historical perspectives: from the hasmoneans to bar kokhba in light ...

SHELAMZION IN QUMRAN 67
pesher was thus cut into two. The early chapter described the later
period and the latter chapters described the earlier period. On the
basis of this analysis we may guess that if 5:14 was interpreted as
referring to King Yannai, 6:9-10 could now be interpreted as referring
again to the reign of Shelamzion. These verses speak of "Lechery
committed. In the house of Israel I have seen a horrible thing.
Ephraim's harlotry is there, Israel is defiled."
.(4Q167 10+26 1-3) ...
Although the fragment of the pesher contains only part of the verses
and no interpretation, we would not be far off the mark in guessing
that the interpretation would now go on to decry the rule of the
Pharisees— Ephraim. The Queen, however, would be unmentioned.
The harlotry of Ephraim mentioned in the verse would be a fittingly
gendered allusion to the sect's judgement of her and her henchmen.
Conclusion
In this study I identify two exegetical techniques employed by the
Qumran community in their pesharim and a fresh interpretation of
their observations and comments on the reign of Queen Shelamzion.
A. The Qumran sect interpreted the biblical texts consecutively,
assuming that they are all inspired and describe the events in chronological
order. Thus, if Nahum 2 is interpreted as a reference to the
reign of King Yannai, then Nahum 3 refers to the subsequent rule
of Queen Shelamzion. When, however, this chronological sequence
failed them, they cut the biblical book into two. Thus Hosea 5-8
was interpreted separately from Hosea 2. Chapters 5—8 were understood
to describe the reign of Yannai, followed by that of Shelamzion.
Chapter 2, earlier in the book of Hosea, was understood to describe
the reign of Shelamzion, followed by chaos and civil war during her
son's reign.
B. The Qumran sectarians used gendered biblical verses when
referring to Queen Shelamzion and other women but made no direct
allusions to them. Why the sectarians failed to mention the queen
directly, or why they failed to give her a code name, is not quite
clear. Perhaps they simply found the concept of women in positions
of authority intolerable. In any case, they probably felt that the biblical
imagery of harlotry was strong enough to voice their revulsion.