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

GEORGE J. BROOKE 289
II. THE HISTORY OF RESEARCH
Over the last fifty-five years there have been many studies on various
aspects of biblical interpretation in the Qumran Scrolls, but there has
been no large-scale comprehensive study of the phenomenon. It is noteworthy
that the earlier classified bibliographies of scholarly writings on
the Qumran Scrolls contain no section devoted solely to biblical interpretation.
5 Nevertheless, some presentations of biblical interpretation
have been influential.
As in many scientific endeavors, work on Qumran biblical interpretation
began with a series of detailed and technical articles. Perhaps
because the most explicit interpretation in the first scrolls coming to light
was to be found in the Habakkuk Pesher (1QpHab), several early studies
were devoted to analyzing that work and others like it. William H.
Brownlee’s article on “Biblical Interpretation among the Sectaries of the
Dead Sea Scrolls” 6 prompted scholars to focus on the detail of how the
Qumran commentators derived their interpretations from the biblical
Eisenbrauns, 1992), 267–91; and Eugene C. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins
of the Bible (SDSSRL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), chs. 1–6.
5. E.g., there is no such section in William S. LaSor, Bibliography of the Dead Sea Scrolls
1948–1957 (Fuller Theological Seminary Bibliographical Series 2; Fuller Library
Bulletin 31; Pasadena, CA: Fuller Theological Seminary, 1958), nor in Bastiaan
Jongeling, A Classified Bibliography of the Finds in the Desert of Judah 1958–1969 (STDJ
7; Leiden: Brill, 1971). The index in Florentino García Martínez and Donald W.
Parry, A Bibliography of the Finds in the Desert of Judah 1970–1995 (STDJ 19; Leiden:
Brill, 1996), is not sufficiently exhaustive to be a substitute for a classified bibliography;
e.g., the index does not list my own work Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in Its
Jewish Context (JSOTSup 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985) under “Bible, Exegesis”
nor under “Bible, Interpretation.” An exception is Joseph A. Fitzmyer’s section entitled
“Old Testament Interpretation in Qumran Literature,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls:
Major Publications and Tools for Study (SBLSBS 8; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975),
110–11; revised ed. (SBLRBS 20; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 160–61.
6. William H. Brownlee, “Biblical Interpretation among the Sectaries of the Dead
Sea Scrolls,” BA 14 (1951): 54–76; repr. in abbreviated form, in idem, “Twenty-Five
Years Ago: William H. Brownlee Demonstrates Thirteen Principles for the
Interpretation of Scripture Commentaries from Qumran,” BA 39 (1976): 118–19.
Brownlee went on to work in detail on 1QpHab, writing on the biblical text and the
commentary proper: The Text of Habakkuk in the Ancient Commentary from Qumran
(SBLMS 11; Philadelphia: SBL, 1959; repr., 1978); idem, The Midrash Pesher of
Habakkuk: Text, Translation, Exposition with an Introduction (SBLMS 24; Missoula, MT:
Scholars Press, 1979). Brownlee also wrote a number of studies on the principles
behind biblical interpretation in the Qumran Scrolls, notably “The Background of
Biblical Interpretation at Qumran,” in Qumrân: Sa pieté, sa théologie et son milieu (ed. M.
Delcor; BETL 46; Paris: Duculot, 1978), 183–93.