! CHAPTER 1 ! Introduction and Methodology

Introduction and Purpose

With the discovery of the first documents in the in 1947, the understanding of Second Temple history and literature has been greatly advanced. The Visions of (VA throughout), an text preserved in at least five copies at Qumran (4Q543-547), is one such document that provides new data for understanding this time period. The unique nature of this work, focusing on Amram, the father of , and his testament to his children, gives this text significance in the realm of Second Temple literature. Before the discoveries at Qumran, the Persian and early Hellenistic ages were lacking in substantive material for understanding the development of Ju- daism in this period. Michael Stone comments, “It is not surprising then that when sources become plentiful once more, after the start of the second century B.C.E., the picture of Judaism they present differs considerably from that which can be constructed for the period down to the age of Ezra and Nehe- miah.”1 The importance of texts, like VA, is to fill in this historical lacuna. The current study is dedicated to the “integration of the texts newly discovered at Qumran with those which have been known for centuries”, for this “will continue to produce rich fruit as we meditate upon it.”2 Recently, scholars have been investing much energy developing paradigms in order to understand the relationship between works that stem from this era. Recently, Ben Sira and 1 Enoch have been the focus of numerous scholarly books and articles.3 The most developed of these studies are the works of Gab- riele Boccaccini. His theories of Middle Judaism and, particularly for the present study, his dichotomy between Zadokite and Enochic Judaism will be tested in light of VA. The purpose of this book is to offer a possible date, purpose and social lo- cation for this document. The current text is one of many texts that were un- known before the discoveries at Qumran; however, it does not display the sectarian strand indicative of the mindset of the group which resided at Qum- 2 •CHAPTER 1• ran. Various scholars have also linked additional manuscripts to this docu- ment (4Q548-549), which will be discussed in later chapters. The goal of this introductory chapter is to review previous studies dedi- cated to this document and to define the methodology to be used. VA is still not fully understood, for though the editio princeps was published in 2001, ex- tensive scholarly discussion of this work has not occurred. A synthetic study is needed to identify this document’s place in the larger world of Second Temple literature; furthermore, this study demonstrates the importance of this docu- ment in Second Temple social dialogue and provides important data for re- searchers studying pre-Hasmonean Judaism.

Literature Review

To begin, there have been two scholars who have contributed major studies to the understanding of VA: J.T. Milik and Émile Puech. Along with these major studies, there have been numerous minor inquiries, which are based on the articles of Milik. A review of this history will clarify the necessity for the current study. In 1956, J. Starcky stated, “Un apocryphe analogue au Testament de Lévi est représenté par trois manuscrits au moins...”4 By January of 1972, the five cop- ies, originally labeled 4Q‘Amramabcde (numerically 4Q543-547), had been iden- tified, and J.T. Milik wrote the first article dedicated solely to this document.5 He describes the work from 1956-1972 as follows:

Dans les années qui suivirent, un travail patient de rapproachements des parcelles du texte ainsi que le progrès de leur lecture, parfois difficile à cause du délabrement de la surface inscrite, lui a permis de déterminer le titre exact de cet ouvrage et, grâce à des recoupements du texte, de fixer à cinq le nombre des exemplaires: 4Q ‘Amramabcde.6

The purpose of Milik’s 1972 article was to argue that the text of 4Q544 was known by Origen and was most likely translated into Greek from the Aramaic original. “Le Testament araméen de ‘Amram fut certainement traduit en grec et était utilisé par les écrivains chrétiens des premiers siècles. Car, à mas grande surprise, j’ai répéré un bref résumé de la vision de ‘Amram qu’on vient de discuter dans les Homélies d’Origène sur l’Évangile de Luc.”7 Also in this article Milik argued that the texts of the Testament of (now known as the Aramaic Levi Document to differentiate it from what is later known as the Testament of Levi in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs), the (4Q542) and the Testament of Amram (4Q543-547) formed a priestly trilogy. His view stems from a statement in a patristic work, Les Constitutions Apostoliques (vi 16,3), about a work known as twn triwn patriarxwn (Of the Three Patriarchs). Previous scholars viewed this work, which is unknown, as referring to a work detailing the lives of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The

•INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY• 3

Levi, Qahat, and Amram material would thus be part of one document that Milik states, “A l’époque chrétienne ces trois Testaments des patriarches sacerdotaux circulaient en version grecque...”8 The purpose of this book is to discuss the initial purpose for VA’s compo- sition, but its subsequent textual history dominated some of the early studies. I do agree with Milik’s assessment of Origen’s sources, but not his argument regarding a potential priestly trilogy.9 In chapter four, I will discuss his view of a priestly trilogy, since variant chronologies between the Aramaic Levi Document and VA argue against a unity. In 1972, Milik also published an article in the Journal of Jewish Studies enti- tled “Milkî-sedeq et Milkî-resha‘ dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens”.10 This article was published “to mark this (25th) anniversary (since the discovery) by publishing a major contribution to Qumran research together with the photographs of several important and as yet inedited fragments from Cave 4 on the subject of the mysterious figure of Melkizedek.”11 This article has three main sections of texts: Texte Qumranien sur L’Ange Milki-sedeq (11QMelch), “Pesher sur les Periodes” (4Q180, 4Q181, ?et 11QMelch), and Textes Qumra- niens sur Milki-resha‘ (4QAmram et 4Q280). Regarding VA, Milik states, “Le nom de Milki-sedeq se trouvait certainement dans l’écrit araméen des Visions de ‘Amram, là où apparaît, conservée jusqu’à nos jours sur un fragment, le première mention de Milki-resha...L’angélologie de cet ouvrage semble refléter des croyances assez populaires.”12 Milik was completely convinced that the name, , was in the text of VA; however, the discussion in chapter two will show that there is no textual material remaining to have such confi- dence. After the first publications of this document by Milik and the focus on angelology, specifically in 4Q544, a few additional articles by various scholars were published discussing this material. This apocalyptic portion of the document captured scholarly attention because of Amram’s vision of two an- gelic figures, one evil and one good, who are vying for his loyalty. In fact, scholars were particularly enticed by Milik’s suggestions for how to fill the la- cuna. In 1973, Klaus Berger used 4Q544 in his article “Der Streit des Guten und des Bösen Engels um die Seele: Beobachtungen zu 4Q Amrb und Judas 9.”13 Berger’s article argues for the importance of the Amram material for un- derstanding the development of angelology during the Second Temple period. Berger did not critique Milik’s readings but accepted them and integrated them into his larger project of looking at similar concepts in later works. In 1978, Milik again discussed VA in relation to what he called “écrits préesséniens de Qumran.” In this article he discussed many works found at Qumran that he considered to have been written prior to the establishment of the sectarian community. Among these works, VA was discussed as being part

4 •CHAPTER 1• of priestly literature surrounding the family of Levi. After arguing for the presence of the Testament of Naphtali, Testament of Judah, Testament of Joseph, and Testament of Levi at Qumran, he discusses the influence Levi had on sub- sequent literature. He believes that the Levi material was basically “un manuel de prêtre...” and that this material “inspira la naissance de deux autres écrits [Qahat and Amram]...”14 Milik has consistently argued for his view that there is a genetic relationship between these various levitical documents. One issue of concern is Milik’s understanding of the provenance of these interrelated documents. Concluding his article, Milik argues that most of the works he discussed were derived from Samaritan circles.

Les pseuépigraphes passés en revue ont tous été, à mon avis, composés en langue araméenne; on ne manqua pas cependant de les traduire en hébreu. Une bonne partie d’entre eux est d’origine samaritaine; on ne négligea point d’en faire une version judéenne. Par conséquent, à l’époque perse, et probablement bien avant, existait déjà une riche littérature juive, véhiculée par la lingua franca des empires successifs; assyrien, chaldéen, perse, grec. Les deux recensions des écrits patriarchaux, samaritaine et judéene, circulaient librement à l’époque romaine.15

It is true that there was much more interaction between Jews and Samaritans than the sources, which are often polemical, lead one to believe; however, arguing that all of these works had a Samaritan provenance cannot be sustained. Milik believes that VA preserves traditions used by the early church and shows the influence of Samaritan traditions on nascent Christianity. “L’Église chrétienne qui venait de naître se servait d l’une ou l’autre version. Ainsi saint Étienne suit la tradition samarataine sur la sépulture des patriarches (Act, 7,15-16), qu’il a lue dans les Visions d’Amram.”16 Acts 7:15-16 is part of Stephen’s speech in Jerusalem in which he was discussing the burial of the patriarchs in Shechem, which would argue for a Samaritan provenance; however, it should be noted that the location of burials in VA is not preserved. It could have been either Hebron or Shechem, although Hebron seems more likely as will be discussed. Two short articles published by Florentino García Martinez and Marc Philonenko in 1985 and 1993 respectively also focus on the issue of the an- gelic figures of Melchizedek and Melchiresha. They accept Milik’s understand- ing of these two figures being presented in the text as opposing forces.17 García Martinez focused his attention on one obscure word in 4Q544, 1.14, Nkoh.18 His conclusion was to see this word as describing the visage of Melchizedek, “ ‘su rostro estaba sonriente’...El resultado es que este fragmento de las Visiones de ‘Amram nos habría conservado no solo la descripcíon de Melki-resha‘, sino tambíen la de Melki-sedeq.”19 Marc Philonenko forcefully agrees with Milik that the second angelic fig- ure should be reconstructed as Melchizedek, for “le second dont le nom n’a pas été conservé est, sans nul doute, Melchisédeq.”20 The purpose of his article

•INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY• 5 was to argue that the angelic figure Melchiresha, along with the evil figure Mel- kira in the Martyrdom of Isaiah, should be compared to the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 14:2, orb and ovrb. He understands these names to be an adjective connected to a preposition, “in wickedness,” “in evil.”21 These short studies of García Martinez and Philonenko provide important sugges- tions; however, they do not greatly contribute to the understanding of this document’s social location in pre-Hasmonean Judaism. In 1984, Klaus Beyer published the first edition of Die aramaischen Texte vom Toten Meer. In 1994 and 2004, he published expanded versions, including more texts that had become available.22 Regarding VA, which he titles “Die Abschiedsrede Amrams”, he gives a brief introduction, followed by the Ara- maic text with a corresponding translation. After the initial publication, the subsequent editions of Beyer’s book added additional fragments. An overview of the section titles in each volume demonstrates his handling of the text: 4Q543-548: Die Abschiedsrede Amrams (1984), 4Q543-549: Die Ab- schiedsrede Amrams (1994), and 4Q‘Amram: Die abschiedsrede Amrams (2004). This final understanding of the text included fragments from 4Q548, 4Q549, and 4Q580. In each edition, he arranged the fragments in what he considered to be their proper order; however, his text does not clarify when one fragment stops and a second begins.23 From the above review of studies, it is clear that Milik’s readings, with a focus on the material in 4Q544, were generally accepted. Furthermore, with- out the editio princeps, most scholars had little material with which to work. In 2001, Émile Puech published in Discoveries in the Judaean Desert the editio princeps, which was the first comprehensive discussion of all the fragments of 4Q543-547.24 The entire volume, in French, contains the following texts: Pa- roles de Michel (4Q529), Livre des Géants (4Q530-533), Naissance de Noé (4Q534- 36), Testament de Jacob (4Q537), Testament de Juda (4Q538), Testament de Joseph (4Q539), Apocryphe de Levi (4Q540-541), Testament de Qahat (4Q542), and Vi- sions de ‘Amram (4Q543-549). This list makes clear that the Aramaic texts fo- cus much attention on the patriarchs and other legendary figures. The texts assigned to VA by Puech also include 4Q548-549; however, these texts have no overlapping material with VA. To Puech’s credit, he marks both of these texts with a question mark, since their connection to the five other copies cannot be ascertained.25 Chapter two will survey 4Q548-549 and suggest that they should not be considered part of VA. Puech includes a general introduction to the document before he begins his discussion of each copy of the text. His introduction discusses “les manu- scrits”, “la language”, “la date”, and “le milieu”. Regarding the manuscripts, Puech reviews the history of research and assignation of texts to this docu- ment, including Milik’s view that VA was part of a trilogy. He offers proof for this by noting the fact that 4Q543 has a clear seam on the right hand margin

6 •CHAPTER 1• before the first column. Thus, some text preceded VA in at least one copy. Puech also believes 4Q542 and 4Q547 come from the same scribal hand and that “trous en formes d’olives” (“olive-shaped holes”) on both of these copies offer proof for their connection. Regarding the date of this text, Puech sees many linguistic similarities be- tween VA and other known Aramaic biblical and Qumran documents.

L’état de la langue est encore assez proche de celui de l’araméen du livre de Daniel où on retrouve aussi l’orthographe htna pour le pronnoun personnel, de même en 4QTobit. Il est identique à celui de l’araméen de 4QHénoch et de 4QTobit, à première vue un peu plus ancien que celui de 1QApGn où on a toujours le ’aph‘el, Nmt, yrm, parfois d, mais aussi htna, Nd et parfois and.26 The discussion in chapter two will provide more linguistic affinities between this document and other Second Temple works. Puech specifically assigns a 2nd century BCE date at the latest for two rea- sons. First, Puech dates the copies of the text paleographically as follows: 4Q543 (150–100 BCE), 4Q544 (150–100 BCE), 4Q545 (100–50 BCE), 4Q546 (100–50 BCE), and 4Q547 (150–100 BCE). Thus, the paleographical dating of the copies makes a date in the second part of the second century BCE the terminus ante quem. Puech is convinced that what remains are only copies of an earlier original, “car il n’est pas vraisemblable d’avoir affaire à l’original, mais seulement à des copies.”27 Second, Puech argues the date of this document because of the dependence of Jubilees on VA, especially in chap- ters 46-47. Thus, “[e]n definitive, la dépendence des Jubilés, datés vers 160– 155 av. J.-C., appuie elle aussi le terminus ante quem précédement établi.”28 Puech retains Milik’s concept of these documents forming a priestly trilogy, which Puech argues makes a very early date likely.

La langue parait être au plus tard celle du deuxième s. av. J.-C., mais le troisième s. ne peut être exclu ou même le quatrième. C’est dire que les Testaments des trois patriarches lévitiques doivent provenir d’un même milieu sacerdotal et dater en gros de la même époque. Ils sont tous certainement préqumraniens et les critères paléographiques et linguistiques permettent de leur assigner une composition grosso modo dans le troisième s. ou, au plus tard pour les Visions de ‘Amram, la première partie du deuxième s. av J.-C.29

Finally, Puech discusses Milik’s view that this document derived from a Samaritan “milieu”; however, he does acknowledge the lack of evidence to support this claim. “Comme les trois livres des patriarches sacerdotaux relèvent d’un même milieu, faudrait-il attribuer à toutes ces trois compositions un milieu samaritain? La question est posée, mais la réponse demande une réflexion plus approfondie.”30 This posed question will be answered in the course of the current study.

•INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY• 7

The work on the material currently titled, Visions of Amram, is at an in- fancy stage. Most of the focus on this document has been on one particular episode preserved in 4Q544; however, this entire discussion is built on recon- structed text. The current work, utilizing the comprehensive work completed by Puech, will move the discussion away from a narrow view of one issue to a broad discussion of how this text fits into the history of Jewish literature dur- ing the pre-Hasmonean period.

Methodology and Thesis

The chapters of this book move from work on the individual fragments to a focus on the larger context in which this text was produced. In chapter two, all the known material of VA will be surveyed and new readings and translations of this material will be provided. In chapter three, the results of chapter two are used to address the issues of importance to the author of this document. Finally, in chapter four, VA’s date, purpose and genre are given. The ultimate purpose of this book is to identify the social location of this material. When the major issues of the document are considered, a propa- gandistic purpose seems evident. This makes this document similar to others written in the pre-Hasmonean period. Furthermore, an examination of the geographical material in the text will help pinpoint the text’s social location. The work of David Suter on 1 Enoch, explained fully in chapter four, provides the methodological background for this focus. In conclusion, this book will explain the date, purpose, and genre of VA and argue that this is a document that:

1. was written by a disenfranchised priestly family residing in Hebron; 2. was concerned primarily with improper marriages within the priestly establishment; 3. proves many pre-Hasmonean defections from Jerusalem; and 4. and demonstrates a much more variegated society in pre-Hasmonean Judaism than any theory of duality (Enochic/Zadokite) can explain.

The author of this text chose a fitting person in Amram to give validity to the issues of concern. This text was not written for mere pleasure reading, but it served the author’s agenda and specific concerns and elucidates the social world of the author.