ture, a commentary on the quoted verse(s), a quotation of the next verses,
its interpretation, and so on. Characteristic is the explicit introduction of
the commentary by means of the termpišrô,“its interpretation” (orpešer
ha-d#bar,“the interpretation of the passage”), which often involves the
identification of the subject of the scriptural verse with subjects that were
active just before or during the author’s time, or expected to become active
in the near future. Other commentaries, likeFlorilegium(4Q174) and
Catena A(4Q177), which probably are two copies of one and the same
compositionEschatological Midrash,as well asMelchizedek(11Q13), have
been called either midrash (on the basis of the use of the term in 4Q174),
or “thematic pesharim,” since they do not interpret a running scriptural
text but rather select different verses which, according to the interpreta-
tion, relate to the same theme. A special case isAges of Creation(orPesher
on the Periods;4Q180), which includes a series of notes commenting on the
text of Genesis and explaining problematic issues in the text.
Some manuscripts seem to combine rewritten scripture with implicit
exegesis and commentary with explicit exegesis. This holds, for example, for
Commentary on Genesis A(4Q252), which starts out with a rewriting of the
flood story in Genesis 7–8, consisting mainly of scriptural verses and chro-
nological additions, continues with a discussion of problematic sections of
Genesis, and ends with a commentary of Jacob’s blessings, including the
technicalpišrôphrase. These different kinds of interpretative writing in
4Q252 may owe to a compilation of various sources. Or they may reflect the
gradual transition from implicit interpretative rewriting (down to the first
centuryb.c.e.) to explicit commentaries, which came into existence in the
first half of the first centuryb.c.e.However, the explicitpišrô(andpešer ha-
d#bar) formula is used specifically with regard to “prophetic” texts, includ-
ing Psalms and Jacob’s prophecies in Genesis 49, which would explain the
different exegetical techniques used in the same text. In 4Q180, and proba-
bly also in the fragmentaryExposition on the Patriarchs(4Q464), we find a
different use of the phrasepišrô{al,“interpretation concerning,” as a section
heading for new topics. The official title of 4Q247,Pesher on the Apocalypse
of Weeks,is misleading in at least two aspects. First, the sparse text of the ex-
tant fragment does not use the termpesher,nor are there any other indica-
tions that the text is exegetical. Second, though the scheme of weeks corre-
sponds to that also found in theApocalypse of Weeks,there is no indication
that the fragment rewrites or interprets that specific text.
These different forms of extending, expanding, and expounding
Scripture underline how by the early second centuryb.c.e.at the latest Ju-215The Dead Sea ScrollsEERDMANS -- Early Judaism (Collins and Harlow) final text
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:04:04 PM