Second Temple Exegetical Practices: Extra-Biblical Examples of Exegesis Compared with Those in the Book of Hebrews

Note¹

Due largely to the discovery and subsequent work with the Dead Sea Scrolls, most people recognize that the New Testament is not only connected with the text and theological concepts of the Old Testament canon of Scripture but also with those evidenced in “extra-biblical documents” of the later Second Temple period (167 BCE–70 CE).² These connections are accentuated when one compares the interpretations of the Old Testament in extra-biblical documents with those in the New Testament. For decades, Geza Vermes and Joseph Fitzmyer have argued and demonstrated time and again the importance of early Jewish exegesis in the numerous manuscripts discovered at Qumran.³ The recognizable methods of exegesis and subsequent interpretations within the scrolls have been deemed “a valuable yardstick for the study of the development of exegesis among Palestinian Jews” and they are considered “the greatest contribution to the study of the New Testament.”⁴ In fact, Charlesworth asserted in 1987, “We are in a totally new era in the study of biblical exegesis in Early Judaism.”⁵ Yet studies that synthesize early Jewish methods of interpretation linger in an embryonic stage.

Despite the countless publications that present, discuss, and evaluate extra-biblical documents, particularly concerning the Qumran scrolls, minimal attention has been given to the area of early Jewish exegesis in these documents.⁶ Nitzan acknowledges that, “A comprehensive, systematic study of approaches and methods of biblical exegesis in Qumran remains to be done.”⁷ However, a need exists for examining, describing, and categorizing all Second Temple literature. Having demonstrated through numerous examples the importance of the Pseudepigrapha for early Jewish exegesis, Charlesworth concludes “the Pseudepigrapha, like all early Jewish religious writings, generally tended to be in some way exegetical.”⁸

Needless to say, an all-inclusive, systematic study of early Jewish methods of interpretation would be a daunting and long-term undertaking. Such a study would not only enhance our historical knowledge about Jewish exegetical practices of the later part of the Second Temple period, it would also broaden the cultural and theological sensitivities necessary for understanding and interpreting a New Testament author’s use of the Old Testament. Julius Scott has put it this way: “. . . intertestamental books as those in the apocrypha, pseudepigrapha and [Qumran Literature] remain, individually and collectively, windows through which we may catch glimpses of various aspects of that bygone world and culture into which God sent his Son, ‘when the fullness of time came’ (Gal 4:4).”⁹

The purpose of this article, as limited as it must be due to time and space, is to peek through a few windows of an extremely long corridor to catch a glimpse of Jewish exegesis practiced during the later part of the Second Temple period. As we peer down this corridor of antiquity, our eyes will force us to travel back into time when the Old Testament canon of Scripture had yet to be formally fixed and the exegetical methods employed in interpretation were not like our own. Or were they? This historical study of Second Temple exegetical practices will first describe and exemplify six Jewish exegetical traditions shared by pseudepigrapha,¹⁰ apocrypha,¹¹ and Qumran¹² authors, and then compare them, in so far as possible, with the methods practiced by one New Testament author, namely Auctor in the book of Hebrews. Romans and 1 Peter also have an abundance of direct citations from the Old Testament. Hebrews, however, has been chosen due to the fact that it has the largest percentage of direct quotations from Hebrew Scriptures (Hebrews: circa 18%; 1 Peter: circa 16%; Romans: circa 15.5%).

Theological or Thematic Exegesis

Theological or thematic exegesis is a collection of various verses from Hebrew Scripture, taken from their original literary context, woven and linked together purposefully, and recontextualized to reflect an author’s or a community’s perception of a biblical or theological issue in order to influence and/or affirm a community.¹³ There are four Qumran documents that clearly epitomize thematic exegesis: 11Q13 (11QMelch), 4Q175 (4QTest), 4Q159 and 4Q513–14 (4QOrdinances^b–c), and 4Q174 (4QFlor).

Of particular significance is 4Q174 in which the author recontextualizes numerous verses to direct the readers’ attention to a specific theological theme about a coming Davidic messiah figure. Several conceptually related Scriptures are purposefully linked and woven together to support the author’s theological conviction. Exodus 15:17c–18 and Deuteronomy 23:3–4 speak of a literal sanctuary and a previous Jewish community of that sanctuary.¹⁴ They are linked together with 2 Samuel 7:10b, 11, 12b, 13b–14a, which originally spoke directly of David’s son, Solomon, and Amos 9:11, which predicts the restoration of David’s house via another Davidic king.¹⁵ When recontextualized in 4Q174, the historical and original contextual meaning of these individual verses are redirected and even expanded to form a theological statement that echoes the author’s and the Qumran community’s eschatological perspective about a future Davidite who will come soon and rule over his sanctuary.

A less overt example of thematic exegesis exists within 4Q252.¹⁶ A document considered to be “highly unusual in terms of the breadth of its exegetical methodology as well as in the range and sparseness of the texts which it treats,”¹⁷ 4Q252 directs attention to specific units from Genesis 6:3–49:21. Unlike thematic documents, 4Q252 does not focus on one specific theme nor does it link and weave together various verses from Hebrew Scripture. Rather it skips, in sequence, from one group of verses to another in order to elucidate their meaning. Nevertheless, within the midst of this explanatory document, the literary style is interrupted with an example of thematic exegesis. In chronicling “The Blessings of Jacob,” which begins in 4Q252 4:3b with Reuben, the text advances quickly to Judah where we read,

• “The scepter (שבט, [sebet]) shall [no]t depart from the tribe of Judah” (Gen 49:10a).
• While (or whenever) Israel has the dominion, “there [will not] be cut off someone who sits on the throne of David” ( Jer 33:17).
• For “the staff ” (מחקק, [m^ehôqeq]) is the covenant of the kingdom, and the thousands of Israel are “the divisions”¹⁸ until the messiah of righteousness comes, the branch of David.
• For to him and to his descendants (or “seed”) has been given the covenant of the kingship of his people for everlasting generations, which he observed [. . . ] the Law with the men of the Community, for [. . .] it is the assembly of the men of [. . .]

Whoever this first century Jewish exegete is, he obviously retains an element of the historical and literal sense of Jacob’s blessing, but to what degree? Contextually, Jacob’s blessing to Judah was a “general” blessing, namely, that someone from his tribe would have authority over the other tribes. Jacob’s older brothers (Reuben, Simeon, and Levi) had systematically disqualified themselves from receiving tribal headship.¹⁹

Jacob’s blessing, however, has been expanded to mean something more than the simple sense the passage initially intended. Seemingly, the exegete’s own personal reflection on and his retrospective historical awareness of Nebuchadnezzar’s dismantling of David’s dynasty in 586 BCE, God’s promise to David from 2 Samuel 7, and Jeremiah’s subsequent reiteration of God’s promise has entered into the author’s interpretation of Genesis 49:10. Obviously, references to David’s throne (line 2a) and the Messiah (line 3b) remain within the conceptual and theological boundaries of Hebrew Scripture due to the allusion to Jeremiah 33:17. Naturally, the synonymous parallel between “the scepter” (שבט, [sebet]) and “the staff ” (מחקק, [m^ehôqeq]) warrant an interpretation of “leadership.” Regardless of whether his prevailing Second Temple messianic perspective drives this author’s interpretation of Genesis 49:10, whoever this author is, his retrospective examination of Genesis 49:10 expands the historical and original contextual sense of Jacob’s blessing and thereby qualifies quite specifically that “Jacob’s blessing” speaks directly of a Davidic ruler from Judah.

Similar acts of thematic exegesis occur in the book of Hebrews. The most notable comparison, though not necessarily the only one, exists in Hebrews 1:5–13. As in the case of 4Q174, Auctor creates an artfully composed catena of citations from Hebrew Scripture. Like 4Q174, Auctor purposefully weaves together various verses from Hebrew Scripture initially directed to Yahweh (Deut 32:43; Pss 104:4, 102:26–27) and a first temple Davidite (2 Sam 7:14; Pss 2:7, 45:6–7, 110:1). Whereas 4Q174 postulates an eschatological expectation of a coming Davidic Messiah, who will build a temple, Hebrews 1:5–13 asserts a different Second Temple theological axiom. He identifies the Son as a divine Davidite, (1) presently ruling at the right hand of God over his kingdom as “king-PRIEST,”²⁰ and (2) presently awaiting the complete subjugation of his enemies.²¹

Proof-Text Exegesis

Proof-text exegesis employs a verse or group of verses from Hebrew Scripture as the authoritative source for an author’s theological premise. Taken from their original literary context, verses from sacred Scripture are recontextualized, often with an expanded interpretation, and applied to a new historical situation. Generally speaking, proof-text exegesis is easy to recognize because introductory formulas are used to signal when proof-texting is taking place. In Russia, during the period of the Czars, the character Tevye signals proof-texting with “as the good book says.”²² In Palestine, during the period of the Roman Caesars, a Qumranite signals proof-texting in numerous ways; “it is written,” “as it is written,” and “what is written” are frequently employed.²³ Or, when referencing Yahweh, an author may use “as he says” or “as God swore,” “what he says” or what “Yahweh declares,” and “God said” or “God spoke.” All are signals of proof-texting.²⁴ Such formulas are frequent and yet not limited to texts that are classified as thematic midrash (i.e., 11Q, 4Q175, 4Q174) and pesher (i.e., 1QpHab, 4QpNah, etc.). They are also employed in the Damascus Document (CD), the Rule of the Community (1QS), and the War Scroll (1QM). When an introductory formula is used, it signals that the authority of Hebrew Scripture continues on in its recontextualization, reinterpretation, and reapplication.

Pervasive throughout Second Temple literature, how proof-texting is employed differs from genre to genre. For instance, in thematic genre like 4Q174, when Hebrew Scripture is being interwoven and linked together during the exercising of thematic exegesis, proof-text exegesis tends to lend authority to the author’s artfully presented thought process. It appears to be used as a means to support thematic exegesis. Subsequently, proof-text exegesis is joined together with thematic exegesis to signal to the reader when Hebrew Scripture is employed to bolster the author’s critically structured and well-developed theological premise.

Another form of proof-text exegesis occurs in the Damascus Document, the Rule of the Community, and the War Scroll. In these documents, proof-text exegesis occurs in “tripartite units” of thought, which consist of (1) the stated doctrine, (2) an introductory formula, and (3) a Hebrew Scripture to support the theological or legal statement.²⁵ Hebrew Scriptures of a previous period of time, though viewed as divinely sanctioned, are recontextualized with a specific application that is relevant for a new group of God’s people. Thus proof-text exegesis, when employed in tripartite units of thought, is much more visible and perhaps more crucial as it serves to bolster the author’s less-developed yet more pointedly and directly stated position on a theological or legal statement.

The simple forms of a “tripartite” unit typically support or establish the viability of a doctrinal belief. For example, in CD-A 10:14–17a (= 4Q266 8 iii; 4Q270 6iv–v) a tripartite unit supports the legal teaching about the Sabbath at Qumran. We read,

• Concerning the Sabbath . . . No one should do work on the sixth day, from the moment when the sun’s disc is at a distance of its diameter from the gate,

• For this is what he says,
• “Observe the Sabbath day to keep it holy” (Deut 5:15).²⁶

After first stating the legal teaching, “No one should do work on the sixth day,” with a notable definition of what constitutes a “day,” the introductory formula “he says” is given followed by a quotation from Deuteronomy 5:15. No further explanation is provided. Hebrew Scripture is employed to support the author’s teaching for Sabbath observance. What then follows is a long list of Sabbath regulations or applications that further defines how to go about keeping a Sabbath day “holy.”²⁷

Some tripartite units employ a verse from Scripture first in order to provide the author a foundation for his theological conclusion. For example, we read in CD 8:14–16,

• As for that which Moses said,
• “You enter to possess these nations not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your hearts” (Deut 9:5).
• “But because God loved your fathers and kept the oath” (Deut 7:8).
• Thus shall it be with the converts of Israel . . . , because God loved the first . . . , so will he love those who come after them, for the Covenant of the fathers is theirs.²⁸

Compared to the previous tripartite argument where a theological premise is first stated then supported with a biblical proof-text, here two passages from Hebrew Scripture serve as a prelude to the author’s theological axiom. The author signals to his readers with the introductory formula “as for that which Moses said,” which is immediately followed by two verses from Deuteronomy. Together, these verses lay the foundation for the author’s teaching, namely that the Qumranites, like the past sons of Israel, have a special covenantal relationship with God. Once again, the stated citations from Scripture, spoken by Moses, stand alone to support their theological perspective.

Similar acts of proof-text exegesis occur in the book of Hebrews. Like his contemporaries, Auctor signals proof-texting in numerous ways. The most frequent occurrences are the various appeals to what “God says.” Other introductory formulae, such as the “Holy Spirit says,”“Moses says,” and “someone has said,” are also employed.²⁹ And though it is the Son through whom God speaks “in these last days” (Heb 1:2), it is God who does most of the speaking throughout the book of Hebrews.³⁰ Similarly, like the authors of extra-biblical documents, Auctor uses a variety of proof-text exegesis in Hebrews to bolster his arguments.

As it is in 4Q174, proof-text exegesis is used in conjunction with thematic exegesis in Hebrews 1:5–13.³¹ When proof-text exegesis is joined with thematic exegesis, it signals to the reader when Hebrew Scripture is employed to bolster Auctor’s critically structured and well-developed theological premise about the Son. A second form of proof-text exegesis also exists in Hebrews. In a manner similar to that found in the Damascus Document, Auctor also employs tripartite units of proof-text exegesis at least twice. One example occurs in Hebrews 10:15–18.

• And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying,
• “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,” ( Jer 31:33)
• Then he adds,“I will remember their sins and their misdeeds no more” ( Jer 31:34b).
• Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.

Granted, a larger and rather long citation from Jeremiah 31:31–34 exists in Hebrews 8:8–12. Yet it is a citation Auctor continually refers back to in chapters nine and ten and thereby offers a developing interpretation of this significant passage for the Jewish community of believers. Hebrews 10:15–18 exemplifies one of those interpretations. In a manner similar to that in CD 8:14–16, the isolated verses from Jeremiah 31:33 and 34b serve as a prelude and foundation for Auctor’s theological axiom. Auctor signals his readers with the introductory formula “and the Holy Spirit also testifies,” which is followed immediately by his selectively chosen and edited verses from Jeremiah 31:31 and 34b in order to teach about forgiveness and the subsequent termination of animal sacrifice. No further explanation is provided.

In addition, a tripartite unit is employed to promote a particular way of life for the Christian. In Hebrews 13:5–7 we read,

• Let your conduct be free from coveting and thereby be content with what you have.
• For he has said,
• “I will never leave you and I will never abandon you” (Deut 31:6, 8).
• So we can say with confidence, “The Lord is my helper, and I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?” (Ps 118:6).

After stating his expectation, “be content,” Auctor provides an introductory formula, “he has said,” followed by a quotation from Deuteronomy. Whereas in CD-A 10:14–17a (= 4Q266 8 iii; 4Q270 6iv–v), Qumran’s teaching about Sabbath observance is supported from Deuteronomy 5:15, here Auctor links together Deuteronomy 31:6 and 8 as proof-texts to support Auctor’s teaching about the presence of God regardless of life’s circumstances. No further explanation is provided.

Harmonizing Exegesis

Harmonizing exegesis or complementary exegesis is the seamless integration or recontextualization of groups of verses or even a single verse from Hebrew Scripture. At least two types of harmonizing exist within Second Temple literature: (1) a rewritten biblical text, or (2) within the author’s own work. In both cases, whether it is the seamless integration of Hebrew Scripture within a rewritten biblical text or within an author’s own work, harmonizing exegesis recontextualizes Hebrew Scripture into a new literary work.³² This form of exegesis differs from proof-texting and thematic exegesis in that no introductory formulas are employed to identify when Hebrew Scripture is being integrated into the text. Generally, extensive forms of harmonizing exegesis appear in documents that rewrite Hebrew Scripture. For example, some texts like 4Q364–67 harmonize Genesis through Deuteronomy “into a complete and coherent description of an event.”³³ Another sort of harmonization occurs in the book of Jubilees, whereby the author constantly and seamlessly integrates Levitical Law with Genesis 1–Exodus 24:18.³⁴ Thus, the integration of the Law with rewritten biblical text demonstrates the authoritative status of the Law for the Jewish community.

Harmonizing exegesis also occurs in 4QpaleoExod^m (4Q22) and its extremely close counterpart, the Samaritan Pentateuch.³⁵ Numerous examples could be cited. However, the following excerpt from 4QpaleoExod^m provides a nice concise example.

• (. . . but I will make) you a great nation. But against Aaron the Lord was very angry, (enough) to destroy him;
• so Moses prayed on behalf of Aaron.
• Moses entreated the Lord his God and said, “Why, O LORD, does your anger burn
• against your people whom you have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and a mighty arm?”³⁶

God’s expressed anger against Aaron for his role in the Exodus community’s sin of the golden calf is imported from Deuteronomy 9:20 and seamlessly integrated with Exodus 32:10–11. The added material is not created by the author but merely imported and seamlessly harmonized with another portion of Scripture with no introductory formula.

Another form of harmonizing exegesis occurs in texts where Hebrew Scripture is seamlessly integrated and thereby merged into the author’s own writing. Although examples may be found in 11Q19–20 (Temple Scroll) and the Damascus Document, we will focus attention on one of several examples cited by Vermes from CD 4:10–12, which reads

• When the age is completed . . . , there shall be no more joining the house of Judah, but each shall stand on his watchtower.
• “The wall is built, the boundary far removed” (Mic 7:11).³⁷

Here an edited version of Micah 7:11 has become an integral part of the text. No introductory formula exists. With this seamless integration of Hebrew Scripture into his own writing, the author puts forward his belief that there is “a point of no return” for those who do not join the community now.

Although harmonizing exegesis is limited, Hebrews 10:35–39 and 12:12–13 are two examples. In the former example, Auctor’s expectation for readers to be courageous and thereby receive their reward from God is reinforced with Habakkuk 2:3–4. In the later example, Auctor seamlessly integrates Isaiah 35:3 (“strengthen your listless hands and your weak knees”) and Proverbs 4:11 (“make straight paths for your feet”) as a way to summarize his own discourse on discipline. Thus, Auctor affirms his doctrinal assertion with a seamless integration of Scripture into his own writing.

Already-Not Yet Exegesis

Already-not yet exegesis or fulfillment exegesis³⁸ is the interpretation and explanation of Hebrew Scripture as fulfilled in the present time and yet with an anticipated fulfillment in the very near future. Thus, Hebrew Scripture is interpreted as actualized and yet with something anticipated in the life and history of a community. Such exegesis permeates pesher texts³⁹ whereby the Righteous Teacher, through divine “inspiration” or “illumination,” scrutinizes the words of the prophets and explains them for the “holy ones” of the Qumran community. Pesher’s structure consists of three parts: (1) an excerpted text from a prophet (lemma), (2) an introductory formula (פשר, pèsher), and (3) the interpretation.⁴⁰ And though this oldest known set of Jewish commentaries are important for historical disclosures of the Second Temple period, particularly 1QpHab and 4QpNah,⁴¹ pesher’s greatest contribution lies in the area of understanding fulfillment exegesis practiced among those who lived at Qumran (ca. 100–04 BCE; 1–68 CE).

At Qumran, the prophetic writings of Hebrew Scripture were considered a “mystery” (raz). The prophet, the one who initially wrote God’s revelation, was ignorant of God’s intended meaning, and thus the prophetic word was in need of divine explanation. Since the prophecies were not “transparent,”⁴² they were in need of a “key” to unlock their meaning. Thus, God raised up and revealed his meaning to the Righteous Teacher (cf. 1QpHab 2:1–3, 7–10; 7:3–8, 8:1–3; 1QpMic f8–10, 6–7). The Righteous Teacher’s interpretation (pesher) was the key that unlocked the translucent mysteries of the prophets. His interpretations were eventually recorded so that (1) members of the community might be informed about the “last days” of God’s divine plan in which they were living, (2) members might be loyal to the Righteous Teacher and his teachings about the “last days,” and (3) members might be saved through faithful adherence to the Torah and the Righteous Teacher’s teachings (1QpHab 7:17–8:3, CD-B 20:27b–34).

Typical of already-not yet exegesis within pesher texts is the equating of prophetic referents, whether they are people or groups of people, with some contemporaneous person or group.⁴³ The I wills of Habakkuk’s prophecy became the I dids and yet to comes according to Qumran’s own historical time frame.⁴⁴ For example, we read in 1QpHab 2:10b–15a

• “For see I will mobilize the Chaldeans, a cruel [and deter] mined people” (Hab 1:6a).
• Its interpretation concerns
• the Kittim, wh[o ar]e swift and powerful in battle, to slay many [. . .] in the kingdom of the Kittim; they will take possession [of many countries] and will not believe in the precepts of [Go]d  ⁴⁵

The verbal reference to the Chaldeans, a typical sixth-century designation for the Babylonians in prophetic literature, is interpreted to speak directly of the “Kittim,” a typical first century designation for Rome in Qumran literature.⁴⁶ Hebrew Scripture is actualized in that the Chaldeans refer to the Kittim and yet some future act is anticipated.⁴⁷ Mentioned nine times in 1QpHab, the Kittim not only disregard God’s Law, they, along with their leaders, are portrayed as a ruthless group of oppressors with whom the Qumranites anticipate battling.⁴⁸ Thus for the Qumranite, a contemporaneous already-not yet fulfillment has occurred.

Although already-not yet exegesis is predominate among the pesharim, it is not unusual to find elements of it mirrored in the book of Hebrews. Like the Qumranites, Auctor perceived himself as living in the “last days” (Heb 1:2). He also interprets and explains Hebrew Scripture as fulfilled in the present with an anticipated fulfillment in the very near future. Longenecker has put it this way, “The entire letter is structured according to an ‘anticipation-consummation’ motif.”⁴⁹

One example of an already-not yet exegesis, similar to that illustrated above from 1QpHab 2:10b–15b, exists in Hebrews 2:5–9. Auctor quotes four verses from Psalm 8, and then in the process of his interpretation equates the psalmist’s reference from people in general to speak of Jesus in particular. In Psalm 8:4–6, David marvels at God’s conferral of honor and dignity to people (“man”) over all of the created order, so much so that people are ranked only slightly below God himself. In Hebrews, “man” is interpreted to speak directly of “Jesus.” The “Man” refers to “Jesus.” “The argument of Hebrews 2:5–9,” according to Donald R. Glenn, “deals with God’s intention to subordinate the world to man, an intention that is only realized in Christ.”⁵⁰ And though the Psalm is redirected to find fulfillment in Jesus, as with the pesharim, there remains an element of anticipation concerning a subjection yet to be realized (2:8b). Thus, Auctor exhibits an already-not yet form of exegesis when interpreting Psalm 8 in Hebrews 2.

Allegorical Exegesis

Allegorical exegesis begins with a preconceived notion that the words of Hebrew Scripture are symbols or veiled language given by God, through human agents, that have a meaning other than the human author’s literal and/or historical meaning. Thus, words are not to be understood according to their literal and historical meaning but rather according to their deeper hidden meaning. Therefore, interpreters of Hebrew Scripture are to determine the true spiritual meaning hidden in these symbols. Philo’s works, of course, are an excellent example of allegorical exegesis.⁵¹ Yet, allegorical exegesis is not unique to Philo.

As we will see, it is not unusual to find scholars describing the exegesis at Qumran to be allegorical. (Although a better term might serve some of the examples often cited, we will maintain the term “allegorical exegesis” for our discussion.) In 1QpHab 4:7 the phrase “And will heap up earth and take it” from Habakkuk 1:10b is allegorized to mean “with a great army they will surround them in order to take (capture) them” (1QpHab 4:7). Granted, the interpretation of “a great army” remains within the boundaries of Hebrew Scripture because “dust” can be a figure of speech or symbol for “numerous people” (Gen 2:7, 3:9; cf. 2 Chron 1:9) or “numerous descendants” (Gen 13:16; 28:14; Num 23:10).⁵² Thus, one could render 1QpHab’s interpretation of “dust” as “a great army,” “a great host,” or “numerous people.” Whatever interpretation we choose for this pesher text, however, it still reflects a move away from Habakkuk’s “historical” and “literal” sense of meaning, namely that the heap of earth is a reference to a literal siege ramp. Thus, the literal siege ramp typically employed in war is redirected to reflect a “deeper meaning,” namely that the Romans will come and make war on God’s people.

Perhaps a better example of allegorical exegesis exists in the Damascus Document. Divided into two sections, “The Exhortation” and “The Laws,”⁵³ the CD’s exhortation section describes how God judges the wicked yet rewards the faithful. The author cites Numbers 21:18, followed by what some may describe as a well-defined allegorical interpretation.

• “A well (באר, [b^e’er]) which the princes dug, which the nobles of the people dug with the staff ” (מחוקק, [m^ehôqeq]) (Num 21:18).
• The well (באר, [b^e’er]) is the law. And those who dug it are the converts of Israel, who left the land of Judah and lived in the land of Damascus, all of whom God called princes, for they sought him, and their renown has not been repudiated in anyone’s mouth.
• And the staff (מחוקק, [m^ehôqeq]) is the interpreter of the law, of whom Isaiah said: “He produces a tool for his labor.” And the nobles of the people are those who came to dig the well with the staves that the Staff (מחוקק, [m^ehôqeq]) decreed.⁵⁴

Contextually, Numbers 21:10–20 recalls the Exodus community’s journey toward Moab. Their need for water was a perpetual challenge (Exod 17:1–7, Num 20:2–13). Yet, unlike previous situations where complaints are followed by divine provision, here in Numbers 21:16–18 the absence of grumbling is out of character for this wilderness community. Regardless, when the people arrive at Beer and God instructs Moses to gather the people, he promises a provision of water, and the people well up and burst forth with a song of praise. It appears to be a spontaneous song of praise.

In keeping with allegorical exegesis, however, the interpretation of Numbers 21:18 in CD 6:3b–11a disregards the historical and literary context of Hebrew Scripture. Kister considers this to be one of only a few “bold allegorical interpretations of legal or narrative texts.”⁵⁵ Not only does the interpretation make several referent shifts (“princes,” “nobles of the people”), words are redefined. The literal “well” is viewed as veiled language for “the law,” whereas “the staff ” is personified to mean “the interpreter of the law.” Philo offers a similar interpretation of Numbers 21:17:

For “then,” he (Moses) said (φησιν), “Israel sang this song about the well” and by the “well” I mean knowledge, which for long has been hidden, but in time is sought for and finally found— knowledge whose nature is so deep, knowledge which ever serves to water the fields of reason in the souls of those who desire to see.⁵⁶

One less overt instance of allegorical exegesis occurs in The Letter of Aristeas. Supposedly written by an official in the court of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt (285–46 CE), this letter contends that Ptolemy’s library director, Demetrius of Phaleron, convinced Ptolemy to secure a copy of the Jewish Law for the library at Alexandria. Knowing that the books of the Law existed only in the Hebrew language, Demetrius orders Aristeas to write a letter to the High Priest at Jerusalem and thereby arrange for the books to be translated into Greek. As a result, the High Priest, Eleazar, dispatches to Egypt 72 elders with a copy of the Law. After arriving at Alexandria, the elders went to the isle of Pharos for 72 days and translated the books of the Law into Greek.⁵⁷

At one point in this letter, Eleazar defends, in a manner that illustrates a mild form of allegorical exegesis, the Jewish dietary laws, particularly the law which speaks of eating animals with a divided hoof (Lev 11:1–8; Deut 14:6–8).

• Everything pertaining to conduct permitted us toward these creatures and toward beasts has been set out symbolically.
• Thus the cloven hoof, that is the separation of the claws of the hoof, is a sign of setting apart each of our actions for good.
• The symbolism conveyed by these things compels us to make a distinction in the performance of all our acts, with righteousness as our aim. This moreover explains why we are distinct from all other men.⁵⁸

Here the scriptural allusion to the dietary law dictating what kind of creature may or may not be eaten is allegorized to mean something other than the intended historical and literal meaning of Hebrew Scripture. Thus, the point to be made is simply this: later Second Temple authors looked for deeper meaning for words. Authors were not compelled to confine their interpretations of words to the historical or for that matter to a literal sense of meaning.

It has been argued that Auctor employs allegorical exegesis in the midst of his comparative discussion of Melchizedek with the Son in Hebrews 4:14–7:28, namely, his interpretation of Genesis 14:18–20 and its subsequent relationship to Psalm 110.⁵⁹ Auctor appeals to Genesis 14 for what is and what is not said about Melchizedek in order to redefine the term “forever” in Psalm 110:4 from figurative usage to a literal one when it is applied to the Son.⁶⁰

What is said in Genesis 14, and repeated by Auctor, is that Melchizedek was a king of Salem. After defining what Salem means,“king of peace,” Auctor then provides information not stated, and thereby not part of the historical and literary context of Genesis. Auctor presents a deeper meaning from the text when he claims that Melchizedek was “without father, without mother, without genealogy, he has neither beginning of days nor end of life but is like the son of God, and he remains a priest for all time.” Longenecker argues rightly that Auctor “did not consider himself to be inventing a new interpretation or using a deviant exegetical procedure.” As we have observed above, the procedure was one commonly practiced during the Second Temple period among his contemporaries. Thus it appears that Auctor got involved, as recognized by Longenecker, “in a mild allegorical-etymological treatment of the narrative in Genesis 14.”⁶¹

Supplemental Exegesis

Observable in numerous literary venues, supplemental exegesis, embellishments, or gap fillers reflect a Second Temple author’s frequent desire to resolve the incomplete contents of a biblical text. Apocryphal books are a popular forum for supplemental exegesis. The Prayer of Manasseh,⁶² for example, is rooted in and built upon 2 Chronicles 33:12–13, and thereby completes the contents of Manasseh’s efficacious prayer of sincere repentance. Likewise, the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men, placed immediately after Daniel 3:23, serve to fill in the gap concerning what took place after Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego fell into the center of a blazing fiery furnace. (What would you do, if you were not consumed immediately? These three men sang hymns and prayed!) In his prayer, Azariah acknowledges God (3–4), confesses the nation’s sin (5–7), declares God just (8–19), prays for God’s deliverance (20–22), and finally, after a miraculous divine intervention (23–27), all three offer a psalm of praise (28–68).⁶³ Perhaps the supplement also serves to imply a reason why a fourth person appears in the fire with them (Dan 3:24–25).

The artful elaboration of Sarah’s beauty in 1QapGen, rooted in and built upon Genesis 12:14–15, evidences supplemental exegesis within a Qumran document. Pharaoh’s advisers return and dazzle him with their poetic description of Sarah’s awe-inspiring beauty, which is fleshed out in 1QapGen 20:2–8a.

How . . . pretty is the shape of her face, and how [lo]vely and how smooth the hair of her head! How lovely are her eyes; how pleasant her nose and all the blossom of her face . . . How graceful is her breast and how lovely all her whiteness! How beautiful are her arms! And her hands, how perfect! How alluring is the whole appearance of her hand[s]! No virgin or wife who enters the bridal chamber is more beautiful than her. Above all women her beauty stands out; her loveliness is far above them all. And with all this beauty there is in her great wisdom. And everything she does with her hands is perfect.⁶⁴

An even less extensive form of supplemental exegesis exists in 4Q158, where select portions of Genesis and Exodus are rewritten and combined with other biblical texts. Of particular interest here is the rewritten portion from Genesis 32:24–32, because it evidences added information about the angelic blessing made to Jacob. The author obviously supplements the content of the angelic blessing, because it is obscure in Genesis 32:29.

• “And he blessed him right there” (Gen 32:29).

• And he said to him: May YH[WH] make you fertile and [make] you [numerous . . . May he fill you with] knowledge and intelligence; may he free you from all violence and [. . .] until this day and for everlasting generations [. . .] And he walked on his way after having blessed him there.⁶⁵

Other forms of supplemental exegesis are limited to a word or two within a translation or transmission of Scripture. Becoming ever-so-mindful that very few things were monolithic during the later Second Temple period, namely, there was no “authorized Judaism,” no “authorized theology,” no “authorized canon,” and no “authorized text,”⁶⁶ determining what is and what is not supplemental exegesis may not be as clear-cut as we might like. Nevertheless, intentional supplements within Hebrew Scripture are cited as a frequent occurrence in Second Temple translations, like the LXX and the simple transmissions of the text of Hebrew Scripture evident in Qumran documents. Using the Masoretic Text (MT) as a textual base, the following examples exhibit a variety of supplemental exegesis in extra-biblical documents that simply clarifies the “when,” the “where,” the “who,” and the “what” of Hebrew Scripture.

Likewise, when biblical texts were quoted in extra-biblical literature, some transmissions may reflect witnesses of different recensions or textual traditions, but more often, they may evidence an exegetical reading or its result.⁷¹ Such is the case in Hebrews where Auctor adjusts the text as a result of his exegetical reading of it. They appear in Hebrews 1, particularly with regard to Psalm 45.⁷²

Conclusion

Peering through a few windows, our hands cupped around our eyes to see more clearly, we caught a glimpse of six exegetical conventions practiced during the later Second Temple period (167 BCE–70 CE). Obviously, the six exegetical traditions of the Second Temple period discussed are by no means exhaustive. I might even add that the list of examples for each exegetical convention from extra-biblical and biblical material is far from exhaustive. Much more could be said and should be presented concerning Second Temple exegetical studies. Nevertheless, I need to bring this tentative discussion to a conclusion. Let me begin by restating the obvious.

Restating the Obvious

As we observed, the exegetical practices were on multiple levels within extra-biblical literature. On one level, exegetical practices are predominant in extra-biblical texts and may even serve as the means to define the genre. Thematic and proof-text exegesis characterizes thematic texts like 4Q174, 4Q175, and 11QMelch. Harmonizing exegesis is an undeniable style of some rewritten biblical texts like 4Q364–67 and Jubilees. Already-not yet exegesis tends to define pesher texts like 1QpHab and 4QpNah. Allegorical exegesis is a guiding principal of Philo’s works. Supplemental exegesis appears foundational for apocryphal texts like the Prayer of Manassah and the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men.

On another level, however, exegetical conventions play supporting roles in extra-biblical material. In 4Q152, thematic exegesis interrupts the author’s flowing commentary of Genesis 6:3–49:21 to explain a theological position about a future Messiah figure. Tripartite units of proof-text exegesis appear frequently in the Damascus Document to support or establish the viability of a doctrinal belief. Harmonizing exegesis evidences itself in several texts. The seamless integration and recontextualization of Micah 7:11 occurs in the Damascus Document to affirm the author’s belief that there will come a point of no return for those who do not join the Qumran community. Although the allegorical category might need to be re-nuanced, one overt case of allegorical exegesis appears in the historical and literal referencing of a well in Numbers 21:18 to mean the “Law” in the Damascus Document as well as Philo. Supplemental exegesis, on the other hand, quite clearly fills in the gaps of any given text. It appears in greater and lesser degrees depending on the genre. Whereas obscure statements about Sarah’s beauty and the angelic blessing to Jacob are lengthy embellishments in 1QapGen and 4Q158, respectively, other forms of supplemental exegesis are limited to a word or two in a given reproduction of the biblical text (Gen 9:22; Exod 32:26; Ps 102:26 in the LXX; Num 6:24; 2 Sam 11:3 in QL).

Auctor appears to employ all six of these exegetical practices. Lest I be accused of being overly zealous about early Jewish exegetical practices in the book of Hebrews, my presentation appears to support Longenecker’s observation: “Hebrews represents in many ways a hybrid blending of traditional Christian theology, the ideological perspectives and concerns of a particular Jewish Christian community, and an anonymous author’s own highly individualized exegesis of the Old Testament.”⁷³ It is my contention that one of the ways that Auctor’s individuality manifests itself is in his use of Hebrew Scripture. In fact, Auctor’s use of the Hebrew text is “so unique as to prohibit fitting it into any category or identifiable pattern of early Christian exegesis.”⁷⁴ Though it may seem somewhat puzzling that Auctor would employ so many exegetical conventions in this one work, perhaps in overt concern for this Hebrew Christian community, Auctor employs every first-century exegetical convention available to demonstrate from Hebrew Scripture the importance of remaining committed to God’s exalted Son, the divine Davidic regal-priest, Jesus. The overwhelming variety of exegetical practices exhibited by Auctor may even sustain the seriousness of the problem. Having restated the obvious, let me now expand on it.

Expanding on the Obvious

My intent has not been to justify how or why Auctor employs these exegetical practices in Hebrews but merely to show his parallel use of exegetical conventions with other authors of the later Second Temple period. In fact, it seems he employs them in a very natural and matter-of-fact manner. Auctor does not use the Old Testament in a manner counter to his Jewish-hellenistic culture, though he does use the Old Testament to counter and thereby move beyond a previous paradigm of God’s program. Obviously, Auctor recognizes that a paradigm shift has taken place via the Son, Jesus, the divine King-Priest. Auctor thereby interprets, reapplies, and recontextualizes Hebrew Scripture from a Christocentric perspective via the Holy Spirit to influence and encourage the community of Jewish believers.

In addition, these exegetical connections betray at least four shared assumptions about Hebrew Scripture. First and foremost, Second Temple authors (biblical and extra-biblical alike) assume Hebrew Scripture to be the authoritative and sacred Word of God. Interpreters of the later Second Temple period believe Hebrew Scripture is divinely sanctioned, of divine provenance, and perhaps even divinely inspired (if they understood the term the same way we 21st century scholars define it). Evidence for this first assumption is clearly evident when Second Temple authors assert that the words of Hebrew Scripture come from God. The pervasive use of introductory formula employed within Second Temple literature to signal proof-text exegesis within thematic texts, tripartite unities of thought within the Damascus Document, and the book of Hebrews are undeniable support. Likewise, today’s evangelicals assume that the Old and New Testament canon of Scripture is the authoritative Word of God. How often have we heard Billy Graham say, “and the Bible says,” as the authority behind his message?

Second, Second Temple authors assume Hebrew Scripture forms a perfect harmony between its whole and its various parts (whatever the various Second Temple Judeans may have considered to be the whole). As a body of sacred writings, ancient interpreters sought to discover the basic harmony underlying apparent discordant words because they believed all Scripture must speak with one voice. As a result, it seems interpreters of antiquity were not so concerned with the contextual meaning of the word, the clause, the sentence, the paragraph, or the individual book. In addition and closely related to what has been said about viewing the sacred text holistically, the sacred text was treated with a certain degree of freedom. This is clearly observed in the use of thematic and proof-text exegesis within thematic texts like 4Q174 and harmonizing exegesis within texts like Jubilees. All three forms of exegesis occur in Hebrews (1:5–13, 10:15–18, 35–39; 12:12–13; 13:5–7). Whereas the former two are involved in the merging of Hebrew Scripture to present a developed theological premise, the latter harmonizes Hebrew Scripture for theological purposes. Likewise, today’s evangelicals recognize the basic harmony underlying all of Scripture. Like later Second Temple interpreters, we are not always so concerned with the contextual meaning of every word, clause, sentence, paragraph, or book. Harmonies of the Gospels and presentations of the historical Jesus practice harmonization and even supplemental exegesis. Systematic theologies, theological sermons, and doctrinal statements of evangelical institutions are good examples of thematic, proof-text, and harmonizing exegesis. Often the concern is with a theological concept or statement and not so much the authorial intent of the human author for each and every verse employed to support a theological premise, whether it is of a person, a community, or an institution.

Third, Second Temple authors assume Hebrew Scripture constitutes one great book of instruction, and as such is fundamentally a relevant text for all time, for all cultures, and for all God’s people. Thus, the interpretation of God’s authoritative Word is to be relevant for life. Thematic, proof-text, harmonizing, already-not yet, and allegorical exegesis are employed to address the contemporary concerns of God’s people. Sometimes they are employed to provide hope for a seemingly hopeless situation as is the case in Hebrews 10:35–39. Sometimes they are used to present a polemical argument for Diaspora Jews in order that they might avoid idolatry, as in the Letter of Jeremiah. Sometimes an exegetical tradition is employed to support a person’s or a community’s legal teaching and subsequent regulations, as in the use of tripartite units of proof-text exegesis to support Sabbath rest (CD-A 10:14– 17a). Thus, Hebrew Scripture serves to bolster the author’s less developed yet more pointedly and directly stated position on a theological or legal statement. Likewise, today’s evangelicals recognize that the sixty-six canonical books of Scripture constitute one great book of instruction relevant for all. Week after week, evangelical pastors strive to make culturally-relevant applications of the ancient text, which we customarily call, “the Bible.”

Fourth, Second Temple authors recognize that the Hebrew Scripture is incomplete. That is, despite all that Hebrew Scripture reveals about God and his people, there are many gaps or incomplete information within the text. Thus, authors of the later Second Temple period overcome the challenges of the incomplete contents of a biblical text via supplemental exegesis. Sometimes, the information is fanciful imagination, as in the case of describing Sarah’s beauty (1QapGen). Sometimes, gap fillers are extremely theologically reflective, as in the case of the Prayer of Manasseh. Other times, they exhibit statements of clarity within a citation of Hebrew Scripture as is often the case in the translations of LXX, the copying of Hebrew Scripture, and even in the citations in Hebrews 1:5–13. Similarly, today’s evangelicals spin a tale or two in order to complete the contents of a scriptural event or person. Pastors performing monologues of a significant biblical figure, Christian novelists, and Christian and non-Christian film-makers practice supplemental exegesis. Moving beyond the obvious of Hollywood’s example, “The Ten Commandments”with Charleton Heston,Philip Yancey exemplifies numerous film-makers exercising supplemental exegesis in his video for the Jesus I Never Knew. In it, he shows the various ways movie producers have portrayed Jesus.

Fifth, Second Temple authors assume that Hebrew Scripture is not always transparent. At times, the text appears cryptic. Though Scripture may say one thing, in the progress of revelation, what it really means is much more than we finite creatures ever expected. Hebrew Scripture is rich in content and translucent in many ways. Ancient interpreters recognized the differences between explicit and implicit statements in the text, scrutinized every detail in search of hidden or deeper meanings, spiritual meanings that were relevant to the interpreter as well as his listeners. Thus they employed allegorical exegesis. Even today, evangelicals are not beyond looking for a deeper meaning in the text. Who has not heard a pastor speak of Jesus calming the storm in order to speak of Jesus’ ability to calm the storms of our lives? Or, how many of us have read a book written by a dispensationalist concerning the end times where expanded meanings of the text captivate and even stimulate the Christian reader’s imagination?

Consequently, the exegetical methods employed during the Second Temple period by Jewish interpreters and by today’s evangelical preachers have many things in common, including the conviction that God’s Word is living, active, and penetrating (Heb 4:12–13).

1. “Second Temple Exegetical Practices” was a featured paper presented and discussed at the Dispensational Study Group during the 55th and 56th Annual National Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (November 2003 and 2004). It has been updated for this journal publication. ↩︎
2. Why use the term “extra-biblical”? Evans uses “noncanonical,” but it seems too separational. Craig A. Evans, Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992). Vermes coined the term “inter–Testamental documents,” which could refer to documents written “between” the canonical Old Testament and New Testament documents. Geza Vermes, “Jewish Literature and New Testament Exegesis: Reflections on Methodology,” Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982): 361–76. I prefer “Second Temple documents” but it lacks the needed separation from canonical works. Thus, after some consideration, the description “extra-biblical” best communicates the auxiliary or supporting theological connections that exist within the later Second Temple Jewish texts (hence “biblical”) and their importance for New Testament studies (hence “extra”). ↩︎
3. Geza Vermes, “The Impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls on Jewish Studies during the Last Twenty-five Years,” in Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice, ed. W.S. Green (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978), 201–14; idem, “Jewish Studies and New Testament Interpretation,” Journal of Jewish Studies 31 (1980): 1–17; idem, “Jewish Literature and New Testament Exegesis: Reflections on Methodology,” Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982): 361–76; idem, “Methodology in the Study of Jewish Literature in the Graeco-Roman Period,” Journal of Jewish Studies 36 (1985): 145–58; idem,“Biblical Proof-Texts in Qumran Literature,” Journal of Jewish Studies 34 (1989): 493–508; idem, “Bible Interpretation at Qumran,” Eretz-Israel 20 ( Jerusalem, 1989): 184–91. J.A. Fitzmyer, “The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament,” New Testament Studies 7 (1960–61): 297–33, reprinted in Essays on Semitic Background of the New Testament, Society of Biblical Literature Sources for Biblical Studies 5 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974), 3–58; idem, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament after Thirty Years,” Theology Digest 29 (1981): 351–66. ↩︎
4. Vermes, “Impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 210; Fitzmyer, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament after Thirty Years,” 365. ↩︎
5. James H. Charlesworth, “The Pseudepigrapha as Biblical Exegesis,” in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee, ed. Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 139–52, particularly 140. ↩︎
6. There are, however, some recognized works published over the years. Daniel Patte, Early Jewish Hermeneutics in Palestine, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 22 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975). George J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in Its Jewish Context, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 29 (Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 1985); Bilhah Nitzan, The Habakkuk Commentary: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judea (1QpHab) ( Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute, 1986) [Hebrew]; David I. Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis Before 70 CE (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1992); Michael E. Stone and Esther G. Chazon, eds., Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 May, 1996, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, 28 (Leidon: Brill, 1998); Shalom M. Paul, et al., eds., Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2003). ↩︎
7. Bilhah Nitzan, “Approaches to Biblical Exegesis in Qumran Literature,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrews Bible Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, ed. Shalom M. Paul, et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2003): 347–65, particularly 348. ↩︎
8. Charlesworth identifies five types of exegesis in pseudepigrapha: (1) Inspirational exegesis is when Old Testament passages serve as an inspiration for the author’s own imagination (Odes Sol., Pr. Jos., Pss. Sol., Pr. Man.). (2) Framework exegesis is when an Old Testament passage merely sets the framework for the author’s own work (4 Ezra 3:1–2, 2 Bar. 6:1–2; T. Levi 1:1–2, 5:1–2). (3) Launching exegesis is when the Old Testament serves as a “springboard” into a direction that abandons totally the original Old Testament’s simple sense of meaning (1 En. and 2 En. launch off from Gen 5:23–24). (4) Inconsequential exegesis is when an author merely borrows from the Old Testament the barest facts to compose an appreciably new story (Sib. Or., Apoc. Adam, Ahiqar, 3 Macc., 4 Macc.). Finally, (5) expansion exegesis is basically a re-writing of the biblical narrative (Jub., Gen 1:1–Exod 12:50; Mart. Isa., 1, 2 Kgs [esp. 2 Kgs 21:16]; Jos. Asen., Gen 37–50; etc.). As this paper unfolds, there will be times I will build upon these categories and other times when I will nuance these categories. Charlesworth, “The Pseudepigrapha as Biblical Exegesis,” 142–52. ↩︎
9. Julius Scott, “On the Value of Intertestamental Jewish Literature for New Testament Theology,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23 (1980): 315–23. Vermes more forcefully muses, “A good New Testament scholar will have to endeavour to become a citizen of that larger world to which his discipline belongs (and that means not only the Jewish, but also the Hellenistic world), so that he will be able to understand the arguments advanced by the experts in the various provinces of that world, but also, to think out new and pertinent questions and initiate fresh research likely to be beneficial to New Testament study.” Vermes, “Jewish Studies and New Testament Interpretation,” 16. ↩︎
10. Charlesworth divides the sixty-three Old Testament pseudepigrapha into five categories: 19 apocalyptic literature and related works; 6 testaments (often with apocalyptic sections); 13 expansions of the Old Testament and legends; 5 wisdom and philosophical literature; 7 prayers, psalms, and odes; 13 fragments of lost Judeo-Hellenistic works. Some of these works, however, may be considered apocrypha (i.e. Pr Man; 3–4 Macc, etc.). See James
    H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols. (Garden City: Doubleday, 1983–85). Cf. Evans, Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation, 20–47. ↩︎
11. By apocrypha I mean the ten deuterocanonical books revered by the Roman Catholic Church (Add Esth and Dan are counted as one each). It also includes other works recognized as apocrypha by the Greek Orthodox Church, namely 1 Esd, Pr Man, Ps 151, 3 Macc, and their appended 4 Macc. Finally, 2 Esd is also included because it is part of the Slavonic Bibles approved by the Russian church. See Michael D. Coogan, ed., The New Oxford Annotated Apocrypha: The New Revised Standard Version, 3rd ed (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001). Cf. Evans, Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation, 9–19. ↩︎
12. The number of documents from Qumran ranges anywhere from 800 to 931. Whereas VanderKam generalizes the number to be 800, Evans, Wise, Abegg, and Cook qualify their suggestion of 870, and Tov merely concludes that 931 manuscripts exist. Of these, two hundred are biblical manuscripts. However on 20 January 2010, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary announced the purchase of three additional biblical fragments from cave 4 (Exod 23:8–9, Lev 18:27–29, and Dan 6:22–23) that are not included in the manuscript numbers above. James C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 31; Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1996), 5; Craig A. Evans, “The Messiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Israel’s Messiah in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Richard S. Hess and M. Daniel Carroll R. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 86; Emanuel Tov, “Foreword,” in The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity, ed. James VanderKam and Peter Flint (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2002), ix; Eugene Ulrich, “An Index of Passages in the Biblical Manuscripts from the Judean Desert (Genesis–Kings),” Dead Sea Discoveries 1 (1994), 113–29; idem, “An Index of Passages in the Biblical Manuscripts from the Judean Desert (Part 2: Isaiah–Chronicles),” Dead Sea Discoveries 2 (1995), 86–107. ↩︎
13. Nitzan refers to this category as “free exegetical compositions” whereby “exegetical creativity” occurs. See Nitzan, “Approaches to Biblical Exegesis,” 363. However, I prefer Brooke’s designation of “thematic.” See George J. Brooke’s more extensive work, Exegesis at Qumran (note 6 above). ↩︎
14. Since “sanctuary” is mentioned three times in 4QFlor (i.e. “the sanctuary of the Lord” [1:3], “the sanctuary of Israel” [1:6a], and “a sanctuary of men” [1:6b]), a debate exists as to whether 4QFlor’s eschatological sanctuary is limited to one made of stone, and whether it speaks of two or three sanctuaries. For a nice summation of the various views, see Michael O. Wise, “4QFlorilegium and the Temple of Adam,” Revue de Qumran 15 (1991) 103–32. ↩︎
15. Typical messianic terminology in the Qumran scrolls is “Messiah,” “The Branch of David,” “The Prince of the Congregation,” and “son.” For an extensive listing of these titles in extra-biblical material, see Herbert W. Bateman IV, “Expectations of Israel’s King,” in Jesus the Messiah: Tracing the Coming, Expectations, and Coming of Israel’s King, Herbert W. Bateman IV, Gordon H. Johnston, and Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2010). ↩︎
16. Although Bernstein argues that 4Q252 is a “‘simple-sense’ type commentary,” I agree with Kister that it, or at least this portion of 4Q252, digresses and thereby reflects a thematic form of exegesis. See Moshe J. Bernstein, “4Q252: From Re-Written Bible to Biblical Commentary,” Journal of Jewish Studies 45 (Spring 1994): 1–27. Cf. Menahem Kister, “Notes on Some New Texts from Qumran,” Journal of Jewish Studies 44 (1993): 287–89. ↩︎
17. Bernstein evaluates six exegetical issues within the document: (1) The identification of the 120 years of Gen 6:3, and their location within Noah’s life; (2) the chronology of the flood story; (3) Noah’s curse and blessing; (4) the chronology of Abrahams’ life; (5) the superfluous reference to Amalek in Gen 36:12; (6) Jacob’s blessing. Moshe J. Bernstein, “4Q252: From Re-Written Bible to Biblical Commentary,” Journal of Jewish Studies 45 (Spring 1994): 1–27. ↩︎
18. At this point, I do not follow Martínez and Tigchelaar’s rendering of המלשות as “the royalty” nor of דהגלים as “the standard.” (1) In a manner that is more in keeping with the parallel meanings of שבט and מחקק, I changed “the royalty” to “the kingdom,” which is also evident among other translations of this text. See Bernstein, “4Q252: From Re-Written Bible to Biblical Commentary,” 18–19; Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1996), 277. (2) In a manner that is more in keeping with the computer enhancement of the reading of הדגלים (standards = divisions) over שעלגר (“the feet”), I agree with Martínez and Tigchelaar’s rendering of “the standard,” but merely follow Vermes’ translation, “the divisions.” Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York: Penguin Books, 1962), 463. ↩︎
19. Reuben had sexual intercourse with Jacob’s concubine, Bilhah (Gen 35:22). As a result, when it came time for Jacob’s blessing of Reuben, it was said of him that he “will not excel.” Despite Reuben’s recognized ability to excel in “honor” and “power,” Jacob perceived that Reuben’s character flaw would prevent his descendants from being able to lead the family (Gen 49:4–5). Years later, the violation of Jacob’s honor was interpreted to be the event that excused Reuben from his honor as firstborn (1 Chron 5:1–2; cf. the supplemental material in Jub. 33:1–9 and harmonization of Hebrew Scriptures in Jub. 33:10–14). The deceitful and ruthless behavior which culminated in the bloodshed and ransacking of Shechem (Gen 34:24–29) disqualified Simeon and Levi from credible unified tribal power and prestige of leadership over the family. Jacob’s initial disdain over the matter (Gen 34:30) is reflected in Jacob’s blessing, at which time he gives his final reckoning of the situation (Gen 49:5–7; cf. however, Jub. 30:1–6, 18–20; 31:11–17). Simeon’s descendants all but disappear and Levi’s descendants are always fractured and dispersed among the tribes. See Gordon Johnston, “Messianic Trajectories in Genesis and Numbers,” in Jesus the Messiah: Tracing the Coming, Expectations, and Coming of Israel’s King, Herbert W. Bateman IV, Gordon H. Johnston, and Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2010). ↩︎
20. The Son’s designation as “king-PRIEST” highlights his primary function in this present age. Prior to 586 BCE, the Davidite function was primary as King over Israel, though he also did some functions of a priest. See E.H. Merrill, “Royal Priesthood: An Old Testament Messianic Motif,” Bibliotheca Sacra 150 (1993): 50–61; idem, Kingdom of Priests (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 263–67. Thus we might say he was “KING-priest.” In this present age, the Son rules as king but functions primarily as priest. Thus, he is “king-PRIEST.” This is not to suggest that Jesus has no authority (see Heb 1:5–14, 3:2–6; cf. Eph 5:23, Col 1:18–20). The designation, however, distinguishes the different emphasis between the first temple and this present age. Kurianal argues that in Heb 7:26–28 “the two titles of Jesus, High Priest and Son are inseparably connected as the identity of the new High Priest.” James Kurianal, Jesus Our High Priest (New York: Peter Lang, 2000), 158. Eventually, the Son will rule as “KING-PRIEST.” ↩︎
21. I deal more extensively with Heb 1:5–13 and 4Q174 in Early Jewish Hermeneutics and Hebrews 1:5–13 (New York: Peter Lang, 1997), 149–206; idem, “Two First Century Messianic Uses of the Old Testament: Hebrews 1:5–13 and 4QFlorilegium 1:1–19,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38 (March 1995): 11–27. Cf. George J. Brooke, “Shared Intertextual Interpretations in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament,” in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Michael E. Stone and Esther G. Chazon (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 35–57. ↩︎
22. Joseph Stein, Fiddler on the Roof, dir. Norman Jewison (Culver City, CA: The Mirisch Production Company, 1971). ↩︎
23. Although far from being an exhaustive listing, I list here only some examples. For “It is written,” see CD-A 1:13–14 [= 4Q266 f2i:17]; 5:1; 11:18 [= 4Q270 f6v:21; 4Q271 f5i:12], 11:20–21 [= 4Q271 f5i:14] (cf. CD-A 7:10–11); 1QS 5:15; 4Q174 f1 1:16; 2:3; 4Q177 3:7; 4Q265 f1 5:1; 4Q266 f11:3 & 4 [= 4Q270 7i:18 & 19]; 4Q396 f1 2iv:5 (cf. 4Q397 f6 13:11); 4Q397 f14 21:10–15 [= 4Q498 f14 17ii:2]. For “as it is written,” see CD-A 7:19 [= 4Q266 f3iii:20]; 19:1; CD-B 19:1; 1QS 5:17; 8:14; 4Q174 f1 1:2, 3, 12, 15 (Abegg & Martínez rendering of 1:15); 4Q177 1:2, 6, 11, [15]; 2:1, 13; 4Q182 f1:4; 4Q252 3:1; 4Q285 f5:1; 11Q13 2:23. For “what” or “which is written” (אשר כתוב), see 4Q163 f8 10:8; 4Q165 f1 2:2; 4Q174 f1 1:16; 4Q180 f5 6:2, 5. ↩︎
24. Although far from being an exhaustive listing, I list here only some examples. For “what he says,” see CD-A 9:2, 9 [= 4Q266 8ii:8–9; 4Q267 f9:14; 4Q270 f6 3:16–17]; CD-A 10:16 [= 4Q266 8iii]; CD-A 16:15 [= 4Q266 8ii]; 4Q174 f1 1:7. For “as he said”, see 4Q252
    4:1; CD-A 7:8; CD-B 20:16. For “God said,” see 4Q252 1:2; CD-A 6:13 [= 4Q f3ii:19] (cf. CD-A 9:7); CD-B 19:22. For “God spoke,” see CD-A 3:7; 14:10. For “as God swore,” see CD-A 3:21. For “Yahweh declares,” see 4Q174 f1 1:10. ↩︎
25. Vermes, “Biblical Proof-Texts in Qumran Literature,” 496–97. Vermes provides numerous examples. ↩︎
26. The translation is by Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, Vol 1 (1Q1–4Q273) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 567. ↩︎
27. Immediately following the Scripture citation is the phrase “And on the day of Sabbath no-one should.” Thus, I list some of the more notable regulations. Speech is regulated, particularly useless, or stupid speech (CD-A 10:17b–18a). Work is regulated, whether it be speaking about work, thinking about the work wished to be done, or planning the next day’s work schedule (CD-A 10:19–20). Naturally, sending a foreigner to do what is wished to be done is equally prohibited (CD-A 11:2). Walking is regulated, particularly the amount of walking permitted beyond the city limits (CD-A 10:17b–22). Retrieving and assisting animals is regulated, particularly retrieving animals beyond 2,000 cubits (CD-A 11:5b–6a) and assisting an animal to give birth or assist those who have fallen into a pit (CD-A 11:12b–14a). In fact, if “any living man who falls into a place of water or into a reservoir, no one should take him out with a ladder or a rope or a utensil” (CD-A 11:16–17). ↩︎
28. Vermes, “Biblical Proof-Texts in Qumran Literature,” 499. The translation is from Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San Francisco: Harper Collins Publishers, 1996), 132–33. ↩︎
29. Mention is made of “someone who has testified” and “Moses says” in 2:6 and 12:21 respectively. God speaks fourteen times (1:5, 13; 4:3, 4, 7; 5:5, 6; 7:9, 21; 8:8; 10:7, 30; 12: 5; 13:5), makes promises (12:26, 6:13), speaks through Scripture (cf. 7:17; 12:5), and speaks through his Spirit (3:7, 10, 15; 10:15, 17). See my discussion of Auctor’s use of Holy Spirit in “Response to Nathan Holsteen’s ‘The Trinity in the Letter to the Hebrews’” for the God and God Incarnate Study Group (Moderator: Douglas Blount) at the 61st Annual National Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (Nov 2009). ↩︎
30. Jesus may speak three times, though it is not exactly clear as to whether it is God or Jesus (2:12, 16; 10:5, 9). Thus Donaldson argues rightly that though Jesus may mediate the divine message to people, it is God who ultimately speaks throughout the Book of Hebrews. Amy M. Donaldson, “‘In Many and Various Ways, God Spoke . . .’ (Heb 1:1): Divine Communication in Hebrews,” paper presented at the Midwest Regional Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, 2002. ↩︎
31. ³¹For further discussion of Auctor’s comparative use of introductory formulas in Heb 1:5–13 and 4Q174, see my discussion in Early Jewish Hermeneutics and Hebrews 1:5–13, 149– 206. ↩︎
32. Tov speaks of this as “textual harmonization” and identifies various classifications and techniques employed. Emanuel Tov, “The Nature and Background of Harmonizations in Biblical Manuscripts,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 31 (1985): 3–29; idem, “4QReworked Pentateuch: A Synopsis of its Contents,” Revue de Qumran 16 (1995): 647–53. ↩︎
33. Compare discussions in Wise, Abegg, and Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 325–28; Emanuel Tov, “Biblical Texts as Reworked in some Qumran Manuscripts with Special Attention to 4QRP and 4QPParaGen–Exod,” in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Eugene Charles Ulrich and James C. VanderKam (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994) 127–29; M. Segal, “4QReworked Pentateuch or 4QPentateuch?” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After their Discovery 1947–1997, ed. L.H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J.C. VanderKam ( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 391–99; and Nitzan,“Approaches to Biblical Exegesis,” 353. Other examples may be found in 4Q158. Once again a comparison of discussions may be helpful here. See Wise, Abegg, and Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 199–204; M. Segal, “Biblical Exegesis in 4Q158: Techniques and Genre,” Textus 19 (1998): 45–62; and Nitzan, “Approaches to Biblical Exegesis,” 353–54. Still others exist in Jer. See Emanuel Tov, “Some Aspects of the Textual and Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah,” in Le Livre de Jérémie: Le prophéte et son milieu les oracles et leur transmission, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 54, ed. P.M. Bogaert (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1981), 145–67. ↩︎
34. O.S. Wintermute, “Jubilees,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985), 38. Cf. James Vanderkam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1977); idem, Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text, 2 Vols. (Lovarii: E. Peters, 1989); idem, The Book of Jubilees (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). ↩︎
35. For early discussions, see P.W. Skehan, “Exodus in the Samaritan Recension from Qumran,” Journal of Biblical Literature 74 (1955): 182–87; Idem, “Qumran and the Present State of Old Testament Text Studies: The Masoretic Text,” Journal of Biblical Literature (1959): 21–25. Although she speaks of them as “expansions,” Sanderson not only interacts with textual issues, she too provides numerous examples of harmonizing. Judith E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExodm and the Samaritan Tradition, Harvard Semitic Studies 30 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 261–88, 200–05. See also Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 121–47. ↩︎
36. Ulrich, The Scrolls and the Hebrew Bible, 102–04. Although Ulrich views this as a “text variant,” it seems possible harmonization occurs here (see 106–20). Regardless, other examples of harmonizing exegesis are detected easily in The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. Exod 18:25 is replaced with the fuller details of Deut 1:9–18 and the Ten Commandments in Exod 20:19 is filled out with a more detailed account from Deut 5:24–27. See also 4QpaleoExod^m (4Q22) and the reiteration of God’s command in Exod 8:1–3 before Pharaoh. Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999), 53, 55; cf. 35. ↩︎
37. Other examples are CD 5:13–17 and CD 8:12–13 = 19:24–26. See Vermes, “Biblical Proof-texts in Qumran Literature,” 492–93. For examples of harmonizing exegesis in the Temple Scroll, see Nitzan, “Approaches to Biblical Exegesis,” 356–59. ↩︎
38. Charlesworth refers to this sort of exegesis as fulfillment exegesis. James H. Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 7–8, 14–16, 68–77. Kister also views fulfillment as a key element of pesher exegesis. Menahem Kister, “A Common Heritage: Biblical Interpretation at Qumran and Its Implication” in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Michael E. Stone and Esther G. Chazon (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 103–04. ↩︎
39. Horgan identifies eighteen pesher texts (1QpHab, 1QpMic, 1QpZeph, 1QpPs, 3QpIsa, 4QpIsa^a–e, 4QpHos^a–b, 4QpMic, 4QpNah, 4QpZeph, 4QpPs^a–b, 4QpUnid [unidentified fragment presumed to be of pesharim]), but only the fifteen mentioned above have been identified as pesher with certainty. Carmignac and others refer to these as “péshèr continu” as opposed to “péshèr thématique.” Continuous pesharim interpret an Old Testament prophetic book section by section, whereas thematic pesharim have interpretations grouped around a general theme (e.g., 4QFlor). Thus, according to Carmignac, most if not all Qumran sectarian literature is pesher. Maurya P. Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 8 (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1979), 1; J. Carmignac, “Le document de Qumrân sur Melkisédeq,” Revue de Qumran 7 (1970): 343–78. ↩︎
40. See Bateman, Early Jewish Hermeneutics and Hebrews 1:5–13, 79–116. ↩︎
41. Charlesworth argues most convincingly throughout his book that “the historical data mirrored in the pesharim can be recovered and understood only within a balance of delicate possibilities and probabilities.” Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History. Cf. Phillip R. Callaway, The History of the Qumran Community: An Investigation (Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1988). ↩︎
42. See Sandy’s discussion of the transparency and translucence of prophecy. D. Brent Sandy, Plowshares & Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic (Downers Grove: IVP, 2002). ↩︎
43. See my discussion in Early Jewish Hermeneutics and Hebrews 1:5–13, 83–84; see also page 96 where I discuss how 1QpHab maintains the theological emphasis of Hab but through an already-not yet exegesis. ↩︎
44. I am playing off Sandy’s statement concerning how prophecies have been fulfilled. He readily acknowledges that “The sovereign I wills have already become the I dids.” Sandy, Plowshares & Pruning Hooks, 129–54. Although we view Hab to be fulfilled with the literal coming of Nebuchadnezzar and subsequent deporting of people, dismantling of the Davidic dynasty, and destruction of Solomon’s temple, the Righteous Teacher looked for a contemporary fulfillment and future consummation of the prophet’s words for the Qumran community. ↩︎
45. The translation is by Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, Volume 1 (1Q1–4Q273) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 13. ↩︎
46. ⁴⁶Relying upon many of André Dupont-Sommer’s arguments from “Le ‘Commentaire d’Habacuc’ découvert près de la mer Morte,” Revue de l’histoire des religions 137 (1950): 128– 71, Detaye provides contextual evidence from 1QpHab to support his contention that “la description des Kittím fournie par le Midrash convient parfaitement aux Romains:” (1) they came from the islands; (2) they had commanders (i.e., imperator) and generals not kings; (3) they worshiped their standards; (4) they exacted tribute; and (5) the “house of expiation” was an offensive designation of the Roman senate. C.J. Detaye, “Le Cadre Historique du Midrash d’Habacuc,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 30 (1954): 323–43, esp. 323–30. Compare Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971 ed., s.v. “Kittim”; International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1986 ed., s.v., “Kittim”; Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2000 ed., s.v. “Kittim.” ↩︎
47. This sort of interpretation may be characteristic of typology or allegory. If typological, one might argue that only seven of the nine “Chaldean” references shift to the “Kittim;” two do not. In 1QpHab 8:13b–9:7, the term “Chaldeans” refers to “the last priests of Jerusalem,” and the phrase “the rest of the nations” refers to “the army of the Kittim.”Thus, the point is not that “Chaldeans” always refer to “Kittim” but the term “Chaldeans” is applied to any “corrupt group of people, Jew or Gentile, who occupy Palestine.” Thus, the underlying conceptual character traits of the Chaldeans, not the literal historical group of people, appear most important to the Qumranite; thus, it is these traits, symbolized by the term “Chaldeans,” that shift from one group to another. Others might argue that it is a form of allegory. For instance, Hab 2:17 reads: “for the violence of Lebanon shall cover you and the violence against the animals (beasts) will terrify you” (NET: “For you will pay in full for your violent acts against Lebanon; terrifying judgment will come upon you”). The language may anticipate Nebuchadnezzar’s utilization of trees from the Lebanon forest in building projects, and its animals probably represent the western Palestinian states conquered by the Babylonians. Nitzan, however, rightly recognizes “Lebanon” interpreted in 1QpHab 3:12 to be “men or members of the sect.” Thus “Lebanon” = “Members of the Sect,” or more specifically, the community council. “Beast” in the passage, according to Nitzan, speaks of the wild people of Judah who perform the Law (12:4). Based upon typical comparisons of a person who is ignorant and thereby a “beast” before God (Ps 73:22; cf. 49:21), the term “beast” serves as an allegorical way to refer to the “stupid” or the “simple” of Judah. “They were,” according to Nitzan, “men who joined the sect and accepted their laws, or at least part of them, but had not attained expertise in the rules of the sect, hence they needed instruction and direction in keeping them.” Bilhah Nitzan, The Habakkuk Commentary, 43–46. The point to be made here is not whether this is allegory or typology, but rather that it reflects an already-not yet exegetical practice. ↩︎
48. Kittim in General: In 1QpHab 3:9–14, “the Chaldeans who come to use violence (from Hab 1:9a) are the Romans who trample the land with their horses and their animals and come from far off, from the islands of the sea, to devour all the nations, like an eagle, insatiable.” In 1QpHab 6:5b–12a, “The Chaldean tyrant who continually unsheathes his sword to kill peoples without pity” (from Hab 1:17) are the Romans who will cause many to die. Cf. 1QpHab 3:2–6a. Kittim Leaders: In 1QpHab 3:17–4:9a, “the Chaldean who laughs at every strong fortress, piles up earth and captures it” (from Hab 1:10b) refers to Roman leaders. They “despise the fortresses of the peoples and with derision laugh at them, they surround them with a huge army to capture them.” In 1QpHab 4:9b–13a, “the wind changes and goes on” (from Hab 1:11) is interpreted to speak of Roman leaders who will come to raze the earth. Note the already-not yet actions of the Romans are described in both sets of references. Kittim Army: In 1QPHab 8:13b–9:7, the Scripture passage cited is Hab 2:8a. However, it no longer interprets the “Chaldeans” to mean the Kittim. The “Chaldeans” now speak to “the last priests of Jerusalem.” Rather, “the rest of the nations” is interpreted to mean “the army of the Kittim.” Thus the point is not that “Chaldeans” always refer to “Kittim” but that the term “Chaldeans” is applied to any contemporaneous corrupt group of people, Jew or Gentile, who occupy Palestine. Thus the underlying conceptual character traits of the Chaldeans, not the literal historical group of people, appear most important to the Qumranite and thus it is these traits, symbolized by the term “Chaldeans,” that shift from one group to another. Cf. 1QpHab 6:1. In War Scroll (1QM), Qumranites foresee themselves in a future battle against the Kittim (1:2, 4, 6, 9, 12; 11:11; 15:2; 16:3, 6, 9; 17:12, 14, 15; 18:2, 4; 19:10, 13; cf. also 4Q161 3:7, 11, 12; 4Q491 f10 ii: 10, 12; f11 ii:20; f13:3, 5). ↩︎
49. Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 155. Many Old Testament passages are presented in an already-not yet manner (Ps 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:14 in Heb 1:5; Ps 45:6–7 in Heb 1:7–8; Ps 110:1 in Heb 1:13; Ps 2:7 and Ps 110:4 in Heb 51–7:28; Ps 40:7–8 in Heb 10:7). ↩︎
50. ⁵⁰Donald R. Glenn, “Psalm 8 and Hebrews 2: A Case Study in Biblical Hermeneutics and Biblical Theology,” in Walvoord: A Tribute, ed. Donald K. Campbell (Chicago: Moody Press, 1982), 39–51. Cf. Sandy’s similar comments about Ps 22 in Heb 2:12. Sandy, Plowshares & Pruning Hook, 34–37. ↩︎
51. Although Philo clearly favors allegorical exegesis, his allegorical approach has governing principles. He speaks of “canons of allegory” (Somn. I.73; Spec. I.287) and “laws of allegory”(Abr.68). Cf. C. Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger der Alten Testaments( Jena: Dufft, 1975), 165–68. In addition, his disassociation from literal interpretation, according to Longenecker, was “both conscious and deliberate” (Spec. II.147; QE II.71; Plant. 74; Fug. 191; Somn. I.15). Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 30–33. ↩︎
52. “Dust could also be a symbol for degradation (Gen 3:14). “For further discussion, see W.H. Brownlee, “The Habakkuk Midrash and the Targum of Jonathan,” Journal of Jewish Studies 7(1956): 169–86; idem, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1979), 77–79; R.P. Gordon, “The Targum to the Minor Prophets and the Dead Sea Texts: Textual and Exegetical Notes,” Revue de Qumran 8 (1974): 425–29; Nitzan, “The Commentator’s Habits of Literary Creation,” in The Habakkuk Commentary, 42–43. ↩︎
53. Exhortations: 4Q266 f6; 4Q268 f1; CD-A 1:1–8:21; CD-B 19; Laws: 4Q266 f5, f6 1–2, f9 1–2, f12, f13, f18 1–2, 5; 4Q270 f6, f9, f11; 4Q271 f1 1–2; 4Q272 f1 1–2; CD-A 9:1–16–20. See the discussion and divisions of “The Damascus Document” (Geniza A = B, 4Q266–72) in Wise, Abegg, and Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, 49–74. Cf. García Martínez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 1:551–625. ↩︎
54. Except for the two alterations, insertions of Hebrew terms, and italic for emphasis, the translation is from Martínez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 1:559. This account is also found in 4Q266 f3 ii:10–11; 4Q267 f2:9–11. A similar definition exists in CD 3:12–16. Abandoning “wells of living water” is a serious offense as observed in CD 19:34. “Thus all the men who entered the new covenant in the land of Damascus and turned and betrayed and departed from the well of living waters, shall not be counted in the assembly of the people, they shall not be inscribed in their lists, from the day of the gathering in [of the teacher].” ↩︎
55. Kister cites two other examples. (1) The term “landmarks” in Deut 19:14, “you shall not remove your neighbour’s landmarks, which those of old established,” is allegorized to refer to the commandments in CD 1:16, Philo (Spec. Laws 4.149–50), and a late midrash (Midrash Mishlei 22). All share the same allegorical attitude of interpretations concerning the term “landmarks.” (2) By connecting Isa 61:1–2 with Lev 25:10, 11QMelch interprets Lev 25:9–13 as well as Deut 15:2 as referring to the redemption of the righteous. Note, however, that the former defines a term, whereas the latter is a reference shift. Kister, “A Common Heritage: Biblical Interpretation at Qumran and Its Implication,” 110–11. ↩︎
56. Philo, Dreams, 2.271 (F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker). The italic reflects my translation of φησιν (fasin), and my rendering of επι του φρέατος (epi tou freatos). Although a pure historical retelling of the Num 21:16–18 event exists in Moses 1:255–57, most of the time the “well” is redefined to be wisdom, knowledge, or the sacred word. In referencing Numbers 21:16–18 elsewhere, wisdom is likened to a well (Drunkenness, 112–13). For Philo, a well is knowledge, which, like well water, is hidden and can only be gained by hard work (Dreams 1:6–12; cf. Post. 130, 151; Fug. 212–13). At one point, Philo explains that the water of the well is as “the sacred word supplying streams of knowledge, but the well is particularly associated with memory” (Post. 153). ↩︎
57. Adapted from J.H. Shutt, “Letter of Aristeas,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol 2, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Garden City: Doubleday, 1985), 7–11. ↩︎
58. Let. Aris. 150–51. ↩︎
59. See G.B. Caird, “Exegetical Method of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Canadian Journal of Theology 5 (1959): 44–51. Caird also suggests that the author’s use of “rest” is a spiritual one (48). However, Jon Laansma rightly argues the “rest” in Hebrews is a place. Having argued that Heb 3–4 speaks of two situations, namely two “parallel” communities and their respective response to God’s voice, Laansma moves on to define κατάπαυσις and σαββατισμός (276–83). On the one hand, σαββατισμός is a Sabbath celebration and not a quietistic ideal nor a locale. On the other hand, κατάπαυσις is a local reality, a place, similar to other eschatological, local realities (i.e., “the coming world” in 2:5; the heavenly city in 11:10, 16; 12:22; 13:14; the unshakeable kingdom in 12:28, etc.). Preliminaries completed, Laansma provides an exposition of Heb 4:1–11 (283–305). He presents and argues that God’s resting place is where God holds his own Sabbath celebration, a place which was always intended for human entrance, promised to the “fathers,” and is yet to be realized. Jon Laansma, I Will Give You Rest: The Rest Motif in the New Testament with Special Reference to Mt 11 and Heb 3–4. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2 (Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1997). Hanson, like Longenecker, limits allegory to this one example. He argues “there is only one solitary example of allegorizing in Hebrews, and that is when he gives an allegorical etymology for the name Melchizedek (7:2), an allegorization so simple and obvious that though Philo reproduces it also we cannot call it characteristically Alexandrian, much less characteristically Philonic. Otherwise the Epistle gives no sign of allegory.” R.P.C. Hanson, Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen’s Interpretation of Scripture (Richmond: John Knox, 1959), 86. ↩︎
60. Auctor has already redefined “forever” once while quoting Ps 45:6–7 in Heb 1:5–13. Using the thematic and proof-text exegetical methods, the figurative usage of the term, when applied to the Son, is quite literal. See my “Psalm 45:6–7 and Its Christological contributions to Hebrews,” Trinity Journal (2001): 3–21. Cf. Sandy’s discussion of the term “forever” in Plowshares & Pruning Hook, 98–102. For my historical understanding of Ps 110, see “Psalm 110:1 in the New Testament,” Bibiotheca Sacra 149 (1992): 438–53. ↩︎
61. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 163. ↩︎
62. The Pr Man is one work where I nuance what is happening differently than Charlesworth. He views the work as inspirational exegesis whereby an Old Testament passage serves as an inspiration for the author’s own imagination. This is not to say, however, that the author may have been inspired by the event. It just seems more reasonable to suggest that the book is more in keeping with supplemental exegesis. Similarly it might be argued that Jer 29 may have inspired the author to write Ep Jer. However, the content of the work appears to serve as a cross between thematic exegesis and harmonizing exegesis. ↩︎
63. Add Esth serves as another example for supplementary exegesis. Esth 3:12–13 mentions that letters written in various languages were sent by runners throughout the kingdom. Add Esth 13:1–7, however, fills the gap concerning the actual edict dictated by Haman. Esth 5:1–2 describes Esther’s presence in the great king’s throne room, but Add Esth 15:1–16’s embellishment of the event, reflects a cultural awareness of Persian protocol and God’s intervention on Esther’s behalf. For a discussion concerning Persian protocol see Pierre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, trans. Peter T. Daniels (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 225–301, particularly 258–62. For references to Esther and her life as a royal concubine see 129, 279, 282–86. For other examples of embellishments in Esth, see David A. deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 110–26. ↩︎
64. Translation by Martínez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 1:41. Cf. Joseph A. Fiztmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I: A Commentary, Biblica et orientalia, 18a (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971), 63, 119–24. Another sort of expansion exists in the two editions of Jeremiah where 4QJer^b, 4QJer^d, and the LXX display one short edition (some 13%) and 2QJer, 4QJer^a, 4QJer^c and the MT display another more expanded edition that evidences minor explications, clarifications, lengthened titles, etc. See Emanuel Tov, “Some aspects of the Textual and Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah,” in Le livre de Jéreémie: Le prophéte et son mulieu, les oracles et leur transmission, 145–67; idem, “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in Light of its Textual History,” in The Greek & Hebrews Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 363–84. For an English translation, see Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 382–406. ↩︎
65. Translation by Martínez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 1:200. Cf. Wise, Abegg, and Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 1:199–204. For other examples, see Nitzan, “Approaches to Biblical Exegesis in Qumran Literature,” 352–53. ↩︎
66. One might easily argue for three major centers of Judaism: Jerusalem, Samaria, and Alexandria. The existence of the Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians argue against a monolithic or “authorized Judaism” in Judea. Albert I. Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation (Leiden: Brill, 1997).
    For example, no “authorized” theological position exists concerning resurrection. Whereas some groups and literary works maintain such a view (Pharisees: Acts 23:6–9; cf., Heb 11:35; Literary Works: 2 Macc 7:9, 11, 14, 23, 28–29; 12:43–45; 14:46; 4 Macc 15:2–3,
    8, 27; 1 En. 90:19–41), others do not (Samaritans: Mark 12:18–27; Sir 46:12; T. Sim. 6:2). The issue of resurrection appears less than clear at Qumran (1QS 11:8, 1QH 3:21–24). For discussions about resurrection in the apocrypha, see deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha, 190– 91, 277–78, 377. For discussions about resurrection at Qumran, see Maxell J. Davidson, Angels at Qumran: A Comparative Study of 1 Enoch 1–36, 72–108 and Sectarian Writings from Qumran (Sheffield: Academic Press, 1992), 169, 192–93. No “authorized” position exists concerning the coming Messiah. See Jacob Neusner, William S. Green, and Ernest Frerichs, eds., Judiasms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987); Bateman, “Expectations of Israel’s King.” No authorized position appears to exist concerning the powers behind idols (cf. Wis 13:1–15:17; Ep Jer; Bel; 1QpHab 12:10–13:3 with Bar 4:7; T. Job 2–5; 1 Cor 10:14–21).
    Mindful that an “authorized Old Testament canon” is a post-Second Temple happening, which Hebrew Scriptures were “authorized” books during the later period of the Second Temple period? Certainly the Torah was. The books of Torah are well represented at Qumran, solely revered by the Samaritans (Samaritan Pentateuch), and are clearly the Old Testament texts translated into Greek (Let. Aris.; cf. Hengel’s discussion, 19, 25–26, 76–77). Second Temple authors favored certain Old Testament books: Deut (Qumran: 32 mss, New Testament quotes 41 times), Isa (Qumran: 22 mss, New Testament quotes 45 times), and Pss (Qumran: 39 mss, New Testament quotes 55 times). Hengel estimates that 60% of the direct citations of the Old Testament come from these three texts (107). Broadly speaking the “Law, the Prophets, and the Writings” are highly regarded. The Qumranites believed, “to you we have [written] that you must understand the book of Moses [and] the book[s of the pr] rophets and Davi[id . . . (4Q397 f 14 21:10; Cf. Sirach’s Prologue; Luke 24:44; Josephus, C. Ap. 1:37–43; Philo, Contempl. 25–29; Justin, Dial. 30:1–2). What books, however, constituted the “Prophets” and what books constituted “David” or the “Writings”? In addition, Jub. is quoted as authoritative at Qumran (Jub. 23:11 in CD 10:8–10), 1 En. is quoted as an authoritative source in Jude. See examples of possible conceptual allusions in Martin Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2002), 54–56, 70–74, 110–12.
    Although equally concerned with issues of canon, Ulrich directs much attention to the “text” of the “canon in process” as opposed to the “text” of the canon that “represents a reflexive judgment, denotes a closed list, and concerns biblical books” (53–73). He argues “the text was plurifiom” (3–16). “The Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, and Josephus demonstrate bountifully that there were variant literary editions of the books of Scripture in the late Second Temple period” (9–10). Hengel’s discussion of “The LXX as a Collection of Writings” in The Septuagint as Christian Scripture (25–56) supports Ulrich’s allusion to the LXX’s “collection of disparate texts” (32). At Qumran, Ulrich acknowledges the stability of some texts (Gen, Lev, Isa, and the 12 minor prophets), whereas other books evidence at least two editions (Exod, Num, Jer, Pss, and Dan). Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible, Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999). ↩︎
67. Emanuel Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. rev. and enl. ed., Jerusalem Biblical Studies 3 ( Jerusalem: Simor, 1997). Although the aim of the LXX translation is to “transfer the message of the Hebrew Bible into Greek for the Jewish-Greek reader,” literal ( Judg [B text], Pss, Ezra, Neh, and Chron) and non-literal (Isa, Job, Prov, Esth and Dan) renderings exist in the LXX (17–29). In his evaluation of the LXX, however, Tov recognizes the “tendency, even among critical scholars, to depreciate the value of the LXX by ascribing most of its deviations to the translators’ exegesis and techniques” (33). And though it is common knowledge that “all translations reflect exegesis,”“these elements may be divided into linguistic and contextual exegesis.” “Every translation reflects linguistic exegesis,” he says. Nevertheless “contextual exegesis” involves the translator’s wider context of text, history, and conceptual world. Such exegesis includes additions, omissions, and substitutions (see 45–50). The purpose here, however, is to focus attention on contextual exegesis, particularly the subcategory Tov calls “additions,” and I, supplemental exegesis. ↩︎
68. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 239. Ulrich identifies other examples of supplemental exegesis. A single word expansion occurs in 2 Sam 13:37, whereas MT reads גשרו,
    4QSam^a reads גשרו בצרץ
    (247).
    A euphemistic insertion also occurs in 2 Sam 12:16, whereas MT reads ובא ולן ושכב ארצה ,
    4QSam^a reads ובא ולן וישכב בשק ארצה
    (242). ↩︎
69. Gen 9:22 and Exod 32:26 are just two of six examples cited in Emanuel Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research, Jerusalem Biblical Studies 3 ( Jerusalem: Simor, 1981), 46–47. The LXX translation of Gen 9:22 differs from Tov’s. Ps 102:26 is discussed in my book Early Jewish Hermeneutics and Hebrews 1:5–13, 136–38. For other examples see Emanuel Tov, The Greek & Hebrews Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (Leiden: Brill, 1999). ↩︎
70. For further discussion see Brook, Exegesis at Qumran, 295–301. ↩︎
71. Although my concern here is additions, Brooke rightly identifies at least three other groups of exegetical variants evident in Hebrew Scripture citations. (1) There are syntactical and grammatical variants like the change in person (Ps 37:10 in 4QPs^a 1–10 ii 7), a deliberate change in number (Nah 2:13b in 4QpNah 3–4 i 6), a difference in gender (Nah 3:13a in 4QpNah 3–4 i 4), and changes in tense (Hos 8:6b in 4QpHos^b 11–13:5). (2) Intentional omissions from Hebrew Scripture occur in 4Q162 (4QpIsa^b) in that it jumps from Isa 5:14 to 5:24b to identify the crowd in Jerusalem (Isa 5:14) with those who reject the Law (Isa 5:14). Finally, (3) George J. Brooke, “The Biblical Texts in Qumran” in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee, ed. Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1987), 85–100. ↩︎
72. See my discussion in “Psalm 45:6–7 and Its Christological Contributions to Hebrews,” Trinity Journal 22 (2001), 3–21. ↩︎
73. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 140. ↩︎
74. Ibid., 140–41. ↩︎