the-bible-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls

J. J. M. ROBERTS 279
5:25, before again identifying those being judged by allusion to Isa 28:14:
“It is the congregation of the men of scoffing who are in Jerusalem”
(Myl#wryb r#) Nwclh y#n) td( )yh). It is unclear whether the Qumran
commentator’s identification of the wrongdoers of Isa 5:11–14 with
those mentioned in Isa 28:14 and 5:24c resulted in his unintentional omission
of any treatment of Isa 5:12–24b, or whether this was an intentional
bridging tactic to avoid commenting on these verses. This example does
suggest, however, that the pesharim were not as rigid in the formulas used
to introduce their interpretations, and in citing biblical texts, not as
restricted to the continuous text of the biblical book being treated as
Horgan’s discussion implies. It also suggests the possibility that the authors
of the pesharim exercised a certain freedom in selecting how much of the
continuous text of a biblical book they chose to cite and comment on.
From even the most cursory reading of the pesharim, it is clear that
the Qumran interpreters reinterpreted the biblical texts to make them
refer to events of their own time. An interpretation is often characterized
as “for the last days” (Mymyh tyrx)l), but the Qumran community
thought of itself as living in the last days, and the expression is actually
used to refer to events happening over a somewhat extended range of
time—from important events in the past history of their sect, to more
recent events and current situations, and finally to the expected soon-tobe
eschatological events of the final war, judgment, and vindication of the
righteous. Of course, this contemporizing interpretation of the prophetic
text did not arise out of any objective or quasi-objective attempt to discover
the original meaning of the text. It is not historical-critical interpretation.
Rather, as Geza Vermes remarked, “Dogmatic assumptions
govern the whole process [of Qumran exegesis] and prompt an existential
interpretation of Scripture. The history and teaching of the community
were announced in prophetic writings; the latter must in consequence
be explained in the light of the former.” 26 Moreover, according to Vermes,
“Qumran inherited from the apocalyptic milieux the concept that
prophecy is a mystery and that new revelation is required for its proper
understanding.” Since that new revelation was given only to the Qumran
community through its leaders, the first and foremost of whom was the
Righteous Teacher, the meaning of biblical prophecy was accessible only
within the community. 27 In elaborating that meaning, however, “the
26. Géza Vermes, “The Qumran Interpretation of Scripture in Its Historical
Setting,” Dead Sea Scroll Studies 1969 (ed. J. MacDonald; ALUOS 6 (1969): 85–97, repr.
in idem, Post-Biblical Jewish Studies ((STLA 8; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 37–49. Cf. the discussion
in Florentino García Martínez, “Escatologización de los Escritos proféticos en
Qumrán,” EstBib 44 (1986): 101–16.
27. Vermes, “Qumran Interpretation,” 91–92.