NAHUM, PSALMS OF SOLOMON AND POMPEY*

Shani Berrin University of Sydney

Psalm 2 of the pseudepigraphic Psalms of Solomon and columns ii–iv of the pesher 4QpNah 3–4 have each been associated with Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem. Further examination of these works indicates that their similarities extend beyond subject matter to lin- guistic expressions that are suggestive of a shared interpretive tradition. It is likely that the two compositions reflect different adaptations of this shared tradition, which was molded by each of the ancient authors to suit the polemic needs of his own community.

I. Pompey’s Conquest as the Subject of 4QpNah 3–4 ii–iv

Whereas there is general agreement that Psalms 2 and 8 of Psalms of Solomon are concerned with Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem, the setting of 4QpNah 3–4 ii–iv is less firmly established and requires some attention.1 It is widely assumed that there is a scholarly consensus concerning the historical context of Pesher Nahum. Although this is basi- cally true for 4QpNah 3–4 col. i, there is less agreement about the

* I would like to thank the Orion Center for the Study of and Associated Literature, and particularly Dr. Esther Chazon, for inviting me to par- ticipate in this symposium. I would also like to express my gratitude to Dr. Esther and Prof. for hosting me during my stay in Jerusalem and for their helpful reactions to the version of this paper that was presented at the conference, as well as to Prof. Moshe Bernstein for his useful comments. Remaining errors, of course, are my own responsibility. 1 On the historical context of Psalm 2, see the works cited in D. Dimant, “A Cultic Term in the Psalms of Solomon in the Light of the Septuagint,” Textus 9 (1981): 27–28 (Hebrew); especially, G. B. Gray, “The Psalms of Solomon” in APOT 2:625–52 and S. Holm-Nielsen, “Die Psalmen Salomos” JSHRZ 4.2 (1977), 51–112. See also, R. B. Wright, “Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:658–70; J. L. Trafton: “Solomon, Psalms of,” in ABD 6:115–17; and K. Atkinson, I Cried To The Lord: a Study of the Psalms of Solomon’s Historical Background and Social Setting (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2004.) 66 shani berrin setting of the subsequent columns of the work. References to Demetrius and Antiochus, as well as to executions by hanging, in col. i serve as the basis for contextualizing col. i in the time of Alexander Jannaeus.2 The phrase “rising of the Kittim” in line 1 of col. i is generally under- stood as a reference to the Roman conquest of Judea, and it is thus accepted that the composition of the work as a whole postdates the “rise” of the Romans. Cols. ii–iv have been addressed in light of these identifications and have been taken as referring to some time period between Jannaeus and the Roman conquest. Specific proposals include (1) the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (c. 88 bce),3 (2) the reign of queen Salome Alexandra, Jannaeus’ queen and successor (76–67 bce),4 (3) the period of conflict between Salome’s sons Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, and of Pompey’s conquest (67–63 bce).5

2 Cf. Josephus, Ant. 13.372–416; BJ 1.92, and the secondary literature cited in the next three notes. However, for an alternative understanding of col. i, as per- taining to the time of Pompey, see G. Doudna, 4QPesher Nahum (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 639–74. 3 Thus, L. H. Schiffman, “Pharisees and in Pesher Nahum,” in Minhah Le-Nahum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honor of His 70th Birthday (ed. M. Brettler and M. Fishbane; JSOTSup 154; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 272–90, esp. 281; as well as I. R. Tantlejvsky, “The Reflection of the Political Situation in Judea in 88 B.C.E. in the Qumran Commentary of Nahum (4QpNah, Columns 1–4),” St. Petersburg Journal of Oriental Studies 6 (1994): 221–31. J. Maier had raised this possibility, alongside the hypothesis of D. Flusser (i.e., the period of Salome), in “Weitere Stücke zum Nahumkommentar aus der Höhle 4 Von Qumran,” Judaica 18 (1962): 245. 4 Thus, D. Flusser, “μwjn rçpb μyysaw ,μyqwdx ,μyçwrp,” in Essays in Jewish History and Philology, in Memory of Gedaliahu Alon (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1970), 133–68 (Hebrew); = “Pharisäer, Sadduzäer und Essener im Pescher Nahum” in Qumran (ed. K. E. Grözinger et al. [Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981]); “μyçwrphw hdwhy rbdm tk,” in Molad 19 (1961): 456–58 (Hebrew). Likewise J. D. Amusin, “Éphraim et Manassé dans le Péshèr de Nahum (4 Q p Nahum),” RevQ 4 (1963–64): 389–96; “The Reflection of Historical Events of the First Century B. C. in Qumran Commentaries (4Q 161; 4Q 169; 4Q 166),” HUCA 48 (1977): 123–52, esp. 143–45. So, too, M. P. Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books (CBQMS 8; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1979), 161; I. Fröhlich, “Le Genre Littéraire des Pesharim du Qumran,” RevQ 12 (1986): 391. 5 Thus, A. Dupont-Sommer, “Observations sur le Commentaire de Nahum Découvert près de la Mer Morte,” Journal des Savants (October-December 1963): 201–26; “Le Commentaire de Nahum Découvert près de la Mer Morte (4QpNah): Traduction et Notes,” Semitica 13 (1963): 55–88. He views the pesher as concerned with three Hasmonean monarchs: Alexander Jannaeus, Hyrcanus II, and Aristobulus II (“Le Commentaire,” 87). He identifies the same figures in 4QTestimonia; but see the rebuttal of H. Eshel, “The Historical Background of the Pesher Interpreting Joshua’s Curse on the Rebuilder of Jericho,” RevQ 15 (1991–92): 409–20. Another possibility proposed earlier by Gaster associates this pesher with the Samaritans (The Dead Sea Scriptures [New York: Anchor/Doubleday 1976], 341).