Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010) 336–360
brill.nl/dsd
Pesher: A Cognitive Model of the Genre
Robert Williamson, Jr.
Hendrix College
WilliamsonR@hendrix.edu
Abstract
Earlier models of the genre of the pesharim have tended either to subsume pesher into the genre of midrash, on the one hand, or to doubt its coherence as a genre due to a perceived lack of common featu
res shared among all the member texts, on the other. Cognitive genre theory offers a way forward by challenging previ-ous conceptions of the way genre categories are formed. Rather than fixed sets of texts belonging equally to a genre, cognitive theory proposes that genres are radial categories extending outward from a “prototypical” center toward a fuzzy bound-ary, with texts participating in the genre to varying degrees. A cognitive model of the pesher genre provides a flexible enough construction of the genre to account for the variation among the constituent texts, yet still firmly distinguishes the genre from other forms of Early Jewish literature through the concept of the ide-alized cognitive model (ICM) of reality that animates the genre.
Keywords
Cognitive genre theory, genre, idealized cognitive models, ICM, pesher Introduction
Defining the genre of pesher has proven to be a surprisingly difficult task, especially considering that the body of pesher texts seems on first blush to be such a clearly delimited set. At times, the genre has been broadly con-strued to include parts of Matthew and Acts, while at other times it has been reduced to a subtype of midrash or other Early Jewish modes of exe-gesis. In my view, the difficulty in establishing pesher as a differentiated and yet bounded genre lies in the fact that such attempts have t
ypically been made with outdated theories of genre. Recent developments in genre theory, particularly cognitive approaches to genre, offer possibilities for
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 D OI: 10.1163/156851710X513575
R. Williamson, Jr. / Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010) 336–360 337 clarifying the unique aspects of the genre, defining its limits while allow-ing us to account for variations among its constituent texts. In particular, cognitive genre theory allows us to generate a radial category of genre extending outward from an ideal, “prototypical” member of the genre toward real texts with varying degrees of participation in the genre. At the edges of the genre we find fuzzy boundaries where the resemblance of particular texts to the prototypical members of the genre may be distant enough that the texts’ participation in the genre may legitimately be dis-puted. In what follows, I will offer a model of the genre of pesher based on a cognitive theory of genre. I propose that such a model has benefits for the study of pesher because it accounts for two aspects of the pesher genre that have troubled earlier models: (1) its distinction from other genres of Early Jewish biblical interpretation and (2) the variation among the pesharim themselves, which is sometimes thought to threaten the integrity of the genre.1
Previous Models of the Pesher Genre
The establishment of pesher as a distinct literary genre has been compli-cated by pesher’s apparent similarities with other genres of Early Jewish literature.2 In particular, the similarities with Jewish midrash have attracted 1I am indebted to Carol Newsom, who introduced me to both Qumran stud-ies and the intricacies of genre theory; her encouragement and keen eye for criti-cal detail have been invaluable in this project. My understanding of genre theory as it relates to biblical studies has benefited greatly from her work as presented in Carol A. Newsom, “Spying Out the Land: A Report from Genology,” in Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients (ed. R. L. T roxel et al.; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisen-brauns, 2005), 437–50. Insightful critiques by John J. Collins and an anony-mous reviewer at Dead Sea Discoveries helped refine the argument. My gratitude also to Brent A. Strawn and Nathan Hofer for reading and helpfully critiquing earlier drafts of this paper.
2The pesharim have been variously compared with the Targumim (William H. Brownlee, “The Habakkuk Midrash and the Targum of Jonathan,” JSS 7 [1955]: 169–86; Naftali Wieder, “The Habakkuk Scroll and the Targum,” JJS 4 [1953]: 14–18; Geza Vermes, “Bible Interpretation at Qumran,” EI 20 [1989]: 194–91); the Demotic Chronicle (Chaim Rabin, “Notes on the Habakkuk Scroll and the Zadokite Documents,” VT 5 [1955]: 148–62); and New Testament exe-gesis (Krister Stendahl, The School of Matthew and its Use of the Old T estament
338 R. Williamson, Jr. / Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010) 336–360
the attention of scholars, a number of whom proposed parallels between pesher and midrash.3 While most of these studies stopped short of labeling pesher as a subgenre of midrash, the principle editor of Pesher Habakkuk, William H. Brownlee, proposed exactly that, titling his 1979 commentary The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk.4 In an earlier work, Brown-lee had argued for pesher as a subgenre of midrash, comparable to halakah and haggadah:
The present author had previously pointed out the basic differences as to literary form, approach, and interest between DSH [1QpHab] and the other midrashim, but on the nature of the principles of exegesis he preferred the term Midrash to that of Commentary. . . . Rather than invent an entirely new genus called Pesher, a classification which relates DSH to nothing previously known, it seems more logical to the present writer to recognize a new species of Midrash, calling DSH . . . an example of Midrash Pesher, a classification which is at once related to the midrashim and at the same time distinguished from the previously known classes thereof, Midrash Halakah and Midrash Haggadah.5
The identification of pesher as a subgenre of midrash has also been taken up on somewhat different grounds by George Brooke, who prefers the term “Qumran midrash” to Brownlee’s “midrash pesher.”6
In fact, Brooke’s [Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1954]; E. Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old T estament [London: Oliver & Boyd, 1957]).
3 See most notably Isaac Leo Seeligman, “Voraussetzungen der Midrasch-exegese,” in Congress Volume, Copenhagen, 1953 (VTSup 1; Leiden: Brill, 1959), 150–81.
4 William H. Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1979).
5William H. Brownlee, The Dead Sea Habakkuk Midrash (A mimeographed paper issued by the author, Feb. 2, 1953), cited in idem, Midrash Pesher, 25 (italics original).
6George J. Brooke, “Qumran Pesher: T owards the Redefinition of a Genre,” RevQ 10/40 (1981): 483–503. Brooke seems to have subsequently rejected the idea of “Qumran midrash,” recognizing that “[t]he use of the term midrash . . . seems to be technical, not referring to a literary genre (as the later rabbinic midrashim), but identifying a method of scriptural interpretation,” (“Florile-gium,” EDSS 1:297–98 [298]).
R. Williamson, Jr. / Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010) 336–360 339 analysis of the pesharim marked an important moment in the study of the pesher genre. He argued that a lack of scholarly concision conce
rning the generic characteristics of pesher had contributed to a rather “loose” methodological comparison between the pesharim and other texts not clearly related to the genre.7 He attributed the imprecision of previous definitions of the pesher genre to the failure of scholars to account for the roles of both form and content in the formation of a genre. Brooke argued that genre involves the interaction of primary factors and secondary fac-tors, where primary factors are those “descriptive of and determinative of the end product of an author,” and secondary factors those “categorizing the method used in attaining that product.”8 In an important step for-ward for pesher studies, Brooke did not attempt to identify a single, defin-ing characteristic of the pesher genre (form, content, authorship, etc.). Instead, he sought to characterize the interaction among primary and secondary factors that constitute the genre, concluding that the primary factor of the pesher genre is the structural combination of quotation-interpretation, in which a prophetic biblical quotation is given an identi-fication and interpretation relevant to the context of the interpreter or interpretive community.9 Brooke then went on to identify a number of secondary factors through which the authors of the pesharim related the interpretation to the quotation, particularly taking note of “midrashic techniques” employed in the interpretation.10
Brooke’s analysis continues to provide the basis for most current dis-cussions of the genre of pesher.
The difficulty with his approach, however, has been precisely that his identification of quotation-interpretation as the primary factor of the genre, with a set of methodologically “midrashic” secondary factors playing a supporting role, has tended to propagate the 7Brooke, “Qumran Pesher,” 483. In particular, Brooke notes the application of the term “pesher” to Acts 13:33–37 (Dale Goldsmith, “Acts 13:33–37: A Pesher on 2 Samuel 7,” JBL 87 [1968]: 321–24) and to certain fulfillment quota-tions in the Gospels of Matthew and John (David M. Hay, “Interpretation, His-tory of: NT Interpretation of the OT,” IDBSup, 443–46).
8 Brooke, “Qumran Pesher,” 493. Brooke relies for his literary theory on René Wellek and Austin Warren, Theory of Literature (3d ed.; Harvest Book 75; New York: Harcourt Brace, 1956).
9Brooke, “Qumran Pesher,” 497–501.
10Brooke, “Qumran Pesher,” 494–96.
340 R. Williamson, Jr. / Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010) 336–360 confounding of the genres of pesher and midrash. In fact, Brooke makes this connection explicitly, concluding his article by arguing that [P]esher as commonly understood is no more than a sub-genre, and it may well be preferable to drop the word and all its associated com-plications that are too often forgotten, and to talk rather of Qumran
midrashim which contain “fulfillment interpretation of prophecy”
whilst insisting upon their connection with the midrashic traditions of dream interpretation.11
genre
On Brooke’s interpretation, then, pesher loses its distinctiveness as a genre and, based on the quotation-interpretation structure and the use of midrashic exegetical techniques, becomes subsumed within the genre of midrash as the subgenre Brooke calls “Qumran midrash.”
Subsequent to Brooke, many scholars have begun to move away from the categorization of pesher as a subgenre of midrash, instead arguing for pesher as a distinct literary genre in its own right. For instance, Timothy H. Lim, in his study of the pesharim, concludes that “[p]esher is best seen as a distinct genre of exegesis” that falls “on the exegetical continuum that begins within the scriptural tradition itself . . . and continues to the rab-binic midrashim and beyond.”12 Lim argues that while “pesher reflects a common exegetical approach to the text: the consecutive citation of verses from a section of biblical passages is interspersed with comments,” it is the content of the pesher that distinguishes it from other genres of biblical exegesis.13 Specifically, Lim points to pesher’s “emphasis on the prophetic literature (including the Psalms), its eschatological orientation, its con-temporizing tendencies and the special role that it confers upon a contin-uous revelation and the Teacher of Righteousness.”14
While Lim rightly rejects the reduction of pesher to a subgenre of midrash, he nonetheless remains somewhat circumspect about whether pesher properly stands alone as a genre in its own right. He twice com-ments that “pesher as a genre of scriptural interpretation is a scholarly construct,” having no grounding in the texts themselves.15 Lim’s assessment 11Brooke, “Qumran Pesher,” 503.
12Timothy H. Lim, Pesharim (CQS 3; London: Sheffield, 2002), 56.
13 Lim, Pesharim, 52.
14 Lim, Pesharim, 52.
15 Lim, Pesharim, 53; cf.: “The genre of sectarian exegesis known as ‘the pesher’ is a typological construct of Qumran scholarship,” ibid., 40.

版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系QQ:729038198，我们将在24小时内删除。