Читать книгу A Companion to the Hellenistic and Roman Near East онлайн

180 страница из 236

What seems entirely probable, however, is that the Yahad and related groups (if such there were) grew out of that ferment in Jewish society attendant and consequent upon the “Hellenistic Crisis” and the ensuing Maccabean–Hasmonean constitutional settlement. The Yahad proposes an ideal and very precise ordering of Israel’s political, religious, and social life, adherence to which will ensure that its members are truly observing the demands of the Torah and are thus acceptable to God. The documents of the Yahad evince a keen interest in the future, of which the Yahad itself has a privileged understanding. Many scholars detect, in fact, an anti-Hasmonean tendency in these texts: we shall return to this matter presently. The future is a prominent, though not exclusive theme in another set of Qumran documents commonly ascribed to the Yahad. These set forth a particular interpretation of Scripture, called pesher in Hebrew, which interprets biblical texts (most often the writings of the Prophets) with reference to the past, present, and future life of the Yahad (Lim 2002; Berrin 2005). Strongly influenced by apocalyptic modes of thinking, these commentaries understand the texts which they explicate as heavenly mysteries or secrets (Hebrew razim) which require a pesher, a “solution” or “interpretation” before they yield their true meaning. The founder of the Yahad is credited with the ability to penetrate these mysteries and to explain their significance, especially as regards Scriptural prophecies. He is named Moreh Tzedeq (commonly translated as Teacher of Righteousness), a multi-valent title which combines notions of his supreme expertise in Torah learning, and his presumed rightful status as priestly ruler in Jerusalem, like biblical personalities whose titles are linguistically similar to his own – Melchi-tzedeq, the priest-king of Salem (Gen. 14:18–20), and Adoni-tzedeq, the king of Jerusalem (Josh. 10:1–3). The appearance of tzedeq in these titles cannot fail to recall the name Zadok, Hebrew Tzadoq, whose name occurs in certain Yahad scrolls and prompts the notion of an anti-Hasmonean stance on the part of the group. Though such an idea is questioned, or occasionally rejected altogether by some scholars, the strong political elements in the pesher-documents, the manner in which the Hasmoneans obtained the high priesthood, and the objections to their occupation of this office recorded elsewhere in Jewish sources, continue on balance to tell in favour of a Zadokite element at some juncture in the composition of the Yahad. Cautious use of the pesharim as sources for the political history of Judah in the late second to early first centuries CE may, therefore, remain a possibility (but see discussion in Charlesworth 2002).