Pesher Habakkuk must be considered a tool in God’s hand, which he allows to distribute judgement. In the eyes of the commentator, the Kittim fulfil a similar role in the divine plan as the Medes in Isa 13:17–19.43
A second case of analogical reasoning is this interpretation of Hos 2:8a, bβ:
לכן הנני שך את דרכ]ה בסירים ונתיבותיה [לוא תמצא פשרו אשר44 בשגעון] ובעורון ובתמהון [לבב …]ר וקץ מועלם לוא [… כיא] הם דור הפקודה [“Therefore, see, I hedge] her [way] with thorns and her paths [she shall not find” (Hos 2:8a, bβ). Its interpretation is that with madness] and with blindness and with confusion [of heart …] and the period of their treachery does not [… for] they are the generation of the visitation.
4Q166 1:7–10
The terms “blindness” and “confusion” occur in Deut 28:28 and Zech 12:4. The use of these terms in the Pesher probably goes back to Deut 28:28, which the Pesher exegete considered to be analogous to Hos 2:8a, bβ. Understanding the latter passage to refer to the punishment of the opponents of the movement to which he belonged, the Pesher commentator puts the punishment of his opponents on a par with the covenant curses in Deut 28.
This connection between Hos 2:8a, bβ and Deut 28:28 depends on their thematic similarity: both describe the punishment of those who forsake God and his commandments, brought upon them by God rather than a human agent. But this interest in Deut 28:28 and its enactment in the days of later authors and readers is not the invention of the Pesher exegete. It is unclear if the use of Deut 28:28 in Pesher Hosea A was mediated by Zech 12:4.45 The reference to “that day” in Zech 12 lends an eschatological overtone to that chapter which may have appealed to the Pesher exegete.46 At the same time, Zechariah’s prediction of the salvation of Judah and Jerusalem does not sit well with the interests of the Pesher commentator(s).47 But even if Zech 12:4 played no role, the use of the terms “blindness” and “confusion” in other Qumran scrolls demonstrates that the Pesher commentator did not stand alone in his use of Deut 28:28. Apocryphon of Jeremiah C employs terminology from Deut 28 and Lev 26,48 and the use of the terms “blindness,” “confusion,” and “bewilderment of heart” in 4Q387 2 ii 4 implies that the author of the Apocryphon considered these curses to be enacted in his own times.49 Words of the Luminaries is indebted to Deut 28 and Lev 26 as well,50 and the prayer for healing in 4Q504 1–2r ii appears to invoke Deut 28:28 to equate this healing “with the removal of the curse of punishment for sin.”51 These passages show that the use of Deut 28:28 in Pesher Hosea A is no isolated occurrence, but is part of a broader exegetical tradition in Ancient Judaism, which exhibits a particular interest in the covenant curses and their enactment in the times of later authors and readers.
5 Structure
The Pesher commentators, like those of the hypomnemata, engage the structure of their base texts in various ways. Apart from the co-text of their lemmata in the base text, the Pesher exegetes are sensitive to the syntax and the use of parallel constructions in their base texts. These three structural elements may constitute the basis for scriptural interpretations in the Qumran commentaries.
5.1 Contributions of the Co-text
Unlike the hypomnemata, the Pesharim exhibit no clear preference for co-textual readings of their lemmata. The difference is not absolute, of course: just as the hypomnemata may neutralise the co-textual meaning of a lemma, so the Pesharim may endorse it. Nonetheless, many interpretations in the Pesharim do imply a neutralisation or redefinition of the co-texts of their lemmata in the base text.
The concept of “atomisation” has played an important role in scholarship on the Pesharim. Karl Elliger is one of the scholars who defined atomisation as a key characteristic of Pesher hermeneutics:
Wenn die Auslegung dennoch den modernen Leser … nicht überzeugt, so liegt das an einem … charakteristischeren Zuge, daß sie nämlich den Text bei allem Eingehen auf den Wortlaut zugleich atomisiert. Gewiß beachtet sie im allgemeinen peinlich jedes einzelne seiner Elemente und sorgt fast skrupelhaft dafür, daß es in der Auslegung zur Geltung kommt. Aber das geistige Band, das die Elemente zusammenhält, vernachlässigt sie um so mehr und zerschneidet es oft genug.52
Elliger’s definition of atomisation as the deconstruction of the co-text of lemmata has not gone unchallenged. For Nitzan, for instance, atomisation is not primarily about dissolving co-textual connections, but about providing a new co-text for the lemma:
In sum, we must say that “atomisation” is not really “atomisation” as Elliger has described it. Rather, the author sometimes separates a verse from its scriptural co-text and explains it through a transfer to a new co-text.53
In view of the methodology adopted in this book, Elliger’s and Nitzan’s understandings of “atomisation” are equally problematic. The neutralisation of co-texts in the hypomnema contradicts Elliger’s view that atomisation is a defining characteristic of the Pesharim. The neutralisation of co-textual links and the establishment of new co-textual connections is an essential part of any act of exegesis; it is not typical for the Pesharim. At the same time, Nitzan’s approach is problematic because it subsumes two resources—the neutralisation of co-textual links and the re-contextualisation of a lemma—under one heading. The point is similar to the case of etymology in chapter 8: the acts that Nitzan describes, even if they occurred simultaneously in the minds of the Pesher commentators, should be distinguished for analytical purposes. Thus, I will avoid the term “atomisation” in this section and speak of “neutralising the co-text” as a resource which can be used as part of a larger hermeneutical operation.54
5.1.1 Neutralising the Co-text
A striking case of co-text neutralisation in the Pesharim is this interpretation of Hab 1:12–13:
[הלוא אתה ה׳ מקדם אלוהי קודשי לוא נמות אתה ה׳] למשפט שמתו וצור למוכיחו יסדתו טהור עינים מראות ברע והבט אל עמל לוא תוכל פשר הדבר אשר לוא יכלה אל את עמו ביד הגוים וביד בחירו יתן אל את משפט כול הגוים ובתוכחתם יאשמו כל רשעי עמו אשר שמרו את מצוותו בצר למו כיא הוא אשר אמר טהור עינים מראות ברע פשרו אשר לוא זנו אחר עיניהם בקץ הרשעה למה תביטו בוגדים ותחריש בבלע רשע צדיק ממנו פשרו על בית אבשלום ואנשי עצתם אשר נדמו בתוכחת מורה הצדק ולוא עזרוהו על איש הכזב אשר מאס את התורה בתוך כול עצתם [“Are you not from of old, Lord, my holy God: we shall not die. Lord,] you have placed him for judgement, and Rock, you have established him as his rebuker—eyes too pure to see evil in evil—but you cannot observe sorrow” (Hab 1:12–13a). The interpretation of the matter: that God shall not destroy his people by means of the nations, but shall deliver the judgement of all the nations into the hands of his chosen ones. And by their rebuke all the wicked of his people shall be held guilty—(the rebuke of those) who have kept his commandments in their distress, for this is what he says: “Eyes too pure to see evil” (Hab 1:13aα). Its interpretation: that they have not whored after their eyes in the time of wickedness. “Why do you observe, traitors, and keep silent when the wicked one swallows who is more righteous than he?” (Hab 1:13b). Its interpretation concerns the House of Absalom and the men of their council, who have kept silent at the rebuke of the Teacher of Righteousness and have not helped him against the Man of the Lie, who despised the law in the midst of their entire council.
1QpHab 4:16–5:12
In its scriptural co-text, Hab 1:12–13 contain the answer of the prophet Habakkuk to God’s foretelling of the advent of the Assyrians in Hab 1:5–11. In Hab 1:12a, Habakkuk voices his hope that their punishment by the Assyrians shall not cause the wholesale devastation of God’s people. In Hab 1:12b–13, he acknowledges that the Lord has placed the Assyrian people for judgement and chastisement, for God is too pure of eyes to see evil and cannot observe sorrow. That God is the subject of Hab 1:13 is apparent not only from the 2nd person singular form
The Pesher commentator neutralises this co-textual meaning of the lemma in various ways.55 To begin with, the Pesher commentator takes the phrases “you have placed him” and “you have established him,” which in their co-text refer to God’s appointment of the Assyrian people, as a reference to God’s elect,56 who are appointed to judge and chastise. If Carmel McCarthy is right and the suffixes in Hab 1:12–13 are ambiguous also in
This understanding of the “traitors” as the subject of Hab 1:13b is related to a variant reading in the Pesher: the lemma has
5.1.2 Upholding the Co-text
An illustrative case of how the Pesharim may uphold the co-text of their lemmata is this interpretation of Hos 2:10–12:
[לוא ידעה כיא] אנוכי נתתי לה הדגן [והתירוש והיצהר וכסף] הרביתי וזהב עשו [לבעל פשרו] אשר אכל[ו וי]שבעו וישכחו את אל המא[כלם ואת כול] מצוותיו השליכו אחרי גום אשר שלח אליהם [ביד] עבדיו הנביאים ולמתעיהם שמעו ויכבדום וכאלים יפחדו מהם בעורונם לכן אשוב ולקחתי דגני בעתו ותירושי [במועדו] והצלתי צמרי ופושתי מלכסות את [ערותה] ועתה אגלה את נבלותה לעיני מאה[ביה ואיש] לוא יצילנה מידי פשרו אשר הכם ברעב ובערום להיות לקלו[ן] וחרפה לעיני הגואים אשר נשענו עליהם והמה לוא יושיעום מצרותיהם [“She did not know that] I gave her grain [and wine and oil. And silver] I increased, but they used gold [for Baal” (Hos 2:10). Its interpretation:] that they at[e and w]ere satisfied, but they forgot the God who fe[d them and all] his commandments that he had sent them [through] his servants the prophets they threw behind them. And they listened to their misleaders and honoured them, and feared them as gods in their blindness. “Therefore I shall again take my grain at its time, and my wine [at its moment,] and I shall take away my wool and my linen from covering [her shame.] And now I shall uncover her shamelessness to the eyes of [her] lov[ers—and no one] shall be able to deliver her from my hand!” (Hos 2:11–12). Its interpretation: that he has stricken them with famine and nakedness, to be a sham[e] and a scorn in the eyes of the peoples on which they have leaned—and they shall not be able to rescue them from their distress.
4Q166 2:1–14
In their scriptural co-text, Hos 2:10–12 belong to a complaint by God about his people, depicted as an adulterous woman. In Hos 2:10, God describes how he has bestowed upon his people food, drink, and wealth in abundance. Yet his people used these gifts to serve Baal.61 Hos 2:11–12 describes God’s response: he shall take back his gifts of food and drink and remove his wool and linen to uncover the nakedness of his people in front of its lovers.
The Pesher commentator largely upholds the co-textual meaning of these verses. In his paraphrase of Hos 2:10, the commentator uses language from Deut 6:11–12 and 8:10–14, but stays close to the contents of the lemma: “they ate and were satisfied” corresponds with the description of God as the provider of food, drink, and wealth; “they forgot the God who fed them” paraphrases “she did not know that I gave her grain and wine and oil.” In the same interpretation section, the comment that the subjects of the interpretation “honoured” their misleaders and “feared them as gods” is a close paraphrase of the remark in the lemma that “they used gold for Baal.” In the interpretation of Hos 2:11–12, “famine” and “nakedness” echo God’s taking back food and drink and uncovering his people’s shame (Hos 2:11). Likewise, the idea that God shall put his people to shame in the eyes of its lovers is echoed in the interpretation in the statement that God “has stricken them … to be a shame and a scorn.” Finally, “no one shall be able to deliver her from my hand” in Hos 2:12b is paraphrased as: “And they shall not be able to rescue them from their distress.” Thus, in his interpretation of Hos 2:10–12, the Pesher commentator closely paraphrases the contents of his verses and remains close to their co-textual meaning.
And yet, even in this case not every aspect of the interpretation sits well with the co-textual meaning of Hos 2:10–12. One deviation is the interpretation of the “lovers” in Hos 2:11–12 as a reference to foreign nations (“the peoples on which they have leaned”). In the scriptural co-text, the lovers in this verse stand most naturally for idols (cf. “Baal” in Hos 2:10) rather than foreign nations.62 The interpretation in the Pesher might reflect a particular historical experience of the movement to which the Pesher commentator belonged.63 But the reading of the Pesher may be informed by other passages in the book of Hosea as well. In Hos 5:13–15, for instance, Ephraim and Judah are portrayed as turning to Assyria for help after they discovered their miserable state. However, Assyria is unable to heal Ephraim or to remove Judah’s ulcer: as God is the reason for their sickness “there is no one to save” (Hos 5:14bβ; cf. Hos 2:12b). Similarly in Hos 8:9b–10, where Ephraim is rebuked for hiring “lovers” among the nations.64 Passages like these may have guided the Pesher commentator in his interpretation of “lovers” in Hos 2:12b as foreign nations rather than idols.65 The result is an interpretation of Hos 2:10–12 which remains generally close to the co-textual meaning of these verses, but in some details (and for reasons not entirely clear) contrasts with it.
5.1.3 Redefining the Co-text: Word Boundaries
Hebrew manuscripts from the Hellenistic and Roman periods, unlike their Greek counterparts, do not use scriptio continua. As a result, word boundaries in Hebrew manuscripts were usually clear. As has been illustrated in the preceding chapter, however, drawing word boundaries can be a hermeneutical procedure and imply an interpretation of a lemma.66 Several scholars have argued that the Pesharim employ the redefinition of word boundaries as an exegetical resource. This section is intended to counter their claim. To that end I discuss three passages that have been adduced as evidence for the redefinition of word boundaries in the Pesharim and explain why I find none of them convincing.
5.1.3.1 QpHab 3:6–13
The first example is this interpretation of Hab 1:8–9a:
וקול מנמרים סוסו וחדו מזאבי ערב פשו פרשו פרשו מרחוק יעופו כנשר חש לאכול כולו לחמס יבוא מגמת פניהם קדים פ[שר]ו על הכתיאים אשר ידושו את הארץ בסוס[יהם] ובבהמתם וממרחק יבואו מאיי הים לאכול [את] כול העמים כנשר ואין שבעה ובחמה יכ[מרו וב]חרן אף וזעף אפים ידברו עם כול [העמים כי]א הוא אשר אמר מגמ[ת פניהם קדים] “And its horses are swifter than panthers and keener than evening wolves. Its steeds spring about, its steeds fly from afar just as a vulture hasty to eat! All of it comes for violence, the stammer of their faces forward” (Hab 1:8–9a). Its in[terpretati]on concerns the Kittim, who trample the earth with [their] horses and with their beasts, and come from a distance, from the islands of the sea, to eat all [the] peoples like a vulture, but without satisfaction. And they gr[ow hot] with anger, and [with] angry fury and vexed faces they speak with all [the peoples, fo]r this is what he says: “The stammer of their faces forward” (Hab 1:9aβ).
1QpHab 3:6–13
Isaac Rabinowitz first observed that
The conviction that this division of words functions as an hermeneutical resource rests on two assumptions. Firstly, the commentator must have worked from an
What is more, there are two indications against attributing hermeneutical significance to the space between
5.1.3.2 1QpHab 8:3–13
A second case of alleged word-splitting is this interpretation of Hab 2:5–6:
ואף כיא הון יבגוד גבר יהיר ולוא ינוה אשר הרחיב כשאול נפשו והוא כמות לוא ישבע ויאספו אלו כול הגוים ויקבצו אלו כול העמים הלוא כולם משל עליו ישאו ומליצי חידות לו ויומרו הוי המרבה ולוא לו עד מתי יכביד עלו עבטט פשרו על הכוהן הרשע אשר נקרא על שם האמת בתחלת עומדו וכאשר משל בישראל רם לבו ויעזוב את אל ויבגוד בחוקים בעבור הון ויגזול ויקבוץ הון אנשי חמס אשר מרדו באל והון עמים לקח לוסיף עליו עון אשמה ודרכי ת[ו]עבות פעל בכול נדת טמאה “And surely, wealth shall make the haughty man act treacherously, but he shall not abide who opens his mouth like Sheol and like death is never satisfied. But all the nations shall gather against him, and all the peoples shall collect themselves to him. Will they not all raise a proverb against him and riddling songs mocking him? And they shall say: ‘Woe to him who increases, but has not. How long shall he load himself with debts?’ ” (Hab 2:5–6). Its interpretation concerns the Wicked Priest, who was called by the name of truth at the start of his standing. But as he ruled over Israel, his heart grew haughty and he deserted God and he acted treacherously against (his) statutes for the sake of wealth. And he robbed and amassed the wealth of the men of violence, who had rebelled against God, and he took the wealth of the peoples so as to add sinful guilt on him. And he behaved in rep[u]lsive ways, in all defiling impurity.
1QpHab 8:3–13
In William Brownlee’s view,
The secondary literature on this passage reflects a scholarly disagreement on the correspondence between lemma and interpretation. Brownlee argues that the clause “how long shall he load himself with debts?” in the lemma lies behind the clauses “so as to add sinful guilt on him” and “and he behaved in repulsive ways, in all defiling impurity” in the interpretation.77 Elliger holds that the clause “how long shall he load himself with debts?” in the lemma informs only the last clause (“and he behaved in repulsive ways, in all defiling impurity”) in the interpretation.78 And Nitzan connects the clause in the lemma with the clause “so as to add sinful guilt on him” in the interpretation, arguing that the clause “and he behaved in repulsive ways, in all defiling impurity” is a plus with no basis in the lemma.79 In my view, Elliger’s explanation makes most sense: the clause “woe to him who increases, but has not” appears to inspire the idea in the interpretation that the Wicked Priests amassed riches for himself. This idea finds expression in the clauses running from “and he robbed and amassed the wealth of the mean of violence” until “so as to add sinful guilt on them.” The final clause in the lemma then corresponds with the final clause in the interpretation.80
The question must be, therefore, whether the interpretation of
5.1.3.3 1QpHab 11:8–15
The third example is this interpretation of Hab 2:16:
שבעתה קלון מכבוד שתה גם אתה והרעל תסוב עליכה כוס ימין ה׳ וקיקלון על כבודכה פשרו על הכוהן אשר גבר קלונו מכבודו כיא לוא מל את עורלת לבו וילך בדרכי הרויה למען ספות הצמאה וכוס חמת [א]ל תבלענו לוסיף [ע]ל [כול ק]ל[ונ]ו ומכאוב “You are more glutted with disgrace than with glory! Drink, you, and stagger! The cup of the Lord’s right hand shall turn against you, and disgrace on your glory!” (Hab 2:16). Its interpretation concerns the priest whose disgrace is greater than his glory, for he did not circumcise the foreskin of his heart and went in ways of saturation to quench his thirst. But the cup of [Go]d’s wrath shall devour him to increase [all] his [d]isg[ra]ce and pain.
1QpHab 11:8–15
Due to the fragmentary state of the manuscript the reconstruction of the final part of this interpretation section is unclear. Brownlee holds that this interpretation of Hab 2:16 follows the order of the lemma and the final part of the interpretation should contain “an interpretation of the word qîqālôn which would have some sort of affinity with the following reference to ‘pain’ (makhʾôv).”84 He suggests that the commentator read
This reading of
5.1.4 Redefining the Co-text: Verse Divisions
The absence of word-splitting in the Pesharim does not mean that the Qumran commentaries refrained from redefining the co-text of their lemmata. Some interpretations in the Pesharim imply a redefinition of verse boundaries in their base text. The use of this resource is difficult to detect, as the establishment of verse boundaries is always an interpretative enterprise. What is more, if a system of smaller sense divisions was known at the time of writing of the Pesharim, it allowed for a great deal of variety.87 Nonetheless, the following two cases show clearly enough that the Pesher commentator may consciously redraw the verse boundaries as they are implied in the scriptural co-text of their lemmata.
It has been shown that 1QpHab 4:16–5:8 departs from the co-textually appropriate meaning of Hab 1:13 by not taking Hab 1:13aα (“eyes too pure to see evil”) and Hab 1:13aβ (“but you cannot observe sorrow”) as parallel half-verses.88 Instead, the commentator takes Hab 1:13aα as an apposition to the suffix in “you have established him” in Hab 1:12. This re-definition of the verse boundaries implied in the co-text of the lemma supports the commentator’s interpretation of the “him” in the lemma as the elect who are to pass judgement on all the nations.
A second example is the interpretation of Nah 3:1bγ–3 in 4Q169 3–4 ii 3–6.89 Within its scriptural co-text the words
5.2 Syntax
The Pesharim exploit the interpretative possibilities of the syntax of their base texts in different ways. To begin with, the Pesher commentator may redefine the syntax of their base texts. Moreover, the use of subjective or objective genitives and the occurrence of paratactic or asyndetic constructions offer fruitful triggers for interpretation.
5.2.1 Alternative Syntax
Two examples from Pesher Nahum illustrate how the Pesher commentators may alter the syntax of their lemmata. The first one is this interpretation of Nah 3:1a–bα:
הוי עיר הדמים כולה [כחש פר]ק מלאה פשרו היא עיר אפרים דורשי החלקות לאחרית הימים אשר בכחש ושקר[ים י]תהלכו “Woe, city of blood! Every one of her has filled her with [lies and untru]th” (Nah 3:1a–bα). Its interpretation: it is the city of Ephraim, of the Seekers of Smooth Things in the last days, who [w]alk in lies and untru[th.]
4Q169 3–4 ii 1–2
According to Tzoref, the reference to the Seekers of Smooth Things in the interpretation goes back to the mention of “city of blood” in the lemma; the verbal from
A second example also comes from Pesher Nahum:
גם היא בגולה ה[לכה בשבי גם] עילוליה ירוטשו בראש כל חוצות ועל נכבדיה יורו גורל וכול ג[דו]ל[יה רותקו] בזקים פשרו על מנשה לקץ האחרון אשר תשפל מלכותו ביש[ראל …] נשיו עילוליו וטפו ילכו בשבי גבוריו ונכבדיו בחרב [יובדו] “She, too, w[ent] into exile, [into captivity—also] her children. They are dashed in pieces on every street corner. And on her honoured ones they cast the lot, and all [her] n[ob]les [are bound] in chains” (Nah 3:10). Its interpretation concerns Manasseh in the final period, whose kingship over Is[rael] shall be weakened […] his women, his children, and his sucklings shall go into captivity. His warriors and his honoured ones [shall perish] by the sword.
4Q169 3–4 iv 1–4
The sentence “she, too, went into exile, into captivity—also her children. They are dashed in pieces on every street corner” is ambiguous. Its vocalisation in Codex Leningradensis suggests a division before “also her children.” For two reasons this seems to be the most natural reading of the sentence. Firstly, this reading neatly divides the sentence into two parts that each begin with “also.” Secondly, the words “child” and “to dash in pieces” occur together elsewhere,93 which suggests that they belong together also here. Our commentator, however, deviates from this co-textual meaning of the lemma: the comment that “his women, his children, and his sucklings shall go into captivity” shows that the Pesher commentator construed “also her children” with what precedes rather than what follows.94
5.2.2 Subjective and Objective Genitive
Subjective and objective genitives present notorious challenges for interpreters. This interpretation of Hab 2:4b illustrates how the Pesher exegetes dealt with them:
[וצדיק באמונתו יחיה] פשרו על כול עושי התורה בבית יהודה אשר יצילם אל מבית המשפט בעבור עמלם ואמנתם במורה הצדק [“And the righteous one shall give life through faith in him” (Hab 2:4b).] Its interpretation concerns all the doers of the Law in the House of Judah, whom God shall save from the House of Judgement on account of their toil and their faith in the Teacher of Righteousness.
1QpHab 7:17–8:3
The traditional reading of Hab 2:4b, both in
5.2.3 Temporal Sequence
Parallelism occurs frequently both in the base texts of the Pesharim and in their interpretation sections. This shows that the Pesher commentator were sensitive to the poetic quality of parallel words and word groups. Even so, our exegetes may neutralise parataxis or asyndesis in their base texts and take parallel constructions as expressions of a temporal sequence. A first example is this interpretation of Ps 37:11:
וענוים ירשו ארץ והתענגו על רוב שלום פשרו על עדת האביונים אשר יקבלו את מועד התענית ונצלו מכול פחי בליעל ואחר יתענגו [ב]כול […]י הארץ והתדשנו בכול תע[…] בשר “And the humble shall inherit the earth and they shall enjoy in abundant peace” (Ps 37:11). Its interpretation concerns the congregation of the poor, who shall accept the period of distress and shall be saved from all the snares of Belial. And afterwards they shall enjoy [a]ll […] of the earth and be fat with all […] of flesh.
4Q171 1–10 ii 9–12
In their scriptural co-text the two halves of Ps 37:11 are paratactic. Yet the Pesher commentator breaks down the parallelism in the lemma and has the two parts of Ps 37:11 point to a temporal sequence. The first part (“and the humble shall inherit the earth”) informs the idea that the congregation of the poor shall be saved from the snares of Belial. The second part governs the idea that the congregation of the poor shall enjoy the goods of the earth. Moreover, the temporal division the commentator draws between the two parts of Ps 37:11 is explicated by the adverb “afterwards.”
A similar case is this interpretation of Ps 37:14–15:
חרב פתחו רשעים וידרוכו קשתם לפיל עני ואביון לטבוח ישרי דרך חרבם תבוא בלבם וקשתותיהם תשברנה פשרו על רשעי אפרים ומנשה אשר יבקשו לשלוח יד בכוהן ובאנשי עצתו בעת המצרף הבאה עליהם ואל יפדם מידם ואחר כן ינתנו ביד עריצי גואים למשפט “The wicked unsheathe the sword and string their bows to bring down the humble and poor, to slaughter the upright of way. Their swords shall come to their hearts, and their bows shall be broken” (Ps 37:14–15). Its interpretation concerns the wicked of Ephraim and Manasseh who seek to lay hands on the priest and the men of his council in the time of testing coming upon them. But God shall deliver them from their hands. And after that they shall be given into the hands of the ruthless of the nations for judgement.
4Q171 1–10 ii 16–20
The bipartite structure of the base text, which relates the plans of the wicked and their obstruction, is paralleled in the interpretation section. The clause from “its interpretation concerns” until “coming upon them” corresponds with Ps 37:14 and relates the plans of the “wicked of Ephraim and Manasseh.” The clause “but God” until “for judgement” corresponds with Ps 37:15 and tells about the deliverance by God of “the priest and the men of his council.” Just as in Ps 37:11, however, the Pesher exegete neutralises the parallelism in his base text and reads the two halves of Ps 37:15 as indicating a temporal sequence. In his exposition he marks this temporal sequence by means of the adverbial phrase “and after that.”
5.3 Rendering Repetition
The understanding of parallel structures as indicating a temporal sequence is not the only way Pesher exegetes may deal with repetitions in their lemmata. Another procedure is to assign a different topic to each of the parts of a repetitive structure in the lemma. Two examples should suffice to illuminate the use of this resource. The first one is the interpretation of Hab 1:5:
[ראו בוגדים וה]בי[טו והתמהו תמהו כיא פעל פועל בימיכם לוא תאמינו כיא] יסופר [… פשר הדבר על] הבוגדים עם איש הכזב כי לוא [האמינו בדברי] מורה הצדקה מפיא אל ועל הבוג[דים בברית] החדשה כ[י]א לוא האמינו בברית אל [ויחללו] את ש[ם] קודשו וכן פשר הדבר [על הבו]גדים לאחרית הימים המה עריצ[י הבר]ית אשר לוא יאמינוא בשומעם את כול הבא[ות ע]ל הדור האחרון מפי הכוהן אשר נתן אל ב[לבו בינ]ה לפשור את כול דברי עבדיו הנביאים [אשר] בידם ספר אל את כול הבאות על עמו [“Look, traitors, behold, and be utterly astonished! For I am performing a deed in your days which you shall not believe, when] it is told” (Hab 1:5) [… The interpretation of the matter concerns] the traitors with the Man of the Lie, for they [have not believed the words] of the Teacher of Righteousness from the mouth of God. (It also) concerns the trai[tors within the] new [covenant,] f[o]r they have not believed God’s covenant [and have profaned] his holy na[me.] And thus, the interpretation of the matter [concerns the trai]tors in the latter days. They are the ruthle[ss ones of the cove]nant, who do not believe when they hear everything that is to co[me up]on the last generation from the mouth of the priest, in [whose heart] God has given [insig]ht to interpret all the words of his servants, the prophets, through [whom] God has told everything that is to come upon his people.
1QpHab 1:16–2:10
As I have indicated elsewhere, I consider this interpretation of Hab 1:5 to depend on the repetitive syntactic structure of the lemma.97 Assuming that the reference to the third group of traitors in 1QpHab 2:5–10 is an addition to Pesher Habakkuk, I hold that the initial reference to two groups of traitors is based on the two clauses “look … and behold” and “and be utterly astonished” in Hab 1:5. When 1QpHab 2:5–10 was added to Pesher Habakkuk, the hermeneutics of this passage changed. The reference to three groups of traitors came to reflect the three roots (
A second example is this interpretation of Ps 37:7:
[דו]ם ל[ה׳ ו]התחולל לו ואל תחר במצליח דרכו באיש [עוש]ה מזמות [פשר]ו על איש הכזב אשר התעה רבים באמרי שקר כיא בחרו בקלות ולוא שמ[עו] למליץ דעת למען יובדו בחרב וברעב ובדבר [“Be sile]nt for [the Lord. And] wait for him, but do not stay with him whose way is successful, the man [who hatch]es plots” (Ps 37:7). Its [interpretation] concerns the Man of the Lie, who has misdirected many with deceitful words, as they chose worthless things and did not lis[ten] to the Interpreter of Knowledge, so that they shall perish through the sword, through hunger, and through pestilence.
4Q171 1–10 i 25–ii 1
Almost all elements in this interpretation section are hermeneutically derived from the lemma. Moreover, the exposition exhibits a chiastic structure compared to the lemma. So, “the man who hatches plots” from the lemma is identified with the “Man of the Lie” in the interpretation. The notion of being successful is also applied to the “Man of the Lie,” as he is said to have “misdirected many with deceitful words.”98 The commentator seems to have derived
Two elements are absent from this survey of equivalents: the clause “and wait for him” in the lemma and the mention of “the Interpreter of Knowledge” in the interpretation. This suggests that these elements are also equivalent. Their hermeneutical connection depends on the suspension of parallelism in Ps 37:7. In its scriptural co-text, the clauses “be silent for the Lord” and “and wait for him” parallel one another. By neutralising this parallelism the Pesher commentator is able to take the first phrase as a command to trust in God (corresponding with the prediction of punishment in the interpretation), whereas the second phrase is an exhortation to stay faithful to the Interpreter of Knowledge, who now has become the referent of the suffix in
6 Single Words
The final category of resources that govern scriptural expositions in the Pesharim are those that concern the interpretation of single words. Whereas the resources themselves are similar to those used in the hypomnemata, their employment in the Pesharim tends to be part of larger and more intricate exegetical procedures than is the case in the hypomnemata.
6.1 Levels of Generality
The interpretation of Hab 2:4b in Pesher Habakkuk is a good example of semantic limitation. In its scriptural co-text, the verb
An example of the reverse procedure—semantic extension—comes from Pesher Nahum. In its interpretation of Nah 3:10,104 the Pesher commentator renders the reference to “her children” in the lemma with the expression “its women, its children, and its sucklings” in the interpretation. Tzoref describes the resource involved in this interpretation as ribbûy or “expansion” and suggests cautiously that the use of this resource was triggered by the particle “also” in the lemma.105 This particle governs semantic extensions in the rabbinic literature106 and seems to have done the same here. Hence, this interpretation of Nah 3:10 in Pesher Nahum implies a semantic extension of “her children” in the lemma to include women and sucklings.
6.2 Stressing the Unstressed
In the preceding chapter we have seen how the commentator in P.Oxy. 8.1086 portrays Homer as a teacher of military tactics by stressing the gender of a word in the lemma beyond its co-textual demands. A comparable case in the Pesharim is the interpretation of the term “righteous.” The Pesher commentators do not stress the gender, but the number of this term. This leads to interpretations that apply the term, which is often used in a broad sense in scriptural lemmata, to a single righteous individual: the Teacher of Righteousness.107
Another case where a Pesher commentator stresses the number of a word in the lemma beyond its co-textual demons is the interpretation of Ps 37:14aγ–b in Pesher Psalms A.
6.3 Synonymy and Polysemy
Interpretations in the Pesharim often make use of synonymous and polysemous meanings of words in their lemmata. Two examples will suffice to illustrate the workings of this resource. The first one comes from Pesher Isaiah A:
[וינקפו ס]ובכי [היער] בברל ולבנון באדיר [יפול המה ה]כתיאים אש[ר] יפ[לו ביד ישראל וענוי [יהודה ישפטו את] כול הגואים וגבורים יחתו ונמס ל[בם] … ולבנון בא[דיר יפול המה ה]כתיאים אשר ינת[נו] ביד גדולו […]ים בברחו מלפ[ני יש]ראל 108“[And the th]ickets [of the forest shall be struck away] with an axe, and the Lebanon [shall fall] by a mighty one” (Isa 10:34). [They are the] Kittim, wh[o] shall fa[ll] into the hands of Israel. And the humble ones of [Judah shall judge] all the peoples, and the mighty ones shall be dismayed and [their] hea[rt] shall melt…. “And the Lebanon [shall fall] by a mi[ghty one” (Isa 10:34b). They are the] Kittim, who shall be gi[ven] into the hands of his powerful ones […] at his flight be[fore Is]rael.
4Q161 8–10 iii 6–8, 11–13 (Allegro 8–10 2–4, 7–9)
There is no scholarly agreement on the co-textually most appropriate meaning of Isa 10:34b. On the one hand, references to “the tallest trunks” and “the loftiest” in Isa 10:33 may imply the meaning “grandeur” for
My second example of synonymy and polysemy is this interpretation of Nah 2:13a:
ארי טורף בדי גוריו ומחנק ללביותיו טרף [פשרו על דמיטרוס אשר עשה מלחמה] על כפיר החרון אשר יכה בגדוליו ואנשי עצתו “The lion tears its whelps [and] strangles its lionesses as prey” (Nah 2:13a). [Its interpretation concerns Demetrius, who has waged war against] the Lion of Wrath, who slays his nobles and the men of his council.
4Q169 3–4 i 4–6
The interpretation of this half-verse in Pesher Nahum depends on the exegetical potential of the prepositions
6.4 Figurative Reading
In addition to straightforward synonymous or polysemous meanings of words the Pesher commentators may offer figurative readings of elements in their lemmata. An illustrative case is this interpretation of Hab 1:10b:
והוא לכול מבצר ישחק ויצבור עפר וילכדהו פשרו על מושלי הכתיאים אשר יבזו על מבצרי העמים ובלעג ישחוקו עליהם ובעם רב יקיפום לתפושם ובאמה ופחד ינתנו בידם והרסום בעוון היושבים בהם “And he laughs at every fortress and he piles up dust to capture it” (Hab 1:10b). Its interpretation concerns the rulers of the Kittim, who despise the fortresses of the peoples and laugh at them with derision. And they surround them with a large army to capture them and with terror and dread they shall be given into their hand, and they shall tear them down because of the iniquity of their inhabitants.
1QpHab 4:3–9
The reference to piling up dust in the lemma informs the reference to a large army in the interpretation. In my view, the correspondences between the lemma and its interpretation are as follows:
Lemma
| “and he … at every fortress” |
“who despise the fortresses of the peoples” |
| “[he] laughs” |
“[they] laugh at them with derision” |
| “he piles up dust” |
“and they surround them with a large army to capture them” |
| “to capture it” |
“and with terror and dread they shall be given into their hand, and they shall tear them down because of the iniquity of their inhabitants” |
If these correspondences are correct, our exegete provides a figurative reading of the term “dust.” Whereas in its scriptural co-text this term describes the military tactics of the Chaldaeans,115 the Pesher commentator takes it as a reference to “a large army.”116 This metaphor is a traditional one: it occurs in the Targum to Hab 1:10 and in medieval exegesis117 and ultimately goes back to scriptural passages like Gen 3:19, where “dust” refers to Adam, and Gen 13:16; 28:14; Num 23:10, where “dust” points to a multitude of people. Moreover, the figurative reading in Pesher Habakkuk may have been supported either by the overlap of consonants (ʿayin and reš) between the words
A second case of figurative reading is this interpretation of Nah 3:8:
התיטיבי מני אמ[ון היושבה ב]יארים פשרו אמון הם מנשה והיארים הם גד[ו]לי מנשה נכבדי ה[עיר המחזק]ים את מ[נשה] מים סביב לה אשר חילה ים ומים חמותיה [פ]שרו הם אנשי [ח]ילה גבור[י מ]לחמתה “Are you better than Am[on, situated among] rivers?” (Nah 3:8aαβ). Its interpretation: “Amon”—they are Manasseh; and “the rivers”—they are the import[an]t ones of Manasseh, the noble ones of the [city that supp]ort Ma[nasseh.] “Water surrounds it whose strength is the sea, and water is its walls” (Nah. 3:8aβ–b). Its interpretation: they are the men of its [a]rmy, the warrio[rs of] its [w]ar.
4Q169 3–4 iii 8–11
This passage develops both the metaphor of a city as a group of people and that of a river as a group of people. The first interpretation takes the city Amon as referring to Manasseh and its rivers to “the important ones of Manasseh.”117 The metaphor of rivers as people continues in the second interpretation, as “men of” and “warriors of” are the equivalents of “water” in the lemma.119
These metaphors are not unique to this passage. Equations of cities with groups of people occur elsewhere in the Pesharim.120 In 4Q169 3–4 ii 1–6, the “city of blood” from Nah 3:1 is equated with “the city of Ephraim, of the Seekers of Smooth Things.” This image may point to the community of the Seekers of Smooth Things rather than an actual city, or to both. In 4Q169 3–4 iii 5–8, Nah 3:7aβ–b, which contain an explicit reference to Nineveh, are understood as referring to the Seekers of Smooth Things.121 In 1QpHab 10:5–13, the exegete applies the reference to building a city in Hab 2:12–13 to the Spouter of the Lie, accusing him of “building a useless city with blood and erecting a community with deceit.” The parallel between building a city and founding a community indicates that the same metaphor is at work here.122 Finally, the mention of a city in Hab 2:8b may have triggered the reference to the community of the Teacher in 1QpHab 9:8–12.123
The metaphorical identification of rivers with people also occurs in 4Q169 1–2 ii 3–5. Those lines deal with Nah 1:4a: “He rebukes the sea and dries it up, and all the rivers he parches dry.” The second part of this half-verse is applied to a group of people, as the reference to “their leaders” suggests.124 This group may have been the Kittim, whose leaders are referred to elsewhere in the Pesharim.125 The Kittim may be identified with “the sea” in the first part of this half-verse, too, despite the fact that the actual term
6.5 Form or Appearance
As we have seen in the hypomnemata, the form or appearance of individual words often serves as a trigger for interpretation. This is the case in the Pesharim, too, as the next examples aim to demonstrate.
6.5.1 Partial Overlap
Partial overlaps between different word forms frequently serve the Pesher commentators in their interpretations. A well-known example of this resource is this interpretation of Hab 1:11:
אז חלף רוח ויעבר וישם זה כוחו לאלוהו פשרו [ע]ל מושלי הכתיאים אשר בעצת בית אשמ[תם] יעבורו איש מלפני רעיהו מושלי[הם ז]ה אחר זה יבואו לשחית את הא[רץ] “Then he changes his mind and moves on and he whose strength is his god shall devastate” (Hab 1:11). Its interpretation [con]cerns the rulers of the Kittim, who, by the counsel of their guil[ty] house, move on, every man in the place of his fellow. Their rulers, one after another, shall come to destroy the ear[th.]
1QpHab 4:9–13
The form
The lemma divides naturally into two: the division is between
Scholars have argued that the expression “their guilty house” (
A second example concerns the interpretation of Ps 37:7 and 8–9a in 4Q171 1–10 i 25–ii 4. The
In addition to the roots suggested by Brooke I propose that the root
6.5.2 Anagram
A first example of anagram is the interpretation of Hab 2:16 in 1QpHab 11:8–15.137 The lemma reads
Brownlee identified another case of anagram in this interpretation of Hab 2:19–20:
הוי הו[י אומר] לעץ הקיצה ע[ורי] ל[א]בן דומם [הוא יורה הנה הוא תפוש זהב וכסף וכול רוח אין בקרבו וה׳ בהיכל קודשו] הס מלפניו כול הארץ140 פשרו על כול הגוים אשר עבדו את האבן ואת העץ וביום המשפט יכלה אל את כול עובדי העצבים ואת הרשעים מן הארץ “Woe, wo[e who says] to wood “awake!” (and) “ge[t up!”] to a dumb st[o]ne. [Does it instruct? See, it is covered with gold and silver, but there is no spirit at all in it! But the Lord is in his holy temple:] Hush for him, all the earth!” (Hab 2:19–20). Its interpretation concerns all the peoples who serve stone and wood. But on the day of judgement God shall destroy all who serve idols and all the wicked from the earth.
1QpHab 12:14–13:4
In Brownlee’s view, the reference to “the temple” (
Two puzzles arise in connection with this interpretation: (1) How did the expositor come around to the suggestion that Hab. 2:19–20 relates to the “Day of Judgment”? (2) How could a man so much interested in the temple and its priesthood pass over this reference to the temple without any comment? The solution to both of these puzzles is found in the observation that the interpreter took the word bhykl (“in the temple”) as an abbreviation … of B(ywm) H(mshpt) YKL(h)—“on the Day of Judgement He will destroy.” Every letter of the last Hebrew word except one appears to be drawn from the word “in-the-temple”; but reflection will show that even it is not an extra letter, for a mere shift in the letter order … will show that yklh (He will destroy) is itself derived from hykl (temple).141
Elliger challenged Brownlee’s explanation of the connection between
6.5.3 Similar Letters and Vocalisation
A simple interchange of graphically similar letters (kaf and bet) informs the interpretation of Isa 54:11bβ in Pesher Isaiah D:
ויסדתיך בספי[רים פשר הדבר אש]ר יסדו את עצת היחד [ה]כוהנים והע[ם …] עדת בחירו כאבן הספיר בתוך האבנים “And I shall establish you with sapphi[res” (Isa 54:11bβ). The interpretation of the matter: tha]t they have founded the council of the community, [the] priests and the peop[le …] the assembly of his chosen ones like a sapphire stone in the midst of stones.
4Q164 1 1–3
As a result of this interchange of graphically similar letters the commentator is able to render “with sapphires” in the lemma with “like a sapphire stone” in the interpretation. Another interchange of graphically similar letters occurs in this interpretation of Nah 3:7aβ–b:
ואמרו שודדה נינוה מי ינוד לה מאין אבקשה מנחמים לך פשרו [על] דורשי החלקות אשר תובד עצתם ונפרדה כנסתם ולא יוסיפו עוד לתעות [את ה]קהל ופת[אים] לא יחזקו עוד את עצתם “And they shall say: ‘Nineveh is ruined; who will mourn for her? Whence could I seek comforters for you?’ ” (Nah 3:7aβ–b). Its interpretation [concerns] the Seekers of Smooth Things whose counsel shall perish and whose society shall be disbanded, and they shall not continue to mislead [the] assembly and the simp[le ones] shall no longer hold fast to their counsel.
4Q169 3–4 iii 5–8
Brooke has suggested that “4QpNah 3–4 iii 6 … could just as well read śwrdh, ‘escaped, abandoned’ (pual) as šwddh.”144 By means of anagram this reading may have inspired the reference to the Seekers (
Interchanges between similar letters may involve phonetical similarities as well. A possible case in the Pesharim concerns the interpretation of Hab 2:2b in 1QpHab 7:3–5. Brownlee and Brooke have suggested that the reference to “mysteries” (
Finally, the vocalisation of words may play a role in their interpretation. Two examples of this procedure have been adduced already in earlier paragraphs. In 1QpHab 7:17–8:3, the Pesher commentator appears to have read
7 Conclusion
This hermeneutical profile has brought to light two main differences between the hypomnemata and the Qumran commentaries. In the first place, the interests of the Pesher exegetes are more narrow than those of the hypomnema commentators. Whereas the composers of the hypomnemata mine the Iliad for information on a wide variety of topics and aspects of human life, the Pesher commentators are interested only in the historical experiences of their movement and the connection of these experiences with Scripture. And whereas the hypomnemata foster the ideal of all-round Ἑλληνισµός, the Pesharim construe a historical memory for the movement in which they originated on the basis of their prophetic base texts. Both commentary traditions communicate a message to their readers, but the contents of these messages and the interests of the hypomnema and Pesher commentators differ notably.
A second difference is the preference for non-co-textual readings in the Pesharim. We have seen that both commentary traditions may neutralise or uphold the co-textual meaning of their lemmata as they see fit. Yet generally speaking, the Pesharim neutralise or redefine the co-text of their lemmata more frequently than the hypomnemata. The Qumran commentaries are also more eager than their Greek counterparts to explore the interpretative possibilities of the syntax or the parallel structure of their base texts. The hypomnemata, on the other hand, are keener than the Pesharim to explain inconsistencies in their base texts and to make sure the Iliad can be understood as a smooth composition.
Both differences reflect the different perspectives that the hypomnema and Pesher commentators impose on their base texts. It has been shown in this chapter that the two commentary traditions construe both the base text author and the gap that separates the commentator from the base text in different ways. For the hypomnema commentators the Iliad is a product of the pen of a conscious writer named Homer, who had methodically laid out the epic. As a consequence, lemmata from the Iliad are best understood within the co-text with which Homer provided them. Moreover, the hypomnemata approach Homer as a timeless source of wisdom touching on almost every aspect of human life.
The Pesharim lack this notion of a conscious author who systematically composed a literary work. As a consequence the Qumran commentaries are less bound to the co-textual meaning of their lemmata than the hypomnemata, and the Pesher commentators can neutralise of redefine the co-textual meanings of their lemmata more easily than the hypomnema commentators can. In addition, the comparatively narrow interest of the Pesharim in the historical experiences of the movement in which they originated is related to the connection between the base text author and the later exegete. Whilst the hypomnemata often suspend Homer’s belonging to the past, the Pesher commentators stress the position of the Teacher of Righteousness (and by implication the Pesher commentators themselves) in the latter days, in contrast to the ancient prophets, who belong to an earlier era. This temporal gap between the ancient prophets and the Teacher is the foundation of scriptural interpretation in the Pesharim: because the Teacher is living in the latter days, he acquires a full understanding of the words of the ancient prophets.
The hypomnemata and the Pesharim also exhibit similarities. Many resources, such as the use of technical terminology, analogical reasoning, and resources concerning the meaning or appearance of single words, occur in both commentary traditions. These resources seem to have been part of a common stock of hermeneutical approaches that was wide-spread in the ancient world and do not point automatically to connections between the two traditions discussed in this book. It is important, furthermore, to evaluate also these similarities against the background of the perspective the hypomnemata and the Pesharim impose on their base texts. Technical terminology in the hypomnemata, for instance, reflects the grammatical, literary, or text-critical interests of these Greek commentaries, whilst technical terminology in the Pesharim echoes the historical memory of the Pesher exegetes. Moreover, analogy in the hypomnemata depends on the assumption that Homer wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey, whereas the Pesharim employ analogical reasoning to apply two scriptural passages to the same event.
This demonstrates that the contacts between the scholarly communities that produced the hypomnemata and the Pesharim and the networks to which these groups belonged did not lead to the mere adoption of Greek practices, methods, and concepts of textual scholarship by the Pesher commentators. As the Qumran exegetes embraced, for instance, the commentary format, the use of sigla, or some hermeneutical resources as a result of the exchange of knowledge within scholarly networks in the Hellenistic and Roman worlds, they also adapted these elements to their own interests. Rather than straightforward Greek influences, therefore, the Pesharim reflect intricate processes of glocalisation.
John Barton, Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile, rev. ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 179–213.
Generally on attitudes towards prophets in the Dead Sea Scrolls see George J. Brooke, “Prophecy and Prophets in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Looking Backwards and Forwards,” in Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism, ed. Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak,
Annette Steudel, “
2:9; 7:5.
1QpHab 7:1–2. Shani L. Berrin (Tzoref), The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran: An Exegetical Study of 4Q169,
Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts, Exegetica 3/1 (The Hague: Van Keulen, 1959), 10.
Pesher Nahum, 13.
See Devorah Dimant, “Temps, Torah et Prophétie à Qoumrân,” in Le temps et les temps dans les littératures juives et chrétiennes au tournant de notre ère, ed. Christian Grappe and Jean-Claude Ingelaere, JSJSup 112 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 147–67; eadem, “Time, Torah and Prophecy at Qumran,” in Religiöse Philosophie und philosophische Religion der frühen Kaiserzeit: Literatur-geschichtliche Perspektiven, ed. Rainer Hirsch-Luipold, Herwig Görgemanns, and Michael von Albrecht,
Pesher Nahum, 16 (her italics).
Shani Tzoref, “Pesher and Periodization,”
1QpHab 7:5.
The following discussion is based on Jokiranta, Social Identity and Sectarianism, 166–73; Albert I. Baumgarten, “What Did the ‘Teacher’ Know? Owls and Roosters in the Qumran Barnyard,” in Keter Shem Tov: Essays on the Dead Sea Scrolls in Memory of Alan Crown, ed. Shani L. Tzoref and Ian Young,
Pace Steudel,
Similarly André Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran, trans. Geza Vermes (Cleveland, Ohio: Meridian, 1962), 262; Naphtali Wieder, The Judean Scrolls and Karaism (London: East and West Library, 1962); Daniel Patte, Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine,
1QpHab 7:13–14.
Similarly Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 171.
To be sure, this does not mean that the passage has a historical background. Cf. Philip R. Davies, Behind the Essenes: History and Ideology in the Dead Sea Scrolls,
Cf. Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “Temporal Shifts from Text to Interpretation: Concerning the Use of the Perfect and Imperfect in the Habakkuk Pesher (1QpHab),” in Qumran Studies: New Approaches, New Questions, ed. Michael T. Davis and Brent A. Strawn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 124–49 (145–46).
On the possibly metaphorical meaning of “city” see pp. 282–83.
Shani Berrin (Tzoref), “The Use of Secondary Biblical Sources in Pesher Nahum,”
On the Teacher as a prototype see Jutta Jokiranta, “The Prototypical Teacher in the Qumran Pesharim: A Social Identity Approach,” in Ancient Israel: The Old Testament in Its Social Context, ed. Philip F. Esler (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 254–63; eadem, Social Identity and Sectarianism, 175–77. On the Teacher as a focal point of identity see also George J. Brooke, “The ‘Apocalyptic’ Community, the Matrix of the Teacher and Rewriting Scripture,” in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism, ed. Mladen Popović, JSJSup 141 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 37–53.
So Timothy H. Lim, Pesharim,
“Pesharim, Qumran,” in
Davies, Behind the Essenes, 87–105; idem, “What History Can We Get from the Scrolls, and How?” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Texts and Context, ed. Charlotte Hempel,
The English terms are from Shani Berrin (Tzoref), “Qumran Pesharim,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran, ed. Matthias Henze,
Pesher Habakkuk, 41.
Pesher Habakkuk, 42.
See pp. 150–51.
See pp. 213–14.
As has been argued by John J. Collins, “Prophecy and History in the Pesharim,” in Authoritative Scriptures, 209–26; idem, “Historiography in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Scriptures and Sectarianism: Essays on the Dead Sea Scrolls,
Davies, Behind the Essenes, 87–105. For a discussion of Davies’s views see Collins, “Prophecy and History,” 220–22. On the type of historiography the Pesharim represent see George J. Brooke, “Types of Historiography in the Qumran Scrolls,” in Ancient and Modern Scriptural Historiography: L’historiographie biblique, ancienne et moderne, ed. idem and Thomas Römer,
E.g., in James H. Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 14–16.
Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985; repr. 1986), 444: “The essential hermeneutical issue rather arises for this traditum when later prophets regard its manifest content as having failed, and so as being in need of revision; or as having referred all along to the period in which they now flourish.”
So also Isaac Rabinowitz, “ ‘Pēsher/Pittārōn’: Its Biblical Meaning and its Significance in the Qumran Literature,” RevQ 8/30 (1973): 219–32 (231).
See pp. 158–59.
As Tzoref, “The Use of Secondary Biblical Sources,” 7–8 suggests.
In other instances such preferences could, of course, be expressed. Cf. Francesca Schironi, “Theory Into Practice: Aristotelian Principles in Aristarchean Philology,”
P.Oxy. 8.1086 3:26–29 (106–109).
This lack of interest in historical grammar may explain why the Homeric epics took pride of place in language teaching throughout much of Greek history. It seems that Homer’s language was of continuous relevance—not as a model to be repeated, but as an illustration of Ἑλληνισµός. See Filippomaria Pontani, “Ex Homero grammatica,” in Ancient Scholarship and Grammar: Archetypes, Concepts and Contexts, ed. Stephanos Matthaios, Franco Montanari, and Antonios Rengakos, TiCSup 8 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 87–103; idem, “ ‘Only God Knows the Correct Reading!’: The Role of Homer, the Quran and the Bible in the Rise of Philology and Grammar,” in Homer and the Bible in the Eyes of Ancient Interpreters, ed. Maren R. Niehoff,
On the implicit presentation of references to and quotations from other scriptural passages in the Pesharim see pp. 153–54, 158–60.
Cf. Isa 13:5 and Hab 1:8; Isa 13:17 and Hab 1:6; the use of
For the Kittim as a means of divine punishment cf. 1QpHab 2:10–13; 9:3–7.
Reconstructed according to
Zech 12:4 probably depends on Deut 28:28, and the Zechariah verse may be part of the same exegetical tradition as Pesher Hosea A. See Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 501; Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Zechariah 9–14,
Adam S. van der Woude, Zacharia,
On Jerusalem in the Pesharim see 4Q162 2:2–8; 4Q163 23 ii 3–13; perhaps also 4Q169 3–4 ii 1–2. Cf. also Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Jerusalem in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Qumran and Jerusalem: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Judaism,
Monica Brady, “Biblical Interpretation in the ‘Pseudo-Ezekiel’ Fragments (4Q383–391) from Cave Four,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran, 88–109; also Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, “Classifications of the Collection of Dead Sea Scrolls and the Case of Apocryphon of Jeremiah C,”
So Devorah Dimant,
See Daniel K. Falk, Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls,
Bilhah Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry,
Studien zum Habakuk-Kommentar vom Toten Meer,
Pesher Habakkuk, 54. Nitzan’s term
My approach towards “atomisation” resembles that of Armin Lange and Zlatko Pleše, who also understand the phenomenon as a well-defined resource (although they do not use that term) which is part of a larger hermeneutical movement. See “The Qumran Pesharim and the Derveni Papyrus: Transpositional Hermeneutics in Ancient Jewish and Ancient Greek Commentaries,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures, ed. Armin Lange et al., VTSup 140 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 895–922 (896–99).
Cf. the discussion in Jokiranta, Social Identity and Sectarianism, 155–58.
There has been some discussion on whether this form has to be taken as a singular or a plural. For an overview of the discussion see William H. Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk,
The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament,
The first option comes down to reading
The second option allows for the fluid state of the scriptural text in the period in which the scrolls were written and assumes that the reading does not originate with the Pesher exegete. For this view see Elliger, Studien, 136; William H. Brownlee, The Text of Habakkuk in the Ancient Commentary from Qumran,
So also Brownlee, The Text of Habakkuk, 29. Lim’s attempt to attribute the haphazard way in which the commentator would have altered his base text to “the atomizing mind-set with which the pesherist exegeted scripture” (Holy Scripture, 103–4) is ad hoc. Lim is right in pointing out the often unsystematic character of scribal revisions (“Eschatological Orientation,” 193; idem, Holy Scripture, 104, n. 14). But this observation can be interpreted in various ways and serve equally well—possibly even better—in support of those who assume a scribal error to be behind the reading in 1QpHab.
Cf. my critique of Lim’s suggestions about the use of variant readings in the Pesharim on pp. 154–58.
The term
So also Cornelis van Leeuwen, Hosea,
Many scholars apply these lines in Pesher Hosea A to the conflict between Aristobulus ii and Hyrcanus ii, culminating in the latter’s reappointment as high priest by the Romans in 63
Note that the binyan of
Cf. Vielhauer, Das Werden des Buches Hosea, 155.
Cf. the case of καιετοδ in Il. 21.356 (see pp. 226–27).
“The Second and Third Columns of the Habakkuk Interpretation-Scroll,”
So Elliger, Studien, 161.
So seemingly Maurya P. Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books,
William H. Brownlee, “Biblical Interpretation among the Sectaries of the Dead Sea Scrolls,”
For a full discussion see Brownlee, The Text of Habakkuk, 11–17.
Every word in Hab 1:9aβ exhibits its own difficulties.
So Rabinowitz, “The Second and Third Columns,” 36. Elliger builds on Rabinowitz’s suggestion and takes the form
“Biblical Interpretation,” 67; idem, The Text of Habakkuk, 58–59; idem, Midrash Pesher, 134, 142. Brownlee’s interpretation is followed by Michael A. Knibb, The Qumran Community,
On “cloud” and “mud” as symbols for sin see Isa 44:22; 57:20, both cited by Brownlee.
See Brownlee, The Text of Habakkuk, 58–59 for the evidence.
Midrash Pesher, 142.
Studien, 145–46.
Pesher Habakkuk, 178–79.
So also Knibb, The Qumran Community, 239.
Midrash Pesher, 134.
So also Lou H. Silberman, “Unriddling the Riddle: A Study in the Structure and Language of the Habakkuk Pesher (1QpHab),” RevQ 3/11 (1962): 323–64 (349); Jean Carmignac, É. Cothenet, and H. Lignée, Les textes de Qumran traduits et annoté (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1963), 108.
For “sinful guilt” see 1QS 5:15; 4Q512 15 i–16 1; 11Q19 35:8 (// 4Q524 1 3). For “defiling impurity” see 1QM 13:5; 4Q286 7 ii 4 (// 4Q287 6 4); 4Q381 69 2; 4Q512 1–6 9; 11Q19 45:10 (// 11Q20 12:4); 48:16, 17.
Midrash Pesher, 193.
Meinrad Stenzel, “Habakkuk ii 15–16,”
Midrash Pesher, 194.
Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Founds in the Judean Desert,
See pp. 257–60.
Cf. pp. 158–59, 243–45, 250–51.
The subject of “they shall stumble” in Nah 3:3b is the inhabitants of the city.
Pesher Nahum, 235–37.
See pp. 186–87.
2 Kgs 8:12; Isa 13:16; Hos 14:1.
So also Berrin (Tzoref), Pesher Nahum, 282; Gregory L. Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum: A Critical Edition, JSPSup 35,
See Pieter B. Hartog, “Re-Reading Habakkuk 2:4b: Lemma and Interpretation in 1QpHab vii 17–viii 3,” RevQ 26/101 (2013): 127–32.
See my “ ‘The Final Priests of Jerusalem’ and ‘The Mouth of the Priest’,” 66–68.
George J. Brooke, “The Biblical Texts in the Qumran Commentaries: Scribal Errors or Exegetical Variants?” in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee, ed. Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 85–100 (94) argues that the verbal form
Cf. this interpretation of a 3rd person singular pronominal suffix with that of
There has been much discussion on the interpretation of this verse. In my view, there is good reason to assume that Hab 2:4 does not just indicate the survival of the righteous whilst they await the fulfilment of the vision, but also that fulfilment itself, that is, their survival of the Chaldaean invasion. Cf. Wilhelm Rudolph, Micha—Nahum—Habakuk—Zephanja,
Cf. Thierry Legrand, “« Son interprétation concerne tous ceux qui pratiquent la Torah … »: Relecture et interprétation d’Habacuc 2,4 dans le Pesher d’Habacuc (1QpHab vii–viii) et le Targum d’Habacuc,” in « Le juste vivra de sa foi » (Habacuc 2,4), ed. Matthieu Arnold, Gilbert Dahan, and Annie Noblesse-Rocher,
So Rudolph, Micha—Nahum—Habakuk, 216; Andersen, Habakkuk, 215–16.
See August Strobel, Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzögerungsproblem: Auf Grund der spätjüdisch-urchristlichen Geschichte von Habakuk 2,2ff., NTSup 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1961); Stephen Hultgren, Habakkuk 2:4 in Early Judaism, in Hebrews, and in Paul, CahRB 77 (Paris: Gabalda, 2011).
4Q169 3–4 iv 1–4.
Pesher Nahum, 282.
See Moses Mielziner, Introduction to the Talmud, 5th ed. (New York: Bloch, 1968), 124–25, 182–85; Alexander Samely, Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture in the Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 238–41.
See 1QpHab 1:12–14 (probably); 5:8–12; possibly also 4Q171 1–10 iii 17–20. Most scholars assume that “righteous” in Hab 2:4b is interpreted as collectively referring to “all the doers of the Law in the House of Judah,” but see Hartog, “Re-Reading.” In 4Q171 1–10 ii 22–24, “righteous” in Ps 37:16 seems to be identified with
The reconstruction of these lines has been heavily contested. There is no need to rehearse all the debates here. The most important discussions are Horgan, Pesharim, 82–86; Moshe J. Bernstein, “Introductory Formulas for Citation and Re-Citation of Biblical Verses in the Qumran Pesharim: Observations on a Pesher Technique,” in Reading and Re-Reading Scripture at Qumran,
So
For
Similarly John M. Allegro,
The “mighty one” in Isa 10:34b is most naturally equated with “Israel” in the interpretation. After all, “Lebanon” in the lemma stands for the Kittim, and the interpretation holds Israel responsible for the destruction of the Kittim.
Metzenthin holds a different view and argues that the “mighty one” must be equated with the messianic figure referred to further down the same column in Pesher Isaiah A (4Q161 8–10 iii 15–29 [Allegro 8–10 11–24]) (Jesaja-Auslegung, 247). Such a messianic reading may tie in with the interpretation of (a part of) Isa 10:34–11:1 in 4Q285 5, which has often been linked to this Pesher (for instance by Bauckham, “The Messianic Interpretation of Isa. 10:34”). At the same time, there is no reason to assume a priori that both texts contain the exact same interpretation of these Isaianic verses, as Geza Vermes, “The Oxford Forum for Qumran Research Seminar of the Rule of War from Cave 4 (4Q285),”
There are two more specific problems with Metzenthin’s argument. First, his theological argument that Israel is a tool in God’s hand and does not itself execute the judgement on the Kittim does not mean that on a hermeneutical level “Israel” in the interpretation cannot be connected with “a mighty one” in the lemma. Second, his comment that “die Auslegung von Vers 34b in Zeile 12 vielmehr darauf [hinweist], dass unter dem Begriff
The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research, rev. 2d ed.,
See Berrin (Tzoref), Pesher Nahum, 145–46.
Wilhelm Nowack, Die kleine Propheten,
Similarly Brownlee, Midrash Pesher, 78; Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 44–45, 162.
See Robert P. Gordon, “The Targum to the Minor Prophets and the Dead Sea Texts: Textual and Exegetical Notes,” RevQ 8/31 (1974): 425–29.
According to Tzoref, “no inherent exegetical connection is obvious between Amon and Manasseh” (Pesher Nahum, 277, n. 35). However, the overlap of consonants between the word-forms
Berrin (Tzoref), Pesher Nahum, 279 agrees with the identification of “warriors of” with the second “water,” but identifies the first “water” with the personal pronoun “they.” This is also possible. The metaphor would be similar, however, as in this case, “men of” is to be identified with “sea.” Tzoref also points out that the metaphor is “extended from [the] previous unit.”
Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 45–46, who also refers to the related metaphorical understanding of “house” as referring to communities.
On this passage see Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 45; David Flusser, “Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes in Pesher Nahum,” in Judaism of the Second Temple Period, trans. Azzan Yadin, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 1:214–57 (238–39); Berrin (Tzoref), Pesher Nahum, 262–65.
Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 45. Cf. Flusser, “Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes,” 237.
The hermeneutics of this passage are not entirely clear. See Brownlee, Midrash Pesher, 153–57 for a discussion.
So also Berrin (Tzoref), Pesher Nahum, 77–78.
1QpHab 4:5, 10.
So also George J. Brooke, “The Kittim in the Qumran Pesharim,” in Images of Empire, ed. Loveday Alexander, JSOTSup 122 (Sheffield:
Cf. Brownlee, The Text of Habakkuk, 22–25.
Brownlee, Midrash Pesher, 81.
Brownlee, “Biblical Interpretation,” 64; idem, The Text of Habakkuk, 23–24; idem, Midrash Pesher, 82; Chaim Rabin, “Notes on the Habakkuk Scroll and the Zadokite Documents,”
Brownlee, The Text of Habakkuk, 22. See also Arie van der Kooij, “Textual Witnesses to the Hebrew Bible and the History of Reception: The Case of Habakkuk 1:11–12,” in Die Textfunde vom Toten Meer und der Text der Hebräischen Bibel, ed. Ulrich Dahmen, Armin Lange, and Hermann Lichtenberger (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2000), 91–108 (93–98).
Van der Kooij, “Textual Witnesses to the Hebrew Bible and the History of Reception,” 94–95 relates this interpretation section as a whole to the first part of the lemma, apparently assuming that the second part of Hab 1:11 is not interpreted in this passage. Note that Hab 1:11b is requoted in 1QpHab 4:13. Cf. Silberman, “Unriddling the Riddle,” 340–41. Yet, from 1QpHab 3:6–17 we may conclude that re-citations of parts of the lemma do not always concern passages that have not been interpreted before.
Elliger, Studien, 132–33 and Van der Kooij, “Textual Witnesses to the Hebrew Bible and the History of Reception,” 94–95 point out that
So Hartmut Stegemann, “Der Pešer Psalm 37 aus Höhle 4 von Qumran (4QpPs 37),” RevQ 4/14 (1964): 235–70 (247, n. 38); Dennis Pardee, “A Restudy of the Commentary on Psalm 37 from Qumran Cave 4 (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan, vol. v, no 171),” RevQ 8/30 (1973): 163–94 (190).
“The Biblical Texts in the Qumran Commentaries,” 95.
2 Sam 20:5 may have a Qal in the ketîb, but this is not certain.
The two main concerns are the vocalisation of the verb and the role of the preposition that accompanies it. The form
Cf. p. 155.
Andersen, Habakkuk, 250.
Similarly Knibb, The Qumran Community, 244. For a different alignment of the lemma and its interpretation see Brownlee, Midrash Pesher, 190–95; Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 47.
The comment that the teacher “went in ways of saturation to quench his thirst” exhibits influence from Deut 29:18, but the connection between the two passages probably does not amount to an actual allusion. Cf. 1QS 2:14 and see Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 61.
The manuscript reads
“Biblical Interpretation,” 70.
Brownlee later retracted his explanation of
Studien, 160, 224–25. See also Solomon Zeitlin, “The Hebrew Pogrom and the Hebrew Scrolls,”
So also Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran, 286–87.
“The Biblical Texts in the Qumran Commentaries,” 96.
The manuscript does appear to have daleth twice. See the photographs at http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-499045 and http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-499044 (last accessed 11 October, 2016).
See Brownlee, Midrash Pesher, 111; Brooke, “Qumran Pesher,” 497; idem, “The Biblical Texts in the Qumran Commentaries,” 94.
See pp. 271–72 and Hartog, “Re-Reading.”
See p. 270.