119 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXII N° 1-2, januari-april 2005 120 As to the hermeneutical matter it is argued that ‘pesher' refers to a type of interpretation which is best characterized as ‘fulfillment exegesis'. There is no discussion of other aspects of this type of interpretation, such as the modes of it and the question of the techniques involved (see, e.g., M. Horgan, Pesharim, pp. 244-247). In the main section of the book, first a synopsis of Qumran history is given (pp. 25-58) in which the author deals with several debated issues and uncertainties in a sound and balanced way. This is followed by chapters about the pesharim and Qumran history, the dat- ing of the pesharim, and the issue of historical allusions in the pesharim, the last of which is central to the book. Since the interpretations in the pesharim are presented in a camou- flaged way, and therefore are difficult for ‘outsiders’ to understand, the interpretation of these ‘interpretations' (pesharim) is not an easy matter. It is in a sense the decod- ing of a language full of veiled names and expressions. One therefore can only agree with the following statement, ‘The historical data mirrored in the pesharim can be recovered and understood only within a balance of delicate possibilities and probabilities' (p. 116). The pesharim, dated roughly speaking to the first half of the first century BCE, allude to persons and groups in Judah of the time, and to persons and groups outside Judah. One can agree that, e.g., the ‘Seekers-after-smooth-things' as well as ‘Ephraim' are a sobriquet for the Pharisees, but one won- ders whether Pesher Isaiah-a (4QpIsa-a [4Q161) is one of the sources which refers to king Jonathan (Alexander Jannaeus), because this pesher does not offer a clear reference to this king. Moreover, one may doubt that this pesher alludes to the campaign of Ptolemy IX, in the year 103 BCE, since the term ‘Kittim' usually refers to the Romans and not to a Ptolemaic king. The pesharim have been written by learned Jews, presum- ably priests. In line with ancient traditions in the Near East, particularly in Mesopotamia, this type of interpretation is to be regarded as part of the scholarship of the time. It is true that the pesharim offer fulfillment interpretation, but in my view it seems more appropriate to characterize the produc- tion of these texts in the following way: Jewish, or Qumran scholars interpreted particular persons and events of their own time on the basis of ancestral prophetical books in order to help the people, their followers, survive in hard times and to VROEG JUDAÏSME, SAMARITANEN give them hope for the future. The book is well edited — although the designation ‘4QPs- CHARLESWORTH, J.H. — The Pesharim and Qumran His- a' is incorrect; it should be 4QpPs-a — and provides an tory. Chaos or Consensus? William B. Eerdmans Publi- excellent introduction to the issues concerning the historical cation Co., Grand Rapids, 2002. (24 cm, XIV, 171). allusions in the pesharim. ISBN 0-8028-3988-6. $ 28,-; £ 19,99. Leiden, December 2004 Arie VAN DER KOOIJ In this volume James Charlesworth introduces the ‘pesharim' from Qumran to general readers, and he does so in a clear and enjoyable way. The focus is on the question of ** which historical data might correspond to the interpretations * given in the pesharim. After a brief section, entitled The Hermeneutics of the Pesharim (pp. 1-16), the part entitled SCHORCH, S. — Die Vokale des Gesetzes, Die Samari- The Pesharim and Qumran History (pp. 17-118) forms the tanische Lesetradition als Textzeugin der Tora. 1 Das main body of the book. In addition, there are Appendixes by Buch Genesis. (Beihefte zur Zeitscrift für die alttesta- Professor Lidija Novakovic, namely, an Index of biblical quo- mentliche Wissenschaft, 339). Walter de Gruyter & Co., tations in the Pesharim and other documents, and a listing of Berlin 2004. (23,5 cm, X, 304). ISBN 3-11-018101-0. text-critical variants in the Pesharim and other documents The Samaritan text of the Pentateuch (SP) has attracted (pp. 119-158), followed by a bibliography, indexes of Bibli- much attention from the moment it appeared on the stage of cal texts, and other items. biblical research. The very existence of a Hebrew exemplar 121 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — VROEG JUDAÏSME, SAMARITANEN 122 which does not coincide with the Jewish text in many the contrary, some attempts have been made to bring the respects, though a strong resemblance between them is obvi- Samaritan reading of the Tora to the attention of the schol- ous at first glance, was striking, and it stirred the imagina- arly world. Thus, Heinrich Petermann, during his visit to tion. Nablus, tried to note vowels on his copy of the SP, as the This old version of the Hebrew Tora is known from antiq- High Priest Amram read the book of Genesis aloud for him.4) uity. It is already mentioned in the Patristic literature, as early Another attempt was made in 1917 by Hellmut Ritter: a writ- as the second century C. E. when Origen quoted many of its ten dictation of some verses taken from Gen 1. This was con- readings on the margins of his Hexapla. Many others referred tinued by Arthur Shaade, who made similar notes in Nablus to its ancient script (Eusebius of Caesarea, Chron. I, xvi, 7- some years later. The material of both was edited by A. Mur- 11, Jerome in his prologue to the book of Kings), and to its tonen and published by Paul Kahle.5) All these were inter- literary structure (Procopius of Gaza in his commentary to esting attempts but too meager for an acquaintance with the Deuteronomy), etc. As late as the ninth century, the SP still traditional reading of the Torah, and insufficient for a descrip- acted in the background, as the observations of George Syn- tion of Samaritan Hebrew, not to speak about a comparison cellus on its antiquity attest (Ecloga chronographica 94, 9- with the MT. Only with the publication of Ze‘ev Ben- 13).1) Rabbinic literature, too, refers here and there to the SP. Hayyim‘s studies, which included a transcription of the entire Sifre Deuteronomy sect. 26 (3rd century C. E.) accuses the text of the SP, was the juxtaposition of the two traditions pos- Samaritans of forging the Scripture, and the Jerusalem Tal- sible.6) Actually, the first step towards the representation of mud, tract. Jebamot I, 4 (5th century C. E.), takes issue with the Samaritan tradition was made by the authors of the third their understanding and interpretation. In later centuries the edition of the Köhler-Baumgartner dictionary, who in the first Samaritan Pentateuch fell into complete oblivion. For more two volumes presented sporadically the witness of the Samar- than seven hundred years this extremely important document itan vocalization. With the addition of Ben-Hayyim to the remained hidden from the eyes of scholars, until Guillaume redactional team from the third volume on, the Samaritan Postel, attaché at the French embassy in Istanbul, met there vocalization was presented systematically, entry after entry. some Samaritans who showed him a copy of their Pentateuch The book under review is the first serious attempt to (1537). Back in Paris he told his friend, the renown oriental- change the attitude toward what is generally considered ”the“ ist Joseph Scaliger, about the discovery. The latter stirred the SP and to establish a solid base for a parallel presentation of interest of the French ambassador in Istanbul, Achille Harley the two traditions in their entirety. de Sancy, who acquired a manuscript through the efforts of The author introduces the reader into the problematic char- Pietro della Valle during his voyage to Nablus in 1616. It was acter of a text that represents only a part of its phonetic val- this manuscript that Jean Morin published in the Polyglot ues. The transmission of such a text, considered sacred and Bible of Paris several years later, in 1632.2) From that therefore inalterable, involves many efforts of members of moment on, the SP never ceased to be an object of study, as the society to preserve what they regard as the authoritative, well as dispute. The same manuscript was re-published by if not the original, reading of the holy writ. He presents these Bryan Walton in his London Polyglot (1657), to which efforts amongst the Jewish communities which resulted in a Edmund Castell appended a study dealing with no fewer than more or less generally accepted graphical representation of 6000 variants between the SP and the Masoretic text (MT). the vowels to accompany the ”consonantal“ text. In contrast, This became a mythic number, repeated time and again ever the Samaritans developed a graphic system much later, as since,3) in spite of the general agreement that most of the they concentrated their main efforts during the centuries on variations are of orthographic nature, and orthography itself the oral transmission of the Tora. It is this transmission that varies sometimes from scribe to scribe. Moreover, the state- the author treats in two main divisions of his book. ment that ”Samaritan Pentateuch MSS in general show a The first division (Chap. 2, since Chap. 1 is dedicated to preference for the plene or full orthography. The internal the introduction) provides the reader with a detailed survey, matres lectionis yodh and waw are used extensively“ (Purvis, starting with the history of the community as a self-defined p. 774) is only partly correct, since orthography is a very body, and arriving at the main point of the study: the emer- unstable matter as far as the SP is concerned, as the follow- gence of the Samaritan tradition.