The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus?

Davies, Philip R.

The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus? By JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH, with appendices by LIDIJA NOVAKOVIC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING CO., 2002. Pp. xiv + 171, illus. $28 (paper).

This volume is aimed, according to its preface, at specialists in Second Temple Judaism and in the New Testament, and is prompted by the publication of the Pesharim volume in the Princeton Dead Sea Scrolls Project. It has been "prepared so as to assist the scholar to avoid the fanciful suggestions about historical episodes mirrored in the commentary" (p. 3) and aims to show that there is consensus among major scholars about the historical value of the pesharim and the history that they in fact convey.

An introductory section, "The Hermeneutics of the Pesharim," introduces the mind-set of the writers of these texts. We are warned that "any historical data obtained from the pesharim will not present us with objective historical data" (p. 5), for the Qumranites wrote these works under the "overpowering influence of the Righteous Teacher" (p. 8) who was an "inspired interpreter" (p. 10). The "social consciousness and the self-understanding of the Qumranites were shaped by the study of Torah" (p. 14), and the biblical commentaries reflect "fulfillment hermeneutics" (p. 16).

The central part of the book (there are no chapters) opens with a synopsis of the history of the community, according to a consensus, or at least a degree. This consensus is as follows. The community originated "sometime between 200 and 150 B.C.E." (p. 25), and around 150 the Teacher led "a collection of priests and Levites from the Temple into the inhospitable wilderness." In a relatively lengthy account of the archaeology of Qumran, de Vaux's reconstruction is followed; Qumran was a "celibate monastery," and a number of alternative views (that it was a fortress, villa, trading post) are countered. The Qumran group is also said to come out of the Essene movement, but the important issue of whether the Teacher's founding of the Qumran community arose from disputes within the Essenes is given no discussion ("there is no consensus," p. 57).

We then turn to a section called "The Pesharim and Qumran History" and the kernel of the book's theme. Charlesworth opens with Cross's opinion that "the allusions in biblical commentaries can be utilized in reconstructing the history of the sect" (p. 70), for the following reasons: the sect was used to memorizing; it was priestly (and so was conservative); and it was largely cut off from outsiders, so its traditions would be "protected" (p. 71). But Charlesworth deems it "unwise to devise a set methodology" (his italics) for discerning the reliability of history in the pesharim (p. 72). He notes that the pesharim mention historical characters and utilize the thanksgiving hymns, which preserve "'historical and biographical' information about the Righteous Teacher." Conceding that the pesharim manuscripts seem all to be autographs, he points out that there is evidence of corrections on them and so "perhaps we should contemplate that some of them may be copies of works that go back to the time of the Righteous Teacher" (p. 79).

Then we are provided with a list of historical data supplied by the pesharim: the Teacher was authoritative, a priest, and was persecuted by a Wicked Priest who came to an evil end. This priest may have been originally Jonathan or Simon, but the title was possibly used of other later figures also. The reference in the Nahum pesher to the hanging of the "Seekers of Smooth Things" refers to the crucifixion of Pharisees by Alexander Jannaeus; the terms "Judah," "Ephraim," and "Manasseh" are discussed and their identities suggested. Mention of historical entities outside the sect (the Seleucid king Demetrius and the Romans) is alluded to and the dates of the manuscript are set at ca. 100-40 B.C. Attached is an index of biblical quotations in the pesharim and other commentaries by Lidija Novakovic.

How does the book measure up to its stated purpose? One is immediately struck by a content and style that wander between moderately technical and semi-popular. The book opens: "Over two thousand years ago, a group of highly trained scholars gathered west of the Dead Sea. They were the Sons of Zadok, King David's high priest and the one who placed the crown on Solomon. They knew they were special" (p. 1). Such dramatic but glib and certainly oversimplified observations punctuate the discussion. How informed or intelligent is the implied reader supposed to be? On the other hand, the book succeeds conspicuously in drawing attention to the Princeion project and to Charlesworth as a confidante of "experts." The experts who provide the book's "consensus" are largely those of the Project's editorial group (there is also a list of names on p. 23 for which no apparent purpose is given), who have shared their thoughts with Charlesworth. ("Many have confided in me" [p. 55] and "Cross confides in me" [p. 56]--in each case, imparting views long published and well known!) Does the book assist scholars in avoiding fanciful speculations? Apart from views about the function of Qumran (which are only marginally relevant to the issue), no such "speculations" are actually discussed. Eisenman and Thiering (two obvious sources) get one footnote each (p. 33 nn. 71, 73). Indeed, no alternative positions are ever explained or critiqued in detail. There are numerous passing references to opinions that Charlesworth decides not to take up; most often he simply declares he does not agree with them. There is no room for a discussion of the considerable literature on pesher technique; the huge debate about the background of the origins and early history of the sect is hardly hinted at. The archaeological reconstruction of Qumran's history by Jodi Magness is reduced to two isolated opinions; this reviewer's own analysis of the relationship of the Damascus Document (which actually mentions the Teacher), and the Community Rule (which does not) is ignored and an analysis of the use of the thanksgiving hymns by the pesharim is mentioned but dismissed. The crucial issue of the relationship between the "Wicked Priest" and the "Liar"/"Scoffer"/"Spouter" is ignored--as is the problem of why there are in the Qumran texts so many different sobriquets for the latter--if it is one person.

Along with these serious gaps there is a fundamental contradiction in the central thesis. Compare the following statements: "any historical data obtained from the pesharim will not present us with objective historical data" (p. 5); "The pesharim are reliable and essential witnesses to early Jewish history" (p. 22).

The non-specialist reader will, nevertheless, become familiar with views that are decades old and can be consulted more fully elsewhere, but will not meet with an argued and methodical approach to the major possibilities of interpretation. This reviewer found himself on many pages saying "yes, but what about ..." or "why does Charlesworth (or anybody) think that?"

To illustrate this rather negative estimation, there follow some examples of various defects. First, assertions made without any kind of argumentation: "There is every reason to conclude" (p. 12); "one can guess that" (p. 12); "there are no valid reasons to doubt" (pp. 17-18); "what I think is the consensus communis" (p. 18); "perhaps we should contemplate" (p. 79); "It is reasonable to conclude" (p. 49); "it seems relatively certain" (p. 49); and "there is no way we can discern the size of his group ... perhaps it numbered only 20 to 50 Zadokite priests and Levites" (p. 37). Numerous times an opinion is simply endorsed or dismissed ex cathedra: "[Magness] contends--I think correctly" (p. 51); "Magness has challenged the consensus, but I think ..." (p. 52); "I differ with Strugnell" (p. 37 n. 96); "I am convinced that" (p. 65); "Most experts conclude, and rightly so" (p. 65).

There are also errors of fact: "No texts have survived that clarify how the Qumranites were affected by [the Teacher's] death" (p. 40, but see CD 20); "Pesher Psalm (a) is the only text that calls the Righteous Teacher 'the Priest' ..." (p. 88, but see IQpHab 2:8). Or "This pesher (IQpHab) indeed clarifies that he did indeed go to Qumran" (no pesher mentions Qumran; "house(?) of exile" is the phrase that occurs in this text). Egregious argumentation can also be found. Apart from the case mentioned above in support of the reliability of pesher traditions in a conservative, closed priestly sect, we are told that Alexander Jannaeus' crucifixion of Pharisees was "so horrible, especially near the time of its occurrence, that the following account [in 4QpNah], most likely, was written soon after the event" (p. 99).

There is, nevertheless, much that one can agree about in the book, and in particular the following: "I do want to stress that it is not a consensus of leading scholars that makes a historical judgment valid. It is the knowledge, relevant data amassed, wise insight, precise methodology, careful exegesis of all relevant passages, and solid argumentation that make a position sound" (p. 21). If only Charlesworth had been able to follow his own advice, forgotten the "consensus" and had given us the rest.

PHILIP R. DAVIES

UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD