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

292 BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION AT QUMRAN
thematic, as described by Jean Carmignac, 12 and in the closer analysis of
a range of exegetical techniques used in the pesharim. Alongside this
ongoing study of the pesharim, in the last twenty-five years or so the
overall breadth of biblical interpretation in the Qumran Scrolls has also
gradually come to the fore. To show this, I consider the history of
research into Qumran biblical interpretation by reviewing briefly the
salient features of various significant surveys.
In 1976 Geza Vermes presented a brief but significant summary of
interpretation at Qumran, 13 proposing a six-part classification of the
forms of Qumran exegesis: pesher; the midrashic paraphrase of large
units (such as in 1QapGen); the midrashic interpretation of small units
(e.g., the use of Mal 1:10 in CD 6.11–13); collections of proof texts
(4Q175); collections of legal texts arranged according to content (e.g.,
CD 4.20–5.2 on marriage); and collections of doctrinal texts arranged
thematically (e.g., CD 6.3–8; 4Q174). Vermes also proposed that there
were basically three methods of exegesis discernible in these six forms:
haggadic interpretation, which commonly supplemented the biblical narrative
for a particular reason; halakic reinterpretation of various kinds;
and the fulfillment of prophecy, in which various techniques were used
to identify the correct eschatological message of the prophets. It is clear
that this survey was concerned primarily with content.
In a later general survey published in 1986, 14 Vermes altered his categorization
by focusing on content and methods of exegesis at the same
time. He divided biblical interpretation in the Qumran community into
three classes: interpretations supporting doctrinal claims; paraphrastic
rewordings; and exposition proper, which was of two sorts, the interpretation
of particular biblical books and midrashim devoted to various
themes. By mixing content and method, some items that had been explicit
in his earlier classification were lost to view, notably the halakic exegesis
of the community texts. In a further summary article of 1989, 15 he revised
his approach yet again, proposing that Qumran exegesis was of three
types: implicit exegesis of an editorial type, most of which he described on
12. Jean Carmignac, “Le document de Qumran sur Melkisédeq,” RevQ 7 (1969–71):
360–61; the distinction between continuous and thematic pesharim is still followed,
but in a qualified way, by Shani L. Berrin, “Pesharim,” EDSS (ed. L. H. Schiffman
and J. C. VanderKam; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 644–47.
13. Geza Vermes, “Interpretation, History of: At Qumran and in the Targums,”
IDBSup (1976), 438–41.
14. Geza Vermes, “Bible Interpretation,” in the revised edition of Emil Schürer’s,
The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (rev. and ed. G. Vermes et al,; 3
vols.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986), 3.1:420–51.
15. Geza Vermes, “Bible Interpretation at Qumran,” ErIsr 20 (1989): 184–91.