Conclusion

Pesher and Hypomnema

The comparison of two commentary traditions from the Hellenistic-Roman

period in the preceding chapters has yielded both similarities and d­ ifferences.
These invite two related conclusions. First, the hypomnemata on the Iliad
and the Qumran Pesharim are at home in similar settings. Both commentary
traditions reflect the activities of scholars and intellectuals engaged in the
systematic and meticulous scrutiny of their literary heritage. Second, the simi-
larities and differences between these traditions point to the workings of in-
tellectual networks across Hellenistic and Roman Egypt and Palestine. These
intellectual networks constituted a globalised context for the exchange of
knowledge. The Pesharim demonstrate that the Pesher exegetes were familiar
with Alexandrian textual scholarship and appropriated it to their own ends.
The Qumran commentaries can be understood as glocal phenomena that in-
tricately combine global practices (the production of systematic commentar-
ies) with local aims and interests (the development of a narrative historical
memory for the movement to which the Pesher commentators belonged).
The scholarly background of the hypomnemata and the Pesharim is evident
from their bifold structure. The lemma-interpretation distinction that perme-
ates these commentaries and is physically expressed through the use of sense
dividers defines the hypomnemata and the Pesharim as systematic interpreta-
tions of their base texts. Moreover, the scholarly ambitions of the hypomnema
and Pesher commentators come to the fore in their use of marginal signs; their
references to Homeric or scriptural passages, other authors, literary traditions,
or fellow interpreters; their references of multiple interpretations; and their
use of a wide variety of exegetical resources and interpretative strategies.
The scholarly setting of the hypomnemata and the Pesharim finds further
confirmation in the handwriting of their manuscripts and the fluid nature of
the commentaries themselves. Chapters 3 and 4 have shown that many com-
mentaries were written by scholars, either for personal or for classroom use.
Some hypomnema or Pesher manuscripts (e.g., P.Oxy. 2.221v or 1QpHab) may
even be the product of a scholar and a student working together. The fluid char-
acter of the hypomnemata and the Pesharim is most evident in P.Oxy. 8.1086
and Pesher Habakkuk. The first commentary is a compilation of Aristarchaean
interpretations of Il. 2. These interpretations were drawn from other sources.
with which they are sometimes at variance (e.g., Schol. A). Accumulations of
interpretative material occur also in the Pesharim: 1QpHab 2:5–10 is a later

© pieter b. hartog, ���7 | doi:��.��63/9789004354203_012 Pieter B. Hartog - 9789004354203

This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.
Downloaded from Brill.com05/20/2021 06:09:08PM
via free access
294 Conclusion

addition to Pesher Habakkuk; interlinear additions in 4Q163, 4Q169, and 4Q171

seem to point to the accrual of information in Pesher Isaiah C, Pesher Nahum,
and Pesher Psalms A; and the use of demonstrative pronouns to introduce
some interpretation sections may reflect the use of sources in the Qumran
commentaries. Hence, the Pesharim and the hypomnemata are the product
of a similar kind of scholarly activity and they are at home in similar scholarly
and intellectual communities.
Yet to say that the hypomnemata and the Pesharim are scholarly writings
is not to suggest that all hypomnemata and Pesharim fulfil the same purpose.
Nor does it imply that these two scholarly traditions are uniform. Some hy-
pomnemata were presumably used for teaching purposes (P.Oxy. 8.1086),
others served the personal needs of scholars (P.Oxy. 2.221v), or functioned as
scholarly master copies (BKT 10.16897). The contents of the hypomnemata may
also differ: whereas P.Oxy. 8.1086 exhibits an outspoken Aristarchaean prefer-
ence, P.Oxy. 2.221v contains the views of a much broader range of scholars, in-
cluding the Pergamene Crates. Similarly, the Pesharim fulfil different purposes
and lay different emphases. Some Pesher manuscripts appear to have served
as a scholar’s personal copies (4Q163), others more readily qualify as a copy for
expert consultation (4Q169) or were used in a teaching setting (1QpHab).
The hypomnemata and the Pesharim may reflect the same type of activity,
but they do not present the same type of scholarly tradition. It has been point-
ed out in chapter 6 that many hypomnemata reflect a type of scholarship that
appreciates disagreement and debate. P.Oxy. 2.221v is a striking example. The
Pesharim, in contrast, reflect a type of scholarship that centres on the voice
of one privileged commentator: the Teacher of Righteousness. The portrayal of
the Teacher in the Pesharim results from the Pesher commentators, who accrue
his authority for themselves and so present their interpretations as uniquely
valid. A second difference between the hypomnemata and the Pesharim came
to light in chapters 9 and 10: whereas the hypomnemata favour co-textual read-
ings of their lemmata and exhibit a particular interest in smoothing out incon-
sistencies in the Iliad, the Pesharim contain more non-co-textual readings of
their base texts and are more prone than their Greek counterparts to explore
the interpretative possibilities of their lemmata.
These differences reflect the various perspectives the hypomnema and
the Pesher commentators impose on their base texts. The hypomnema ex-
egetes conceive of Homer as a single, conscious author, who meticulously
composed his epics. Thus by studying the literary and co-textual features of
the Iliad they will be able to recover Homer’s original words and intentions.
This is important, as Homer was also considered a teacher: his works contain
knowledge on almost every aspect of life and a good acquaintance with Homer

Pieter B. Hartog - 9789004354203

Downloaded from Brill.com05/20/2021 06:09:08PM
via free access
Pesher and Hypomnema 295

was the basis for Greek culture and identity (Ἑλληνισμός). The interests of the
Pesharim are narrower and focus on the historical memory of the movement to
which the Pesher exegetes belonged and its connection to Scripture. In their
view, the ancient prophets were divinely inspired to say and write the things
they wrote and said. The Teacher of Righteousness partook of the same divine
inspiration, but, living in the latter days, obtained a fuller insight in the whole
of history and the position of his movement within it. The Teacher’s interpreta-
tions are alleged to reflect his superior insight, and the Pesher commentators
claim themselves to be continuing the tradition the Teacher initiated. Thus
there is no room for debate in the Pesharim: only the divinely sanctioned in-
terpretations of the Teacher and his followers can be true; all others must be
condemned.
The similarities and differences between the hypomnemata and the
Pesharim illustrate the processes of glocalisation that brought about the
Qumran commentaries. Such processes depended on the presence and work-
ings of intellectual networks throughout the Hellenistic and Roman worlds.
These networks connected Egypt and Palestine with one another. Literary
references to networks of intellectuals in both localities occur in the Letter
of Aristeas, the colophon to Greek Esther, the prologue to Greek Sirach, and
the works of Philo and Josephus. As Jews in Egypt were closely acquainted
with Alexandrian textual scholarship and travelled to Palestine, they probably
constituted an important channel through which knowledge of Alexandrian
scholarship reached Jews in Palestine. Members of the movement in which the
Pesharim originated appear to have obtained some familiarity with the forms
and methodology of Alexandrian textual scholarship. Hence they adopted the
systematic commentary format from the scholars in the Alexandrian Museum
and Library who had first developed it.
The existence of contacts between the Pesher commentators and scholarly
communities closely familiar with Alexandrian textual scholarship is sup-
ported by the macro-structural similarity between the hypomnemata and the
Pesharim. As has been pointed out, exegetical works that distinguish explicitly
between lemmata and their interpretations are relatively rare in the Hellenistic
and Roman periods. Yet Alexandrian scholars, in the wake of Aristarchus,
promoted this type of scholarly literature. From Alexandria the commentary
format spread to Hellenistic-Roman Palestine. Some physical features of the
Pesher manuscripts, such as the use of marginal signs in 4Q163, lend further
support to this scenario.
The reasons for the Pesher commentators to adopt this form of exegeti-
cal literature may reflect their interest in the historical experience of the
movement to which they belonged. Chapters 7 and 10 have shown that the

Pieter B. Hartog - 9789004354203

Downloaded from Brill.com05/20/2021 06:09:08PM
via free access
296 Conclusion

Pesharim provide their readers with a narrative interpretation of their base

texts, in which Scripture is explained in light of the historical memory of the
movement and vice versa. The systematic, running form of Alexandrian com-
mentary writing may have appealed to the Pesher commentators for the op-
portunities it offered to align Scripture neatly with this historical memory. At
the same time, the prominence of the Alexandrian Library and Museum in
the Hellenistic and Roman periods may also have triggered the adoption of
this form of Alexandrian scholarly literature by the Pesher exegetes. As they
presented their interpretations in a way echoing those of their Alexandrian
counterparts, the Pesher commentators appropriated the authority and appeal
of the Alexandrian Library and Museum for themselves.
The hermeneutical profiles of the hypomnemata and the Pesharim in chap-
ters 9 and 10 have brought out differences between the two commentary tra-
ditions, which are related to the perspective they impose on their base texts.
However, the hermeneutical comparison has also demonstrated that many
exegetical resources occur both in the hypomnemata and the Pesharim. These
parallels confirm the connection between the two traditions and the work-
ings of intellectual networks throughout the Hellenistic and Roman worlds.
At the same time, resources similar to the ones used in the hypomnemata and
the Pesharim are common throughout the ancient world and do not point
to an exclusive relationship between the two commentary traditions treated
in this book. Rather, they demonstrate that both the hypomnemata and the
Pesharim were part of broader intellectual traditions that include interpreta-
tions of written texts and other sources in Mesopotamia and Egypt.
To sum up: the Pesharim and the hypomnemata are the result of similar
kinds of scholarly engagements with a base text. At the same time, they em-
body different scholarly traditions. This shows that the Pesharim not only ad-
opted, but also adapted the forms and assumptions of Alexandrian scholarly
literature. From that perspective the Pesharim are yet another illustration of
glocalisation in the Hellenistic and Roman periods: in the Pesharim, global
intellectual conventions are adopted on a local level, where they serve local
purposes. The movement in which the Pesharim originated was not sealed off
from the world that surrounded it. On the contrary, the Pesher commentators
were part of intellectual networks that included Jews and non-Jews in Egypt
and enabled knowledge of Alexandrian textual scholarship to reach Jewish in-
tellectuals in Hellenistic-Roman Palestine.

Pieter B. Hartog - 9789004354203

Downloaded from Brill.com05/20/2021 06:09:08PM
via free access