The Pesharim
(Summary of a lecture by J. R. Davila on 22 February 2005)
Please note: this lecture assumes that you have already read the Pesharim in translation as well as the assigned articles either from the EDSS or the ABD. Complete information on short references to other scholarly works in this lecture can be found in the annotated bibliography.
INTRODUCTION
The Hebrew term pesher (r#p) is found only in the Qumran sectarian literature in the sense of an esoteric and eschatological interpretation of a scriptural passage. In the book of Daniel, the same word in Aramaic (again, r#p) is used of the divinely inspired interpretation of a dream or a revealed text (e.g., Dan 5:25; 7:16). Pesher exegesis is related in some ways to inner-biblical exegesis, the exegesis of the Hebrew Bible in the New Testament, and later rabbinic Midrash, but it is not identical to any of them. Detailed discussion of similarities and differences between them is outside the scope of this lecture, but will be taken up to some degree later in the semester in a student paper on scriptural exegesis in the Scrolls. The Pesharim are Qumran sectarian biblical commentaries whose exegesis is based on inspired eschatological interpretation of the biblical text. The premise is that the prophets wrote about the present time of the exegete, a time assumed to be just before the eschaton, and that only divinely-granted insight can show the exegete the true meaning of the scriptures.
Numerous copies of works in this genre survive from the Qumran library, along with others employing inspired exegesis with the same premises. There are Pesharim to Genesis, Isaiah, many of the minor prophets, and the Psalms. The best preserved and therefore most useful are the Pesherim to Habakkuk, Nahum, and Psalms. There are also thematic Pesharim like 4QFlorilegium and 11QMelchizedek; thematic works of exegesis such as 4QTestimonia, 4QCatenaa-b; and occasional uses of the pesher technique in other genres (e.g., CD A 4.14).
SECTARIAN TEXTS?
Are the Pesharim and related exegetical texts sectarian works? The Pesharim are linked together by set phrases that introduce exegetical comments, in particular, "its interpretation is" (wr#p); and "the interpretation of the word is" ( rbdh r#p). The former also appears in the Damascus Document. There is a very convoluted relationship of terminology between the Pesharim and exegetical works on the one hand and the Damascus Document, the Community Rule, and the War Rule on the other, which I would categorize along the following lines.
4QCatenaa shares the most terminology with the three Rules. (Note that 4QCatenaa may be the same work as 4QFlor, as argued by Annette Steudel in her 1992 article). In 4QCatenaa we find the terms "men of the Yah9ad" (also in 4QpGena) shared with the Community Rule only; "the Interpreter of the Torah" (also in 4QFlor) shared with the Damascus Document only; "the lot of light" shared with the War Rule only"; "Yah9ad," shared with the Community Rule and perhaps the Damascus Rule; "men of the lot of Belial" and "the dominion of Belial," both shared with the Community Rule and the War Rule; "sons of light" (also in 4QFlor), "Belial" (also in 4QpGenb; 4QpPsalmsa; 4QFlor; 4QTest; 11QMelch), and "lot" as destiny (also in 4QFlor; 11QMelch) shared with all three Rules.
Otherwise, the Pesharim and exegetical works have a scattering of technical terms shared with the Rules, with the largest number shared with the Damascus Document. The phrase "the council of the Yah9ad" is shared with the Community Rule alone (1QpHab; 4QpIsad; 4QpMica; 4QFlor). The phrases "Teacher of Righteousness" (4QpMica; 1QpHab; 4QpPsalmsa-b); "seekers of smooth things/easy interpretations" (4QpIsac; 4QpNah; also 4QCatenaa); "new [covenant?]" (1QpHab); and Man of the Lie" (1QpHab; 4QpPsalmsa) are shared with the Damascus Document alone. And the term "Kittim" (1QpHab; 4QpIsaa; 4QpNah) is shared only with the War Rule.
A few other terms in the exegetical works are reminiscent of terms in the Rules, but not identical: "the congregation of the Yah9ad" (4QpPsalmsa); "sons of Belial" (4QFlor); and "the Dripper of the Lie" (1QpHab; 4QMica; cf. CD A 1.14-15). And, of course, the "Wicked Priest" is found in 1QpHab and 4QpPsalmsa, but never in the Rules.
This comparison of terms has important implications. There is a network of shared, strikingly unusual terms between the exegetical works and the Rules, such as permutations of the word "Yah9ad," the "Man of the Lie," the "Interpreter of the Torah," and "Kittim," along with other, more generic terms like "sons of light," Belial," and "lot." This network is evidence for a core of sectarian terminology and theology shared by the various sectarian texts, despite their undeniable differences. The case is strongest for the Pesharim and exegetical works, the Damascus Rule, and the Community Rule, and although less so, it is not inconsiderable for the War Rule.
The whole question of the sectarian texts is obviously more complicated than can be addressed in these lectures. I have not tackled the intertextual relationship of the works I've considered, apart from technical terms, nor have I even surveyed the terminology of all the sectarian texts. For example, 4QBerakhot is a sectarian work that has overlapping material with both the Community Rule and the Damascus Document and it, as well as other documents, would need to be studied in detail to get a full picture.
HISTORICAL ALLUSIONS IN THE PESHARIM
Various attempts have been made to decipher the cryptic references in the Pesharim, and on that basis to reconstruct some of the history of the origins of the sectarian group. I summarize two such attempts here, which are generally accepted to be particularly well argued (although neither is without problems), along with a third theory that remains highly controversial. There are others but time does not permit a comprehensive survey.
(1) First, there is what one might call the standard interpretation, the one developed as part of the Essene hypothesis and still widely accepted today. One can find detailed expositions and defences of slightly variant versions of this interpretation in Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran and Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective. The Habakkuk Pesher has much to say about the Teacher of Righteousness and his archenemy, the Wicked Priest. The Teacher of Righteousness was an inspired interpreter of scripture (7.4-5) who was persecuted with his followers (who are identified with the council of the Yah9ad in 12.3-5) by the Wicked Priest (11.2-8; 12.2-3). Apparently the group approved of the early career of the Wicked Priest (8.8-9) but they believed that he became corrupt and defiled the sanctuary in Jerusalem (8.9-13; 12.7-10) and 1QpHab reports that he died a terrible death at the hands of his enemies (9.9-12; 11:12-15; 12:1-6). This work also refers to the Man of the Lie (2.1; 5.11) and the Dripper of the Lie (10.9), both of whom tend to be identified by scholars with the Wicked Priest (although in my view this harmonistic approach is methodologically problematic). The Kittim (the term being used as a code-word for the Romans) also figure prominently in 1QpHab. In addition 4QpPsalmsa may say that the Teacher of Righteousness was a priest (3.15-16), although this reading requires a restoration that is by no means certain. It also adds that the Wicked Priest was delivered "into the hands of terrifying nations" (4.9-10) and it mentions the Man of the Lie in 1.26 and 4.14, 18.
This evidence is then combined with the (problematic, as was indicated last week) chronological notices in the Damascus Document, and the suggestion is that the career of the Teacher of Righteousness is to be associated with events following the Maccabean Revolt. Two possible identifications of the Wicked Priest have been proposed, both of them "Maccabees," that is, brothers of Judah the "Maccabee" ("Hammer"), the leader of the Maccabean Revolt. Both also became high priests in Jerusalem. Vermes argues that Jonathan should be identified with the Wicked Priest, since he was captured and executed by Tryphon, a Syrian contender for leadership of the Seleucid empire, and thus corresponding to the "terrifying nations" of 4QpPsalmsa. But Simon was murdered by Ptolemy, who was the governor of the plain of Jericho and his son-in-law. Nevertheless, Cross argues for Simon as the Wicked Priest. Ptolemy, who seems to have been an Idumaean (although presumably an at least imperfectly Judaized one), lured Simon and his two sons to a party in Jericho, got them drunk, and killed them (1 Mac 16:11-17). Cross thinks that the details of their murder are alluded to in 1QpHab 11.2-4, which seems to tie the death of the Wicked Priest to drunkenness, and 4QTestimonia (4Q175) 21-30, which describes the similar death of an "accursed man of Belial" as a fulfilment of the biblical Joshua's prophetic curse of the rebuilder of Jericho (Josh 6:26-27).
According to this theory, the Teacher of Righteousness was a Zadokite priest, and perhaps even the legitimate high priest. Some passages in the Pesharim, including 1QpHab 2.7-8 and 4QpPsalmsa 3.15-16, can be interpreted to indicate that he was a priest, although breaks in the text prevent this from being a certainty. If he was the legitimate high priest, presumably he was deposed when Jonathan and then Simon (both of whom were priests, but not of the high-priestly line) usurped the high priesthood between 152 and 140 BCE. No high priest is recorded between 159 (when Alcimus died) and 152, and it is possible that the Teacher of Righteousness held or should have held the post during that period. If so, the break between the Qumran sect and the Jerusalem Temple may well have been over the issue of the legitimate high priesthood.
(2) The "Groningen Hypothesis," that is, an hypothesis developed by scholars at the University of Groningen in Holland, is represented in the bibliography by publications of van der Woude and García Martínez (and challenged and developed by Lim in his 1993 and 2000 articles). The Groningen hypothesis accepts the main tenets of the Essene hypothesis but takes the Qumran group to be a breakaway sect of Essenes. In other words, the Essene movement originated before the Maccabean revolt but the rise of the Qumran sect came after it. The code phrase "Wicked Priest" is a title for not just one, but a series of six high priests: Judah the Maccabee, Alcimus, Jonathan, Simon, John Hyrcanus, and Alexander Jannaeus, who are differentiated in the Habbakuk Pesher by relative clauses following the title. This work may have been written in the time of the sixth and last, and the Teacher of Righteousness was persecuted by the third, fourth, and fifth. The Qumran community was only founded at the site of Qumran in the time of John Hyrcanus (134-104 BCE), who is the high priest who persecuted the Teacher of Righteousness at "the house of his exile" (1QpHab 11.6). This dating fits the archaeological evidence better than the standard theory. I note in passing that van der Woude touches briefly on a rather significant question but never follows it up. If he is right about the Wicked Priest being a title for a series of functionaries, how do we know that the title Teacher of Righteousness, let alone the various mentions of "teachers" in the Qumran sectarian texts, always refers to a single person?
(3) Gregory Doudna has argued in recent years that the deposit of the Dead Sea Scrolls into the caves has been misdated by more than a century. He believes that the Scrolls were hidden in the first century BCE (either in 63 or 40) rather than in 68 CE during the Great Revolt. He argues that datable historical allusions and references to specific people in the Scrolls stop in the mid-first century BCE; the archaeology of the site of Qumran confirms this - i.e., that Qumran Period Ib ended around the same time and that any later occupation of the site had no relation to the occupants before the mid-first century BCE; and that the paleographic and radiocarbon-dating evidence of the Scrolls is compatible with this theory. Aside from the works of Doudna cited in the bibliography, you can read an essay version of his theory in "Redating the Dead Sea Scroll Deposits at Qumran: the Legacy of an Error in Archaeological Interpretation" on the Bible and Interpretation website. His hypothesis challenges some very basic elements of our generally accepted understanding of the Dead Sea Scrolls and their historical context and we will not have time for a detailed treatment of it this semester. I confess myself very sceptical of it, but ultimately its validity will have to be decided in the realm of peer-review journals and scholarly monographs. Some online reviews of his recent monograph, 4QPesher Nahum: A Critical Edition, are by Rob Kugler, Kenneth Atkinson, and my doctoral student Ian Werrett. In addition Ian Young's article "The Stabilzation of the Biblical Text in the Light of Qumran and Masada: A Challenge for Conventional Qumran Chronology?" in Dead Sea Discoveries 9 (2002) argues in favour of Doudna's theory on the basis of the nature of the Qumran biblical texts (paid subscription required to access - sorry).
Finally, a word of caution about the whole enterprise of interpreting the Pesharim and other sectarian exegetical texs. Philip Davies has pointed out that the generally accepted paleographic dates of the manuscripts of the Pesharim place them many decades, perhaps even a century, after the events they are taken to describe. How much of this is really historical recollection and how much legend? Davies and George Brooke argue that references to the Teacher of Righteousness in the Pesharim are based on a biographic reading of passages in the Qumran Hymns Scroll, not actual historical traditions. When we take into account the scepticism of many historical Jesus scholars toward recovering historical traditions about Jesus in documents written forty to eighty years after the crucifixion, perhaps any historical interpretation of the Pesharim needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
(c) 2005
Reproduction beyond fair use only on permission of the author.