Attitudes to Gentiles in the Minor Prophets and in Corresponding Pesharim*

Home , 4Q166, Amos 1, Amos 3, Amos 9, Eber, Habakkuk Commentary

Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509 brill.com/dsd

Anselm C. Hagedorn Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin [email protected] Shani Tzoref Georg-August-Universität Göttingen [email protected]

Abstract This essay surveys the attitudes towards gentiles/foreign nations in constructions of the “other” in the Minor Prophets of the Hebrew Bible, and examines how the biblical trajectories are continued and reshaped in the corresponding pesharim from Qumran. The development of the biblical texts is examined from historical, literary, and theological perspectives. Thus, for example, the concrete historical encounter with Assyria shaped the original prophecies of the last three pre-exilic prophets (Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah), while later redactional layers transform these texts by incorporating the experience of the Babylonian conquest. Literarily and theologically, the initial texts focus upon individual judgement against a concrete people, and the divine salvation of Israel from this threat. In the Persian period, there is an initial expansion of the focus to universal judgment, highlighting the special status of Israel vis-à-vis other nations. This is followed by a narrowing of the group selected for salvation, so that only the righteous of Judah will survive the final judgment. In the pesharim, there is further narrowing of the discourse of alterity for internal identity formation, as the biblical prophecies against foreign enemies are applied to the group’s contemporary antagonists,

* We would like to thank R. G. Kratz and M. Popović for giving us the oppor- tunity to cooperate on the subject as well as for their helpful suggestions while writing the article. Also thanks should go to the anonymous reviewers from DSD whose comments helped to sharpen the argument, and to M. J. Bernstein and N. Sharon for their responses to earlier drafts. All remaining shortcomings are of course our own. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013 DOI: 10.1163/15685179-12341287 A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509 473 including rival Jewish groups. Pesher Habakkuk closely follows the book of Habakkuk in depicting Gentiles as idolators, and in portraying foreign nations as both instruments and objects of divine retribution. The references to the Babyloni- ans (termed “Chaldeans”) in Habakkuk are applied in the pesher to the “Kittim,” understood by modern scholars to stand for Rome. This view of Rome as a significant existential and eschatological enemy reflects a profound theological and psychological development in sectarian thought. Pesher Nahum interprets the prophecies against Gentiles in Nahum primarily as condemnation of Jewish enemies.

Keywords Foreign nations; gentiles; Twelve Minor Prophets; pesharim

1. Introduction1

It is an interpretative fact, often observed, that Oracles against the Nations form an integral part of biblical prophecy.2 This observation allows for the conclusion that ancient Israel defines itself against the background of its neighbours. As a result the foreign other becomes an essential aspect of the group’s own formation of identity, without collapsing identity into identification, as the differences remain and are a crucial part ofthe discourse.3 Normally, such oracles consist of an announcement of future

1 The first part of the article uses ideas that have been treated in more detail in A. C. Hagedorn, Die Anderen im Spiegel: Israels Auseinandersetzung mit den Völkern in den Büchern Nahum, Zefanja, Obadja und Joel (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009); idem, “Diaspora or no Diaspora? Some Remarks on the Role of Egypt and Babylon in the Book of the Twelve,” in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights (ed. R. Albertz, J. D. Nogalski, and J. Wöhrle; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), 319–36. 2 Cf. J. Barton, Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1986), 203: “. . . it seems to have come to be thought normal, even obligatory, for prophetic books to include oracles against a variety of foreign nations.” The phenomenon does not seem to be limited to the Hebrew Bible, see M. Weippert, “König, fürchte dich nicht! Assyrische Prophetie im 7. Jh. v. Chr.,” Or 71 (2002): 1–54; for the ancient Near East and A. C. Hagedorn, “Looking at Foreigners in Biblical and Greek Proph- ecy,” VT 57 (2007): 432–48, for Greek parallels. 3 See D. LaCapra, History in Transit: Experience, Identity, Critical Theory (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2004), 37, who states: “Nor should it [i.e. 474 A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509 doom against a specific ruler, city or nation and the prophetic proclamation that Yahweh will enact judgement upon the nations.4 The audience for such an oracle is almost exclusively Israel and the original place of origin of such oracles might have been war.5 It is however, virtually impossi- ble to pin individual oracles to concrete battles or military campaigns as the result, i.e., the destruction or defeat of the adversaries, seems to be the prevalent point.6 In other words: it is the historical encounter with the surrounding people that triggers the discourse and not a single specific event. In such cases the punishment announced for the foreign nation might be described not so much in terms of its disastrous consequences for them as conversely in terms of beneficial consequences for the identity] be conflated with identification in the sense of total fusion with others wherein difference is obliterated and criticism is tantamount to betrayal. But identity does involve modes of being with others that range from the actual to the imagined, virtual, sought-after, normatively affirmed, or utopian. Moreover, it is important to explore the relations and articulations among various qualifiers of identity, especially group identity, which may be ascribed by others, taken up or confronted by he self or by members of the group, deconstructed, refunctioned, affirmed, or acknowledged in more or less revised fashion, earned though collec- tive activity, and recognized, validated, or invalidated by others.” 4 See P. R. Raabe, “Why Prophetic Oracles against the Nations?” in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of his Seventieth Birthday (ed. A. B. Beck et al.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995), 236–57. 5 Thus D. L. Christensen, Transformations of the War Oracle in Old Testament Prophecy: Studies in the Oracles against the Nations (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975), whose argument, however, that any word against a foreign nation originated in a concrete oracle of a priest or a prophet immediately before the battle is difficult to maintain; Hagedorn, “Looking at Foreigners in Biblical and Greek Prophecy,” 438. The arguments against such a political use of words against foreign people put forward in J. B. Geyer, “Another Look at the Oracles about the Nations in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to A. C. Hagedorn,” VT 59 (2009): 80–87 are hardly convincing. 6 On the topic of (holy) war in the prophetic books see U. Berges, “Heili- gung des Krieges und Heiligung der Krieger: Zur Sakralisierung des Krieges in der Prophetie Israels,” in Juda und Jerusalem in der Seleukidenzeit: Herrschaft— Widerstand—Identität, Festschrift für Heinz-Josef Fabry (ed. U. Dahmen and J. Schnocks; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 43–57. A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509 475

audience . . . The announcement of punishment concerning the enemy nation thus might include elements of an announcement of salvation for the people of Yahweh, to be overheard (as it were) by them, so that the prophecy of punishment against a foreign nation functioned for Israel or Judah virtually as a prophecy of salvation.7 The oracles can be seen as part of a discourse employing stereotypes that shed light on the question how the “other” is constructed in the Hebrew Bible.8 These oracles are only possible because the hearers/readers already possess certain knowledge of the actions/characteristics of the foreigners. Whether such knowledge is historically accurate or based on concrete encounters is not always important,9 because the imagined community— to use a term coined by Benedict Anderson10—utilizes the imagined adver- sary to proclaim salvation for one’s own group. These quasi form-critical remarks should not evoke the impression that the oracle against foreign nations is a fixed category, easily detectable by a certain form or Gattung.11 Rather, we have to stress that these words are only connected by their contents (and probably their intention).

7 M. H. Floyd, Minor Prophets: Part 2 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000), 636; for a different view see R. Albertz, Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E. (Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 183: “This means: the widespread scholarly opinion that the foreign nation oracles represent an indirect proclamation of salvation for Israel (thus frequently denying their authorship by the classical prophets of judgment) is incorrect as a general rule.” 8 See A. C. Hagedorn, “Nahum—Ethnicity and Stereotypes: Anthropological Insights into Nahum’s Literary History,” in Ancient Israel: The Old Testament in its Social Context (ed. P. F. Esler; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2005), 223–39. The rather inflationary use of the term “other” in current anthropological discourse has been critically evaluated by J. Fabian, “The Other Revisited: Critical Afterthoughts,” Anthropological Theory 6 (2006): 139–52. 9 For an evaluation of how Israel shapes its identity in the presence of the Assyrian threat see P. Machinist, “TheRab Šāqēh at the Wall of Jerusalem: Israel- ite Identity in the Face of the Assyrian ‘Other,’ ” HS 41 (2000): 151–68. 10 B. Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism (rev. ed.; London: Verso, 1999). 11 See the remarks in B. Huwyler, Jeremia und die Völker: Untersuchungen zu den Völkersprüchen in Jeremia 46–49 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 2–5. 476 A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509

The recent interest into processes at work in the literary development of the Book of the Twelve beyond simple catchword phenomena and direct literary quotations has also sparked new interest into the role of the nations.12 After the ground breaking studies by O. H. Steck,13 B. M. Zapff has used the perspective of the nations in the book of Micah as a possible clue to the systematization of the nations’ role in Joel, Jonah, Nahum and J. Wöhrle has detected two corpora relating to the foreign nations in the Book of the Twelve as well as an expanded corpus addressing the issue of salvation.14 These are highly stimulating and truly thought-provoking pro- posals that pushed the boundaries of scholarship but we have to admit that they sometimes seem to lack a historical anchor. It is precisely this historical anchor in the concrete history of Israel and Judah with their neighbours that provides the starting point for further theological development of the individual saying against gentiles within the literary history of the individual book as well as of larger redactional entities. Our essay will first survey the attitude towards gentiles/foreign nations in the Minor Prophets of the Hebrew Bible tracing the literary and theological developments of the attitude towards them. Secondly we will look at the corresponding pesharim from Qumran and investigate how the biblical trajectories are continued and reshaped.15

12 See the overview of recent scholarship in A. Schart, “Das Zwölfpropheten- buch als redaktionelle Großeinheit,” TLZ 133 (2008): 227–46. 13 O. H. Steck, Der Abschluß der Prophetie im Alten Testament: Ein Versuch zur Frage der Vorgeschichte des Kanons (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991). 14 B. M. Zapff, “The Perspective of the Nations in the Book of Micah as a ‘Sys- tematization’ of the Nation’s Role in Joel, Jonah, Nahum?” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve (ed. P. L. Redditt and A. Schart; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003), 292–312; J. Wöhrle, Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Untersuchungen zu ihrer Entstehung und Komposition (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006); idem, Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Buchübergreifende Redaktionspro zesse in den späten Sammlungen (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008). 15 Here our work is indebted to the excellent studies of R. G. Kratz, “Der Pescher Nahum und seine biblische Vorlage,” in Prophetenstudien: Kleine Schriften II ( Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 99–145 and J. J. M. Roberts, “The Impor- tance of Isaiah at Qumran,” in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charles- worth; 3 vols.; Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2006), 1:273–86. A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509 477

2. The Historical Dimension of Gentiles in the Minor Prophets

The encounter with Assyria as the first truly imperial power that appears in Palestine provides the basis for Israel’s engagement with foreign nations or people. Therefore it is hardly surprising that the last three pre-exilic prophets (Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah) are shaped by the debate about how to engage with the Assyrian empire.16 Though Habakkuk may be an exception here, the literary origin of Nahum and Zephaniah has to be seen in the words against the Assyrians. Previously to the Assyrian encounter, both Israel and Judah experienced cultural and imperial contacts with Egypt.17 As will be explained in detail below these contacts, however, never led to specific words against Egypt as has been the case, e.g., in the book of Isaiah or Jeremiah.18 Next to the Assyrians and the Babylonians who remain anonymous in the Twelve but nevertheless shape the redaction of individual books, Israel engages with a variety of surrounding nations. Again, concrete historical encounters seem to form the starting point here, even though these are now difficult to uncover, as for example Amos 1:2–2:6 demonstrates.19

16 See R. J. Coggins, “The Minor Prophets—one Book or Twelve?” inCrossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder (ed. S. E. Porter, P. Joyce, and D. E. Orton; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 64; W. Dietrich, “Three Minor Prophets and the Major Empires: Synchronic and Diachronic Per- spectives on Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah,” in Perspectives in the Formation of the Book of Twelve, 147–56. 17 On this see B. U. Schipper, “Egypt and the Kingdom of Judah under Josiah and Jehoiakim,” TA 37 (2010): 200–26; idem, “Egyptian Imperialism after the New Kingdom: The 26th Dynasty and the Southern Levant,” in Egypt, Canaan and Israel: History, Imperialism, Ideology and Literature (ed. S. Bar, D. Kahn, and J. J. Shirley; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 268–90. In general see R. Kessler, Die Ägypten- bilder der Hebräischen Bibel: Ein Beitrag zur neueren Monotheismusdebatte (Stutt gart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002). 18 See Huwyler, Jeremia und die Völker, 73–126; P. M. Cook, A Sign and a Wonder: The Redactional Formation of Isaiah 18-20 (Leiden: Brill, 2011). 19 See the discussion in J. Barton, “Amos’s Oracles against the Nations,” in Understanding Old Testament Ethics: Approaches and Explorations (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 77–129; D. L. Smith-Christopher, “Engen- dered Warfare and the Ammonites in Amos 1.13,” in Aspects of Amos: Exegesis and Interpretation (ed. A. C. Hagedorn and A. Mein; London: T&T Clark, 2011), 15–40. 478 A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509

Here it seems that those nations are condemned that profited from Assyr- ian (and Babylonian) hegemony, as Zeph 2:4–9 demonstrates. (4) Indeed Gaza shall be deserted, and Ashkelon shall become a desolation; Ashdod’s people shall be driven out at noon, and Ekron shall be uprooted. (5) Woe to you inhabitants of the seacoast, you nation of the Cherethites! [. . .], [. . .], land of the Philistines; I will destroy you till no inhabitant is left. (6) And you, O seacoast, shall be pastures, meadows for shepherds and folds for flocks. (7) The seacoast shall become the possession of the remnant of the house of Judah, on which they shall pasture, and in the houses of Ashkelon they shall lie down at evening. For YHWH their God will be mindful of them and restore their fortunes. (8) I have heard the taunts of Moab and the revilings of the Ammonites, how they have taunted my people and made boasts against their territory. (9) Therefore, as I live, [. . .], [. . .], Moab shall become like Sodom, and the Ammonites like Gomorrah, a land possessed by nettles and salt pits, and a waste for ever. The remnant of my people shall plunder them, and the survivors of my nation shall possess them (RSV, modified).20

20 For a literary analysis of the passage see Hagedorn, Die Anderen im Spiegel, 113–29, 147–53. A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509 479

Especially Edom as the brother of Israel becomes the archenemy.21 “The choice of Edom is dictated by the paradigmatic status of Edom as neigh- bour, related by kinship, yet unremittingly hostile, and also by the fact that traditionally, in heroic poetry, Edom is where YHWH first came from”.22 In the book of Obadiah the concrete behaviour of Edom during the Babylonian siege is the starting-point for a judgment against Edom that will later (Obad 1:15*.16–18) be transformed into a general judgement of the people. In Obadiah all words against Edom converge as the book becomes the climax of anti-Edomite prophecy.23 It appears that the role of Edom is of such importance that an individual prophetic book needs to be devoted to it. As in Isaiah (Isa 34; 63) Edom becomes the power that hinders salvation and thus needs to be crushed. A striking feature of the attitude towards the gentiles in the Minor Prophets is the fact that (direct) words against Babylon and Egypt are missing.24 Rather Babylon is seen as places of Israel’s exile as is the case in Mic 4:10: Writhe and scream, daughter Zion, like a woman in labour for now you shall go forth from the city, and dwell in open country. You shall go to Babylon;

21 On Edom in the Book of the Twelve see R. Scoralick, “The Case of Edom in the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Reflections on Synchronic and Dia- chronic Analysis,” in Perspectives in the Formation of the Book of Twelve, 35–52; A. C. Hagedorn, “Edom in the Book of Amos and Beyond,” in Aspects of Amos, 41–58; J. Nogalski, “Not just Another Nation. Obadiah’s Placement in the Book of the Twelve,” in Perspectives in the Formation of the Book of Twelve, 129–46. 22 J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66 (New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 2003), 249; and the correction of the traditional view of YHWH’s origin in H. Pfeiffer, Jahwes Kommen von Süden: Jdc 5; Hab 3; Dtn 33 und Ps 68 in ihrem literatur- und theolo- giegeschichtlichen Umfeld (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 82–86, 258–68. 23 See E. Bosshard, “Beobachtungen zum Zwölfprophetenbuch,” BN 40 (1987): 30–62 (47). ;only Mic 4:10 בבל :References to Babel and Egypt are sparse in the Twelve 24 ;in Hos 2:17; 7:11, 16; 8:13; 9:3, 6; 11:1, 5, 11; 12:2, 14 מצרים ;Zech 2:11; 6:10 13:4; Joel 4:19; Amos 2:10; 3:1, 9; 4:10; 8:8; 9:5, 7; Mic 6:4; 7:15; Nah 3:9; Hag .in Mic 7:12 מצור Zech 10:10, 11; 14:18, 19 and ;2:5 480 A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509

there you shall be delivered. There YHWH shall redeem you from the hand of your enemies. and (ובאת עד בבל) Here, Babylon is the geographical location of the exile The perspective is .(שם תנצלי) the place where YHWH delivers Israel clear—only the impact of conquest and destruction upon Judah is important. The mention of the Chaldeans in the vision of the horsemen in את הכשדים ,Hab 1:5–11 seems to be the exception to the rule.25 However -The rea .הגוי in 1:6 appears to be a later gloss that qualifies the following are: The phrase introduces the את הכשדים sons for such a description of tool of divine punishment par excellence into the book of Habakkuk, where otherwise the Babylonians do not play any role. If one assumes a historical sequence from Hosea–Zephaniah, i.e. the prophets of Assyrian times, the mentioning of the Babylonians looks out of place. Furthermore in Hab 1:5–11 are (הגוי המר והנמהר) all references to the ominous people This gloss was already a firm part of the 26.את הכשדים not connected to Vorlage used by the pesharist in 1QpHab (see below). As we will show below in the pesher at a later stage, in the biblical text, too, an imperial power is introduced to qualify the otherwise anonymous foreign people and to identify them with the foreign power responsible for Israel’s downfall. This is doneafter the actual historical period of the Babylonians. Here in Habakkuk Babylon has become a cipher for a foreign power. This move will later in the pesher enable a transfer to the Romans. Babylon or the Babylonian threat, however, has left anonymously several traces in the Minor prophets. In the book of Nahum, after the fall of Assyria, the fate of Nineveh is transferred to Babylon, which is now seen as the aggressor that threatens Israel and no longer as the welcome destroyer of the Assyrian tyrant. Prerequisite for this addition has been the fact that Nineveh indeed fell in 612 B.C.E., thus providing proof for the authentic- ity of the prophecy. We encounter the first words of this redaction in

is related to cuneiform kurKašdu and kurKadu describing the כשדים Hebrew 25 ruling dynasty of Babylon from 625–539 B.C.E. As such it becomes the generic term to designate the Babylonians in the Hebrew Bible: 2 Kgs 24:2; 25:4–5, 10, 13, 24–26; Isa 13:19; 43:14; Jer 21:4, 9; 22:25; 32:4–5, 24–25, 28–29, 43; 33:5; 35:11; 37:5, 8–11, 13–14; 38:2, 18–19, 23; 39:5, 8; 40:9–10; 41:3, 18; 43:3; 50:35; 52:7–8, 14, 17; Ezek 23:14, 23. 26 See Pfeiffer, Jahwes Kommen, 138–39. A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509 481

Nah 1:11, a problematic verse, since the feminine suffix in Nah 1:11a -is in the need of a feminine reference word and the only femi (ממך יצא) nine word encountered so far has been Nineveh in Nah 1:1a.27 The lin- מןguistic evidence seems to support such a view: The unusual construction is found seven times in the Hebrew Bible (Gen יצא suffix followed by + 17:6; Isa 49:17; Ezek 5:4; Nah 1:11; Zech 10:4; Job 28:5; Dan 8:9) and describes in the book of Nahum the going out from a place—thus it is -In such a way, for exam .יצא מן similar to the more common construction כי הנה יהוה יצא ממקומו ple, the book of Micah can speak of God, saying (Mic 1:3a) and Deuteronomy constructs in a similar way when it refers to Deut 2:23). The person who comes( כפתרים היצאים מכפור :the Cretans the masculine participle ;חשב על יהוה רעה forth from Nineveh is called identifies the person as the (Assyrian) king who resides in Nineveh. In is used בליעל ,is not yet personified. Rather בליעל contrast to Nah 2:1 the in an attributive sense here, similar for example to the use in Prov 6:12 Furthermore, YHWH is introduced, who will now bring .(אדם בליעל) destruction to the enemies and salvation to Judah. This is done in the divine speech Nah 1:12–14. The passage is again full of changes in person. At the same time, the passage uses language well known from the deuter- ;cf. Deut 27:15) פסל ומסכה onomistic parts of the Bible, when it speaks of Judg 17:3, 4; 18:14, 17, 18; Isa 42:17; Hab 2:8) as well as employing elements which show a certain familiarity with the treaty literature of the Ancient Near East.28 These features of the pericope make it unlikely that כי the text originated in pre-exilic times. Furthermore the problematic in Nah 1:14b sounds like a conclusion to an oracle of doom for the קלות (Assyrian) king. We encounter the work of this redaction on two further places: Nah 2:14 and Nah 3:5–7*. Both times the addition is introduced again stressing that the הנני אליך נאם יהוה צבאות :with the same formula destruction of Nineveh is now seen as an act of the hand of God. It is interesting that elements from the compositional layer of the book are taken up and are transformed. For example the image of the powerful fam- ily of lions, used in Nah 2:12–13 as an image for the strength of the Assyr- ian army (cf. the similar use in 2 Sam 1:23; Isa 15:9; Jer 2:5; 4:7; 50:17;

27 Wöhrle, Abschluss, 60–63, by contrast, regards the basic layer (Grundschicht) of Nahum addressing Judah rather than Nineveh. 28 VTE 435–436, 472, 484; cf. VTE 525, 538–539, 543; Sefire I C 24–25; Sefire II A 4–5; KAI 13:7–8; 14:8–10, 11–12; 225:9–11; 226: 10; 228: 13–14; Bukan line 3. 482 A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509

in Nah וכפיריך תאכל חרב Ps 57:4; 58:6; 91:13) now triggers the remark 2:14. The same can be said of the image of the harlot. In Nah 3:4 the harlot was used to describe the fascination and power that Nineveh exercises over her enemies (or better subjects). In contrast to such a view Nah 3:5– 7* takes up the female imagery and transforms it into a public shaming at the hand of YHWH. This second layer from the time of the exile makes it abundantly clear that YHWH will be responsible for the destruction of Nineveh—in accord with exilic theology and thinking, a concrete political entity of the oldest stratum (Babylon) is replaced by the divinity who now acts on behalf of his subjects. As a result the focus of the emerging book of Nahum shifts away from a “secular” prophecy that announces the destruction of Nineveh as part of the Babylonian conquest to a judgment of YHWH against Israel’s archenemy the Babylonians. At the same time, Babylon is not explicitly mentioned even though the threat of the Babylonians or a reflection about the Babylonian period prompted this addition to the book of Nahum. We see that the image of Babylon has changed in Nahum from a welcome tool that destroys the Assyrians to a wicked political power that is now subdued by God. in Hosea—Malachi the (מצרים) Out of the 29 occurrences of Egypt majority of the passages refer to Egypt simply as a geographical location, i.e., the place from where either YHWH brought Israel up or a place where Israel turns to in time of (political) need. The name Egypt—it appears—is linked to the Exodus and to go to Egypt for political help is—especially in the book of Hosea—condemned. Outside such references only Joel 4:19; Amos 3:9; Nah 3:9; Zech 10:11 and Zech 14:18–19 speak of Egypt. Here, Joel 4:19 is unique in the Minor Prophets as the verse announces the by quoting Ezek 29:9–12. As (מצרים לשממה תהיה) destruction of Egypt the statements regarding the restoration are omitted it may be possible that the verse reflects issues of the Ptolemaic period.29 General terminology denoting foreigners in the Minor Prophets is fairly .foreigner” is only used twice in Zech 7:10 and Mal 3:5“ גרrare: The term Both times it is part of a rephrasing of social laws known from the Cove- nant Code and Deuteronomy warning Israel to oppress the personae mis- נכריerae and to stress that YHWH will ensure their rights.30 The adjective occurs in Obad 11 to describe the Babylonians who are not mentioned by

29 See J. Barton, Joel and Obadiah: A Commentary (Louisville, Ky.: Westmin- ster John Knox, 2001), 110. 30 On Mal 3:5 see R. Kessler, Maleachi (Freiburg: Herder, 2011), 241–44. A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509 483 name despite the setting of the Babylonian conquest and in Zeph 1:8 to is used once in Mal 2:11 as part of the נכר .)מלבוש נכרי( label clothing ;is used in Hos 5:7; 7:9 זרwho Judah marries.31 The term נכר בת אל phrase 8:7.12; Joel 4:17 and Ob 11 as a general description of foreigners. The .occurring 79 times גוי ,most frequent term to label gentiles is, of course In contrast to those passages that seem to refer in some form or other to a concrete historical place or event relating to the nations the more general terms are often used to describe the otherness of Israel in regard to foreigners. Especially in Hosea the prospect of mixing with or relying on foreign powers is seen as evil and a sign of forsaking YHWH as e.g. Hos 8:7–9 indicates. As will be seen below it is this concept of a radical otherness that will be continued in the pesharim. A further aspect that will later be developed is the apparent idolatry of the nations. It seems to be the standard biblical view that the gods of the gentiles are a threat to Israel. As a result, the worship of idols is associated with foreign practice. Again biblical reworking of older material is continued in the pesharim when Hab 2:18– -thus continuing a trend in the liter פסלי הגוים is now directed against 19 ary development of Hab 2:6–19 to rephrase the woes against Israel as also being directed against nations.32

3. Literary and Theological Developments

As far as the foreign nations are concerned the beginning of the literary development is marked by the individual judgement against a concrete people, which threatens the existence of Israel. Thus, for example, the base layer of books such as Nahum, Obadiah and Zephaniah reflects upon the relationship between Israel and its neighbours and enemies. Here it is only logical that the oldest parts of the oracles against foreign nations are determined by the deliverance of the people of God from the hostile nations.33 This removal of the hostile nations is the prerequisite for Israel’s weal.34

.in Obad 11 has to be translated as “day of distress” cf. Job 31:3 ביום נכרו 31 32 See Wöhrle, Abschluss, 308–9. 33 See Steck, Abschluß, 124. 34 See O. H. Steck and K. Schmid, “Heilserwartungen in den Prophetenbüch- ern des Alten Testaments,” in Prophetische Heils- und Herrschererwartungen (ed. K. Schmid; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005), 1–36 (9): “In diesem Sinne muss vor allem die Völkermacht, die zum JHWH-Gericht dienstbar war und 484 A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509

Such a view corresponds to the attitude towards the nations in the oldest passages of Isaiah (Isa 17:1b.3; 18:1–2; 20:3–4; 28:1.3; 28:7b–10) and Jeremiah ( Jer 46:3–12; 46:14–24; 47:2–6; 49:28–33).35 Additionally such a view can also be found in Deutero-Isaiah, where—at the earliest stages of the book—the nations are not differentiated and simply serve as enemies of Israel and its God.36 Such concrete judgment is transformed during the Persian period to a universal judgment.37 This universal judgment can be understood as the sum of the individual acts against the foreign nations. The people of God remain a unity but Israel is now set in opposition to the world of the nations in general, which will be destroyed by YHWH ( Joel 4; Zeph 1:2– 3.17–18; 3:8). In a second stage of the literary development such a judgement is structured in a way that only the righteous in Judah will survive. It seems that the strict ethnic structure is abandoned in favour of a religious identity. This transformation is rooted in the experience of marginality within the Persian Empire, which triggers visions of nationalistic hope.38 As a result the universal perspective of salvation is narrowed to individual groups within Israel. Here the last addition to the book of Nahum (Nah 1:1b–10) is instruc- tive. Though not offering a perspective of an universal judgment, probably because of the mentioning of Nineveh in the heading, the introductory Psalm as the latest literary addition differentiates between the righteous and the wicked. It is striking that the negative image of the Other is now even more contrasted with the positive view of the God of Israel and his followers:

Gottesvolk, Jerusalem noch umgibt, von JHWH entsprechend der Rettung sein- erzeit vor Ägypten . . . oder vor Assur . . . gebrochen werden, wenn für Israel Heil zurückkehren soll.” 35 See U. Becker, Jesaja: Von der Botschaft zum Buch (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 271–80; Huwyler, Jeremia und die Völker. 36 See M. Köckert, “Die Erwählung Israels und das Ziel der Wege Gottes im Jesajabuch,” in “Wer ist wir du, Herr, unter den Göttern?” Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels für Otto Kaiser zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. I. Kottsieper et al.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 285, with reference to Isa 42:13 and 51:22–23. 37 See O. H. Steck, Die Prophetenbücher und ihr theologisches Zeugnis: Wege der Nachfrage und Fährten der Antwort (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 52–54, 62–63, 70–73, 98. 38 See Köckert, “Erwählung Israels,” 288. A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509 485

A jealous and avenging God is YHWH, YHWH is avenging and wrathful; YHWH takes vengeance on his adversaries and rages against his enemies. YHWH is slow to anger but great in power, and YHWH will by no means clear the guilty (Nah 1:2–3). The terminology, however, suggests that we have moved beyond political/ historical and earthly boundaries. The superiority of YHWH is acknowledged by giving him a certain cosmic dimension, which had been missing before. Also the boundaries seem to become more fluid. The rather general terminology in regard to the characterization of the enemy seems to point to a certain notion of ethnicity that now divides the previously homoge- nous ethnic group. Ethnicity is now used to solve inner-group conflicts. At this last stage the book of Nahum can be read as an example of what will happen to members outside the ethnic group if they dare to seek the conflict with the “righteous ones”—at this last stage ethnicity is no longer attached to any concrete political entities but rather used as a universal discursive weapon to defend oneself from any outside threats. A similar observation can be made in the book of Hosea where Hos 14:10 as one of the latest texts in the book explicitly divides the community into wicked and righteous persons:39 Whoever is wise, let him understand these things; whoever is discerning, let him know them; for the ways of the Lord are right, and the upright walk in them, but transgressors stumble in them. As such the book of Hosea becomes an instruction for the individual to recognize God, in politics, cult and the history of Israel, which are all interpreted as divine will.40 All texts addressing foreign nations or people are part of a literary discourse that describes Israel’s opponents, which are seen as foreign and

39 See R. Vielhauer, Das Werden des Buches Hosea: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007), 201–3. 40 Thus R. G. Kratz, “Erkenntnis Gottes im Hoseabuch,” ZTK 94 (1997), 1–24 (17–18). 486 A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509 threatening.41 Theologically, this description is employed for an internal perspective as such discourse on alterity becomes part of identity formation that is very much determined by the antagonism of Israel and nations.42 This discourse naturally operates with stereotypes but does not seem to use physical features. The exception here are the Cushites who are known as being dark-skinned but this is not a point of departure for racial arguments. “In the two instances where Cushite coloration is implied, there is no ideological value given to the color of Cushite skin.”43 This finds support in the Minor Prophets where Cush is either a geographical location (Nah 3:9) or used as a cipher to denote one end of the known world (Zeph 3:10). In addition to the hostile attitudes towards the foreign nations and gentiles we find a handful of passages in the Minor Prophets where the nations are explicitly included in the salvation (Zeph 3:9–10*; Joel 3:1–5; Mic 4:1– 4; 5:6–7; Zech 2:15–16; 8:20–23; 14:16–19) as they now also worship YHWH (cf. Isa 66:22–24). These texts have to be seen in connection with the topic of the pilgrimage of the nations to Zion.44 Ethnic boundaries are not dissolved here as the nations are not transformed into Israel but simply into worshippers of YHWH. Equally rare are passages that envision a restitution of the Davidic monarchy (Amos 9:11.12b; Mic 4:8; 5:1.3.4a; Zech 9:9–10).45 They are missing in Nahum, Zephaniah, Obadiah and Joel. In these prophetic books the surrounding nations are not destroyed only to rekindle the Davidic monarchy. In these books the restitution concerns the people as a whole

41 This aspect will be continued in the pesharim; see below. 42 M. Roth, Israel und die Völker im Zwölfprophetenbuch: Eine Untersuchung zu den Büchern Joel, Jona, Micha und Nahum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 291, regards this phenomenon as a societal discourse. As we only know this discourse from the prophetic books it remains difficult, however, to determine what the extent of such a discourse may have been. 43 R. S. Sadler, “Representing the Cushite Other: The Use of Cushite Phe- notypes in Numbers 12 and Jeremiah 13:23,” in The Archaeology of Difference: Gender, Ethnicity, Class and the “Other” in Antiquity: Studies in Honor of Eric M. Meyers (ed. D. R. Edwards and C. T. McCollough; Boston, Mass.: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2007), 127–37 (133). 44 On the problem see J. Gärtner, “Jerusalem—City of God for Israel and the Nations in Zeph 3:8,9–10,11–13,” in Perspectives in the Formation of the Book of Twelve, 269–84. 45 On the passages see Wöhrle, Abschluss, 174–89. A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509 487

(Nah 2:1.3). It seems that Israel’s existence within the Persian Empire where the Persian king has given all nations their rightful place does not allow for such a concrete political vision. Therefore it is likely that these statements were only added after the decline of Persian rule.46 As a result the perspective remains on Zion as the dwelling place of YHWH. The temple is the religious centre but does not hold any political power. The manifold attitudes towards foreigners in almost all the Minor Prophets as well as the recurring themes in several books such as the Day of Yahweh of course prompt the question whether the twelve prophets developed independent from each other or whether some parts of Hosea— Malachi were shaped consciously in light of a larger entity such as a scroll of the Twelve Prophets. Obviously, one cannot deny that we find indica- tions of a literary activity that moves beyond individual books such as the connection of Joel and Amos in Joel 4:16 and Amos 1:2 and the similar superscriptions of Hosea, Joel, Amos, Micah and Zephaniah.47 Addition- ally it seems that the superscriptions of all twelve books—including Mala- chi, which appears to be a simple literary continuation (Fortschreibung) of Zechariah48—indicate that each book wants to and indeed can be understood as a single entity. The pesharim from Qumran seem to support such an interpretation.49 Furthermore those passages that link individual books

46 “So handelt es sich bei den Davidsverheißungen . . . um das Produkt einer buchübergreifenden Redaktion, durch die in den Büchern des werdenden Zwölf- prophetenbuches, in denen sich Gerichtsworte gegen das Königtum oder gegen einen politischen Führer des Volkes finden, über dieses Gericht hinausblickend die Erwartung eines neuen Herrschers eingetragen wurde,” see Wöhrle, Abschluss, 182. 47 See the methodological considerations in J. Wöhrle, “So Many Cross- References! Methodological Reflection on the Problem of Intertextual Relation- ships and their Significance for Redaction Critical Analysis,” in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve, 3–20; and the attempt to read the Minor Prophets as a unity in R. Rendtorff, “How to read the Book of the Twelve as a Theological Unity,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve (ed. J. D. Nogalski and M. A. Sweeney; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 75–87. 48 See E. Bosshard and R. G. Kratz, “Maleachi im Zwölfprophetenbuch,” BN 52 (1990): 27–46. 49 The nature of the Twelve in Qumran is a debated topic; see the overview of the material evidence as well as of the different interpretations in A. Lange, Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer Band 1: Die Handschriften biblischer 488 A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509 are generally of late literary origin and often restricted to the margins of the work.50 If this observation is correct, redactional work may be related to the collection and the production of order of the twelve individual books and not so much a conscientious process that wants to introduce an overarching view of history or theology. Such a process, then, might be closer to the shaping of an anthology such as Anthologia Palatina, where individual poems are grouped together because of similar topics.51 If that is the case one is able to trace the literary development of individual books and then link the different stages or the overall theological thrust to neigh- bouring books in the Twelve or beyond. Such an approach then also closes the gap between inner-biblical and Qumranic exegesis as it can be shown that several pesharim continue in the paths laid out by the authors of the biblical books.52

Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 335–69 and nn. 51–52, 55–56 below. 50 See also the remarks in E. Ben Zvi, “Twelve Prophetic Books or ‘The Twelve’: A Few Preliminary Considerations,” in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts (ed. J. W. Watts and P. R. House; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 131: “Even if, for the sake of the argument, one were to grant that the twelve prophetic books or their precur- sors were produced in the form of a single scroll since the Achaemenid period or even earlier, from the writing of books in one scroll, it does not follow that they had to be (re)read as a unified literary unit, in other words, as a work in which several prophetic books are integrated for beyond what may be expected from a collection or anthology of separate, independent works that share only a certain type of discourse among themselves and that belong to a common repertoire.” 51 See M. Beck, “Das Dodekapropheton als Anthologie,” ZAW 118 (2006): 558–81; and the earlier proposal by J. Barton, “What is a Book? Modern Exegesis and the Literary Conventions of Ancient Israel,” in Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel (ed. J. C. de Moor; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 1–14, who argues that “books” were meant to be read in excerpts in ancient Israel. 52 See Kratz, “Der Pesher Nahum,” 141–45; R. Vielhauer, “Reading Hosea at Qumran,” in The Mermaid and the Partridge: Essays from the Copenhagen Con- ference on Revising Texts from Cave Four (ed. G. J. Brooke and J. Høgenhaven; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 91–108. For a general assessment of the material from the Dead Sea for biblical interpretation see R. G. Kratz, “Das Alte Testament und die Texte vom Toten Meer,” ZAW 125 (2013): 198–213 (esp. 210–11), who stresses the interconnectedness of inner- and extra-biblical exegesis in the pesharim and the individual biblical books: “Am Verhältnis von Text und Kommentar kann man die vielfältigen, höchst subtilen Techniken der Auslegung sowie die A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509 489

4. The Function of Gentiles in the Pesharim to the Minor Prophets

Examination of references to foreigners in the extant pesharim on the Minor Prophets shows a continuation of some of the trajectories seen in the composition history of the books of the Minor Prophets themselves, as well as a move towards particular sectarian adaptations.53 The pesharim present Gentiles as the paradigmatic Other, and they view foreign nations as both agents and objects of divine retribution. In some cases, they apply biblical prophecies against foreign enemies to contemporary Jewish antagonists. About half of the works that have been identified as “continuous pesharim” from Qumran are commentaries on books of the Minor Prophets: 1QpHab on Habakkuk; 1Q14 (and perhaps 4Q168), on Micah; 1Q15 and 4Q170 on Zephaniah; 4Q166 and 4Q167 on Hosea; 4Q169 on Nahum, and possibly 4Q253a on Malachi.54 Although the Minor Proph- ets scrolls from Qumran Cave 4 (4Q76–4Q82 [4QXIIa–g]) offer support

Hermeneutik studieren, die die Rezeption des Bibeltexts in den Pesharim steuert. Die Hermeneutik und einige der Techniken waren schon bei der Entstehung und innerbiblischen Auslegung im Bibeltext selbst wirksam.” 53 For an introduction to Qumran pesher, see S. L. Berrin (Tzoref ), “Qumran Pesharim,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (ed. M. Henze; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005), 110–33; and, more recently, the Dead Sea Discoveries volume on commentary: The Rise of Commentary: Commentary Texts in Ancient Near Eastern, Greek, Roman and Jewish Cultures (ed. M. Popović; Leiden: Brill, 2012). See esp. D. A. Machiela, “The Qumran Pesharim as Biblical Commentar- ies Historical Context and Lines of Development,” 313–62; A. P. Jassen, “The Pesharim and the Rise of Commentary in Early Jewish Scriptural Interpreta- tion,” 363–98. Among the most significant classic treatments of pesher hermeneutic and method are: K. Elliger, Studien zum Habakuk-Kommentar vom Toten Meer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1953); W. H. Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979); idem, “Biblical Interpreta- tion Among the Secretaries of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” BA 14 (1951): 54–75; M. P. Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1979). 54 For a current edition of the texts, see M. P. Horgan, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations: Vol. 6b: Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck / Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2002). Translations below follow this edition, with some stylistic modification. Besides the pesharim on the Minor Prophets, there are five extant continuous pesharim on Isaiah 490 A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509 for the textual unity of the Twelve, the pesharim seem to have been written on the individual component books.55 Some indication of unity may nevertheless be discerned in the reception of the Twelve at Qumran, in that these works are so prominently represented in pesher interpretations in the corpus.56 For studying the treatment of “Gentiles”, the relevant compositions are the pesharim on Hosea, Nahum, and Habakkuk. Both of the Hosea pesharim use general terms for foreigners as expressions of sinfulness and Otherness. Pesher Nahum and Pesher Habakkuk follow the biblical trope of Gentiles as instruments of divine punishment. These works further apply biblical prophecies against specific Gentile enemies (Assyria and Babylon, respectively) to contemporary antagonists of the authors’ communities, both internal and external. The extant texts do not preserve any reference to inclusion of foreign nations in prophecies

(4Q161–4Q165) and three works that have been identified as pesharim on the Psalms (1Q16, 4Q171, 4Q173). 55 See, inter alia, R. Fuller, “The Form and Formation of the Book ofthe Twelve: The Evidence from the Judean Desert,” in Forming Prophetic Literature, 86–101; H. J. Fabry, “The Reception of Nahum and Habakkuk in the Septuagint and Qumran,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (ed. S. M. Paul et al. Leiden: Brill, 2003), 241–56 (245–47); G. J. Brooke, “The Twelve Minor Prophets and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Congress Volume: Leiden 2004 (ed. A. Lemaire; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 19–43; H. von Weissenberg, “The Twelve Minor Prophets at Qumran and the Canonical Process: Amos as a ‘Case Study,’ ” in The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. N. Dávid et al.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 357– 75. In another scroll, 5Q4, parts of Amos alone have survived (Amos 1:3–5, and maybe Amos 1:2–3), but the scant remains preserved in the fourteen fragments do not offer sufficient basis for determining the original scope of the scroll. 56 The remains of the other Minor Prophets pesharim, on Micah and Zepha- niah, are scanty, and most of the extant fragments are concerned with Judah, rather than its enemies. On the prominence of the Twelve in “isolated pesharim” and in pesher-like exegesis in the Damascus Document, see Brooke, “The Twelve Minor Prophets and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 37–40; J. G. Campbell, The Use of Scripture in the Damascus Document 1–8, 19–20 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1995). On citations of the Twelve in “thematic pesharim,” see Brooke, “The Twelve Minor Prophets and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 40. Most of these texts are concerned with eschatological leadership. A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509 491 related to salvation or restitution of the Davidic monarchy.57 In the following discussion, we examine how specific passages in the pesharim to Hosea, Habakkuk, and Nahum exhibit both continuity and discontinuity with their prophetic biblical base-texts in their presentation of foreigners. The analysis presumes the relevance of the prime hermeneutical of pesher first identified by Karl Elliger in 1953: that the content of biblical prophecy is eschatological, and that the eschatological era is the present day.58 More- over, the working model of our approach is that pesher respects the integ- rity of the biblical text—the compositions exhibit adherence to the structure, ideology, and literary content of their base-texts, while employing various devices to apply these texts to their own experience. The devices themselves tend to be conservative. Even departures from a base-text are generally rooted in elements found in the cited passage, and in other scriptural texts, as well as in broader exegetical traditions. More audacious innovations tend to reflect sectarian traditions that are well-attested beyond the specific pesher itself.59

-has sur (בשובם) ”Unfortunately, only the single word “when they repent 57 vived from the pesher to Hab 2:14, which could accommodate such an inclusive salvific understanding: “But the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea” (1QpHab 10:16). A pesher on Isaiah includes a passage devoted to universal Davidic dominion, but the context is retributive; there is a description of judgment upon all the nations, executed by sword (4Q161 Pesher Isaiah A 8–10 iii 18–22, commenting upon Isa 11:1–5). 58 Elliger, Studien zum Habakuk Kommentar, 150, describes the hermeneutical principles as follows: “1. Prophetische Verkündigung hat zum Inhalt das Ende, und 2. Die Gegenwart ist die Endzeit. Von daher werden die Verhältnisse der eigenen Gegenwart in den Prophetentext hineingedeutet; und umgekehrt wird aus dem Text Aufschluß über die eigene Gegenwart herausgelesen. . . .” 59 For further discussion of the understanding of the attitude of pesher to its biblical text, see S. L. Berrin (Tzoref ), The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran: An Exegetical Study of 4Q169 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), esp. 12–18; eadem, “Qumran Pesharim and the Pentateuch: Explicit Citation, Overt Typologies, and Implicit Interpretive Traditions,” DSD 16 (2009): 190–220; eadem, “Textuality and Identity in the Qumran Pesharim on Isaiah,” in Transmission and Interpretation of the Book of Isaiah (ed. F. Wilk et al.; forthcoming.) 492 A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509

4.1. Pesher Hosea A and Pesher Hosea B: Foreigners as Sinful Others

As noted above, the book of Hosea employs references to foreigners as expressions of Otherness, a central theme in the book. Thus, e.g., Hos 7:8–9, “Ephraim mixes himself with the peoples; Ephraim is a cake not turned. Foreigners devour his strength, but he does not know it.” In Hos 8:12, God accuses Israel of rejecting his teachings, treating these essential identity-affirming gifts as though they were alien: “Though I write for him they are regarded as a strange ,(תורתי( the multitude of my instructions The references to foreigners occur especially in the context ”.(כמו זר) thing of infidelity, with Israel’s idolatrous practices as the analogue for the book’s metaphor of the lover’s unfaithfulness. The book’s theme of the futility and sinfulness of embracing foreign ways is picked up in the pesharim to Hosea.60 4Q166 Pesher Hosea A ii 12–14 offers a straightforward exposi- tion of Hos 2:11–12, stating that God will humiliate Israel before the nations in whom she had wrongly placed her trust. The verses cited in the lemma are part of Hosea’s extended metaphor of the harlot-wife. The pesher unpacks the metaphor in keeping with its meaning in the biblical context: 8 ‘Therefore, I again shall take back my grain in its time and my new wine [in its season,] 9 and I shall withdraw my wool and my flax from covering [her nakedness.] 10 And now I shall uncover her private parts in the sight of [her] lov[ers and ] 11 no [one] will withdraw her from my hand.’ (Hos 2:11–12) vacat 12 Its interpretation is that he smote them with famine and with nakedness so that they became a disgra[ce] 13 and a reproach ,on whom they had leaned (לעיני הגואים) in the sight of the nations but they 14 will not save them from their afflictions. This pesher basically recapitulates the lemma, with some theological expansion. The subsequent pesher interpretation is more contemporizing. 4QpHos A ii 15–16 interprets Hos 2:13 as pertaining to calendrical controversy:

60 On the pesharim on Hosea and their connection to the literary history of the biblical book see Vielhauer, Werden des Buches Hosea, 207–23 who argues that the interpretative line introduced to the book by Hos 14:10 is continued in Qumran. See also, idem, “Reading Hosea at Qumran,” 91–108. A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509 493

14 . . . ‘And I shall put an end to all her joy, 15 [her] pilgr[image,] her [new m]oon, and her sabbath, and all her appointed times.’ (Hos 2:13) Its interpretation is that 16 they make [the appoint]ed times follow the [vacat And [all .(יוליכו במועדי הגואים) appointed times of the nations 17 [joy] has been turned for them into mourning.61 In Hosea, the eradication of the festivals of the Gentiles functions as a condemnation of idolatrous practices. The pesherist applies the verse to the use of a calendrical system that is viewed as deviant. The expression “festivals of the Gentiles” ties the accusation to the biblical lemma, but the charge itself is a matter of sectarian polemic, and the particular wording reflects an exegetical tradition.62 Although there is not yet a scholarly consensus regarding the precise calendar or calendars used at Qumran, most scholars agree that insistence upon a 364-day year was a defining charac- teristic for the Qumran Community and related circles.63 As shown by Moshe Bernstein, the pesher’s interpretation of Hos 2:13 as relating to this

61 Some alternative reconstructions are suggested in M. J. Bernstein, “ ‘Walk- ing in the Festivals of the Gentiles’: 4QpHoseaa 2.15–17 and Jubilees 6.34–38,” in Pesher Hosea A and in Jubilees גויים JSP 9 (1991): 21–34. This use of the term as an umbrella designation for non-Jews reflects a usage that seems to emerge in the Hellenistic period. For an analysis of the development of “the concept of the Goy [which] divides humanity in a binary manner, separating Jews from all non- Jews,” see I. Rosen-Zvi and A. Ophir, “Goy: Toward A Genealogy,” Diné Israel 28 (2011): 69–122. They place the full-blown emergence of this category, and especially its application to individuals, in the rabbinic period. 62 This was suggested already by A. Dupont-Sommer,The Essene Writings from Qumran (Oxford: Blackwell, 1961), 278 n. 2; M. P. Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations, 146. 63 See J. Ben-Dov and S. Saulnier, “Qumran Calendars: A Survey of Scholar- ship 1980–2007,” Currents in Biblical Research 7 (2008): 124–68. Note, however, the emergence of some dissenting views in scholarship about the centrality of the calendar in Qumran thought and practice. Albert Baumgarten has suggested that distinct calendars need not necessarily have precluded respectful co-existence; see A. I. Baumgarten, “Karaites, Qumran, the Calendar, and Beyond: at the Begin- ning of the Twenty-First Century,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture (ed. ed. A. D. Roitman, L. H. Schiffman, and S. Tzoref; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 603–19. Sacha Stern goes much further, arguing that the calendar is not at all a polemic issue in Qumran texts. See S. Stern, Calendars in Antiquity: Empires, States, and Societies (New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2012), 355–77. 494 A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509 calendar controversy relies upon an exegetical tradition found in the book of Jubilees:64 34All the Israelites will forget and will not find the way of the years. They will forget the first of the month, the season, and the sabbath; they will err with respect to the entire prescribed pattern of the years. 35 For I know and from now on will inform you—not from my own mind because this is the way the book is written in front of me, and the divisions of times are ordained on the heavenly tablets, lest they forget the covenantal festivals and walk in the festivals of the nations, after their error and after their ignorance ( Jub. 6:34–35.)65 The wording of the pesher may further rely upon related intertextual traditions found in other polemical contexts associating idolatry, infidelity, and the calendar: in Jubilees 1:9 (cf. 1:14; 23:19), and in 4Q390 and 1Q/4QDivre Moshe.66 In Jubilees, as in 1 Enoch, and in the Damascus Doc- ument and other Qumran sectarian texts, the significance of correct calendrical reckoning extends well beyond the practical concerns of proper observance of holy days, and relates to such larger theological matters as

64 See Bernstein, “ ‘Walking in the Festivals of the Gentiles,’ ” 24–28, 33–34. 65 The translation is from J. C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (Leuven: Peeters, 1989). The text continues: 36 There will be people who carefully observe the moon with lunar observations because it is corrupt (with respect to) the sea- sons and is early from year to year by ten days. 37 Therefore years will come about for them when they will disturb (the year) and make a day of testimony something worthless and a profane day a festival. Everyone will join together both holy days with the profane and the profane day with the holy day, for they will err regarding the months, the sabbaths, the festival, and the jubilee. 38 For this reason I am commanding you and testifying to you so that you may testify to them because after your death your children will disturb (it), so that they do not make the year (consist of ) 364 only. Therefore, they will err regarding the first of the month, the season, the sabbath, and the festivals. They will all the blood with all (kinds of ) meat. 66 For 4Q390, see D. Dimant, DJD 30:235–53, on 4Q390 1 8; 2 i 10; and Bernstein, “ ‘Walking in the Festivals of the Gentiles,’ ” 28–32. For the connection between Jubilees, 4Q390, and Divre Moshe (1Q22, and a newly-identified fragment of 4QDM), see E. J. C. Tigchelaar, “A Cave 4 Fragment of Divre Mosheh (4QDM) and the Text of 1Q22 1:7–10 and Jubilees 1:9, 14,” DSD 12 (2005): 303–12. A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509 495 determinism, perfectionism, historical periodization, and cosmic order— matters that lie at the heart of Qumran pesher.67 is found in 4Q167 Pesher יוליכו במועדי הגואים A similar expression to ,commenting on Hos 6:7a, “And they ,”ו]י[לכו בחוקות]. . .[“ ,Hosea B 7–8 like Adam, have transgressed the covenant”). The poor state of the preser- vation of the text precludes determination of the exegetical techniques employed or the broader context of the interpretation.68 The same is true in another case of the general use of the term “Gentiles”, where only the and the ]ר[שעי הגואי]ם[ pesher introductory formula and the expression word “all” have survived, in the pesher to Hos 6:9–10, in 4QPesher Hosea B 10, 26. Another general reference to foreigners is probably found in )]פ[שרו ”,4QPesher Hosea B 11–13, in the expression “among the peoples The use of this phrase in the comment to Hos 8:6 may .]א[שר היו בעמים( reflect anticipation of the subsequent lemma, Hos 8:7–8 “foreigners will eat it.” Although it does not refer explicitly to Gentiles (or foreigners or stran- gers), 4QpHos A ii 1–6, is relevant to our topic as well. It offers a creative interpretation of the condemnation of the worship of foreign gods in Hos 2:10, turning the diatribe inward, to address an expression of infidelity within Israel. Where Hosea accuses Israel of worshipping foreign gods rather than YHWH, the pesherist recasts the recrimination as pertaining to the people’s preference for false leadership in his time: 1 [‘She did not know that] I myself had given her the grain [and the new wine] 2 [and the oil, and ] (that) I had supplied [silver] and gold (which) they made[ for Baal.’ (2:10) Its interpretation is] 3 that [th]ey ate [and] were satisfied, and they forgot God who had f[ed them, . . .] 4 his ordi- nances they cast behind them, which he had sent to them[ by the hand of ] 5 his servants the prophets. But to those who led them astray they listened, and they honoured them[. . .] 6 and, in their blindness, they dread them like divine beings. )5 ולמתעיהם שמעו ויכבדום] [ 6 וכאלים יפחדו מהם בעורונם(

67 See, inter alia, S. Tzoref, “Pesher and Periodization,” DSD 18 (2011): 129– 54. 68 Bernstein, “ ‘Walking in the Festivals of the Gentiles,’ ” 23, notes the reso- nance with biblical references to “walking according to the statutes of the nations” (e.g., Lev 20:23, 2 Kgs 17:8), which have influenced CD 9:1 (=4QDb 17 ii 9; .כל אדם אשר יחרים אדם מאדם בחוקי הגוים להמית הוא :(4QDe 10 iii 16 496 A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509

The pesherist seems to acknowledge his departure from the original proph- ”.like divine beings“—”כ“ ecy, in the self-conscious use of the comparative There is actually a two-stage substitution here, for the original referent in verse, such that “divine beings” stand in for the idols made for Baal, and the contemporary rival leaders are “like” the divine beings. The use of the term “divine beings” may reflect an earlier inner-Jewish dispute that has left its mark in the textual history of Deut 32:8–9.69 It is certainly a contemporizing expression, indicating that prevalent forms of “idolatry” involved beliefs rather than tangible gods made of gold and silver. The pesherist moves beyond condemnation of such contemporary idolatry, and decries reverence for his political and religious antagonists as an equiv- alent rejection of God.70 This may perhaps be seen as an intensification of

69 “When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided human- kind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of the gods” (4QDeutj, LXX 848, 106c)/Israel (MT). See M. S. Smith, “What is a Scriptural Text in the Second Temple Period? Texts between Their Biblical Past, Their Inner-Biblical Interpretation, Their Reception in Second Temple Litera- ture, and Their Textual Witnesses,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scholarly Con- tributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni (ed. L. H. Schiffman and S. Tzoref; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 271–98. Smith discusses the possibility that some Hellenizers at the time of the Maccabean Revolt may have equated YHWH with the Greek Zeus Olympius and Syrian Baal Shamem. See also, M. S. Smith, God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 283–86. 70 See D. C. Carlson, “An Alternative Reading of 4 Q p Oseaa II, 3–6,” RevQ 11/43 (1983): 417–21. For a more specifically historicizing interpretation of this pesher, locating the polemic within the context of the civil war between the Hasmonean rulers Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, see J. Amoussine, “Obser- vatiunculae Qumranae III: Interprétation d’Osée (4Q166, col. II),” RevQ 7/28 (1971): 545–52; idem, “The Reflection of Historical Events of the First Century B.C. in Qumran Commentaries (4Q161; 4Q169; 4Q166),” HUCA 48 (1977): 123–52 (146–50). Vielhauer, “Reading Hosea,” 94‒95, puts forth a very different interpretation, explaining “those who led them astray” as a reference to the Seleucid kings who were admired by Helenophile Jews, and specifically Antiochus IV Epiphanes who “who favoured the introduction of a godlike veneration of the monarch in Jerusalem.” However, most of the pesharim reflect a later historical context. Specifically, the reference to “famine” in Pesher Hosea A is better-suited to the events of the siege of 65 B.C.E. (as described in Josephus, Ant. 14.19–33). Also, see Vielhauer’s observation that most quotations of Hosea in the Qumran corpus “represent the supporters of the ‘Man of the Lie,’ (4QpHos B; CD 1:11– A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509 497 an existing sectarian trope, in which the ideological adversaries of the community were viewed as false prophets, e.g. in the Hodayot, and in the use of such biblically-derived epithets as “Dripper of Lies” and “Seekers-after- Smooth-Things.”71 Generally speaking, the references to foreigners and foreign practices in the pesharim to Hosea adhere closely to the references in their base-texts, depicting Israel’s infidelity. In two cases in Pesher Hosea A, we noted particularly sectarian adaptations in the pesher interpretation. The insertion of the reference to calendrical deviance was seen to rely on polemic exegetical tradition. The pesher’s presentation of rival leaders as analogues to foreign gods in the biblical text is a radical expression of rejection.72 This type of personalizing and contemporizing reconfiguration of biblical prophecy shares some qualities with the social-cognitive phenomenon of “transference”.73 It is particularly prominent in Pesher Nahum, as discussed below.

17; 4:19–20; 8:1–5; 19:13–17; 4QEschatological Commentary B; 4QIsa C).” in this pesher reinforces the association with the Man תעה The use of thehiph’il of of the Lie and his adherents, following usage in the classic sectarian compositions of CD and other pesharim: CD 1:14–15, 1QpHab 10:9, 4QpNah 3–4 ii 8; iii 5–7, and 4QpPsa 1–10: 26–27. These points favor the conventional interpretation of this passage as a sectarian polemic aagainst ideological opponents who do not actually promote the worship of idols, but rather “lead people astray” by propagat- ing teachings that are counter to those of the pesherist’s community. 71 On “Sectarian Polemics, Lying Prophets, and Pharisees,” see A. P. Jassen, Mediating the Divine: Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 280–96. 72 Aharon Shemesh has noted a manifestation of this same radical rejection of outsiders, in the legal sphere. He demonstrated that rules governing the treatment of non-sectarians by members of the Community were borrowed from broader Jewish halakha separating Jews from Gentiles, as documented in rabbinic writings. He specifically noted that rabbinic law applied similar measures—not shar- ing food; not entering business partnerships, not accepting gifts—to idolators who sought to entice towards sin and were thus perceived as highly threatening. See A. Shemesh, “The Origins of the Laws of Separatism: Qumran Literature and Rabbinic Halacha,” RevQ 18/70 (1997): 223–41. We are grateful to Simcha Gross for bringing this publication to our attention. 73 See S. M. Andersen and M. S. Berk, “The Social-Cognitive Model of Trans- ference: Experiencing Past Relationships in the Present,” Current Directions in Psychological Science 7 (1998): 109–15. 498 A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509

4.2. Pesher Habakkuk

As discussed by George Brooke,74 and more recently by Jutta Jokiranta,75 Pesher Habakkuk closely follows the structure of Habakkuk and the references to foreigners in the work reflect the structural division.76 The biblical book consists of three chapters, more or less corresponding to three literary units in different genres: a dialogue in which Habakkuk addresses “complaints” to God; woe oracles, and a psalm.77 Only the first two chapters appear in the pesher. The prophet’s complaints in ch. 1 concern theodicy— why are the powerful wicked freely wreaking havoc? God explains to Habakkuk that he himself has sent the Babylonians, termed the “Chaldeans.” At the end of the dialogue, God assures Habakkuk that there will be retribution and judgment, and the woe oracles outline this retribution. All but one of the numerous references to the “Kittim” in Pesher Habakkuk occur in the pesher comments on the dialogue, where this sobriquet stands in for the “Chaldeans” of the biblical text. Thus, e.g., 1QpHab 2:10–15: 10. . . . ‘For now I am raising up the Chaldeans, that bitter and [ha]sty nation’ (Hab 1:6a) vacat 12. Its interpretation concerns the Kittim, w[ho ar]e swift and strong 13 in battle, so as to destroy many. [. . .] in the dominion of 14 the Kittim . . . The consensus today is that the Kittim inPesher Habakkuk are the Romans.78 Simple typological substitution enabled the pesherist to identify the

74 G. J. Brooke, “The Kittim in the Qumran Pesharim,” in Images of Empire (ed. L. Alexander; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 135–59. 75 J. Jokiranta, Social Identity and Sectarianism in the Qumran Movement (Leiden: Brill, 2013), esp. 148–75. 76 Further discussion of the exegetical treatment of Habakkuk in Pesher Habak- kuk is found in Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk; B. Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea (1QpHab) ( Jerusalem: Bialik, 1986) (Hebrew); Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations. 77 See, e.g., M. A. Sweeney, “Structure, Genre, and Intent in the Book of Habakkuk,” VT 41 (1991): 63–83. For a convincing reconstruction of the literary origin of the biblical book see Pfeiffer, Jahwes Kommen, 135–66. 78 Hanan Eshel argued that the term Kittim was first used for the Seleucids, in 1QM, but that after the Roman conquest it was used exclusively for the Romans. See H. Eshel, “The Kittim in the ‘War Scroll’ and in the Pesharim,” in Historical Perspectives; From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509 499

imperial power of the biblical text with the sweeping imperial power of his own time: 9 . . . Its inter[pretation] concerns the Kittim, who 10 trample the land with [their] horses and with their beasts. And from a distance 11 they come, from the islands of the sea, to devour all the peoples like a 12 vulture (1QpHab 3:9–12).‎ The use of the term “Kittim” derives from biblical usage,79 via eschatological interpretive traditions concerning Balaam’s prophecy in Num 24:24 (“But ships shall come from Kittim and shall afflict Asshur and Eber; and he also shall perish forever” [NRSV]), and the use of the term to signify Rome in Daniel 11:30 (“For ships of Kittim shall come against him, and he shall lose heart and withdraw. He shall be enraged and take action against the holy covenant. He shall turn back and pay heed to those who forsake the holy covenant.” [NRSV ]) Despite the use of the generic scripturally-based sobriquet, the pesherist may have incorporated details that flagged attributes specific to Rome. is suited , מושלים”Thus, it is often observed that the use of the word “rulers to the Roman republic (1QpHab 4:5, 10, 12 as well as 4QpNah 3–4 i 3).80

(ed. D. Goodblatt, A. Pinnick and D. R. Schwartz; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 29–44; idem, “The Changing Notion of the Enemy and Its Impact on the Pesharim,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerd- mans, 2008), 163–79; idem, “The Two Historical Layers of Pesher Habakkuk,” in Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Nordic Qumran Net- work 2003–2006 (ed. A. K. Petersen et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 107–17. In an oral presentation, “The Roman Conquest and its Significance in the Scrolls of Qumran,” at the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, May 1, 2013, Nadav Sharon has brought new arguments for suggesting that the Kittim in the Qumran corpus are in fact always the Romans. See also, T. H. Lim, “Kittim,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. Vanderkam; 2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 1:469–71. 79 The gent. adj. always occurs in the plural: Gen 10:4; 1 Chr 1:7; Num 24:24; Isa 23:1, 12; Jer 2:10; Ezek 27:6; Dan 11:30; in 1Macc 1:1 Kittim is the birth- place of Alexander the Great: Καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ τὸ πατάξαι ᾿Αλέξανδρον τὸν Φιλίππου Μακεδόνα, ὃς ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ γῆς Χεττιιμ, καὶ ἐπάταξεν τὸν Δαρεῖον βασιλέα Περσῶν καὶ Μήδων καὶ ἐβασίλευσεν ἀντ᾽ αὐτοῦ, πρότερον ἐπὶ τὴν ῾Ελλάδα (see also Jub. 24:28–29). 80 See, e.g., Dupont-Sommer, Essene Writings, 260 n. 2; J. G. M. Carmignac, Les Textes de Qumran: Traduits et annotes: La règle de la communaute, la règle de la guerre, les hymnes (2 vols.; Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1961), 1:99 n. 2. 500 A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509

in 1QpHab 4:11 has been seen as a reference to the בית אשמתם The term Senate (“. . . the Kittim, who in the council of [their] guilty house, pass by, one after another”).81 This description of a succession of Kittim leaders may refer to the successive Roman praetors stationed in Syria, who were responsible for Judea, beginning with Amelius Scaurus.82 Many scholars see the statement “they sacrifice to their standards and that their weapons are what they worship . . .” (1QpHab 6:3–5) as a marker of Roman identification.83 We described the typological substitution of the Kittim/Romans for the Chaldeans as “simple”, and so it is, as far as exegetical method. It is important to note, however, that this understanding of Rome as a major force— as powerful as the nation that destroyed the Temple and exiled Judah—would have demanded a major theological and psychological shift for the pesherist and his community. This is especially so in light of the eschatological valence attributed to the rise of Rome, as described by Nadav Sharon.84 In scholarship, as in Jewish tradition, Pompey’s invasion and conquest of Jerusalem tend to receive less attention than the violation of the Temple by Antiochus IV, or its destruction by Titus, or Hadrian’s establishment of Aelia Capitolina. Yet it was surely a dramatic national trauma, and a political watershed, on a similar scale. Moreover, the encounter with Rome in her terrifying might would have posed a challenge to those Jews who held fast to traditions of specific historical-eschatological schemata.85 It is helpful to consider 1QpHab 5:7–14 in this particular light: 7 Its interpretation is that the last period will be prolonged and it will be greater than anything 8 of which the prophets spoke, for the

81 K. M. T. Atkinson, “The Historical Setting of the Habakkuk Commentary,” JSS 4 (1959), 238–63 (243). 82 T. C. Brennan, The Praetorship in the Roman Republic: Volume 2: 122 to 49 BC (2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 2:410–13; Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State, 138–42. 83 See the sources listed in Atkinson, “The Historical Setting, ” 238–40. 84 In the lecture cited in n. 78 above, Sharon, “The Roman Conquest.” 85 K. Atkinson discusses four of the texts designated as “Historical Texts” from this perspective, in K. Atkinson, “Representations of history in 4Q331 (4Qpap- Historical Text C), 4Q332 (4QHistorical Text D), 4Q333 (4QHistorical Text E), and 4Q468E (4QHistorical Text F): An Annalistic Calendar Documenting Portentous Events?” DSD 14 (2007): 125–51. A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509 501

mysteries of God are awesome. 9 ‘If it tarries, wait for it, for it will surely come and it will not be 10 late.’ (Hab 2:3b). Its interpretation concerns the men of truth, 11 those who observe the Torah, whose hands do not grow slack in the service of 12 the truth, when the last period is drawn out for them, for 13 all of God’s periods will come according to their fixed order, as he decreed 14 for them in the mysteries of his prudence. The theological process underlying the identification of Habakkuk’s Chaldeans as Kittim/Romans would thus have been profound.86 Pesher Habakkuk also preserves two explicit theological statements concerning the Kittim. 1QpHab 5:1–6 follows its biblical lemma in asserting that the Gentile instruments of retribution will themselves be called to account:87 1 ‘You have set him up for judgment, and you, O Rock, have established them for rebuke. (You are) too pure of eyes 2 to look on evil, and you are not able to gaze at tribulation.’ (Hab 1:12–13a) vacat 3 The interpretation of this passage is that God will not destroy his people by the hand but into the hand of his chosen God will give 4;)הגוים( of the nations And by means of their .(כול הגוים) the judgment of all the nations rebuke 5all the wicked ones of his people will be convicted (by those) who have kept his commandments 6 in their distress.88

86 Eshel discussed the cognitive and emotional challenge of re-interpretation of prophecy in the identification of the Kittim as the Romans from a different perspective, in Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State, 175–79. As noted above, he maintained that the term was used in early Quman writings as an epithet for the Seleucids, and only later came to be used for the Romans. See also, H. Stegemann, The Library of Qumran: On the Essenes, Qumran, John the Baptist, and Jesus (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998), 132–33. 87 Here, we differ somewhat from Jokiranta (Social Identity, 158), who down- plays the role of the Gentiles in Pesher Habakkuk, writing that the Kittim “are not presented as a divine tool for punishment nor directly the divine target for punishment” (ibid., 162). 88 Some scholars suggest that the anticipation of retribution against the Kittim reflects a late stage in the history of the Community, a development froman earlier view of Pompey’s conquest as “positive or neutral.” Sharon, “The Roman Conquest,” cites the following proponents of this view: G. Vermes, “Historio- graphical Elements in the Qumran Writings: a Synopsis of the Textual Evidence,” JJS 58 (2007): 121–39 (esp. 139); K. Atkinson, “On the Herodian Origin of Militant Davidic Messianism: New Light from Psalm of Solomon 17,” JBL 118 502 A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509

In the second example, at 1QpHab 4:8, the pesher adds a theological gloss, with no evident basis in the lemma: 3 ‘And they 4 laugh at every fortress; and they heap up earthen mounds to capture it.’ (Hab 1:10b) 5 Its interpretation concerns the rulers of the and ( ) העמיםKittim who despise 6 the fortifications of the peoples laugh with derision at them; 7 and with many people they surround them to capture them. And with terror and dread 8 they are given into their hand, and they tear them down, and they destroy them, because .(בעוון היושבים בהם) of the iniquity of those who dwell 9 in them The pesher asserts that the nations destroyed by the Kittim were being punished for their sins.89 The treatment of the Kittim in the pesher thus corresponds very closely to the presentation of the Chaldeans in Habak- kuk. Both ch. 1 of Habakkuk and the pesher on this section of the book aim to address and assuage anxiety concerning divine justice. They both present invasion and powerful destruction by foreign powers as part of the divine plan, and indicate that these evils are in fact themselves manifesta- tions of divine judgment. The woe oracles in ch. 2 of Habakkuk elaborate on the execution of divine retribution. The corresponding section of Pesher Habakkuk focuses on internal Jewish matters—the wickedness of the Community’s rivals, and their downfall.90 Jokiranta compellingly describes the focus on internal enemies in the pesharim to the woe oracles as a “mirroring of ” the condemnation of the Gentiles.91 She sees this shift to an internal focus as

(1999): 435–60 (esp. 445); T. H. Lim, “Kittim,” 469–71. It is more consistent with biblical theology, and especially that found in the prophets, to condemn Gentiles who destroy the land and its guilty inhabitants, even as their execution of God’s will is recognized as a manfestation of divine justice. 89 Perhaps, specifically their sins against Judah; see Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 162. 90 There are some passing references to foreigners in this section. 1QpHab 8:12, commenting on Hab 2:5–6, describes the Wicked Priest as “seizing the 1QpHab 8:15–9:1 probably describes the affliction ;(הון עמים) ”wealth of peoples of this figure at the hand of a foreign enemy (as found also in 1QpHab 9:8–12). The following pesher, 1QpHab 9:3–7, applies the same verse to the “later priests of Jerusalem who will gather ill-gotten riches from the plunder of the peoples” and asserts that “in the Last Days their riches and (יקבוצו הון ובצע משלל העמים) plunder alike will be handed over to the army of the Kittim.” 91 Jokiranta, Social Identity, 115. A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509 503 reflecting the pesherist “making the most of ” the ambiguity of the biblical text.92 Since it is unclear against whom the woe oracles of Habakkuk are directed, the pesherist is free to apply these woes against his Jewish rivals. Although the target of the woes in ch. 2 of Habakkuk is in fact ambigu- ous, and the redaction history of this chapter is unclear, it is heuristically interesting to compare the process observed by Jokiranta to the textual development of the woe oracles that has been proposed by Walter Dietrich.93 Dietrich sees the original message of Habakkuk as an internal socio-critical one. Subsequently, the Chaldeans are introduced as instruments of retribution, and then their future punishment is asserted. For Dietrich, Hab 2:6–7 was originally written as an oracle of woe against internal sinners, and adapted against Babylon in a later layer of composition, in the following verse, Hab 2:8. He sees a similar process at work in Hab 2:12, later revised by Hab 2:13. Finally, the two concluding comments in Pesher Habakkuk mock Gen- tiles for idolatry, and predict the destruction of idolators. Here, too, the pesher closely follows its biblical lemmas. Thus 1QpHab 12:10–14: 10 ‘What profit does an idol bring, when its maker has hewed (it), 11 a molten statue and an image of falsehood? For the maker relies on the things he makes, 12 fashioning mute idols.’ (Hab 2:18) The interpretation of the which they have ,(גוים) passage concerns all 13 the idols of the Gentiles made so that they may worship them and bow down 14 before them, but they will not save them on the day of judgment. The final pesher in the composition, 1QpHab 13:1–4, similarly opposes idol worshippers, but also adds an additional phrase, “and the evil ones,” which are the closing words of Pesher Habakkuk: 1 ‘. . . all the land keeps silent before him.’ (Hab 2:19–20) Its interpreta- who have worshipped stone and 2(גוים) tion concerns all the Gentiles wood, but on the day of 3 judgement God will destroy completely all those who worship idols, 4 and the evil ones from the land. In contrast to the examples we saw in Pesher Hosea, Pesher Habakkuk echoes the opposition to idolatry found in the book of Habakkuk, rather than applying the condemnation to an analogous contemporary practice.

92 Ibid., 158. 93 W. Dietrich, “Three Minor Prophets,” 147–56. 504 A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509

This is warranted by the text, since the biblical verses condemn actual Gentiles, rather than Gentile practices adopted by Israel. Nevertheless, Pesher Habakkuk does seem to extend the scope of the prophecy in two ways that suit the sectarian agenda: (1) It asserts the divine destruction of the Gentiles, spelling out an implied threat in the biblical text; the pesher clarifies the contextual significance of the uselessness of the idols, which will not be able to save the worshippers from divine retribution. (2) It adds the coda, stating that the destruction will befall not only idolators but also “the evil ones”, most likely asserting that the divine judgment predicted by Habakkuk also applies to Jewish opponents who will also be eradicated, for sins other than idol worship. In sum, Pesher Habakkuk closely follows the book of Habakkuk in depicting Gentiles as idolators, and in portraying foreign nations as both instruments and objects of divine retribution. The identification of the biblical Chaldeans/Babylon as Kittim/Rome throughout the first part of the pesher is a classic representation of Elliger’s key hermeneutic principle of Qumran pesher, cited above, that pesher reveals the essence of biblical prophecies, i.e, the fulfilment of eschatological prophecies in the pesherist’s own era.

4.3. Pesher Nahum

Pesher Nahum implements a more radical extension or corollary to Elliger’s hermeneutical principle, which we have associated above with “transference.” In this work, biblical prophecies against Gentiles are explicitly interpreted as condemning internal enemies. There may be some precedent for this type of reconfiguration in the incorporation of the acrostic psalm in the first chapter of the book of Nahum itself. In the first section of this article, a number of layers were distinguished within the book of Nahum. It was suggested that there was an original collection of anti-Assyrian prophecies, composed at the height of Assyrian power, which were bound together by means of a compositional layer. Later, post-destruction theological expansions infused the work with new relevance, at a time when the powerful enemy was Baby- lon. Finally, the acrostic psalm in ch. 1 was viewed as a late addition, which reflects a perspective that is both broader and more narrow than the original anti-Assyrian oracles. The psalm is concerned with the universal triumph of good against evil, as expressed, inter alia, in the resolution of internal conflicts, specifically with the triumph of the righteous within A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509 505

Judah. The text in its current state presents these successive layers as a unified prophecy against Assyria, “An oracle concerning Nineveh. The book of the vision of Nahum of Elkosh” (Nah 1:1). The explicit commentary form allows the pesherist greater freedom in updating the prophetic message, as compared to the successive composers and redactors who preceded him. Writing in the latter half of the first century B.C.E.,94 the geo-political powers that were relevant for him and his community were the Seleucids and Romans. We might have expected these powers to play a prominent role in Pesher Nahum. In fact, while both of these empires are mentioned, the focus of the pesher is internal sectarian conflict. The primary analogue for Nineveh is the Jerusalem establishment, as seen in the following survey. The extant pesher may be divided into four pericopes, which align roughly with the preserved columns of the manuscript: frgs. 1–2; frgs. 3–4 col. i, cols. ii–iii, and cols. iii–iv. The first extant pericope relates to Nah 1:3–6, the universalist acrostic psalm. The pesher predicts the eradication of a wicked group or groups (e.g., line 4: “to exe[cute] judgement upon them and to destroy them from upon the face of [the world.”). These powerful wicked ones are set opposite “the Elect.” It is unclear whether the pesher here voices opposition to the Roman rulers, or to rival Jewish groups, or to both, as no positive evidence of their nature or identity has been preserved. Some scholars have understood the passage as opposing internal Jewish enemies, while most have maintained that the object of retributive judgment is a foreign power, so that some editions of the text feature reconstructions including the word “Kittim”.95 Later in this pesher, and in other sectarian texts from Qumran, the term “Kittim” is used as an epithet for powerful Gentile enemies.96 Horgan described a two-part polemic within this pericope, aimed at both the Kittim and Jewish opponents. The evidence remains inconclusive. This column of the manuscript is not particularly well-preserved, and it is possible that there were some clear identifiers in the portions of text that have not survived.Alternatively, the pesher may have followed the tenor of the biblical text, and thus have

94 See Berrin (Tzoref ), The Pesher Nahum Scroll, 8. 95 Thus, in the editio princeps, J. M. Allegro, DJD 5. See Berrin (Tzoref ), The Pesher Nahum Scroll, 73–86. George Brooke offers an exegetical analysis of the passage, with the presumption that it refers to the Kittim, in Brooke, “The Kittim in the Qumran Pesharim.” 96 See above, nn. 78–79. 506 A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509 been more concerned with conveying a message concerning divine might, retribution, and eradication of evil than in singling out particular political entities. The following pericope, frgs. 3–4 i, comments upon Nahum 2:12–14, an intricate metaphor that depicts Assyria’s might with images of lions. This pericope names Demetrius and Antiochus,97 and features the designa- tions “kings of Greece,” and “rulers of the Kittim,” clearly an epithet for the Romans in this context.98 Also, the word “Gentiles” appears in the pesher interpretation in line 1, presumably commenting on Nah 2:12a, but the pesher is fragmentary, and the function of the term is not clear. The main focus of the pericope, however, is the Jerusalem establishment. The references to the Seleucids and Romans function primarily to provide historical context, as the pesherist interprets the extended lion metaphor as a description of inner-Jewish turmoil. The pesher describes the battles between the “Lion of Wrath” and “Seekers-after-Smooth-Things”, generally understood to be the Hasmonean king Alexander Jannaeus and the Pharisees.99 In this pericope, the pesherist treats his Jewish opponents as the analogues to the once-mighty Assyria, whose downfall was predicted, and actualized.100

97 This specification of proper names, rather than using a sobriquet, is unique to Pesher Nahum among the extant pesharim, and is unusual even in the broader Qumran corpus. On the ten scrolls that name individuals, see Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State, 3–4. 98 See Berrin (Tzoref ), The Pesher Nahum Scroll, 101–3. 99 See Berrin (Tzoref ), The Pesher Nahum Scroll, 87–163; Josephus, Ant. 13.372–379; An alternative interpretation by Gregory Doudna, identifying the Lion of Wrath as Pompey has not been widely accepted. (G. L. Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum: A Critical Edition (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 57–73. 100 This seems to be an expression of “wishful thinking,” or a sort of conscious anticipatory transference. Harry Stack Sullivan described transference as follows: “ ‘Personifications’ of the self and significant others are formed on the basis of early relations with significant others, as are ‘dynamisms’ (or dynamics) representing typical relational patterns between self and other. When ‘parataxic distortion’ (transference) occurs, the new person is experienced in terms of the significant other, and the interpersonal patterns learned with the significant other are experienced in the new relationship.” See H. Stack Sullivan, The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry (New York, N.Y.: Norton, 1953). In our text, the pesherist is experiencing his powerful rivals as threats, within a traditional biblical paradigm of threatening antagonists. This in turn leads him to seek a biblical paradigm for A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509 507

The “transference” of the opposition to Assyria in Nahum to internal Jewish opponents in Pesher Nahum is particularly clear in the third pericope, 3–4 ii:1–iii:8, which comments upon the vivid description of Nineveh’s culpability and downfall in Nah 3:1–5, including the metaphor of the harlot in Nah 3:4. The pesher applies the prophecy against Nineveh to “the city of Ephraim”, i.e., Jerusalem, associated with the “Seekers-after- Smooth-Things,” most probably the Pharisees:101 Frgs. 3–4 iii 1 ‘ “Woe city of blood.” She is all [deception with pilla]ge, she is filled.’ 2 Its interpretation: ‘she’ is the ‘city’ of Ephraim, the Seekers- after-Smooth-Things at the end of days, that the[y will] conduct themselves in ‘deception’ and falsehoo[d]. The trope of Jerusalem as a city of blood is also found in 1QpHab 10:5– with the ,]י[תהלכו and Ezek 22:2; 24:6. The use of the plural verb ,13 Seekers-after-Smooth-Things as its subject involves a bit of a stretch, equat- ing the city with its inhabitants. This extension is facilitated by a more general well-attested trope in the Qumran sectarian writings—the use of building imagery to describe communities.102 The final extant pericope of Pesher Nahum, 3–4 iii:8–iv:8, comments upon Nah 3:6–11, in which Nineveh is compared to Thebes (“No-Amon”), which had fallen earlier. Again, the pesher applies the prophecies against Nineveh to “Ephraim,” and it also identifies Thebes as “Manasseh,” using the biblical text’s references to “rivers” and “rampart” and “walls” to introduce plural groups of people associated with Manasseh—“great ones,” “men at arms,” “mighty warriors.” The context of the pesher is best understood as Pompey’s defeat of Aristobulus II and his Sadducean supporters.103 resolving and eradicating threats, and impose it upon his current circumstance, and thereby to bolster confidence in his predictions of his enemies’ downfall. 101 On Ephraim/Pharisees, see Berrin (Tzoref ), The Pesher Nahum Scroll, 109– 11; 115–18, 196–201; Kratz, “Der Pescher Nahum,” 108–9; 113–14. 102 See Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 45–46. 103 Berrin [Tzoref ], The Pesher Nahum Scroll, 267–85; eadem, “Pesher Nahum, Psalms of Solomon and Pompey,” in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran (ed. E. G. Chazon, D. Dimant and R. A. Clements; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 65–84. See also, Atkinson, “On the Herodian Origin of Militant Davidic Messianism”; idem, “I Cried to the Lord”: A Study of the Psalms of Solo- mon’s Historical Background and Social Setting ( JSJSup 84; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 42–46. I. Tantlevskij dated the composition of Pesher Nahum prior to Pompey’s 508 A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509

If this is the case, then Rome has a key function in the pesher, as an escha- tologically significant superpower executing divine retribution against the Jerusalem establishment. This is the same role played by Rome in Pesher Habakkuk, but whereas the Kittim are central figures in 1QpHab, inPesher Nahum, they are all but invisible.104

5. Conclusion

The extant pesharim on the Minor Prophets present foreigners and Gentiles in roles that correspond to the unfolding roles of the Gentiles in the Minor Prophets themselves. Generically, foreigners are idol-worshippers, whose practices are adopted by sinful Israelites; along with Israel, they suffer from invasion and destruction at the hand of mighty imperial forces. The specific Gentile nations of Assyria and Babylon loom large in the Minor Prophets. They inflict destruction and suffering upon God’s nation, and pose a seeming-existential threat, but the prophets predict their ultimate downfall. The authors of the pesharim in the first century B.C.E. must have felt greatly assured by the historical reality of the downfall of both Assyria and Babylonia. They looked to the past as a model for their present. The author of Pesher Habakkuk could thus point to Habakkuk’s prophe- conquest, proposing a specific date of 88 B.C.E. He located this pericope in a time of Seleucid dominion, prior to the reign of Salome. Among the difficulties with this suggestion is its dependence upon a purported interval of Pharisaic rule during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus, which is not attested in any other source. See I. Tantlevskij, “The Reflection of the Political Situation in Judaea in 88 B.C.E. in the Qumran Commentary on Nahum (4QpNah, columns 1–4),” St. Peters- burg Journal of Oriental Studies 6 (1994): 221–31, and the response in Berrin [Tzoref], Pesher Nahum, 22–28. David Flusser, who dated Pesher Habakkuk earlier than 63 B.C.E. (on the eve of Pompey’s conquest, when Rome was beginning to loom as a potential threat), dated Pesher Nahum “after this terrible trauma,” see D. Flusser, “The Roman Empire in Hasmonean and Essene Eyes,” in Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Volume I: Qumran and Apocalypticism (trans. A. Yadin; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans / Jerusalem: Hebrew Univer- sity Magnes Press, 2007), 1:175–206. 104 The book of Nahum does not focus on the agents of destruction. The implicit function of Rome in the pesher, in executing punishment against Ephraim and Manasseh, corresponds to the role of Assyria in the sack of Thebes, and of Babylon in the destruction of Nineveh. A. C. Hagedorn, S. Tzoref / Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013) 472–509 509 cies to bolster his community’s confidence—the recent destruction wreaked by Pompey and his successors fit the theological model of retribution already established with respect to the Babylonian exile. Moreover, the interpretation assured that Rome would fall, as Babylon did. The author of Pesher Nahum shows greater concern about internal Jewish enemies. Rome is an implicit analogue to the ancient empires of old, but it is “Ephraim” and “Manasseh” whom the pesherist longs to see eradicated. The fall of Nineveh, predicted and fulfilled, fuels his anticipation of an end to all evil. On the one hand, the pesharim to Habakkuk and Nahum revert to the stance of early composition phases of these prophetic works, in that they place the oracles firmly in an actual historical setting. On the other hand, this setting is far from the original context, and the realities reflect novel concerns, as well as intensification and radicalization. Of course, this very process of innovation is one that can be found already in the production of the biblical texts themselves.