Biblical Interpretation at Qumran.

Davies, Philip R.

Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Edited by MATTHIAS HENZE. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, Mich.: WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING Co., 2005. Pp. xiii + 214. $25 (paper).

This very useful volume contains nine essays and an introduction. The treatment of themes and quality of the discussion varies, but overall a great deal of detailed information and analysis is provided. The essays by Michael Segal, "Between Bible and Rewritten Bible"; by Moshe Bernstein and Shlomo Koyfman on "The Interpretation of Biblical Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Forms and Methods"; and by Shani Berrin on "Qumran Pesharim" are essentially taxonomic; they also rely largely on the rabbinic literature for comparison. George Brooke's discussion of "Thematic Commentaries on Prophetic Scriptures," while identifying a number of common factors, underlines rather the variety of forms and techniques that are employed in the service of sectarian eschatological concerns, while Monica Brady, "Biblical Interpretation in the Pseudo-Ezekiel Fragments (4Q383-391) from Cave Four," suggests that the work they represent--which she sees as a single composition--combines the themes of sin, destruction, deportation and exile, implying a concern with the possibility of a future return from exile. Brady does not note this, but such a set of themes is clustered in the book of Daniel also, providing perhaps a useful contemporary parallel. Matthias Henze's article analyzes Psalm 91 and reviews its apotropaic use against demons in Qumran and other early postbiblical (and NT) writings. Peter Flint on "The Prophet David at Qumran" notes that this profile is not widely attested in the scrolls, appearing only in the Davidic Compositions included in the 11Q Psalm[s.sup.a] collection and in the three pesharim on Psalms.

The two remaining essays, James VanderKam, "Sinai Revisited," and John J. Collins, "Interpretation of the Creation of Humanity in the Dead Sea Scrolls," cover broader themes. VanderKam argues that the Qumran Community (the yahad) fashioned itself in the manner of Israel at Sinai, recognizing that other Jewish communities (he mentions the New Testament) were similarly shaped. This is fine as far as it goes, but beside the wide influence of Leviticus is that of Deuteronomy (not quite "Sinaitic" and oriented more towards Canaanite occupation) and of Numbers 1-10 in the War Scroll, suggesting that the Israel of the Torah as a whole represented an ideal--and one to which virtually all forms of ancient Judaism (but not the Enochic) aspired. What is then of interest is the specific manipulation of this identity in the interests of a sectarian ideology. Ezra and Nehemiah might be usefully compared.

Collins's contribution illustrates more completely the weaknesses of thinking "inside the box." He assumes that only in the early second century did there emerge a debate about the origin of sin that provoked a rereading of the early stories of Genesis. He allows that Ben Sira's statement about woman as the origin of sin (25:24) might not refer to Genesis 2-3, but reflect traditional Wisdom views of women as a source of temptation, and agrees that this author's view of the status of humanity differs from Genesis 2-4. But he is blind to the wider discrepancies between Genesis 2-3 and Ben Sira in respect of the glory of Adam and the prominence of Enoch. Both are supported by P and denied by J in Genesis 1-11. Similarly, he sees that the "Two Spirits" discourse interprets Genesis 1 in stating that God created humanity to rule the world, but contradicts Genesis 2-3 on the origin of sin. (His suggestion [p. 37] that we have in 4QInstruction a "clear allusion to Genesis 2-3" is also far too positive.) Segal's essay rightly stressed that "rewriting" is a process evident within the books of the Hebrew Bible themselves. A careful look at the relationship between the J and P texts in the early chapters of Genesis, the "Book of the Watchers," P as a whole, Ben Sira, the Adam literature, the Qumran texts, and the New Testament suggests that Genesis 2-4 had a marginal influence and may itself be part of the process of rewriting origin stories rather than simply furnishing a base text for later interpretation.

The Qumran texts should encourage us to think "outside the box." As some of the contributors note, we cannot accurately use the term "Bible" in discussing their exegetical activity. They do interpret a legal canon (i.e., the Torah), a prophetic canon (of less determinate scope), various Psalms, and possibly Proverbs--but also an Enochic canon. The phrase "Biblical Interpretation" can obscure as well as define. Can we assume that all the biblical texts (with Daniel a partial exception) are prior to, and independent of, the processes that generated the Qumran "interpretations" (which may be older than the manuscripts themselves)? Taxonomy is important, and analysis must precede synthesis, but in examining the interpretations of the Scrolls, we need to free ourselves of our own self-imposed taxonomies.

PHILIP R. DAVIES

UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD