The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The ... - josephprestonkirk

HAROLD W. ATTRIDGE 229
this paper can hardly do justice to the variety of methods and stances
toward the sacred text in evidence in both. Yet there are characteristic
tendencies indicating significant differences between the exegetical world
of Qumran and that of Hebrews.
The most distinctive aspect of the interpretation of Scripture in the
scrolls is the eschatological interpretation of the pesharim, which treat
Scripture as a riddle to be solved. Texts are prophetic, each with a meaning
or pesher, which consists of a referent in the historical experience of
the community to which the text refers. 101
The author of Hebrews knows that biblical texts and the institutions
described in them can foreshadow things to come (10:1). Yet the voice of
Scripture speaks to the present of its hearers in a variety of ways (1:1;
4:11). Hebrews generally tends to be more subtle and more flexible than
the pesharim. The homilist probes texts in various ways, exploiting syntactical
ambiguity (2:8–9), using analytical techniques akin to the rabbinic
gezerah shawah (4:4–10) to achieve a hortatory application (in 4:11)
of a Psalm (95:11), and investigating etymology (Heb 7:2) and logical
analysis (7:7) to score apologetic or hortatory points. Over the course of
a lengthy exposition, Hebrews can tease out the significance of certain
phrases 102 and use Scripture as a structuring device. 103 Finally, the writer
can be playfully serious, as in attributing words of Psalms to Jesus
(2:12–13; 10:5–7). 104 In those words the homilist hears the word of God,
Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity
(ed. M. J. Mulder and H. Sysling; CRINT 2.1; Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1988),
339–77; Eugene Ulrich, “The Bible in the Making: The Scriptures at Qumran”; and
Julio Trebolle Barrera, “The Authoritative Functions of Scriptural Works at Qumran,”
both in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea
Scrolls (ed. E. C. Ulrich and J. C. VanderKam; Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity
Series 10; Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), 77–94, and 95–110,
respectively; and Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their True
Meaning for Judaism and Christianity (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1994), 211–22; and in
Moshe J. Bernstein, “The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the History of
Early Biblical Interpretation,” in The Idea of Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James Kugel (ed.
H. Najman and J. H. Newman; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 215–38.
101. For a useful overview of the pesharim, see Devorah Dimant, “Qumran
Sectarian Literature,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha,
Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (ed. Michael E. Stone; CRINT
2.2; Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1984), 483–550, esp. 503–14. For the debates
about the historical allusions in these texts, see James H. Charlesworth, The Pesharim
and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).
102. Note the recurrent use of Ps 110:l or 4 at Heb 1:13; 5:6; 6:17; 8:1; 10:12.
103. Note the citation of Jer 31:31–34 at Heb 8:8–12 and 10:16–17.
104. Although no direct connection seems likely, it is interesting to compare the
Hodayot as expressions of the personal piety of this psalmist and Hebrews’ use of the
first person in the canonical psalms to give voice to the perceived intentions of Jesus.