The comparison of two commentary traditions from the Hellenistic-Roman period in the preceding chapters has yielded both similarities and differences. These invite two related conclusions. First, the hypomnemata on the Iliad and the Qumran Pesharim are at home in similar settings. Both commentary traditions reflect the activities of scholars and intellectuals engaged in the systematic and meticulous scrutiny of their literary heritage. Second, the similarities and differences between these traditions point to the workings of intellectual networks across Hellenistic and Roman Egypt and Palestine. These intellectual networks constituted a globalised context for the exchange of knowledge. The Pesharim demonstrate that the Pesher exegetes were familiar with Alexandrian textual scholarship and appropriated it to their own ends. The Qumran commentaries can be understood as glocal phenomena that intricately combine global practices (the production of systematic commentaries) with local aims and interests (the development of a narrative historical memory for the movement to which the Pesher commentators belonged).
The scholarly background of the hypomnemata and the Pesharim is evident from their bifold structure. The lemma-interpretation distinction that permeates these commentaries and is physically expressed through the use of sense dividers defines the hypomnemata and the Pesharim as systematic interpretations of their base texts. Moreover, the scholarly ambitions of the hypomnema and Pesher commentators come to the fore in their use of marginal signs; their references to Homeric or scriptural passages, other authors, literary traditions, or fellow interpreters; their references of multiple interpretations; and their use of a wide variety of exegetical resources and interpretative strategies.
The scholarly setting of the hypomnemata and the Pesharim finds further confirmation in the handwriting of their manuscripts and the fluid nature of the commentaries themselves. Chapters 3 and 4 have shown that many commentaries were written by scholars, either for personal or for classroom use. Some hypomnema or Pesher manuscripts (e.g., P.Oxy. 2.221v or 1QpHab) may even be the product of a scholar and a student working together. The fluid character of the hypomnemata and the Pesharim is most evident in P.Oxy. 8.1086 and Pesher Habakkuk. The first commentary is a compilation of Aristarchaean interpretations of Il. 2. These interpretations were drawn from other sources. with which they are sometimes at variance (e.g., Schol. A). Accumulations of interpretative material occur also in the Pesharim: 1QpHab 2:5–10 is a later addition to Pesher Habakkuk; interlinear additions in 4Q163, 4Q169, and 4Q171 seem to point to the accrual of information in Pesher Isaiah C, Pesher Nahum, and Pesher Psalms A; and the use of demonstrative pronouns to introduce some interpretation sections may reflect the use of sources in the Qumran commentaries. Hence, the Pesharim and the hypomnemata are the product of a similar kind of scholarly activity and they are at home in similar scholarly and intellectual communities.
Yet to say that the hypomnemata and the Pesharim are scholarly writings is not to suggest that all hypomnemata and Pesharim fulfil the same purpose. Nor does it imply that these two scholarly traditions are uniform. Some hypomnemata were presumably used for teaching purposes (P.Oxy. 8.1086), others served the personal needs of scholars (P.Oxy. 2.221v), or functioned as scholarly master copies (
The hypomnemata and the Pesharim may reflect the same type of activity, but they do not present the same type of scholarly tradition. It has been pointed out in chapter 6 that many hypomnemata reflect a type of scholarship that appreciates disagreement and debate. P.Oxy. 2.221v is a striking example. The Pesharim, in contrast, reflect a type of scholarship that centres on the voice of one privileged commentator: the Teacher of Righteousness. The portrayal of the Teacher in the Pesharim results from the Pesher commentators, who accrue his authority for themselves and so present their interpretations as uniquely valid. A second difference between the hypomnemata and the Pesharim came to light in chapters 9 and 10: whereas the hypomnemata favour co-textual readings of their lemmata and exhibit a particular interest in smoothing out inconsistencies in the Iliad, the Pesharim contain more non-co-textual readings of their base texts and are more prone than their Greek counterparts to explore the interpretative possibilities of their lemmata.
These differences reflect the various perspectives the hypomnema and the Pesher commentators impose on their base texts. The hypomnema exegetes conceive of Homer as a single, conscious author, who meticulously composed his epics. Thus by studying the literary and co-textual features of the Iliad they will be able to recover Homer’s original words and intentions. This is important, as Homer was also considered a teacher: his works contain knowledge on almost every aspect of life and a good acquaintance with Homer was the basis for Greek culture and identity (Ἑλληνισµός). The interests of the Pesharim are narrower and focus on the historical memory of the movement to which the Pesher exegetes belonged and its connection to Scripture. In their view, the ancient prophets were divinely inspired to say and write the things they wrote and said. The Teacher of Righteousness partook of the same divine inspiration, but, living in the latter days, obtained a fuller insight in the whole of history and the position of his movement within it. The Teacher’s interpretations are alleged to reflect his superior insight, and the Pesher commentators claim themselves to be continuing the tradition the Teacher initiated. Thus there is no room for debate in the Pesharim: only the divinely sanctioned interpretations of the Teacher and his followers can be true; all others must be condemned.
The similarities and differences between the hypomnemata and the Pesharim illustrate the processes of glocalisation that brought about the Qumran commentaries. Such processes depended on the presence and workings of intellectual networks throughout the Hellenistic and Roman worlds. These networks connected Egypt and Palestine with one another. Literary references to networks of intellectuals in both localities occur in the Letter of Aristeas, the colophon to Greek Esther, the prologue to Greek Sirach, and the works of Philo and Josephus. As Jews in Egypt were closely acquainted with Alexandrian textual scholarship and travelled to Palestine, they probably constituted an important channel through which knowledge of Alexandrian scholarship reached Jews in Palestine. Members of the movement in which the Pesharim originated appear to have obtained some familiarity with the forms and methodology of Alexandrian textual scholarship. Hence they adopted the systematic commentary format from the scholars in the Alexandrian Museum and Library who had first developed it.
The existence of contacts between the Pesher commentators and scholarly communities closely familiar with Alexandrian textual scholarship is supported by the macro-structural similarity between the hypomnemata and the Pesharim. As has been pointed out, exegetical works that distinguish explicitly between lemmata and their interpretations are relatively rare in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Yet Alexandrian scholars, in the wake of Aristarchus, promoted this type of scholarly literature. From Alexandria the commentary format spread to Hellenistic-Roman Palestine. Some physical features of the Pesher manuscripts, such as the use of marginal signs in 4Q163, lend further support to this scenario.
The reasons for the Pesher commentators to adopt this form of exegetical literature may reflect their interest in the historical experience of the movement to which they belonged. Chapters 7 and 10 have shown that the Pesharim provide their readers with a narrative interpretation of their base texts, in which Scripture is explained in light of the historical memory of the movement and vice versa. The systematic, running form of Alexandrian commentary writing may have appealed to the Pesher commentators for the opportunities it offered to align Scripture neatly with this historical memory. At the same time, the prominence of the Alexandrian Library and Museum in the Hellenistic and Roman periods may also have triggered the adoption of this form of Alexandrian scholarly literature by the Pesher exegetes. As they presented their interpretations in a way echoing those of their Alexandrian counterparts, the Pesher commentators appropriated the authority and appeal of the Alexandrian Library and Museum for themselves.
The hermeneutical profiles of the hypomnemata and the Pesharim in chapters 9 and 10 have brought out differences between the two commentary traditions, which are related to the perspective they impose on their base texts. However, the hermeneutical comparison has also demonstrated that many exegetical resources occur both in the hypomnemata and the Pesharim. These parallels confirm the connection between the two traditions and the workings of intellectual networks throughout the Hellenistic and Roman worlds. At the same time, resources similar to the ones used in the hypomnemata and the Pesharim are common throughout the ancient world and do not point to an exclusive relationship between the two commentary traditions treated in this book. Rather, they demonstrate that both the hypomnemata and the Pesharim were part of broader intellectual traditions that include interpretations of written texts and other sources in Mesopotamia and Egypt.
To sum up: the Pesharim and the hypomnemata are the result of similar kinds of scholarly engagements with a base text. At the same time, they embody different scholarly traditions. This shows that the Pesharim not only adopted, but also adapted the forms and assumptions of Alexandrian scholarly literature. From that perspective the Pesharim are yet another illustration of glocalisation in the Hellenistic and Roman periods: in the Pesharim, global intellectual conventions are adopted on a local level, where they serve local purposes. The movement in which the Pesharim originated was not sealed off from the world that surrounded it. On the contrary, the Pesher commentators were part of intellectual networks that included Jews and non-Jews in Egypt and enabled knowledge of Alexandrian textual scholarship to reach Jewish intellectuals in Hellenistic-Roman Palestine.