CC BY
3I Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 2022 15(5): 727-740
DOI: 10.17516/1997-1370-0690 УДК 296.2; 296.6; 296.719; 296.8
Elements of Pejorative Wordplay and Language of Enmity in the Oumran Commentary on Nahum in Historical-Religious Context
Igor R. Tantlevskij*
Saint Petersburg State University Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation
Received 18.07.2020, received in revised form 01.05.2021, accepted 06.07.2021
Abftract. The article deals with the language of enmity and pejorative wordplay in the Qumran Commentary (Pesher) on Nahum (4QpNah = 4Q169). According to the author's reconflruction, this sectarian work could be written in 88 B.C.E. after the defeat of the Judaean king and high priefl Alexander Jannaeus' army inflicted by the Syrian king Demetrius III Eucaerus, who was invited in Judaea by the rebellious Pharisees, near the city of Shechem: as a result, Alexander was forced to flee to the Ephraim Mountains (see: Josephus Flavius, The Jewish War, I, 95; The Jewish Antiquities, XIII, 379), in all probability to his mountain fortress Alexandrion. Taking advantage of this, the Pharisees temporarily came to power in Jerusalem - probably for some months in the same 88 B.C.E. In suppressing the rebellion, Alexander executed the Pharisees through crucifixion - hypothetically, more than once.
The author analyzes such pejorative designations and notions as the «interpreters/expounders of smooth things (slippery)» (mp^n 'Pm), «false teaching (talmud)», «Ephraim», the «House of Peleg» attefled in 4QpNah in correlation with the Pharisees, as well as the nicknames the «Furious Young Lion», the «Wicked Priefl», the «Lafl Priefl» with reference to Alexander Jannaeus. In particular, the high share of probability of the suggeflion concerning the correlation of the pejorative designation mp^n 'P"in («interpreters of smooth things») with the designation m^n 'Pin, the «interpreters/expounders of the halakhoth (laws)», which was used to refer to the teachers of the Law probably since the time of the firfl Tannaim (cf., e. g.: M. Nedarim, IV, 3; B.T. Betzah, 15b), allows one to assume that the latter designation was used in Judaea as a terminus technicus with reference to the Pharisees' interpreters of the laws already in the Helleniflic period.
Keywords: language of enmity, pejorative wordplay, Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Qumranites, the Qumran Commentary on Nahum (4QpNah), the Qumran Commentary on Habakkuk (IQpHab).
Research area: hiflory of Judaea, religious fludies, philosophy, theology.
© Siberian Federal University. All rights reserved
* Corresponding author E-mail address: tantigor@bk.ru ORCID: 0000-0002-8738-2456
The reported &udy was funded by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research according to the research project № 18-00-00628 (18-00-00727 (K)).
Citation: Tantlevskij I. R. (2022) Elements of pejorative wordplay and language of enmity in the Qumran Commentary on Nahum in hi&orical-religious context. J. Sib. Fed. Univ. Humanit. Soc. Sci., 15(5), 727-740. DOI: 10.17516/1997-1370-0690.
Элементы пейоративной игры слов и языка вражды в кумранском Комментарии на Наума в историко-религиозном контексте
И. Р. Тантлевский
Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет Российская Федерация, Санкт-Петербург
Аннотация. Представлен анализ языка вражды и пейоративной игры слов в кумранском Комментарии (Pesher) на книгу пророка Наума (4QpNah = 4Q169). Согласно реконструкции автора, это произведение членов Кумранской общины могло быть написано в 88 г. до н. э. (после поражения воинства иудейского царя и первосвященника Александра Янная, нанесенного ему сирийским царем Деметрием III Эвкером, приглашенным в Иудею восставшими фарисеями, под Сихемом: в результате Александр был вынужден бежать в Эфраимитские горы, по всей вероятности, в горную крепость Александрион). Использовав данную ситуацию, фарисеи временно захватили власть в Иерусалиме — скорее всего на несколько месяцев 88 г. до н. э. В процессе подавления восстания Александр казнил фарисеев через распятие - вероятно, неоднократно.
Автор анализирует такие уничижительные обозначения и понятия в 4QpNah, как «истолкователи скользкого (гладкого)», «ложное учение» (talmud)», «Эфраим», «Дом Пелега», засвидетельствованные в этом произведении в корреляции с фарисеями, а также прозвища «Яростный молодой лев», «Нечестивый священник», «Последний священник», употребляемые по отношению к Александру Яннаю. В частности, высокая доля вероятности предположения о корреляции пейоративного обозначения ГЛр^П 'ВИН («истолкователи скользкого») с 'ИПП («истолкователи халахот (законов)»; оно использовалось для обозначения учителей Закона уже во времена первых таннаев) позволяет предположить, что последнее наименование использовалось в Иудее как terminus technicus для обозначения фарисеев в качестве истолкователей законов уже в эллинистический период.
Ключевые слова: язык вражды, пейоративная игра слов, фарисеи, саддукеи, ессеи, кумраниты, кумранский Комментарий на Наума (4QpNah), кумранский Комментарий на Аввакума (1QpHab).
Данное исследование поддержано Российским фондом фундаментальных исследований, исследовательский проект № 18-00-00628 (18-00-00727 (k)).
Научные специальности: история Иудеи, религиоведение, теология, философия.
Introductory words: The radicalism of religious, ideologic, and socio-political views of the members of the Judaean Qumran community (probably of an Essene trend1; 2nd century B.C.E.- 1& century C.E.) predetermined the esoteric nature of their works, inter alia for reasons of security. So, hints of hi&oric events that took place in Judaea in the Helleni&ic and early Roman periods, bear an allegoric and metaphoric character in the Qumran manuscripts, almo& all of the figures mentioned here and all groups appear under symbols, nicknames, and sometimes ciphers, the absolute dates are absent, and some relative ones are usually of symbolic and eschatological character. In this regard, the Qumran Commentary on Prophet Nahum2 (Pesher Nahum; 4QpNah = 4Q169) is no exception, whereby a broad discussion turned around its interpretation.
Statement of the problem: The Commentary on Nahum (4QpNah)3 is the only Qum-ran composition hitherto discovered in which two real names of Helleni&ic hi&orical characters to be found in a more or less coherent hi&orical context4, vid. the «Kings of Greece lit. Ionia)», i. e. the Seleucids, Antiochus
1 See, e. g.: Tantlevskij, 2016: 61-75.
2 The Book of Prophet Nahum the Elkoshite was composed between 663/662 and 612 (or 609) B.C.E., probably closer to 612 B.C.E.; see, e. g.: Diakonov, 1956: 15, 297, 303; Eissfeldt, 1964: 559-561; Amusin, 1971: 203f.; Pinker, 2005: 6; Richards, 2006: 1250; Coogan, 2009: 297f.
3 The editio princeps of the complete text: Allegro, 1968: 37-42, plates xii-xiv. See further: Strugnell, 1970: 204-210; Garcia Martinez, Tigchelaar, 1997: 334-341; Doudna, 2001; Horgan, 2002: 144-155. Berrin, 2004. This Qumran work is orthographically and paleographically dated to the late Has-monaean or early Herodian periods (see, e. g.: Strugnell, 1970: 205; Doudna: 675-682; Berrin, 2004: 205; Chapman, Schnabel, 2015: 517).
4 In the fragments of 4QMishmaroth hak-Kohanim, the names of Si[mon] (sc. Simon Hasmonaeus (?); Ca, fr. 3, 2), Jo-hanan (sc. Johanan (John) Hyrcanus I; Ce, fr. 2, 4-5), Salome (sc. Alexandra Salome, Jannaeus' wife; Ca, fr. 2, 4; Ce, fr. 1, 5), Hyrcanus (sc. Hyrcanus II; Ca, fr. 2, 6), Ar[istobulus] (sc. Aris-tobulus II (?); Cb, fr. 3, 6), Aemilius (sc. Aemilius Scaurus, Roman governor in Syria in 62 B.C.E.; Cd, fr. 2, 4) are attested out of context. As to the text 4Q448 («A Prayer for King Jonathan and His Kingdom»), it was probably composed by one of King Jonathan's (i. e. most probably Alexander Jannaeus' [= Jonathan II]; less likely, Jonathan I the Hasmonaean) followers and brought to Qumran by one of the sectarians (possibly, for the purpose of informing the Qumranites).
(4QpNah, fr. 3-4, 1:3)5 and Demetrius. Of the latter is said that he «sought to enter Jerusalem on the counsel of the interpreters (or "expounders". - I. T) of smooth things (mp^n 'Pin nm)» (4QpNah, fr. 3-4, 1:2). By mofl scholars this passage is interpreted as an allusion to the Pharisees (= mp^n 'Pill; see below)6, who assumed leadership of the insurrection againfl the Judaean Hasmonaean king Alexander Jannaeus (Jonathan II; 103-76 B.C.E.) and invited the Syrian king Demetrius III Eucaerus (97/96-88/87 B.C.E.) to fight on their side7, as it was described by Josephus Flavius in The Jewish War, I, 92, and The Jewish Antiquities, XIII, 3768. Based upon these facts it is normally assumed that the text of the firfl column and the firfl line of the second column of the Commentary on Nahum (4QpNah) provide evidence for some circumflances of this rebellion. According to a widely adopted opinion, the text of the
5 It is likely to refer to Antiochus III the Great (cf., e. g.: Rowley, 1956: 188-193; Loewenstamm 1956: 1; Tantlevskij, 2012: 135). For the most part, scholars (to begin with J. M. Allegro; 1956: 89-93) identified Antiochus mentioned in 4QpNah 1:3 with Antiochus IV Epiphanes (see also further, e. g.: Dupont-Sommer, 1980: 280f., n. 3; Amusin, 1971: 219, n. 10; and others). F. M. Cross accepted the identification of this person with Antiochus VII Sidetes (Cross, 1958: 92). I. Levy, on the other hand, was of the opinion that this passage deals with Antiochus, brother of the Syrian king Demetrius III Eucaerus (Levy, 1956: 2). See further: Chapman, Schnabel, 2015: 518f.
6 See, e. g.: Doudna, 2001: 632-634; Charlesworth, 2002: 112-115; Wise, 2003: 70, n. 9; D^browa 2010, 177ff. Cf., on the other hand, doubts and objections in: Rowley 1956: 192; Saldarini 2001: 279-280; VanderKam 2003: 468-477.
7 See, e. g.: Allegro, 1959: 47-51; Cross, 1959: 91-94; Jeremias, 1963: 127-139; Dupont-Sommer, 1980: 280ff.; Amusin, 1971: 208-210; Stegemann, 1971: 120-128; Idem, 1993: 182-184; Callaway, 1988: 164-168; cf.: Schiffman, 1993: 272-290; Berring, 2004, 87-130; D^browa, 2010: 175-181. In H. H. Rowley's opinion, Demetrius of the text 4QpNah 1:2 was the Seleucid king Demetrius I Soter (162150 B.C.E.) who was provoked by an intrigue of the Judaean high priest Alcimus to dispatch in 161 B.C.E. his strategists Bacchides and Nicanor against Jerusalem. As to «the interpreters/expounders of smooth things», these are, according to Rowley, members of the Hellenising party of Alcimus (Rowley, 1956: 188-193; see also: Stauffer, 1957: 125f., 128-132; Rabinowitz, 1978: 394-399; Chapman, Schnabel, 2015: 218ff.).
8 As E. D^browa notes, «it meant that the Pharisees agreed
to the loss of Judean independence if only they could regain
control of the Jerusalem temple» (D^browa, 2010: 178; cf.:
Doudna, 2001, 633).
Commentary on Nahum, fr. 3-4, col. 2 (fir& line excluded) - 4, reflects the events that took place during the reign of the queen Alexandra Salome (76-67 B.C.E.), Jannaeus' widow9. The advocates of this hypothesis at the same time consider 63 B.C.E., the year Judaea was conquered by Pompey the Great, the terminus poä. quem of the Commentary's composition. An alternative view is that in the Commentary on Nahum 4QpNah, fr. 3-4, 2:2-4:9, certain events of the reign of Salome's sons, Ari&obu-lus II and Hyrcanus II, are depicted, particularly clashes in the course of their internecine war (60-50s B.C.E.)10.
Discussion; the author's proposals: It seems to us that the Commentary on Nahum (4QpNah) can only have been compiled in 88 B.C.E. - and, consequently, it is the only Qum-ran composition hitherto discovered which can be dated precisely to within a year: in its surviving coherent text - in all four columns of fr. 3-4 - the situation is reflected which had developed in Judaea in the very same year as a result of the defeat inflicted by Demetrius III on Alexander Jannaeus' troops near Shechem11.
The va& majority of researchers is of the opinion that the king Alexander is mentioned twice in the text of 4QpNah, fr. 3-4, 1:4-8, designated as «the Furious Young Lion»12, as he is also designated in the Qumran Commentary on Hosea (4QpHosb), fr. 2, 2-3. The passage of the Commentary on Nahum (4QpNah), fr. 3-4, 1:4-8 reads as follows:
9 This idea was first suggested in: Flusser, 1961: 456-458, Idem, 1970: 133-168; Amusin, 1962: 101-110; Idem, 1963: 389-396; Yadin, 1971: 1-12. See also further, e. g.: Horgan, 1979 : 7f.; Fröhlich, 1986: 391; cf., e. g.: Stegemann, 1971: 76-79, 120-128; Callaway, 1988: 164-171.
10 See, e. g.: Dupont-Sommer, 1963: 55-88; cf.: Stegemann, 1971: 182ff.
11 Located some 2 km east of modern Nablus in the valley between the Ebal and the Gerizim Mountains.
12 See, e. g.: Allegro, 1959: 47-51; Cross, 1959: 91-94; Jeremias, 1963: 127-139; Stegemann, 1971: 120-128; Dupont-Sommer, 1980: 280ff.; and others. H. H. Rowley supposed that the designation «Furious Young Lion» in 4QpNah is used either for the high priest Alcimus or the king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (Rowley, 1956: 192f.). H. J. Schonfield identifies this person with the Roman Emperor Titus (39-81 C.E.) (Schonfield, 1956: 96f.), while G. R. Driver identifies the «Furious Young Lion» with one of the leaders of the 66-74 Judaean uprising against Roman domination Simon bar Giora (Driver, 1965: 291f.).
«The lion ('"IN) tears enough for its cubs (and) it chokes prey for its lioness» (Nah. 2:13a) <...> [Its interpretation concerns] the Furious (or: the «Fierce». - I. T.) Young Lion (pinn "'S3) who &rikes (m'; or «beats», «defeats». - I. T.) his great men and the men of his council ... [«And it fills] its cave [with prey] and its den with torn flesh» (Nah. 2:13b). Its interpretation concerns the Furious Young Lion [who has executed (or: «executes». - I. T.) reve]nge on the interpreters (or: «expounders». - I. T.) of smooth things and who hangs (n^r') men alive [on the tree(s), as this is the law] in Israel as of old13 (or: "[a thing done] long since in Israel". - I. T.)...
This passage of the Qumran Commentary on Nahum is usually correlated with Josephus Flavius' account of «blasphemy» committed by Alexander Jannaeus (= Furious Young Lion in 4QpNah, fr. 3-4, 1:5-6) towards the end of the civil war, in 88 B.C.E., when, «boozing» in Jerusalem «in a conspicuous place with his concubines, he ordered that some eight hundred (of "the mo& powerful" rebels, i. e, apparently the Pharisees for the mo& part14. - I. T) be crucified (avaoxauprooa), and, while they were &ill alive, their wives and children be killed before their very eyes»15. That is why the Judaean king Alexander Jannaeus was called a «wick-ed one by his nature» by the Judaeans (B. T. Berachoth 29a)16, a «Thracian» (Josephus Flavius, The Jewish Antiquities, XIII, 383), i. e, a very cruel man (like a Thracian). It was the mo& cruel «complex» execution Jannaeus had ever subjected insurgents to17, but probably by no means the only case of the death penalty by crucifixion (or simply «hanging men alive») being imposed on insurgents during the 94/93-88
13 First reconstruction by Y. Yadin (Yadin, 1971: 12). Cf., e. g.: Hartog, 2017: 173ff.
14 The Pharisees, prior to the uprising, had occupied high posts in the state and had had a majority in the Sanhedrin (= «the interpreters/expounders of smooth things», «great men», «men of the council» in 4QpNah, fr. 3-4, 1:2-8).
15 Josephus Flavius, The Jewish War, I, 97, 113 and Idem, The Jewish Antiquities, X, III, 380; see also: X, III, 381-383.
16 Cf.: Josephus Flavius, The Jewish Antiquities, XIII, 376 h 399.
17 Cf.: Josephus Flavius, The Jewish Antiquities, X II, 256.
uprising, in the course of which - according to The Jewish War, I, 91, and The Jewish Antiquities, XIII, 376, - no less than 50,000 Jews were killed by the Judaean king and high prieft. (Cf. 4QpNah, fr. 3-4, 1:7: «.The Furious Young Lion <...> hangs (r^r1; here, the imperfect indicates a repeated (or usual, habitual) action. -I. T) men alive [on the trees.]».) Besides, it should be noted that, judging from 4QpNah, fr. 3-4, 1:7-8, the crucifixion of ftate criminals (and particularly traitors who had been in contact with foreigners) was not specifically Qumranic (cf.: 11QT 64:6-13; cf. also: Deut. 21:22-33), but a law of the Judaean ftate18.
Special attention should be given the verbs HDH («to ftrike», «to beat», «to defeat») and r^r («to hang») used in the above-mentioned text of 4QpNah, fr. 3-4, 1:4-8, in the imperfect that serves here to denote repeated actions (begun in the paft and ftill occurring at the time the Commentary was compiled). Since the agent in this passage is the Furious Young Lion it may be concluded that this character was alive at the time of the composition of the Commentary on Nahum19. Moreover, this hypothesis is supported by the fact that the author of the text in his «interpretation» of Nah. 2:13 substituted the term TDD («young lion») for the word 'IN («lion»), probably to ftress the youth of the cruel hero. It would hardly have been appropriate to do so, had the Commentary on Nahum been composed after the death of the «Furi-ous Young Lion» (Alexander Jannaeus died in 76 B.C.E. at the age of 49).
As to the frightening allegory of this wicked Judaean king - whom the Qumranites appears to consider Alexander Jannaeus20 - it seems to have developed from Ezekiel 19:5-6, where the word TDD («young lion») is probably used to describe young bloodthirfty and
18 Cf., e. g.: Ezr. 6:11; 4QAhA = 4QTestLevid, fr. 24, I, II, 4-6, Test. Levi 4:4 (Greek, Armenian, and Slavonic versions) and Test. Ben. 9:2-5, Wis. Sol. 2:12-20; Bereshit Rabba 65:22; M. Sanhedrin, V I, 4, J. T. Hagigah, 77d-78a, J. T. Sanhedrin, 23c, Sifre Devarim 21:22; cf. also: Jn. 18:31-32,19:7,15-16. See further: Yadin, 1971: 1-12; Hartog, 2017: 173ff.
It should also be taken into consideration that in Republican Rome the death sentence by crucifixion was pronounced even on the Roman citizens who had taken an enemy's part in war.
19 Cf. also: 4QpHosb, fr. 2, 3.
20 See, e. g.: Tantlevskij, 1995; Idem, 2012: 137f.
impious Judaean king of the pre-captivity period Jehoiakim (609/608-598 B.C.E.; cf.: 2 Kg. 24:4 and 2 Chr. 36:5, 8; Jer. 26:20-23). Comparison of the royal rage with the «roar of young lion (TDDH)» evidenced in Prov. 19:12 and 20:2.
In the Qumran Commentary on the Book of Prophet Hosea (4QpHosb), fr. 2, 2-3, the «Furious Young Lion» is designated as the «Laft Prieft» (Tnnxn ITO)» - resp. the laft Hasmo-naean high prieft of Judaea - for, according to messianic-eschatological chronology of the Qumranites, the «End of Days» (D'^'H r'"inN)» was to come in the nearer future; and the Qum-ran sectarians considered themselves as belonging to the «laft generation (pinxr mr)», living in the «laft period (p"inxr fpr)». At this one should bear in mind that the terms Tnnr and Tnnxr are colloquially almoft homonymous, so here is clearly can be seen a play on words.
In 4QpNah 1:8-2:1 additional information about the «Furious Young Lion» is to be found:
«Behold I am againft [you, says the Lord of Hofts. I will burn up] your [multitude in flames], and the sword shall devour your young lions. I will eradicate [from the land the p]illaging. And [the voice of your messengers] shall no [more be heard]» (Nah. 2:14). Its [interpretation is: «your multitude» - they are the bands of his (the Furious Young Lion's. - I. T.) army ('ITO ■fr'n), tha[t he has loft in Sheche]m (?). -I. T.);; and «his young lions» - they are his great men («nobles». - I. T.), [.] and «his prey» - it is the wealth which the [Priefts] of Jerusalem have accumulated], which they [have gi]ven away [. It is through the fault of E]phraim (i. e., probably the Pharisees, since the designation «Ephraim» has been used in this Commentary as a synonym of «the interpreters of smooth things». - I. T.) that Israel shall be delivered [in the hand of foreigners]. And «his messengers» - they are his envoys whose voice shall no more be heard among the nations.
It seems plausible to assume that this text is an allusion to the shattering defeat of Alexander Jannaeus' army near Shechem (cf.: Jo-
sephus Flavius, The Jewish War, I,92-95; The Jewish Antiquities, XIII, 377-378). The Pharisees had taken the Seleucid's side in the battle. Jannaeus lofl mofl of «the bands of his army», and, together with his remaining partisans, particularly with those representing the ariflocrat-ic, prieflly «party» of the Sadducees, he was forced to flee to the Ephraim Mountains (see: Josephus Flavius, The Jewish War, I, 95; The Jewish Antiquities, XIII, 379), in all probability in his mountain fortress Alexandrion built by him (during excavations here were found fragments of fortifications and water supply syflem of the Hasmonaean period). In Jerusalem, the Pharisees temporarily came to power, supported by thousands of their adherents (cf.: Josephus Flavius, The Jewish War, I, 98; The Jewish Antiquities, XIII, 383).
In our opinion, it is those events that the next passage of the Commentary - 4QpNah, fr. 3-4, 2:2-6 - deals with:
«Woe to the city of blood (Nahum refers to Nineveh, capital of the Assyrian kingdom. - I. T.); it is full of [lies and rap]e» (Nah. 3:1). Its interpretation: it is the city of Ephraim (i. e., probably Jerusalem captured by the Pharisees. - I. T.), the expounders of smooth things in the lafl days (lit.: «towards the End of Days». - I. T.) who walk in lies and falsehood. «The prowler does not want (in Nineveh. - I. T.), noise of whip and noise of rattling wheel, prancing horse and jolting chariot, horsemen, a blade and glittering spear, a multitude of slain and a heap of carcases. There is no end to the dead» (Nah. 3:1-3). Its interpretation: this concerns the power (or: «rule», «dominion». - I. T.) of the interpreters of smooth things (rnp^nn 'Pm n"7P»a), from the midfl of whose assembly the sword of Gentiles (or «foreigners». - I. T.) does not want (apparently this phrase hints at Demetrius III being invited by the rebellious Pharisees to help. - I. T.) captivity, looting, and Parting (lit.: «enkindling». - I. T.) of internecine war (amm nnim), and exile from the dread of the enemy (here, the commentator probably wants to remind the reader of the Pharisees' activities during the civil war. -
I. T.); a multitude of guilty corpses fall in their days (i. e., at the time of their temporary victory. - I. T.); there is no end to them being slain. They even flumble upon their body of flesh because they are guilty due to their counsel (this seems to hint at the reprisals the Pharisees carried out in the capital and the territories under their control againfl their opponents who had failed to flee. - I. T.).
Before dealing with the next passage of 4QpNah, we want to point out the fact that it is the phrase «the power ("rule", "dominion") of the interpreters of smooth things» (4QpNah, fr. 3-4, 2:4) that serves as principal argument of those scholars who are of the opinion that the text of the Commentary's second (firfl line excluded), third and fourth column refers to the events that took place in Judaea after Jannaeus' death, in the reign of Alexandra Salome or Hyrcanus II, since those rulers relied on the Pharisees for support. We will refer to this queflion below; here we want to flress that according to the above text the author of the Commentary cites verses 5-7 of chapter 3 of the Book of Nahum where the prophet has foretold Nineveh's ruin and devaflation, and connects this prophecy with «Ephraim», «the expounders of smooth things», i. e, the Pharisees. Additionally, from the 7th line of the 3rd column, fr. 3-4, to the end of the manuscript, the Commentary on Nahum deals with the fate of the «Manasseh» group which is opposed to the groups called «Ephraim» (i. e, the Pharisees) and «Yehudah» (i. e, the Qum-ranites (mofl probably, an Essene group)). Thus, in the Commentary on Nahum the members of the Qumran community are referred to as «Israel» (sc. the «true Israel») and «Yehudah» (sc. the «true Judaeans»), while the Pharisees appear under the designation of «Ephraim», and the Sad-ducees - as «Manasseh», i. e, they bear names of the northern tribes rose in revolt and separated from the southern tribe of Yehudah and the Temple of Jerusalem after the death of king Solomon21. (Cf. also, e. g.: 4QpPs37 2:18-20.)
Indeed, mofl scholars believe that the «Manasseh» sectarians characterized as «the great men» and «honourable men» in
21 Cf.: Isa. 9:18-20; cf. also: Judg. 8:1-3,12:1-6.
4QpNah, fr. 3-4, 3:9, are those representing the ariflocratic, prieflly sect of the Sadducees whom Alexander Jannaeus relied upon for support and who fought on his side againfl the Pharisees. Commenting on Nah. 3:8, where the prophet speaks of No-Amon (i. e., Thebes) having been captured by the Assyrians in 663 B.C.E. the author of 4QpNah likens this Egyptian city and its defenders to the «mighty men of war» (Han?» 'TQl) of «Manasseh», i. e., to the Sadducean warriors, and goes on to «interpret» this verse as being related to the defeat of the Sadducean «army» (?'n). As to «Ephraim», i. e., the Pharisees who took sides with Demetrius III in the 88 B.C.E. battle near Shechem, they are correlated in this passage with the Assyrians. In connection with the aforementioned, it is useful to point out that it was in ca. 88 B.C.E. that Thebes (which took part in the people's uprising) was seized after a three-year siege and deflroyed by the Egyptian king Ptolemy IX Soter II (Lathyrus). If this event happened in the time of the compilation of 4QpNah, the comparison of the defeated Sadducees with Egyptian Thebes had a certain association for the author that year.
Of fundamental importance for the identification and dating of the events reflected in the Commentary on Nahum is the passage 4QpNah, fr. 3-4, 4:1-4, which reads:
«Yet she (Nahum refers to Thebes here. -I. T.) was exiled, she went into captivity; and her children are crushed at the corners of all the flreets, they cafl lots of her honourable men, and all her great men are bound with chains (Nah. 3:10). Interpretation of this concerns Manasseh in the final (or: «lafl». - I. T.) period, when his kingdom (or: «reign»; mm?». - I. T.) falls (?SPn; lit. «becomes low», «is abased». - I. T.) in Israel], <...> his wives, his children, and little ones go (13?') into captivity, his mighty men and honourable men [perish] by the sword.
Judging from the verbs ?SP («to be or become low», «be abased») and "|?n («to go», «walk», «come», «to go off», «depart») being used here in the imperfect form, it may be
concluded that the «kingdom» of «Manasseh», i. e., of the ariflocratic party of the Sadducees at Jannaeus' court who supported the king Alexander22, was flill in power by the time of the Commentary's composition, though the Saddu-cees were in a difficult position. This fact, by the way, proves wrong those scholars who are of the opinion that the text of columns two (firfl line excluded) up to four (including) reflects the events of the period of the Pharisees' absolute rule and authority that diflinguished the rule of Alexandra Salome and her son Hyrcanus II (67; 63-40 B.C.E.) from the reign of Alexander Jannaeus.
In the following passage - 4QpNah, fr. 3-4, 4:4-9, - the commentator predicts that, despite temporary luck, the lot of «Ephraim», i. e., the Pharisees, will not differ from that of «Manasseh»; and even Jerusalem's powerful fortifications will not save them. In fact, the Pharisees' triumph proved to be short-lived. We have learned from Josephus Flavius' The Jewish War (I, 95) and The Jewish Antiquities (XIII, 379) that soon after the Shechem battle, in the same year 88 B.C.E., 6,000 of the rebels (evidently, of the Pharisees for the mofl part), deserted unexpectedly, for reasons unknown (perhaps for fear that the gentile king Demetrius Eucaerus would take possession of the holy city of Jerusalem) to Jannaeus and the Saddu-cees flill faithful to him. It is probably this very event that the Commentary's author hints at in the text 4QpNah, fr. 3-4, 3:12-4:1:
[«... Put and the Libyans came to you (Na-hum means the city of Thebes. - I. T.) to help»] (Nah. 3:9). Its interpretation: these are the wicked on[es], the house of Peleg (23 lis n'l, lit.: «the house of divisions». -I. T.), who have joined to Manasseh (□'"tan HP]» ?y).
Probably the «House of Peleg» refers to those of the Pharisees who did not support the invitation of the Gentile king Demetrius III Eu-caerus to Judaea to help. (Cf. CD-B (Damascus
22 See, e. g.: Josephus Flavius, The Jewish War, I, 113-114; The Jewish Antiquities, XIII, 411-414; cf.: 4Q448 («The Prayer for King Jonathan and his Kingdom») 2:8, 3:6.
23 Cf.: Gen. 10:25, Jub. 8:8.
Document) 20:22-24, where this designation evidently refers to the Pharisees.)
It is also known that soon after this event Demetrius III Eucaerus had to withdraw from Judaea because of the internecine war in Syria. This made it possible for Alexander Jannaeus to defeat the insurgents towards the end (?) of 88 B.C.E., to capture Jerusalem, and to punish those rebels who did not flee from Judaea.
However, the commentator seems to have failed to notice these events. The situation in the country depicted in the Qumran Commentary on Nahum could be characterized as a diarchy of the Pharisees and the Sadducees headed by the king Alexander - the situation that lafted only a few months (?) in 88 B.C.E. Consequently, we think that this work can only have been composed in the very same year, in 88 B.C.E.
Of special importance for dating the Commentary on Nahum and identifying the person designated as the Furious Young Lion is the text 4QpNah, fr. 3-4, 2:8-9, which says that due to «Ephraim's» (i. e., the Pharisees') fault «the cities and clans, the kings (Q'D^ft), superiors, honourable men and rulers, the priefts and the people along with the proselytes will perish (nDT)». Since in the Qumran texts the terms «king», «kingdom», «reign» and «rule», «ruler» are distinguished24, it is possible, in the light of the passage cited above, to draw the conclusion that the head of the Judaean ftate at the time 4QpNah was compiled (and this undoubtedly is the time when the Furious Young Lion lived, as the quoted texts of 4QpNah show25), bore the title «king». Until 63 B.C.E., when Pompey conquered Judaea and abolished the Judaean kingdom, there had been five persons in Judaea bearing the title of a «king» (during the Helleniftic period, of course): Ariftobulus I (104-103 B.C.E.), Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 B.C.E.), Alexandra Salome (76-67 B.C.E.), Hyrcanus II (for three month in 67 B.C.E.), and Ariftobulus II (67-63 B.C.E.). Evidently, the short reigns of both Ariftobulus and of Hyrcanus can be ignored here because, firftly, the actions of these rulers do not correspond at all with what is said
24 See, e. g.: Milik, 1959: 65f.; Stegemann, 1971: 100-106, 120-127, 204.
25 Cf. also: 4QpHosb, fr. 2.
in the Commentary on Nahum about the Furious Young Lion, and secondly, none of these persons was a contemporary of Demetrius III Eucaerus who died in 88/87 B.C.E. For this reason the only «candidate» for the Furious Young Lion's «role» is the king and high prieft Alexander Jannaeus who was 32 years old at the time the reprisals againft the rebels ftarted (these events are probably the reason for his epithet). Apart from the aforementioned passage 4QpNah, fr. 3-4, 2:8-10, evidence for the year 63 B.C.E. being the terminus ante quem of the Commentary's composition is provided by the fragment 4QpNah, fr. 3-4, 1:3-4:
<.. > from Antiochus to the time when the rulers of the Kittim will appear, and then ("inNl) [the land [pNn] (or: «Jerusalem»; cf.: 4QpNah, fr. 3-4, 1:1-2). - I. T.] will be trodden down (oair).
The context - and above all the adverb "inN («then», «afterwards») - implies that the verb D^Il (Ni., sing., fem.; der. from Oft", «to tread down», «to trample») is congruous here with the future tense, and the agent will be the Kittim, i. e., the Romans of the Republican period. Consequently, the appearance of the army of the Kittim-Romans in Judaea is regarded by the Commentary's author as an event in the future, in time yet to come26. According to 4QpNah, fr. 3-4, 2:2, 3:3, 4:3, the author of the Commentary on Nahum thinks that the events the Commentary deals with take place «in the laft days» (lit.: «towards the End of Days»), «at the end» of the «laft (or «final») period» immediately preceding the coming of the Eschaton. As it was noted above, in the Qumran Commentary on Hosea the designation «the Laft Prieft» (see: 4QpHosb, fr. 2, 2-3; cf. also: 1QpHab 9:45) is used as a synonym for the «Furious Young Lion» (i. e, Alexander Jannaeus) «who ftretch-es out (n?W) his hand in order to ftrike Ephraim (sc. the Pharisees)». The imperfect form of the verb rf?^ (here: to «ftretch out») employed in 4QpHosb, fr. 2, 3, for the description of the action of the «Laft Prieft» shows that the latter
26 It is possible that a highly fragmented text 4QpNah, fr. 1-2, predicts the final defeat of all Kittim on the world scale (see especially: ll. 3-5).
one was alive at the time of the composition of the Commentary. The denomination the «Laft Prieft» corroborates this conclusion as well, for it would be meaningless, if the Commentary on Hosea was being composed after the person's death, in the period of the pontificate of one of the next Judaean high priefts.
In our view, the eschatological background of the 4QpNah text as well as the fact that at a certain hiftorical ftage the conviction exifted among the Qumranites that Alexander Jan-naeus would be the laM of the wicked Judaean high priefts and kings can be explained by the Community's messianic and eschatological chronology. According to the so-called Midrash Melchizedek (11QMelch 2:7-8), Second-Ezekiel (4Q390 1:7-8) and Damascus Document (see esp. 1:5-12, 20:13-15), the sectarians originally expected the coming of the End of Days and the advent of the Messiah to take place after the expiration of the «ten jubilees» (10^49), i. e, 490 years, from the time of Nebuchadnezzar's capture of Judaea (in 587/586 B.C.E.), viz. in 97/96 B.C.E.27 We would like to point out that not only the Qumranites at a certain hiftorical ftage regarded Alexander Jannaeus as the laft Hasmonaean high prieft and king, but that a corresponding tradition is also mentioned in Jose-phus Flavius' Antiquities, XIII, 301. According to Josephus' chronology the laft, 70th «heptad» (7 years) of Daniel 9:26-27, preceding the triumph of the Messiah and the coming of the Es-chaton, begins with the accession of Alexander Jannaeus in 103 B.C.E. (cf.: Dan. 9:24-27 and TeM. Levi 16:1, 17:1; cf. also: 1 En. 89:59).
Also worth mentioning here is the «Demonftratio Evangelica», VIII, 2, 87-88, where Eusebius of Caesarea refers to an exegesis of Daniel 9:26 (apparently a Jewish work taken over into Chriftianity), in which «an anointed one» is mentioned, who «shall be cut off» after 69 «heptads» (since the deftruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians), and is connected with the line of Judaean high priefts from Jeshua to Alexander Jannaeus. The Qum-ranites' disappointment at the fact that there was no advent of the Messiah and no coming of the Eschaton within the expected time found its expression in the Qumran Commentary on the
27 Cf.: Test. Levi 17:1-18:2.
Book of Prophet Habakkuk (1QpHab) 7:1-14. Nevertheless, the author of the composition keeps believing that the End of Days is near at hand (cf. 1QpHab 2:5-6, 5:7-8; cf. also: 9:6). Moreover, in the passage 1QpHab 7:5-6, 9-10, 13-14 he writes as follows:
<.. > «For the vision is yet for the appointed time: it speaks of the End and does not lie (Hab. 2:3a). <.. > If he (in the Qumranites' interpretation evidently the Messiah - the «Elect One» of God (see: 1QpHab 5:4; cf.: 9:12). - I. T.) tarries, wait for him; for he shall surely come and shall not delay» (Hab. 2:3b). Its interpretation concerns the men of truth who observe the Law (sc. the sectarians. - I. T.), whose hands do not slacken in the service of truth when to them the (final) period (seems) to be delayed (or, «prolonged». - I. T.) (ar'?s |nnNr fpr i^arn); for all the periods of God come to pass at their appointed times as He decreed for them in the myfteries of His Providence.
How can the laft phrases of the Commentary on Habakkuk be interpreted? Answering this queftion, it is firft of all useful to remember that in The Jewish War, I, 70 (cf.: The Jewish Antiquities, XIII, 301) and The Jewish Antiquities, XII, 322, Josephus Flavius mentions the eschatological chronology according to which the coming of the End of Days was expected to take place ca. 86 B.C.E. (This chronology is connected by him with Daniel's prophecy about the «seventy heptads», i. e, 490 years (see: Dan. 9:24-27).) This date of the coming of the Eschaton could be determined by those Jews who expected the beginning of metahiftory after the expiration of ten jubilees on the deftruction of the Firft Temple (as, for inftance, the Qumranites did, see: Second-Ezekiel (4Q390), 11QMelch, 2), and considered a jubilee (on the basis of Lev. 25:10-11) a period of time consifting of 50 years, not of 4928.
28 Rabbis generally assumed a 50-year-jubilee for the period of the First Temple. A jubilee was held to be a cycle of time consisting of 49 years by the author(s) of the Book of Jubilees, by some rabbis (see, e. g.: B. T. Arakhin, 12b; Nedarim, 61a (R. Yehudah); cf.: Seder 'Olam, 15), and the Samaritans.
It was possible to «correlate» the eschato-logical chronology based on a 50-year-jubilee (10^50) with the one mentioned in Dan. 9:2427 by assuming that God's «word» about the future refloration of Jerusalem (Dan. 9:25) was not the one proclaimed by Jeremiah ca. 587/586 B.C.E. (Jer, 32) but the one recorded in Jeremiah, 50 and/or the deuterocanonical Epiflle of Jeremiah 1:3 (composed before the century B.C.E.; cf.: 7Q2). On the basis of the lafl two passages some interpreters assumed that God's «word» recorded there (sc. the «word» about the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity and the refloration of the Land) was pronounced in the firfl years (approximately, ten) after the detraction of the Firfl Temple. It is possible that the Qumranites, after they had abandoned their hopes around 96 B.C.E., used both of the above-mentioned methods of chronological reinterpretation of Second-Ezekiel's (4Q390; cf.: 11QMelch 2:7-8) and Daniel's (Daniel 9:24-27) visions on the time of the End of Days.
As for the Commentary on Habakkuk (1QpHab), written in all probability in the firfl quarter of the century B.C.E.29, its central theme is the conflict between the charismatic leader of the Qumran community (in all probability a priefl of the Zadokite lineage), who attefled in the Qumran manuscripts under the designation of the Teacher of Righteousness, and the Judaean ruler and high priefl, denoted as the Wicked Priefl. It should be noted that on the plausible assumption firfl made by K. El-liger30 and W. H. Brownlee31, the very designation VPin iron, hak-kohen ha-rasa, i. e. «the Wicked Priefl», arose in consonance with and as a parody of the official title of the Jewish high priefl - PNin pDn, hak-kohen ha-ro's, lit. «head (sc. chief) priefl» (cf., e. g.: 2 Sam. 15:27; Ezr. 7:5; 2 Chr. 31:10; 1QM2:1; 15:4; 16:13; 18:5; 19:11; 1QSa 2:12). In H. Stegemann's opinion32, the definition ha-rasa' («the wicked») hinted at the allegiance of the high priefl because of his non-Zadokite origin. This hypothesis suggefls a priori that the expression «wicked priefl»
29 See, e. g.: Tantlevskij, 1995; Idem, 2012: 98-123.
30 Elliger, 1953: 266.
31 Brownlee, 1979: 49; Idem, 1982: 9.
32 Stegemann, 1971: 109-116.
could have been used not as the name of a particular person, but as a kind of Qumranic «title», a special termus technicus for those of the Hasmonean high priefls whose deeds were disapproved by the sectarians. More precisely, the Commentary on Habakkuk speaks probably of two «Wicked Priefls»: Jonathan I the Hasmo-naean (1QpHab 8:3-10:5, 11:2-8; also 4QpPs37 4:7-10) - an antagonifl of the Teacher of Righteousness (conditionally, Teacher I), perished by the time of 1QpHab compilation, and Alexander Jannaeus, i. e. Jonathan II, - an oppressor of the sectarians headed by another Qum-ran leader (conditionally, Teacher II), who was alive at the period of 1QpHab composition. The latter could mofl likely be identified with «the priefl» «Judah the Law Doer» mentioned in 1QpHab 2:5-10:12:4-5; 4QpPs37 2:13-1933. In connection with our supposition of the duality of «the Wicked Priefls» (as the main enemies-antipodes of the two Qumran prieflly leaders of the second half of the 2nd century B.C.E. -the beginning of the century B.C.E.) in 1QpHab, A. S. van der Woude, in particular, noted: «Tantlevskij <...> convincingly proves that XI 10 - XII 10 refer to Alexander Jannaeus, who was looked upon by the pesharifl as the 'lafl priefl'. This means that we encounter with not one but at leafl two Wicked Priefls in the Habakkuk commentary and (consequetly) the the expression «Wicked Priefl» is used in generic sense <. ..>34. This conclusion which puts an end to the identification of "the Wicked Priefl" with one Hasmonaean high priefl, paves the way for a reconsideration of the historical allusions of 1QpHab»35.
33 This figure could be identified with the Essene leader Judah mentioned by Joseph Flavius in The Jewish War, I, 78-80 and Antiquities, XIII, 311-313. Judging by these two passages, he was an «old man» at the time of Aristobulus I (104-103 B.C.E.) and Alexander Jannaeus (cf.: B. T. Kiddushin, 66a and Antiquities, XIII, 290-292) and had the ability to portend future events.
34 The idea that the designation «the Wicked Priest» could have been «superpersonal» rather than «individual» was first expressed in: Brownlee, 1952, 10-20; Idem, 1979: 49; Idem, 1982: 15-37; cf.: Dupont-Sommer, 1951: 35f. (in later works, this researcher identified the «Wicked Priest» of IQpHab and 4QpPs37 with Hyrcan II alone; see, e. g.: Dupont-Sommer, 1980: 361-368); Vermes, 1954: 92-100. See also, e. g.: Woude, 1982: 349-359; Fröhlich, 1986: 392f.
35 Woude, 1995: 387f.
As scholars supposed, it was Alexander Jannaeus who was designated as «the Young Lion of Wrath» (pinn "'SO) in the Qumran Commentary on Nahum (4QpNah), fr. 2, 2-3 (this designation seems to contain ultimately the reminiscence of Jer. 26:20-23 and Prov. 19:12 and 20:2); in the Qumran Commentary on Hosea (4QpHosb), fr. 2, 2-3, «the Young Lion of Wrath» is called as «the Laft Prieft» (■pmNH pID) - resp. the laft Hasmonaean high prieft. He was thus «laft» among «the laft priefts of Jerusalem» living in «the laft days» (1QpHab 9:4-6). As for the designations 3TDn W'N («Man of Lies»), nTDr H'M («the Exuding Falsehood»), □'Tmn («traitors»), rn («the House of
Abshalom»36) attefted in 1QpHab, it seems to us that they refer to the leader of the dissenters in the Qumran community and his adherents37.
Conclusion: Taking into account all the information given above it is very likely that at the beginning of the firft century B.C.E. the Qumranites held Alexander Jannaeus to be the laft (wicked) Judaean high prieft and king because they believed that they lived on the eve of the Eschaton and the advent of the prieftly and lay Messiah. That is the reason why the author of the Commentary on Nahum, compiling it (ex hypothesi) in 88 B.C.E., is sure that the events he describes in the composition take place «in the laft days».
Designation of the Pharisees - with whom the Qumranites were at enmity - as '^m np?n, in all likelihood, originated as a pejorative parody of close-sounding name '^m riD?n, i. e., the «interpreters/expounders of the halakhoth (laws)», which was used to refer to the teachers of the Law (probably already since the time of the firft Tannaim; cf., e. g.: M. Ne-darim, IV, 3; B. T. Betzah, 15b). The Pharisees (Gr. Oaptoaiot; from Aram. N'^no, lit.: «separated» (from the «people of the land», resp. from the profane life); another possible interpretation: «commentators», «expounders» (of the Law)) were the moft numerous and influential religious group in Judea in the 2nd century B.C.E. - the 1ft century C.E. (Jose-phus, Antiquities, XVII, 42) and considered to
36 Abshalom was King David's son who rebelled against his father.
37 See in detail, e. g.: Tantlevskij, 2012: 98-123.
be «the moft skilled (people) in the ftrict interpretation of the laws» (Josephus, Jewish War, II, 162), so that the prayer rituals and sacrifices were made «in accordance with their interpretation» (Josephus, Antiquities, XVIII, 15).
Let us note ad hoc, that the term nD?n, ha-lakhah, resp. plural HD?n, halakhoth, is found in the literature of Tannaim and Amoraim. It is not used in the Hebrew Bible and is not attefted in the extant sources of the Second Temple period. Verbal noun nD?n, lit.: «walking», formed according to the Aramaic word formative model from the verb |?n, lit.: to «go», which has a connotation in the Hebrew Bible - to «observe» laws and regulations (see, e. g.: Ex. 16:20; Lev. 26:3; Ez. 37:24). Thus, the high share of probability of the suggeftion concerning the pejorative correlation of rip?n '^m with riD?n '^TH allows us to assume that the latter designation was used in Judaea as a terminus technicus with reference to the Pharisees' interpreters of the laws already in the Helleniftic period.
Of particular intereft is the use of the term TO?! (talmud, lit.: «teaching») in the Qum-ran Commentary on Nahum in the context of the activity of the «interpreters/expounders of smooth thing (slippery)». In 4QpNah, fr. 3-4, 2:8-10, it is ftated that they «lead many (people) aftray by their false teachings Tifc^rn),
the language of deceit and cunning mouth» and that it will lead people to deftruction. Before the Qumran discoveries, the term TO?>r, talmud, was attefted only in the late poftbiblical literature. This term is used to denote the Jerusalem Talmud (codified in the second half of the 4th century C.E.) and the Babylonian Talmud (the end of the 5th century C.E.) containing the syftem of laws, cryftallized from the halakhah which was elaborated by the Pharisaic teachers of the Law (proto-Tannaim) already in the period of the Second Temple (see, e. g.: M. Avoth). The firft pair of teachers of the Law - Yose, son of Yoezer, and Yose, son of Yohanan, - acted in the period of the persecution of the Judaeans initiated by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (the middle of the 160s B.C.E.). It was among the Pharisaic teachers of the Law that the Oral Law received its initial clearance, which subsequently finds its classic expression in the Mishnah and the Gemara (the Jerusa-
lem and Babylonian Talmuds). The nucleus of this Pharisaic teaching - in the form in which it exited at the time of the composition of the Qumran Commentary on Nahum - in all prob-
References
ability, gets the designation Tl»?n, talmud, in it. Probably, this term used in the meaning of the «teaching» of the Pharisaic maflers was widespread in Judaea in that time.
Allegro, J.M. (1956). Further Light on the Hi&ory of the Qumran sect. In Journal of Biblical Literature, 75, 89-93.
Allegro, J.M. (1959). THRAKIDAN, The «Lion of Wrath» and Alexander Jannaeus. In Paledinian Exploration Quarterly, 91, 47-51.
Allegro, J.M. (1968). Qumran Cave 4.I (4Q158-4Q186). Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 5. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 37-42, plates xii-xiv.
Amusin, I.D. (1962). Kumranskiy kommentariy na Nauma [The Qumran Commentary on Nahum]. In Vednik Drevney Idorii, 4, 101-110.
Amusin, I.D. (1963). Ephraim et Manasse dans le Pesher de Nahum (4QpNahum). In Revue de Qum-rân, 15, 389-396.
Amusin, I.D. (1971). Tekdy Kumrana [Qumran-Texts]. Moscow: Nauka.
Berrin, Sh.L. (2004). The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran: An Exegetical Study of 4Q169. Leiden:
Brill.
Brownlee, W.H. (1952). The Hi&orical Allusions of the Dead Sea Habakkuk Midrash. In Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 126, 10-20.
Brownlee, W.H. (1979). The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk, Missoula: Scholars Press.
Brownlee, W.H. (1982). The Wicked Prie&, the Man of Lies, and the Righteous Teacher: The Problem of Identity. In The Jewish Quarterly Review, 73.1, 1-37.
Callaway, P.H. (1988). The Hidory of the Qumran Community. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Chapman, D.W., Schnabel, E.J. (2015). The Trial and Crusifixition of Jesus: Texts and Commentary. Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen.
Charlesworth, J.H. (2002). The Pesharim and Qumran Hidory: Chaos or Consensus? Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans.
Coogan, M.D. (2009). A Brief Introduction to the Old Tedament, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cross, F.M. (1958). The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modem Biblical Studies. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Dqbrowa, E. (2010). Demetrius III in Judea, Electrum, 18, 175-181.
Diakonov, I.M. (1956). Idoria Midii ot drevnejsikh vremen do konca IV v. do n. e. [The Hidory of Medians from Ancient Times to the End of the 4th Century B. C.E.]. Moscow-Leningrad: Nauka.
Doudna, G.L. (2001). 4Q Pesher Nahum: A Critical Edition. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Driver, G.R. (1965). The Judaean Scrolls: The Problem and a Solution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dupont-Sommer, A. (1951). Aperçus préliminaire sur les manuscrits de la Mer Morte. Paris: Librairie A. Maisonneuve.
Dupont-Sommer, A. (1963). Le Commentaire de Nahum decouvert pres de la mer Morte (4QpNah): Traduction et notes. In Semitica, XIII, 55-88.
Dupont-Sommer, A. (1980). Les ecrits esseniens decouverts pres de la mer Morte. 4 ed., Paris: Payot.
Eissfeldt, O. (1964). Einleitung in das Alte Tedam ent unter EinschluB der Apocryphen und Pseudoepigraphen sowie die apocryphen und pseudoepigraphenartigen Qumran-Schriften. Ent&ehungsge-schichte des Alten Te&aments, 3. neubearbeitete Aufl., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Elliger, K. (1953). Studien zum Habakuk-Kommentar vom Toten Meer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1953.
Flusser, D. (1961). The Judaen Desert Sect. In Le Muséon, 19, 456-458 (in Hebrew).
Flusser, D. (1970). Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes in Pesher Nahum. In G. AlonMemorial Volume, Tel-Aviv, 133-168 (in Hebrew).
Fröhlich, I. (1986). Le genre litteraire des Pesharim de Qumran. In Revue de Qumran 47, 383-398.
Hartog, P.B. (2017). Pesher and Hypomnema. A Comparison of Two Commentary Traditions from the Hellenistic-Roman Period. Leiden; Bo&on: Brill.
Horgan, M. (1979). Pesharim: Qumran Interpretation of Biblical Books, Washington, D.C: Catholic Biblical Assn of America.
Horgan, M.P. (2002). Nahum Pesher (4Q 169 = 4QpNah). In Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents, ed. J. H. Charlesworth, The Dead Sea Scrolls 6B. Morh Siebeck, Tübingen; Louisville.
Garcia Martinez F., Tigchelaar E. J. C. (1999). The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Leiden; New York; Köln: Brill. Vol. 1: 1Q1-4Q273. Leiden.
Jeremias, G. (1963). Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Levy, I. (1956). Demetrius and Antiochus in the Commentary on Nahum. InMassa', 35 (in Hebrew).
Loewenäamm, Sh.A. (1956). The Commentary on Nahum: War with the Pharisees. In Haaretz (Tar-but wesifrut), 3.V III (in Hebrew).
Milik, J.T. (1959). Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea, transl. by J. Strugnell. London: SCM Press.
Pinker, A. (2005). Nahum - The Prophet and His Message. In Jewish Bible Quarterly, 33, 81-90.
Rabinowitz, I. (1978). The Meaning of the Key («Demetrius») Passage of the Qumran Nahum-Pesher. In Journal of the American Oriental Society, 98, 394-399.
Richards, K.H. (2006). Nahum Introduction. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Rowley, H.H. (1956). 4QpNahum and the Teacher of Righteousness. In Journal of Biblical Literature, 75, 188-193.
Saldarini, A.J. (2001). Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Paledinian Society. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.; Livonia, MI: Eerdmans.
Schonfield, H.J. (1956). Secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Studies Towards Their Solution. London: T. Yoseloff.
Schiffman, L.H. (1993). Pharisees and Sadducees in Pesher Nahum. InMinhah le-Nahum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of his 70th Birthday, eds. M. Bretter and M. Fish-bane, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 272-290.
Stauffer, E. (1957). Jerusalem und Rome im Zeitalter Jesu Chridi. Bern: Verlag A. Francke.
Stegemann, H. (1971). Die Entdehung der Qumrangemeinde, Bonn: Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms Universitat.
Stegemann, H. (1993). Die Essener, Qumran, Johannes der Taufer und Jesus. Freiburg.
Strugnell, J. (1970). Notes en marge du volume V des «Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan». In Revue de Qümran 7, 204-210.
Tantlevskij, I.R. (1995). The Two WickedPrieds in the Qumran Commentary on Habakkuk. Qumrani-ca Mogilanensia. App. C. Krakow: The Enigma Press.
Tantlevskij, I.R. (2012). Zagadki Rukopisey Mertvogo Morja. Idorija i Uchenije Obschiny Kumrana [Riddles of the Dead Sea Manuscripts. The Hidory and Teaching of the Qumran Community]. Saint Petersburg: RCHGA Publishing House.
Tantlevskij, I.R. (2016). Further Considerations on Possible Aramaic Etymologies of the Designation of the Judaean Sect of Essenes ('Eaaaioi/'Eaanvoi) in the Light of the Ancient Authors Accounts' of Them and the Qumran Community's World-View. In Schole, 10.1, 61-75.
VanderKam, J.C. (2003). Those Who Look For Smooth Things, Pharisees, and Oral Law. In Emanuel. Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Emanuel Tov, eds. S. M. Paul, R. A. Kraft, L. H. Schiffman, W. W. Fields. Leiden; Bo&on: Brill, 465-477.
Wise, M.O. (2003). Dating the Teacher of Righteousness and the floruit of his Movement. In Journal of Biblical Literature, 122, 53-87.
Vermes, G. (1954). Les manuscrits du desert de Juda. 2 ed. Paris: Tournai.
Woude van der, A. S. (1982). Wicked Prie& or Wicked Priens? Reflections on the Identification of the Wicked Prie& in the Habakkuk Commentary. In Journal of Jewish Studies, 33, 349-359.
Woude van der, A.S. (1995). Review of: Tantlevskij, I.R. (1995), The Two Wicked Priefts in the Qumran Commentary on Habakkuk. Qumranica Mogilanensia. Appendix C of «The Qumran Chronicle». Cracow: The Enigma Press. In Journal for the Study of Judaism, 26, 387-388.
Yadin, Y. (1971). Pesher Nahum (4QpNahum) Reconsidered. In Israel Exploration Journal, 21, 1-12.
