! CHAPTER 1 ! Introduction and Methodology Introduction and Purpose With the discovery of the first documents in the Qumran caves in 1947, the understanding of Second Temple history and literature has been greatly advanced. The Visions of Amram (VA throughout), an Aramaic 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 Moses, 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 Levi (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 Testament of Qahat (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, Melchizedek, 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.