Qumran Exegesis: 'Rewritten Torah' or Interpretation?

This paper demonstrates that there are both affinities and dissimilarities in the exegetical methods used by the Rabbis and the Qumran sages. Both groups attempted to resolve apparent inconsistencies, lacunae and similar irregularities in the biblical texts; both believed in the infallibility of God’s utterances; and both attempted to resolve this contradiction by revealing the divine intention using various exegetical methods. The overall system used by each group was quite similar, despite the fact that each group often reached halakhic conclusions that were not only quite different from each other but also contrary to the plain meaning of the biblical text. I thus argue that divergent halakhic conclusions need not be the result of different exegetical systems, but rather due to the different employment of particular methods (also common in rabbinic disputes), as well as a different philosophy-theology.
Neither the Mishnah nor Qumran writings reveal their exegetical methods. Without the Midreshei Halakhah and amoraic discussions, we would be unable to reveal the biblical sources assumed to be the bases of mishnaic halakhot and the exegetical methods used to derive them. For the Qumran material there is no such assistance; we can thus only speculate on the textual problems behind their decisions.
The most significant difference between the rabbinic and qumranic exegesis is the qumranic principle of divine revelation as the source of interpretation. I thus challenge Fraade’s contention that revelation logically eliminates exegesis.