Reading Report 1

3
Reading Report 1 NTST 834 Seminar in Biblical History and Backgrounds Professor: Dr. C. Mora 2 nd Semester, 2015 By David Vanlalnghaka Sailo James H. Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdsmans, 2002), p. 1-118. Summary of the book The author attempted to reconstruct a reliable history of the Qumran community from the Pesharim documents (Qumran commentary). 1 He believed that there are some levels of consensus (while some would argue for chaos) concerning the historical reconstruction of the Qumran community using the Pesharim. Realization of the hermeneutical methodology of the Pesharim, which is called fulfilment interpretation, is the key to unlock their historical information that are embedded in the Pesharim. The Pesharim have messianology as its primary concern and accordingly fit themselves and their special community as the fulfilment of the messianic prophecy in the scripture. Based on Isaiah 40:3, they saw themselves as the Voice “calling, ‘Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.’” Accordingly, based on text they commented and the commentary they provided, historical allusions that are embedded in the Pesharim can be recognized. All relevant scientific methods, including palaeography, archaeology, historiography, sociology, and careful examination of the texts composed at Qumran for historical data, are employed as component parts of the methodology in the study. The author deeply engaged scholars in the field in his discussion. 1 James H. Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdsmans, 2002), x.

description

requirement

Transcript of Reading Report 1

Page 1: Reading Report 1

Reading Report 1

NTST 834 Seminar in Biblical History and Backgrounds

Professor: Dr. C. Mora

2nd Semester, 2015

By David Vanlalnghaka Sailo

James H. Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus?

(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdsmans, 2002), p. 1-118.

Summary of the book

The author attempted to reconstruct a reliable history of the Qumran community from

the Pesharim documents (Qumran commentary).1 He believed that there are some levels of

consensus (while some would argue for chaos) concerning the historical reconstruction of the

Qumran community using the Pesharim. Realization of the hermeneutical methodology of the

Pesharim, which is called fulfilment interpretation, is the key to unlock their historical

information that are embedded in the Pesharim.

The Pesharim have messianology as its primary concern and accordingly fit

themselves and their special community as the fulfilment of the messianic prophecy in the

scripture. Based on Isaiah 40:3, they saw themselves as the Voice “calling, ‘Clear the way for

the LORD in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.’”

Accordingly, based on text they commented and the commentary they provided, historical

allusions that are embedded in the Pesharim can be recognized. All relevant scientific

methods, including palaeography, archaeology, historiography, sociology, and careful

examination of the texts composed at Qumran for historical data, are employed as component

parts of the methodology in the study. The author deeply engaged scholars in the field in his

discussion.

1 James H. Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus? (Grand Rapids,

MI: Eerdsmans, 2002), x.

Page 2: Reading Report 1

Establishing the synopsis of the Qumran history based on the archaeological findings,

the author postulated 5 phases of inhabitation. Phase I (period 1a) as the formation period of

the wilderness community, which was dated sometime about c.a. 196 BCE based on

Damascus Document, which was the result of tension in the Jerusalem Temple priest. Phase

II (Period 1b) show expansion in the architecture which took place probably about the end of

2nd century BCE. Phase III (Period of abandonment) during 40/31 bce to 9/8 or 4 bce. Phase

IV show return of the Essenes and lived there until 68 CE when the Roman soldiers captured

it. Phase V show Romans occupation.

Basically, developing the history of Qumran using the Pesharim, scholars have to

employed mutatis muntandis (making necessary alterations while not affecting the main point

at issue) because of the hermeneutic nature of the documents, while it lack historical

intension. The descriptions of the characters in the Pesharim, the historical allusion that are

implied provided more information towards our knowledge of the Qumranites.

The thesis of the book

The Pesharim is a non-historical, but a hermeneutical composition. But employing

mutatis muntandis, it can become a reliable source for reconstructing the history of the

Qumran community. However, due to the hermeneutical nature of the book, all the other

available resources and methods need to be employed as well to bring about a consensus (in

terms of reliability) reconstruction of the Qumranites.

His main argument in support of his thesis

The author practically integrated the methodology that he proposed in the book.

Towards the second part of the book, characters that are present in the Pesharim are identified

with the historical figures that are recognized in the other historical account. The descriptions

about the characters and their actions in the pesharim (commentary section) are taken into

account, and they have their basis on the lemma (the quoted text). The identified characters

Page 3: Reading Report 1

and incidents are then further identified with the historical figure and thereby constructed the

Qumran history. The author recognized the historical allusion that are present within the

Pesharim and even outside the Palestinian Judaism and the Greeks and the Romans.

Personal evaluation

The book is insightful in terms of historical methodology and details about the

Qumranites. The book is scholarly and written in an engaging manner.