Journal for the studyof the Pseudepigrapha Vol 24.1 (2014): 3-42 © The Author(s), 2014. Reprints and Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/JournalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0951820714558760 http://J SP.sagepub.com Reassessing the Dream-Vision of the Vision of Amram (4Q543!547)* BLAKE ALAN JURGENS Florida State University, 112 Dodd Hall, 641 University Way, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA Abstract The Vision of Amram has been interpreted by many as a prime exa mple of dualistic theology, portraying two ostensibly antagonistic Þgures contending over having authority over the person of Amra m. This study pushes against this interpretation and instead recontextualizes Amram! s otherworldly experience with a greater emphasis on both the surrounding episodes of the composition as well as the identiÞcation of Melchizedek"a Þgure with intricate ties to priestly legitimacy"as the oppositionary Þgure up against the ominous Melchiresha in the dream-vision. In this fashion, this study concludes that the dream-vision of Amram represents an either#or choice in which the protagonist is required to choose between a legitimate or a corrupted priesthood. Moreover, Amram! s vision thus stands as a metaphorical depiction of an underlying historical conßict between two priestly groups, an image which the latter Qumranites certainly reappropriated to their own historical situation. Keywords: Vision of Amra m, Melchizedek, Melchiresha, endogamy, priestly inheritance. * This article was researched with the Þnancial help of the German#American Fulbright Kommission for the 2013#2014 academic year at the Ludwig-Maximilians Universität München and was subsequently presented at the New Testament Colloquium there. I wish to thank Loren Stuckenbruck for his helpful discussion and insight regarding this work, as well as Robert Duke who was kind enough to provide me a copy of his monograph, which had been previously unavailable to me. Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 4 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 24.1 (2014) First identiÞed by J.T. Milik as $le livre des Visions de % Amram& ou bien % les Visions de $Amram&!,1 the titular encounter of Amram and the two otherworldly Þgures of his dream-vision has remained in the forefront of most studies devoted to this enigmatic and fragmentary work. However, despite frequent interpretive forays that analyze the highly unusual interaction between Amram and these non-human Þgures, very few have ventured beyond mere episodic interpretations, choosing instead to focus on the dream-vision!s connections with preQ u m r a n i c d u ali s m o r it s u n iq u e a n g elo l o g y w h il e n e g l ect in g to en g ag e how the vision is connected to the rest of the document.2 Usually, these brief studies present a severely myopic perspective not only of the dream-vision but of the document as a whole, thus construing the Vision of Amram as little more than a proof-text or supplementary example of dualistic theology and, in the process, disregarding much of the remaining contents of the document!s fragments. Since Puech!s publication of the editio princeps in 2001, however, a handful of scholars have gone against this trend and have attempted to address the place of Amram!s vision within the context of the whole composition. In her article on pre-Qumranic dualism in the Vision of Amram, Liora Goldman offers an interpretation on the basis of her understanding of the dream-vision as an example of a $more 1. J.T. Milik, $4Q Visions de $ Amram et une citation d! Origène! , RB 79 (1972), pp. 77-97. Milik! s main concern in this article, as the title suggests, was the exhibition of the number of parallels the Vision of Amram shared with one of Origin!s homilies on the Gospel of Luke. In doing so, Milik also proceeded to identify a sixth copy of the document (4Q548), though this claim, as I shall state later, is unsubstantiated and lacks sufÞcient manuscript evidence. 2. A few exa mples include Maxwell J. Davidson, Angels at Qumran: A Comparative Study of 1 Enoch 1!36, 72!108 and Sectarian Writings from Qumran (JSP Sup, 11; ShefÞeld: Academic P ress, 1992), pp. 255-63; P aul J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchire"a@ (CBQMS, 10; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981), pp. 24-36; Jörg Frey, $Different P atterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library! , in M.J. Bernstein et al. (eds.), Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995 (STDJ, 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 316-22, esp. 320-22. In all fairness, Frey does mention the priestly background shared between the Vision of Amram, the Admonitions of Qahat (4Q542) and the Aramaic Levi Document. Unfortunately, Frey does not attempt to consolidate Amram! s dream-vision with the priestly character of the composition, essentially treating them as entirely separate episodes. Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 JURGENS Reassessing the Dream-Vision of the Vision of Amram 5 nuanced! form of dualism, distinct from that of later sectarian literature found at Qumran.3 In this dualistic schema, Goldman states that the appearances of the $celestial! beings, along with the contrastive imagery of light and darkness, do not embody some kind of moral conundrum that requires Amram to decide between good and evil as previous scholars had advocated, but instead exemplify Amram!s choice between Life (Melchizedek) and Death (Melchiresha).4 Goldman concludes by noting that Amram!s choice between Melchizedek and Melchiresha in his dream-vision is mirrored throughout the Vision of Amram, both in his Þnal words to his sons and in the proper burial of his deceased forefathers (cf. Jer. 8.1-3).5 In this way, according to Goldman, Amram!s vision recalls the biblical command spoken by Moses to the people of Israel to $choose life! while reminiscing on God!s covenant (Deut. 30.15, 19).6 While Goldman!s interpretation of the Vision of Amram is innovative, her methodology is still rather similar to that of most previous interpreters in both her point of departure"the emphatic dualism underlying Amram!s vision"and in 3. Liora Goldman, $Dualism in the Visions of Amram! , RevQ 24 (2010), pp. 42132 (424). 4. In support of her proposal, Goldman ($ Dualism in the Visions of Amram! , pp. 427ff.) focuses upon the similarities shared between Melchiresha with the Þgure of Death in the T. Abr. 17.12-16, noting that both are portrayed as $ fear-inspiring, serpent-like Þgures! and are depicted as possessing gloomy or dark auras. A major problem with Goldman! s theory is the chronological gap between the Testament of Abraham, which dates at the earliest to the Þrst century CE, and the Vision of Amram (late third/early second century BCE). For more on the approximate date of the Testament of Abraham, see Dale C. Allison, Testament of Abraham (CEJL; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003), pp. 34-40. Furthermore, many of Goldman! s conclusions concerning the opposition of light and darkness in the Vision of Amram derive from her acceptance of 4Q548 as part of the Vision of Amram, a text which I do not include in the manuscript evidence. 5. Goldman proposes that the conceptual structure underlying the burial scene and Amram! s vision lies in Jer. 8.1-3 ($ At that time, says the Lord, the bones of the kings of Judah, the bones of its ofÞcials, the bones of the priests, the bones of the prophets, and the bones of the inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be brought out of their tombs'and they shall not be gathered or buried; they shall be like dung on the surface of the ground. Death shall be preferred to life by all the remnant that remains of this evil fa mily in all the places where I have driven them, says the Lord of hosts! [NRSV]). Thus, Goldman states that the improper burial of one!s deceased, depicted as a choice of death or life in Jer. 8.1-3, is again articulated in Amra m! s proper burial of his relatives in their native land. See $Dualism in the Visions of Amram! , pp. 430-31. 6. Goldman, $Dualism in the Visions of Amram! , pp. 429ff. Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 6 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 24.1 (2014) her primary focus upon the dream-vision as the interpretive basis for the rest of the composition.7 E m b a rk i n g o n a d i ff e r en t m et h o d o lo g i cal p at h , R o b e rt D u k e! s in d e p th analysis of the Vision of Amram8 avoids embracing one particular episode as an interpretive starting point and instead chooses to address the composition as a whole with the goal of discerning a possible date, purpose, and social location for the Vision of Amram. As Duke writes, previous scholars tended to over-emphasize the role of the vision scene found in 4Q544, leading to a restricted view of the composition in its entirety. In contrast to such a limited approach, Duke does not focus on a particular section or set of fragments, but instead chooses to analyze the entirety of the manuscript evidence for the Vision of Amram (excluding 4Q548 and 549) with the goal of identifying the social location of the document within pre-Hasmonean Judaism.9 After addressing the diverse and seemingly disparate episodes within the document, Duke proposes that a number of the events and themes which occur in the narrative (i.e. the emphasis on endogamous marriages, the mention of an Egyptian/Canaanite conßict, the portrayal of the burial scene of Jacob!s children) suggest that the Vision of Amram was composed sometime around the late third/early second centuries $by a group of disenfranchised priests, living in Hebron, who were concerned with the non-endogamous marriages of the priests and their involvement in international affairs!.10 T hus, Duke 7. Furthermore, in a more recent publication ($ The Burial of the Fathers in the Visions of Amram fro m Qumran! , in D. Dimant and R.G. Kratz [eds.], Rewriting and Interpreting the Hebrew Bible: The Biblical Patriarchs in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls [BZAW, 439; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2013], pp. 231-49), Goldman makes only brief mention of her previous work concerning the role of $ choosing life! derived from her interpretation of the dream-vision and, in the process, does not attempt to interconnect her interpretation of the burial scene with Amram! s vision, essentially isolating the dream-vision of Amram from the rest of the composition. 8. Robert R. Duke, The Social Location of the Visions of Amram (4Q543!547) (Studies in Biblical Literature, 135; New York: P eter Lang, 2010). 9. Duke, The Social Location of the Visions of Amram, p. 7. 10. Duke, The Social Location of the Visions of Amram, pp. 90-111 (110). Duke dates the original composition of the Vision of Amram in light of the paleographic details of the Qumran manuscripts (mid-second to early Þrst century BCE), its mention of the clash between Egypt and Canaan (a conßict which Duke reads as eluding to the numerous Ptolemaic/Seleucid military campaigns in the latter half of the third century BCE), its relationship to the burial episode of Jub. 46#47 (independent but older), and Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 JURGENS Reassessing the Dream-Vision of the Vision of Amram 7 concludes that the Vision of Amram is an example of a regionalist text produced by a group residing in Hebron that was unsatisÞed with the status quo and sought to establish the legitimacy of their priestly practices in juxtaposition to the corrupt activity among the Jerusalem priests. While exceptionally insightful and groundbreaking, Duke!s proposal seemingly ignores the role of Amram!s dream-vision within the document and at most suggests that the dream-vision, along with the location of the tombs of Jacob!s children, serve as evidence buttressing the Hebron group!s claims that they reside in a legitimate site for the carrying out of priestly activity outside of the corrupted priesthood in Jerusalem. Thus, while Goldman and previous scholars have interpreted the Vision of Amram from the dream-vision outward, losing the forest in the trees, Duke instead has interpreted the Vision of Amram in light of its place within a pre-Hasmonean social milieu at the expense of the dream-vision, losing the trees in the forest. While both approaches Þnd themselves either overemphasizing or neglecting the role of the dream-vision within the entire composition, Duke!s methodology nevertheless opens up a new set of potential ideas, insofar that it suggests a feasible social location from within which the Vision of Amram may have been produced.11 Despite this, the question still remains how the dream-vision of the Vision of Amram relates both to the other the presumption that the Vision of Amram reßects a period during which Idumea and Judea were independent of one another (i.e. prior to Simon! s conquest of Beth Zur in 145 BCE) and Hebron was under Idumean control. 11. My main criticism of Duke! s proposal that the Vision of Amram is a regional text produced amongst a group of disenfranchised priests residing in Hebron is the restrictive nature of his conclusion. First, as Duke himself admits, the word $Hebron! does not appear in any of the manuscripts and is simply a reconstruction based upon th e p arall el fou nd in Ju b. 46# 47 (Th e So cia l Lo cat io ns of t h e Vis io ns o f A mr a m, p. 1 7 ). It is subsequently possible that the burial location in the Vision of Amram may have been the city of Shechem, where Joseph was buried (cf. Josh. 24.32; Acts 7.14-16), a suggestion which Puech admits is also a possibility (Émile P uech, Qumrân Grotte 4 XXII: Textes Araméens Première Partie 4Q529-549 [DJD, XXXI; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001], p. 285; see also Section 3 below). Second, though I believe that Duke!s general historical provenance of the text is helpful and accurate, I do not think that the particular details of Duke! s proposal can be induced from the text in and of itself. While there appears to be a priestly rift underlying the text, it seems a little too tenuous to identify such a speciÞc location and temporal setting for a text with no explicit or extensive historical references. Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 8 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 24.1 (2014) episodes found in the document as well as its underlying narrative and purpose. It is this concern that serves as the driving force behind the interpretive methodology which I intend to implement in the following discussion. In this article, I propose that the Vision of Amram may be understood as an account of Amram passing-down the Levitical priesthood to his sons. T his underlying priestly narrative may be said to structure the entire composition and bind each of the respective sections of the text into one, cohesive unit with a primary purpose" exhibiting that the divinely ordained priesthood has successfully been passed-down from Levi to his ancestors without disruption or corruption.12 T o support my claims, I will address each section of the composition individually, exhibiting how each conforms to this narrative structure and contributes to the proposed purpose of the composition!s author: a presentation of how the holy priesthood is legitimately passed down. 1. Introduction (4Q543 frg 1a-c.1-4; 4Q545 frg. 1a i.1-4; 4Q546 frg. 1.1-2) The Þrst few lines of the Vision of Amram serve as the introduction and can be divided into three units: (1) identiÞcation of the type of literature (the $what!); (2) identiÞcation of the author (the $who!); and (3) identiÞcation of the chronological context (the $when!). First, the introduction describes the composition as a $copy of the writing of the words of the vision(s) of Amram! (4Q543 frg. 1a-c.1: FJN <¥H O=[YU LYN„ Ræ ¥ „B „CD). The term O=[¥U/O=[YU appears six times in the Masoretic text (Ezra 4.11; 5.6 = O=[YU; Ezra 7.11; Esth. 3.14; 4.8; 8.13 = O=[¥U), each time describing the transmission of important documents and 12. Though the primary purpose of the text is the exhibition of Amra m! s successful transmission of the priestly inheritance, the underlying reason behind this, as I shall argue later, is the author!s attempt to deal with a sacerdotal conßict occurring between what appears to be the Jerusalem priestly circle and a faction which is claiming that the former has violated correct priestly conduct while supporting their own claims for priestly legitimacy. A similar social scenario was prescribed by David W. Suter regarding portions of 1 Enoch in " Fallen Angel, Fallen P riest: The P roblem of Fa mily Purity in 1 Enoch! , HUCA 50 (1979), pp. 115-35. While I disagree with Suter!s approach to Enochic literature, I do acknowledge that my assessment of the Vision of Amram does bear some methodological similarities to Suter!s work. Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 JURGENS Reassessing the Dream-Vision of the Vision of Amram 9 decrees originating from royal authorities of the Persian Empire.13 It is reasonable to suggest that a manuscript!s status as O=[YU signiÞed its permanent authoritative value, either as a legal decree or otherwise. In the case of the Vision of Amram, the use of O=[YU establishes that the following copied content is inherited from the original, sacred words of Amram, providing the reader exclusive access to secret wisdom derived from the exceptional experiences and vision of this particular ancient. Moreover, unlike third-person narrated accounts of the exceptional experiences of signiÞcant Þgures, the Þrst-person perspective of the Vision of Amram creates the effect that the reader is not simply reading a biography of the patriarch, but is reading the Þrst-hand experiences and words of Amram himself, asserting the sacred and esoteric nature of the text and its contents and afÞrming its authoritative value. The introductory section not only designates the following words as Amram!s account of his own visionary experience, but also claims that the forthcoming text contains OBP: >XU F>B F@BP<J FBD: F> JBH ("all which he [Amram] showed to his sons and which he commanded them!, 4Q543 frg. 1a-c.1-2; 4Q545 frg. 1a i.1-2). T his line emphasizes that the content of the Vision of Amram is not simply a self-written representation of Amram!s revelatory experience, but also contains Amram!s own account of his instruction to his sons and the impartation of his knowledge.14 13. In every case where the term appears in the Hebrew Bible, O=[¥U/O=[YU is accompanied by a descriptor of the type of manuscript which is being copied (Ezra 7.11: O®B¤ı ¢ı ß}@; ¬ Esth. 3.14/8.13: ¥f® O ¥®­ }@ß Jı < ¥® uı @;¬ Esth. 4.8: ¥f® @¼< ¬ ¥® u); ı in most cases, the word describing the type of manuscript is also a P ersian loanword (¥f® = a decree/law; OB® ¤ı ¢ı ßP = a letter). Henryk Drawnel (" The Initial Narrative of the Visions of Amram! , RevQ 24 [2010], pp. 517-54 [527]) argues that the appearance of this word may date the origin of the priestly traditions described in manuscripts such as the Vision of Amram and the Aramaic Levi Document to the reform period of Ezra (c f. Drawnel, An Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran: A New Interpretation of the Levi Document [JSJSup, 86; Leiden: Brill, 2004], pp. 67-71). Though intriguing, Drawnel!s proposal does not provide substantial proof beyond this claim. Outside the Vision of Amram, the word O=[YU also appears in 4Q465 line 3 and in 4QEnGiants a (4Q203) frg. 8.3. A similar terminus technicus, òè ç éÕî4, appears in the introductions to many of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, though due to the expansive gap between traditions, such a comparison is limited in its scope and effectiveness and does not imply that the Vision of Amram should be identiÞed as a testament per se. 14. The verbs FBD and >XU are both common in the instructional language a teacher would utilize in the education of his students or children. Henryk Drawnel (" The Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 10 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 24.1 (2014) Second, the introduction alludes to the identity of the author#LYNR FBJ Y< ¥@X Y< (4Q543 frg. 1a-c.1; 4Q545 frg. 1a i.1). T he listing of one!s ancestral heritage is a typical element in prophetic literature (e.g. Isa. 1.1; Jer. 1.1; Joel 1.1; Zech. 1.1; Zeph. 1.1) as well as in other biblical literature (e.g. Gen. 5; 1 Chron. 1$9). What is initially obvious is the author!s intent to identify Amram with his forefathers Qahat and Levi, a trend which is repeated in the Aramaic Levi Document.15 In both texts, the role of the genealogy is to establish the pedigree from which the protagonist (Levi or Amram) derives, rooting them both in the traditions of the past as well as reinforcing the legacy of future generations. In particular, both the Aramaic Levi Document and the Vision of Amram are concerned with the line of Levi and its role as the foundation of the priestly ofÞce. In this way, the brief genealogical allusion made in the introduction identiÞes Amram as a direct descendent of Levi, and so underscores the claim that his descendants are legitimate successors to the Levitical line.16 Initial Narrative of the Visions of Amram! , p. 532) notes that other Aramaic texts from Qumran employ similar language (cf. the Aramaic Astronomical Book [4Q209 frg. 26.6]: FY< GJ @P: @BDN ORHB; Admonitions of Qahat [4Q542 frg. 1 ii.9]: LYNR @HJ ORHB > ]XUN :P: FY< ; see also frg. 1 i.13$ii.1). However, Drawnel is correct in stating that the didactic character of the Vision of Amram is "not so evident! due to the incomplete surrounding content. In my opinion, it seems that the didactic character of the Vision of Amram is more interior than exterior, focusing mostly on the instruction of Amra m to his children rather than the impartation of virtuous teachings to the audience or reader (ctr. the impartations of the patriarchs in Jubilees). Unlike Drawnel and me, Frey is less hesitant in his claims the Vision of Amram represents both " instruction! as well as " a % testamentary& text! . See J. Frey, " On the Origins of the Genre of the % Literary Testament&: Farewell Discourses in the Qumran Library and their Relevance for the History of the Genre! , in K. Berhelot and D. Stökl Ben Ezra (eds.), Aramaica Qumranica: Proceedings of the Conference on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran in Aix-en-Provence 30 June!2 July 2008 (STDJ, 94; Leiden: Brill, 2010), p. 360. 15. One of the themes of the Aramaic Levi Document is the role of the Levitical line in the transmission of both the priestly inheritance and the generational instructions from Isaac (ALD 5.8), Abraham (ALD 7.4), and Noah (ALD 10.10). See Jonas C. GreenÞeld, Michael E. Stone, and Esther Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary (SVTP , 19; Leiden: Brill, 2004), p. 21. 16. For more on the importance of biblical genealogies, see Robert Wilson Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (Yale Near Eastern Researches, 7; New Haven: Yale University P ress, 1977); Marshall Johnson The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies (Cambridge: University P ress, 2nd edn, 1988), pp. 38-75; Antti Laato, " The Levitical Genealogies in 1 Chronicles 5$6 and the Formation of Levitical Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 JURGENS Reassessing the Dream-Vision of the Vision of Amram 11 Finally, the introduction contains an identiÞcation of the chronological context. First, Amram!s exhibition of his words to his sons is said to occur "on the day of his death! (@]¥æ æBN„ LBF< „ , 4Q545 frg. 1a i.2). Unlike the deathbed speeches seen in biblical farewell discourses (cf. Gen. 47.29$50.14) and later testamentary literature (T. Job 1.2$7; T. Reub. 1.1-5; T. Sim. 1.1-2), the mention of the patriarch!s death does not transition the introduction into ailing Amram!s Þnal words to his sons.17 Rather, the phrase "on the day of his death! serves as a temporal marker that is then expanded into greater detail: "in the year one hundred thirty-six, (this) is the year of his death; in the year one hundred Þfty-two of the exile of Israel in Egypt! (OF¥J¥B @:N ¥P[<æ J:Y[[F ]¥æ [B]J=J OF¥Y¥B OF[ND æB @:N æ ¥ æP[æ <æ @¥BN æ F> :¥P[„ [ :]F„ @ ¥[B OFYWNJ, 4Q545 frg. 1a i.2-3). Though the day of Amram!s death may serve as a temporal marker of the occurrence of his words, the text does not indicate that he is in poor health or bed-ridden, nor that he is aware of his impending death.18 What seems just as important as the d a y o f A m r a m !s d eat h is its p ro x i m it y to th e J: Y[F ¥B J=, a d etail w h ic h Ideology in P ost-Exile Judah! , JSOT 62 (1994), pp. 77-99; Y. Leven, "Understanding Biblical Genealogies! , CurBS 9 (2001), pp. 11-46. 17. Drawnel, (" The Initial Narrative of the Visions of Amram! , pp. 532-33) claims that the chronological details of the introduction do not suggest that the patriarch is " ailing or close to death! , especially considering that the following narrative concerns the marriage feast of Uzziel and Miriam. This contrasts most of the Testamentary literature, which is often deÞned by the fact that the words of their dying protagonists are intended to be their Þnal impartation to their kin. For more on this, see Eckhard von Nordheim, Die Lehre Der Alten. Das Testament als Literaturgattung im Judentum der Hellenistch-Romaischen Zeit (Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des Hellenestischen Judentums; Leiden: Brill, 1980), I; A.B. Kolenkow " The Genre Testament and Forecasts of the Future in the Hellenistic Jewish Milieu! , JSJ 6 (1974), pp. 57-71. 18. Within the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the introduction to the Testament of Levi (1.1-2) seems to have some similarities to the Vision of Amram, insofar as: (1) Levi is in " good health! , and (2) the Þrst line reads " a copy of the words of Levi! . However, unlike the Vision of Amram, the Testament of Levi states that "it had been revealed to him [i.e. Levi] that he was about to die! (T. Levi 1.2). Moreover, the conclusion of the testament notes that, after providing his instruction, "he stretched out his feet on his bed and was gathered to his fathers, having lived a hundred and thirty-seven years! (T. Levi 19.4), a deathbed detail missing from the Vision of Amram (though the reason behind this may be the fragmentary state of the text). A similar formula regarding the words of a patriarch during the " year of their death! can be found in Jub. 22.1. Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 12 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 24.1 (2014) is again brought into the forefront at a later point of the composition and is seemingly ignored in depictions of Amram!s forefathers in later literature.19 By way of summary, the elements which appear most prominent in the introductory lines are arguably (1) the "showing! and "commanding! of the instruction and visionary account of Amram to his sons, as transmitted by the scribe in the O=[YU of Amram!s words; (2) the identiÞcation of the initial author as "Amram son of Qahat son of Levi!; and (3) the temporal location of Amram!s words in regards to the exile of Israel in Egypt. T hese details seem to emphasize Amram!s relationship to his ancestral predecessors and descendants temporally (as the last generation of patriarchs to reside in Egypt), genealogically (as a direct descendent of Levi), and as a link in the chain of imparted wisdom passed-down the genealogical pedigree.20 19. This relationship to the " exile! is again mentioned during the episode where Amram is unable to return to Egypt from the burial of his ancestors and must remain in Canaan for 41 years (4Q544 frg. 1.6). The role of the Egyptian enslavement as the primary temporal marker differs signiÞcantly from the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, which instead focus on the death of Joseph as their primary chronological reference point (cf. T. Reub. 1.2; T. Sim. 1.1), though even this is an inconsistent feature of the Testaments. Of further interest is the year of Amram! s death (136), which differs from the Masoretic text which states: ¥ :¬ Njı LF ¢x ß ¢j ı R <¬ ¢© LY® N¬ı S F ­p D¬ F ­P¢j ı @ ®P¢® (" And the years of the life of A mra m were one hundred thirty-seven years! , Exod. 6.20). Regarding the age of Amra m, the Vision of Amram is in agreement with the Samaritan P entateuch, as well as with multiple texts and minuscules of the LXX. 20. A number of texts mention the importance of the passing down of wisdom and instruction through the Levitical line. For example, Jub. 47.9 notes that Amram taught Moses how to write, as opposed to his Egyptian wards (cf. Acts 7.22; P hilo, Mos. 1.23-24; Ezek. Trag., Ezag. 36$38). In the Admonitions of Qahat (4Q542) the father of Amra m beseeches his sons to avoid intermingling and giving up their inheritance to strangers and foreigners (4Q542 frg. 1 i.4-10). He proceeds in the next fragment to offer Amra m " all my writings as a testimony! (B>@[< F<¥H J BH, frg. 1 ii.12), an inheritance for Amram along with " truth, good deeds, honesty, perfection, purity, holiness, and the priesthood! (:¥ „P[B ]@HB „ :[> æB [XB :¥B]H>B „ :¥BNFN¥B :¥BYF[FB :¥X>WB :E[BX, frg. 1 i.12-13). In the same fashion, the Aramaic Levi Document places an emphasis in Levi! s prayer on God granting him " counsel and wisdom and knowledge and strength! (ALD 3.6), which he incidentally passes on to his son, Qahat (10.3, 10-12), as well as his grandson, Amra m (11.5-7). Moreover, it is Jacob who, after discovering that Levi was to inherit the priesthood, consecrates him and dons him in the priestly vestments before Isaac comes to instruct Levi in the law of the priesthood (:¥BP@H OF> F¥F :UJ:J B, ALD 5.8). For more on the didactic content of these texts, see Henryk Drawnel, " The Literary Form and Didactic Content of the Admonitions ( Testament) of Qahat! , in Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 JURGENS Reassessing the Dream-Vision of the Vision of Amram 13 2. Marriage of Uzziel and Miriam (4Q543 frg. 1a-c.4!7; 4Q545 frg. 1a i.4!7; 4Q546 frg. 1.3-4) Directly following the introduction, the text offers a short narrative that describes the marriage of Amram!s daughter, Miriam, to his brother Uzziel: „L[F ] æYNJ æ @J <[Q:B ]:YFRC F@BD: J:FCBRJ :YX„B [DJ[B F@ ]æBJR Y „<R„ æT:æ æB F¥[:B JH:B O æF [NBF ]@ R<[ „ @¥B¥[N ><RB OFP[ OF¥J¥ ¥Y< @¥P:J @¥Y< æ F>DB @¥B¥[N< And also it came upon him to send and call for Uzziel, his youngest brother, and gave to him Miriam, his daughter, as his woman when she was thirty years old. And he made a wedding feast lasting seven days and he ate and drank during the feast, and he rejoiced. (4Q545 frg. 1a i.4$7)21 M o st i n t er esti n g a b o u t th is w e d d in g f e ast i s its d e v iat io n f ro m all o th e r traditions concerning the identity of Miriam!s husband. Josephus, in his Antiquities, writes that Miriam was the wife of Hur (cf. Exod. 31.2), whose grandson Bezalel was the builder of the T abernacle (Ant. 3.105). In Exodus Rabbah (1.17), Miriam is identiÞed with Ephrath, Caleb!s second wife and the mother of Hur (cf. 1 Chron. 2.19). Unlike both of these accounts, which portray Miriam marrying men from the tribes of Judah, the account in the Vision of Amram depicts Miriam as being given away by Amram to her uncle (and his brother) Uzziel. The rationale behind the author!s depiction of Uzziel and Miram!s endogamous marriage is not stated within the text, though the deviation certainly seems deliberate on the part of the author. The usage of the aphel of the verb <QP in reference to Amram!s presentation of Miriam to Uzziel implies that this marriage was arranged and initiated F. García Martínez, A. Steudel and E. Tigchelaar (eds.), From 4QMMT to Resurrection: Mélanges qumraniens en homage à Émile Puech (STDJ, 61; Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp. 62-70. 21. In Jub. 22, Abraham is stated to be in the year of his death, which is immediately followed by the arrival of Ishmael and Isaac to celebrate the festival of Þrstfruits (22.1), and is subsequently proceeded by Abraham eating and drinking (vv. 5-6) and offering a prayer of thankfulness to God (vv. 7-10). After this, Abraham summons Jacob and imparts him a blessing and instruction (vv. 11-30). This follows the same general narratival pattern seen here: Amram is stated to be on the day of his death (4Q545 frg. 1a i.2), which is followed by the description of the wedding feast. In the proceeding section, Amram will summon Aaron to call his brother (4Q545 frg. 1a i.8-9), which is followed by Amram! s instruction. Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 14 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 24.1 (2014) by Amram himself, and suggests that Amram personally selected Uzziel as Mirian!s spouse.22 For what reason did the author of the Vision of Amram portray Amram as giving his daughter away to his brother? A number of texts either depicting or encouraging endogamous or unmixed marriages appear in both the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Gen. 24.3-4; 28.1-2; Ezek. 44.22; Ezra 9.1-4) and in Second T emple literature (e.g. T ob. 1.9; 4.12-13; 6.10-13, 16-18; Jub. 21.19-23; 23.17-23; 30-32, 34)23 though the marriage between an uncle and his niece would be considered incestuous in most cases.24 Moreover, it is difÞcult to discern just how extant endogamous and unmixed marriages were among the majority of the common Jewish people, even following the post-exilic reform period. Unlike the common sphere, the practice of endogamous relationships within priestly circles bears substantially more documentation following the post-exilic period, though once again we are restricted from making overgeneralized assumptions, such as whether endogamous marriages were extant among all priests, or simply among those contending for the position of high priest.25 In both 22. Similar uses of the aphel of <QP include Targum NeoÞti Gen. 34.12 ( FJR OB=Q: @¥:J @¥F<Y ¥F FJ B<Q:B FJ OBYN:¥ F> @N GF@ O¥:B @<B¥HB OYU :>DJ ) and Levi 19.29 (:J BPC> OFP< :RY: FJN¥¥B @RY: FPC¥ :J > OB@¥F @<QNJ ON OBH¥P< ¥F ÈB@[¥). 23. As pertaining to the intermarriage of priests, see esp. Ezra 10.18-44; Neh. 13.23-29. For more on the role of marriage in the third century BCE and, in particular, the book of Tobit, see Geoffrey David Miller, Marriage in the Book of Tobit (Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011), and Christian Frevel, "% Separate Yourself from the Gentiles& (Jubilees 22:16): Intermarriage in the Book of Jubilees! , in Christian Frevel (ed.), Mixed Marriages: Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Temple Period (LHBOTS, 547; London: T'T Clark International, 2011), pp. 220-50. 24. Marriages between close family me mbers, such as uncles with nieces and aunts with nephews, are forbidden in Lev. 18.12-14 (cf. 20.19), a verdict which is also followed in a number of the Dead Sea Scrolls (cf. CD 5.8-10; 11Q19 66.11-17; 4Q251 17). See Goldman " The Burial of the Fathers! , pp. 239-41; Cecilia Wassen, Women in the Damascus Document (SBL Academia Biblica, 21; Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp. 12022. 25. One might recall the episode where Eleazar the P harisee called to question the genealogical purity of John Hyrcanus I (Josephus, Ant. 13.291) or Caiaphas the High P riest, whose wife was the daughter of Annas, the previous high priest (John 18.13) as relatively concrete examples of priestly endogamous practice (see also the example of High P riest Mattaiah ben Theophilus; Ant. 17.164). Josephus mentions that it was imperative for a priest to have a ßawless marriage in order to maintain his ofÞce (e.g. Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 JURGENS Reassessing the Dream-Vision of the Vision of Amram 15 situations, the arrangement of endogamous marriages amongst priestly families would have sociologically functioned as a catalyst for establishing solidarity and cohesiveness within the priestly circle while simultaneously perpetuating group exclusivity and distinctiveness. Endogamous relationships would have maintained the power structures possessed by the priestly families, insofar as no outsiders would be able to gain access into the group via marital relations. However, preservation of power was not the only rationale behind endogamous marriage within priestly circles; endogamous marriages also served as a genealogical safeguard, preventing impure and improper individuals from grafting themselves into the priestly line while providing priests with the means to guarantee that their sons would be able to receive their priestly inheritance.26 A genealogy consisting of endogamous relationships would allow priests to trace back their ancestral heritage m u ltip l e g en e rati o n s, est a b lish i n g t h eir ri g h t t o th e p ri estl y in h eri tan c e, without having to debate over foreign disruptions to one!s family tree or create situations where one!s priestly inheritance could be rendered skeptically in light of a distant relative with susceptible credentials.27 Ant. 3.277; Ag. Ap. 1.31), though Philo bears the understanding that such regulations were usually restricted to those seeking the ofÞce of the High P riest (Special Laws 1.110). For more on the role of endogamy during the Second Temple period, see Michael L. Satlow, Jewish Marriages in Antiquity (P rinceton: P rinceton P rinceton University P ress, 2001), pp. 133-61; Siaglit Ben-Zion, A Roadmap to the Heavens: An Anthropological Study of Hegemony Among Priests, Sages, and Laymen (Boston: Academic Studies P ress, 2009); Shaye J.D. Cohen " From the Bible to the Talmud: The P rohibition of Intermarriage! , Hebrew Annual Review 7 (1983), pp. 23-39; Martha Himmel farb, A Kingdom of Priests: Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism (P hiladelphia: University of P ennsylvania P ress, 2006), pp. 25-28. 26. This concern for genealogical purity within the priestly line has been argued by some to be the underlying conßict behind 1 En. 6$16. See especially David Suter, " Fallen Angel, Fallen P riest! . 27. As Siaglit Ben-Zion writes, " The group of the P riest (especially the High P riest) had an interest in preserving these rules in order to maintain power and economic privileges: strict observance of the regulations of marriage and the practice of endogamy enabled the P riests to keep their family attribution blameless and consequently allowed them % free entrance& into the cultic sphere* In other words, the strict rules of marriage and the practice of endogamy were % tools& by which the group of P riests could establish its claim to superiority over other groups by refusing to give their women to men from another class or even to members of their own group! (A Roadmap to the Heavens, p. 73). Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 16 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 24.1 (2014) Returning to the Vision of Amram, it would thus appear that the arranged marriage of Miriam to Uzziel by Amram serves a number of functions within the text. First, the endogamous marriage of Uzziel and Miriam acts as a genealogical safeguard, guaranteeing that their children will be worthy of receiving the priestly inheritance. Second, this endogamous marriage avoids integrating an unworthy bloodline into the priestly circle. Finally, Amram!s hand in the arrangement of Uzziel and Miriam!s marriage exhibits his own dedication to the principle of endogamous marriages within the Levitical circle, a dedication which reappears on the part of Amram later in the text. 3. The Calling of Moses/Aaron and the Words of Amram (4Q543 frg. 2a!b; 4Q545 frg. 1a i.7!ii.9) At the conclusion of the seven-day wedding feast, Amram sends for his son, Aaron (@Y<J OBY@:J :YX DJ[, 4Q545 frg. 1a i.8) and instructs Aaron to "call for me my son, Malakiyah, your brother, from the house of [! ( ]¥F< ON @æ Hæ „BD: @FH:JNJ FY<æ æFJ FYX, 4Q545 frg. 1a i.9).28 While previous translators commonly treated the word @FH:JNJ as a reference to "the messengers!, the proposal of Robert Duke that this is actually a reference to the Hebrew name of Moses seems much more plausible.29 As he states, it would be extremely odd if the person of 28. The word @HBD: is extremely difÞcult to render, due to the poor condition of the manuscript of 4Q545. P uech reads the word as OBHFD:, which may also be plausible, though P AM 43.566 shows that the space following the waw or proposed yodh seems more suited for two consonants than three, especially as there is no evidence supporting the appearance of a Þnal nun, as the long tail of the Þnal form leaves no visible trace in the images, though this may be the result of fading. 29. Robert Duke, " Moses! Hebrew Name: The Evidence of the Visions of Amram! , DSD 14 (2007), pp. 34-48. P uech (DJD, XXXI, p. 335) translates @FH:J NJ as "les messagers! , arguing that it is a plural noun with the emphatic @ sufÞx. Much of the reasoning behind P uech! s translation seems to draw from Milik! s restorations of the word :YFR in the text (4Q544 frg. 2.2; 4Q546 frg. 2.1), which suggest that the Watchers play some sort of role within the Vision of Amram (" Visions de "Amram! , p. 83). While earlier scholars, such as Kobelski, accepted Milik!s suggestion (Melchizedek and Melchire"a@, pp. 27ff.; see also P uech, DJD, XXXI, pp. 327ff.) the lack of feasible textual evidence supporting such a reconstruction has been questioned by a number of individuals, including Davidson, Angels at Qumran, pp. 265-66, and Frey, " Different P atterns of Dualistic Thought! , p. 320 n. 175. Since the publication of his article, Duke! s proposal that the word is actually Moses! Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 JURGENS Reassessing the Dream-Vision of the Vision of Amram 17 Moses was excluded from a manuscript where his father (Amram), brother (Aaron), and sister (Miriam) were all included. Moreover, a number of Jewish texts support the identiÞcation of Moses as "a messenger of @F! both implicitly (cf. 4Q377 frg. 2 ii 10-11; Philo, Moses 2.2-3) and explicitly (Pseudo-Philo 9.16; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata I.23.1; Book of the Bee 29).30 While previous interpreters could assume that the subject of Amram!s commands (@P: >X[UN, 4Q545 frg. 1a i.11) was deÞnitely Aaron,31 the inclusion of Moses! apparent Hebrew name requires one to address who exactly Amram is speaking to. The fragmentary nature of Amram!s exhortation, along with no explicit mention of the speech!s recipient, obscures even further whether Moses or Aaron is being instructed by Amram.32 The text reads as follows: @B@¥ J : [YFD< ...] GJ TQB@ [...] @NHD GJ O¥PB OFNJ R „F „Y>æ [...] GJ O¥PB GYNN[...] JHJ GN[ @J O@æB [...]¥ OFQ[D] O F>B :> :RY:< ><R¥ [...] DYX¥¥ J : G:J NB [...] Y[Hæ [¥ ...] ><¥R @< [... OF]NJ R FY> J [H ...]N Hebrew name has been accepted by most, including Goldman, "Dualism in the Visions of Amram! and Drawnel, " The Initial Narrative of the Visions of Amram! . Duke also ventures to restore 4Q545 frg. 1 i.9-10 as @RYU ]¥F< ON, " from the house [of P haraoh! , as being the location where Aaron is to Þnd @FH:J N (cf. P uech, DJD, XXXI, p. 334: [? ] :PB<:] ¥F< ON). 30. More examples can be found in Duke, The Social Location of the Visions of Amram, pp. 69-79. The most signiÞcant weakness to Duke! s theory is the fact that nowhere else in the Vision of Amram is the name of Moses mentioned outside his proposed Hebrew name, at least not without signiÞcant reconstruction (though note P uech!s reading of 4Q546 frg. 10.3: @][æ „B N„ F@B Dæ [:; DJD, XXXI, p. 363). 31. Cf. C.H.T. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ, 42; Leiden: Brill, 2002), pp. 187-92, esp. n. 106. Written prior to Duke!s work on the naming of Moses, Fletcher-Louis interprets this section of the Vision of Amram, along with 4Q541 (4QApocryphon of Levi b) frg. 9, which he names " 4QAaron A! , as examples of the divinization of the priestly Aaron. Ironically, Fletcher-Louis admits that there is "scriptural warrant! for Moses as being god-like in the Hebrew Bible and seems to reject such an interpretation of Vision of Amram solely because of the fact that " Moses is never mentioned in the extant form o f the text! . 32. It was Milik ("4Q Visions de "Amram! , p. 94) who Þrst understood this fragment as being part of " un discourse d! Amram à Aaron! . P uech (DJD, XXXI, pp. 295-96) followed Milik! s lead here, suggesting that in Amram! s speech " Aaron assimile les prêtres aux anges, dans la linge de Melkîsédeq grand-prêtre du sanctuaire celeste! . This is surprising since nowhere in the text is there any concrete evidence which suggests that the speech is speciÞcally addressed to Aaron. Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 18 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 24.1 (2014) [*]your word. And he gave to you [*] eternal generations. And he gave to you wisdom [*] he added to you [*chosen] of God you will be and you shall be called a messenger of God [*] you will do in this land. And mighty judgment you shall [*] And if to it is your name to all m[*a]ll the eter[nal] generations [*] in it you shall do [*you] shall be made right [*] (4Q543 frg. 2a-b; 4Q545frg. 1a i.14-18) After a brief foray into the meaning of the word G:JN and its function as a term for prophets and priests in the Hebrew Bible, Duke notes that the vocabulary of the above text, along with the use of the term J: G:JN, sugge sts that Amram!s speech is directed towards Moses, describing "his later role as the mediator of the covenant between God and his people!.33 Whether the use of the term G:JN assumes that Moses is foreseen to be an angelic messenger or a strictly human messenger (cf. Hag. 1.13; Isa. 44.26; 2 Chron. 36.15; Mal. 2.7) is unable to be discerned due to the poor condition of the manuscripts. What is recognizable is Amram!s instruction to Moses, revealing to him his special role as a recipient of God!s wisdom (@NHD GJ O¥PB, 4Q543 frg. 2a-b.2) and favor (@B@¥ J: [YFD< , line 4), as well as one who enacts "strong judgment! in the foreseeable future (]¥æ OFQDæ OF>B, line 5).34 4. Amram#s 41 Years in Canaan (4Q543 frgs. 3-4; 4Q544 frg. 1.1!9; 4Q545 frg. 1a-b ii.9-19; 4Q546 frg. 2; 4Q547 frgs. 1-2.1!9) Not only does Amram procure an endogamous marriage for Miriam, but as it appears later in the narrative, Amram himself is also engaged 33. Duke, " Moses! Hebrew Name! , p. 43. Joseph Angel, in the same vein as Milik an d Pu ech, un d ers t an ds Aaro n to b e th e to pi c o f th is sp eech, m os tl y d u e to th e m ent io n of the sacriÞcial cult in other fragments in the Vision of Amram and the appearance of priestly ordination traditions found in the Aramaic Levi Document and Jub. 30$32, suggesting that "Aaron is most likely the one who % will be called an angel of God&! (Otherworldly and Eschatological Priesthood in the Dead Sea Scrolls [STDJ, 86; Leiden: Brill, 2010], p. 55). Unfortunately, Angel seems ignorant of Duke! s 2004 publication on the name @FH:J N and it cannot be discerned whether or not such evidence would persuade him otherwise, though he does note of Moses! divine portrayal in Exod. 4.16 and admits that the text could " just as well be applied to Moses! . 34. P uech (DJD, XXXI, p. 296) suggests restoring either the word ><R ]¥ or @B@]¥ to the end of 4Q543 frg. 2a-b.5, either of which seems quite probable. Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 JURGENS Reassessing the Dream-Vision of the Vision of Amram 19 in an endogamous relationship with Jochebed, his aunt.35 This relationship is mentioned in the context of the quest of Amram and his kinsmen to bury their relatives, an account found in all Þve manuscripts. Though lacking some details, the portrayal of the burial describes the voyage of Amram and his entourage, which includes his father Qahat (¥@X F<:), many of his cousins (F>> FP< ON OF:F=[), and servants (:P¥>F<R) to their native land of Canaan. The particular individuals who are being burie d by this group (OF¥N, lit. "the dead ones!), as well as the exact location of the burial, are not explicitly indicated in the fragmentary text, though it can be inferred on the basis of the parallel episode in Jubilees 46$47 that the deceased intended for burial are the children of Jacob and that the location of the burial is Hebron.36 It is 35. Cf. Exod 2.1: FßBJ­ ¼¥ b¼¥ ¬ :© D~߬ pB¬ F Bß ­J ¥F ­bNß ¢F :ß s ©J­pB.¬ The phrase FBJ¼¥< could be interpreted as meaning that Jochebed was an actual daughter of Levi (i.e. Amram! s aunt) or that she was a descendent of Levi (i.e. from the tribe of Levi). The former interpretation is accepted by the Aramaic Levi Document (ALD 11.10: :¥Y< FJ ¥>FJFB ><HBF :@N[ F¥FB[B, "And she [Levi!s wife, Melcha] conceived and bore for me a daughter. And I named her Jochebed! ) while the latter seems to be assumed by the LXX of Exod. 2.1: fä Ùｻ ì Þë $à ì 6ë îíá6ë -ÚíÞ, Xë %áÕÖÚä ì wä Ýí Õì ｻéñä -ÚíÞ àÕO %êïÚä Õ]ì ｼä (" There was someone out of the tribe of Levi who took from the daughters of Levi and married her! ). A similar interpretive move is made in the LXX! s translation of Exod. 6.20 (@ƒ® :ß Jı kJ k¥>f ® > <© ©HkF¼¥ :© LY® Nı S¬ D~߬ pB,¬ " And Amram took Jochebed, his aunt, to be his woman! ; ctr. LXX: àÕO %áÕÖÚä =ãÖéüä ì5ä ʼñïｺÖÚÙ Ýí ÕìｻéÕ ìçj òÙÚáîçj ìçj è Õì éZë Õ]ì çj 'Õíì､ ÚCë íä ÕPàÕ, "And Amram took Jochebed, the daughter of the brother of his father to [be] his woman! ). Moreover, unlike the MT, the LXX avoids a direct translation of the word @>f ® (" aunt! , cf. Levi 18.14; 20.20) and instead renders the phrase as Ýí ÕìｻéÕ ì çj òÙÚáîçj ìçj èÕì éZë Õ]ìçj, "daughter of the brother of his father! . It appears the translators of the LXX (at least this section of Exodus) seemed uncomfortable with the marriage of Amra m and Jochebed and attempted to obscure the direct fa milial relation between them (c f. Demetrius in Dem. Chron. 2.19). For an exa mple where both the LXX and MT re fer to Jochebed as a "daughter of Levi! , see Num. 26.59. 36. Cf. Jub. 46.9-10; T. Sim. 8.1; T. Benj. 12.3. All three accounts associate the burial of the children of Jacob (sans Joseph) with an Egyptian/Canaanite military conßict, as well as the location as being in Hebron and the Cave of Machpelah in particular. While there seems to be no reason to speculate against the identiÞcation of Jacob! s children as those being buried in the Vision of Amram, the identiÞcation of the location of burial as Hebron is more contentious. P uech, with Jubilees in mind, reconstructed Hebron as the burial location (DJD, XXXI, p. 285). Milik, who held that the Vision of Amram was of a Samaritan Sitz im Leben, suggested that the burial may have taken place in Shechem; a plausible suggestion considering (1) all of Jacob! s children (including Joseph) would be buried in one place (cf. Josh. 24.32; Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 20 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 24.1 (2014) w h il e b u ild i n g t h e to m b s o f th ei r an c esto rs t h at th e d el eg ati o n is fo r ce d to evacuate Hebron in order to avoid the impending military conßict between the Egyptians and the Canaanites, leaving Amram, the head of the delegation,37 with the responsibility of completing the party!s intended affairs in the land of Canaan (@P<NJB[ ¥]@X F<: FPBX<[B ORPH RY: ON OB@FHYW JH OB@J <QNJB, 4Q546 frg. 2.3$4; 4Q545 frg. 1a-b ii.18).38 Unfortunately for Amram, the victory of Canaan and Philistia Acts 7.14-16); and (2) all the children of Jacob would coincidently be buried in Samaritan territory (" Écrits P réesséniens De Qumrân: D!hénoch à Amram! , in M. Delcor [ed.], Qumrân: Sa Piéte, Sa Théologie Et Son Milieu [Leuven: University P ress, 1978], p. 106). Robert Duke, in line with his theory that the Vision of Amram is the product of disenfranchised priests living in Hebron, agrees with Puech, though he is hesitant in his text and translation to make the corresponding textual reconstructions (The Social Location of the Visions of Amram, p. 105). 37. Cf. 4Q546 frg. 2.1: F¥ ]B[Y< F[FY ¥P[[< . Amra m! s authoritative role seems to suggest that in the Vision of Amram he is acting as the patriarchal head. Liora Goldman goes so far as to parallel the interment of Jacob in Gen. 50.1-14 with the burial episode in the Vision of Amram, juxtaposing the authoritative role of Joseph with the role of Amra m and suggesting that Amram and the Levitical line here replace the line of Joseph. In this way, the signiÞcance of Amra m entails that he "becomes a key link in the Levitical dynasty and a central Þgure in his own right! (" The Burial of the Fathers! , p. 245). A similar proposal is suggest by Betsy Halpern-Amaru, " Burying the Fathers: Exegetical Strategies and Source Traditions in Jubilees 46! , in E.G. Chazon, D. Dimant, and R.A. Clements (eds.), Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran: Proceedings of a Joint Symposium by the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature and the Hebrew University Institute for Advanced Studies Research Group on Qumran, 15!17 January, 2002 (STDJ, 58; Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp. 132-52. While I agree with Goldman that the Vision of Amram accentuates the role of the Levitical priesthood, I Þnd her analogy with Joseph slightly unsubstantiated. 38. This text is a composite of 4Q545 frg. 1a$b ii.17-18 and 4Q546 frg. 2.3-4. Duke (The Social Location of the Visions of Amram, pp. 16-17) ends the line with the phrase OF]YW[N]J ORPH RY: ON, " fro m the land of Canaan to E[g]yp[t! . P uech reconstructs the phrase OBY<D< :PYNRB ]ORPH RY: ON, " depuis le pays de Canaan[. Et nous restâmes à Hébron! (DJD, XXXI, pp. 338-39), whereas Klaus Beyer adds the phrase " aus dem Lande Kanaan zu nehmen [und um zu bleiben! to his translation (Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer: Band 2 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck ' Ruprecht, 2004], p. 120). Puech also takes the liberty to reconstruct the phrase ¥ ]@X F<: FPBX<[B [LXNJ ><HBF F¥P:B , " et [me] laissérent [mon père, Qahat, et me fe mme, Yôkabed, m! installer]! . The latter reconstruction of P uech is rather odd, as it seems to assume that Jochebed accompanied the burial party. Nothing in the text suggests such a reading, which would contradict the fact that Amra m was separated from his wife for 41 years. Moreover, it seems that the word OB@FHYW, " their needs, their wantings! , does Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 JURGENS Reassessing the Dream-Vision of the Vision of Amram 21 over the Egyptians renders the Egyptian border unable to be crossed and leaves him stranded in Canaan apart from his father and Jochebed for 41 years (4Q544 1.4-6).39 Of particular interest in this episode is its emphasis on Amram!s Þdelity to Jochebed during the period of their separation. Unlike the narrative found in Jubilees 46$47, the Egyptian$Canaanite conßict does not function as the primary reason behind the delay of Joseph!s interment, nor does it act as an explanation for the potential military hostility on the part of the people of Israel (cf. Exod. 1.10). Rather, the mention of the war in the Vision of Amram seems to function as a situation that exhibits Amram!s faithful adherence to his endogamous marriage. It is out of desire to remain faithful to Jochebed that Amram does not take another wife from among the women of Canaan ( ¥æ æ<Q „P [:J FJ FY]D: „ @¥P: @P:„ [B, 4Q544 frg. 1.8). This faithfulness is also exhibited on the part of Jochebed, who appears to attempt (albeit, unsuccessfully) to depart Egypt to be with her husband.40 Incidentally, because of his sojourn in Canaan, Amram and Jochebed are unable to bear children until Amram is far along in age, being 106 at the birth of his Þrst child, Miriam, and 116 and 119 at the births of Aaron and Moses respectively.41 not refer to Amram supplying relief for the physical needs of Qahat and the others, which most translations seem to insinuate, as that would suggest that Amram is expected to travel back to Egypt to fulÞll these needs, a deed which becomes obstructed by the 41-year siege of the Egyptian border. It seems more plausible to translate the inÞnitive <QNJ as " to take up, to accept! , similar to the Hebrew verb :[P, which would yield the translation "And Qahat, my father [and*] left me [*] to build and to take up for them all their intentions (OB@FHYW) from the land of Canaan! , afÞr ming that Amram! s extended residence in Canaan is the result of allowing his father to travel back to Egypt while he completed their intended task. 39. Note that in the account of the burial of Jacob!s children in Jubilees the length of Amra m! s stay in Hebron lasted 40 years rather than 41 years. For a list of other discrepancies between the two accounts, as well as a discussion of how these two traditions relate to one another chronologically, see J.C. VanderKam " Jubilees 46:6$ 47:1 and 4QVisions of Amram! , DSD 17 (2010), pp. 141-58. 40. 4Q544 frg. 1.5; 4Q547 frgs. 1$2.4. Puech reconstructs the text ]Y[U: F¥F: :J B ORPHJ OFYWN ON ]@¥:¥ [ F> Y<HBF F¥¥P:J , " et il ne fut plus possible[ pour ma fe mme Yôkabed qu! elle (re)vint (d! Égypte) en Canaan! . A more suitable translation would be "And there was no possibility [for my wife, Jochebed, that ]she might come[ fro m Egypt to Canaan! . 41. One issue with this chronological scheme is the fact that it deviates from other genealogical timefra mes. In particular, both Jubilees and the Testament of Benjamin Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 22 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 24.1 (2014) Thus it appears that the Vision of Amram contains two episodes that highlight the importance of an endogamous marriage#the marriage of Miriam to Uzziel and Amram!s marriage to Jochebed. In many ways, it seems that the author has intentionally placed these relationships in the forefront in order to emphasize the importance of Amram!s adherence to the principle of endogamous relationships and, in turn, to maintain a pure Levitical line both in his marriage to Jochebed and in the procreation of their descendants.42 5. The Vision of Amram (4Q543 frgs. 5!9; 4Q544 frg. 1; 4Q547 frg. 2) It is while Amram awaits the opening of the Egyptian border, in order travel back from Canaan, that he experiences a dream-vision depict the burial of Jacob! s brothers as occurring 91 years after Jacob! s entrance into Egypt. If the Vision of Amram also held this 91-year period, it would follow that Miriam would be born out of wedlock while Amram was stranded in Hebron. To avoid this grave controversy, the Vision of Amram ignores this 91-year period and instead appears to assume that Miriam was bore by Jochebed shortly after his return. In my opinion, the Canaanite$Egyptian war functions primarily in the narrative as a situation exhibiting Amram! s commitment to endogamous marriage and the pure passing down the priestly inheritance, thus neglecting this chronological discrepancy. 42. Not surprisingly, a similar endogamous principle is displayed on the part of Amram! s fa mily elsewhere. In the Admonitions of Qahat, an extensive warning is given (presumably from Qahat to his children) advising the listener to BY@>C: FP< ORHB OBHJ :NJ [@{:}N F> :¥¥BYF< , " And now, my sons, take caution with the inheritance which has been handed over to you! (4Q542 frg. 1 i.4). This warning includes a command to " Take hold of the judgments of Abraham and the righteousness of Levi and of myself. And be h[o]ly and pure from all [ int]ermingling! (L@Y<: FPF>< BUX¥:B < <BY< [YR ]J BH ON OFH>B OF[ 砦 [F ]>X :B@B FJF>B FBJ ¥X>W B , frg. 1 i.8-9) in order that they may give a good name to Levi, Jacob, Isaac and Abraham " for you have kept and passeddown [the] inheritan[ce] which was left to you! ( BX<[ F >æ [ :¥ ]¥BYF æ OB¥HJ F@B OB¥YEP F> OBHJ, frg. 1 i.11-12). A similar move is made in chs. 11$13 of the Aramaic Levi Document, which chronicles the births of Levi! s children and grandchildren prior to Levi imparting wisdom and instruction to his sons. As Henryk Drawnel writes, " this reluctance to go beyond the limits of the tribal fa mily is motivated Þrst by the rejection of the exogamic principle and endorsement of endogamy for priests* [I]n this way, transmission of professional knowledge becomes an important element of creating an identity of a priestly guild that characterizes the professional group and deÞnes its responsibilities in the society to which it belongs but from which it is distinct by virtue of endogamy and education.! See An Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran, pp. 80-81. Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 JURGENS Reassessing the Dream-Vision of the Vision of Amram 23 ( :NJD F> @BCD F„ „BCD< , 4Q544 frg. 1.10) in which two mysterious individuals are arguing over him („FJR OFP:> OFY¥ :@B). 43 Amram soon discovers that the reason for this "great quarrel! (<Y Y=¥ FJR„ OF>D:B, 4Q544 frg. 1.11) between these two beings is actually himself; that is, which of these two beings are to be given authority over him.44 Naturally, Amram is somewhat vexed over both the apparent quarrel as well as the identity of these creatures, seemingly interrupting their argument in order to ask them "who are you, who in this manner are exerting auth[ority (over me)?!45 T he otherworldly beings respond, 43. Interestingly enough, these two Þgures are never identiÞed as being angels, either with the word G:J N or with other similar sobriquets, a detail seemingly ignored by a majority of scholars. Moreover, it does not appear initially clear to Amram just who exactly these two quarreling beings are, as can be inferred by the questions which Amram proceeds to ask the beings. Though I do not wish entirely to cut out the possibility that these Þgures are angelic, it seems just as possible that these Þgures could be any combination of otherworldly or divine beings (e.g. demons, exalted humans, non-humanoid) or even simply a symbolic embodiment of Amra m! s choice particular to his dream-vision. 44. The term <Y Y=¥ is particularly interesting regarding Amram! s position within this angelic quarrel. Puech translates the phrase " contestation (légale), querelle! and notes that it " revient plusieurs fois dans les contrats de Murabba@ât et du Na昭at 昌ever. La ligne continue l!image de la ligne 10 où le verbe OF> évoque déjà un débat juridique! (P uech, DJD, XXXI, p. 325). Kobelski translates the phrase "great contest! and states that it connotes a " legal procedure in which a judgment will be made on the merits of Amram! s life and a claim made on him by one of the spirits! (Melchizedek and Melchire"a@, p. 29). While legalistic language is being utilized in 4Q544 frg. 1.10-11, this does not necessarily indicate a juridical context for these lines. In this sense, I disagree with Kobelski!s assumption that the judgment of the two Þgures is weighing the merits of Amram! s previous deeds, as there is no apparent evidence from within the text which supports such a view. It is not Amram who is being judged, but rather it is Amram who is making the choice between the two beings. Considering this, it would seem that a better translation of the participle OFP:> in line 10 would be " contesting! or " arguing! rather than " judging! . 45. This phrase OFEJ ][N O>H F> ON OB¥P: FJR is somewhat cumbersome to translate. Literally, it reads "you (pl.) who which thus have au[thority over me! . The jest of it seems to be that Amram is questioning just who exactly these beings are who assume their authority over a human in such a manner, though this reading rides on the restoration of FJR OFEJ ][N, which is denied by Duke (The Social Location of the Visions of Amram, p. 20). In Jub. 10.8, Mastema is similarly depicted as having " authority! over humankind represented with the root s-l-啓. Normally, this root is translated as •to be whole, perfect• , though here the word is clearly an example of a Semiticism within the Ethiopic text (cf. 15.31, 32) Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 24 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 24.1 (2014) stating that they are OFEFJ[ (•rulers•) over all of humanity and then beseech Amram to choose between the two of them.46 The next two and a half lines provide a physical description of both extraordinary Þgures, albeit a fragmentary one: OFPR<W @[æB[ <] J [ JBHB ] O¥[ UH ]J º[Dæ @BCD OB@PN >DB ¥FCDB FPFR ¥JEP vacat [...] æGB[D GF[DB [...[B<J ]< @QHNB OHR@ @BFUP:B @BCD< [...]J [...] º æ:@æ æB ¥FCD :PYD:B [...] F@BPFR J [RNB ] @>DJ I raised my eyes and I looked. And one who was from them, his appearance was 巾!ºl[ like a ser]pent [and all] his cl[oth]ing (was) multicolored, and very dark (was) [!] vacat And the other I saw and beheld º[!]l[!] in his appearance. And his face is smiling and he is covered in [clothing!] very much [and abo]ve his eyes[!] (4Q543 frgs. 3"7; 4Q544 frg. 1.13-15) The Þrst of these otherworldly beings is described as being •like a serpent•, though what this entails is difÞcult to discern based upon the condition of the previous word.47 The fabric of the clothing of this being is portrayed as •multi-colored• and something about him is •very dark•.48 In particular, the description of this dark Þgure•s clothing as •multi-colored• is intriguing. T he root 群b@ in most Semitic languages 46. The Aramaic reads @]¥P: :PPN ON< FJ BYN:B in 4Q544 frg. 1.12 (• they said to me, # which of us do yo[u$• ). The parallel text of 4Q547 frgs. 1"2 provides very little assistance in discerning the verb following the second person singular pronoun. In the photograph (P AM 43.567) a beth is somewhat visible, though the rest of the ink is severely faded. Puech restores @R< • to seek• , though he admits that YD<, •to choose• , is also orthographically possible (DJD, XXXI, p. 381). 47. While P uech and Milik both agree on the reconstruction of the word O¥[UH , there is disagreement concerning the previous word. Both Milik and Kobelski restore the previous word as J[F ]D> , though I cannot ascertain from the images what orthographic grounds they had for such a reconstruction (Milik, • 4Q Visions de @Amram• , p. 79; Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchire!a@, p. 30). In contrast to Milik and Kobelski, P uech reads J[D[ (DJD, XXXI, p. 325), which is much more plausible, suggesting that the being is • muer, se dépouiller, changer de peau• . However, it appears in P AM 43.571 that a space is extant between the !in and lamedh which suggests that another consonant should appear between them. The piel form of J[D would be a possible Þt, though it is unclear what it would mean that this Þgure had the appearance of a molting serpent. 48. P uech reconstructs the phrase by inserting B@BUP: at the end of the line, suggesting that the Þrst Þgure• s face bears a dark aura, juxtaposed to the face of the other Þgure, which is described as • smiling• , suggesting a more benevolent quality (DJD, XXXI , p. 326). Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 JURGENS Reassessing the Dream-Vision of the Vision of Amram 25 implies the act of dipping something into a liquid or a viscous substance, usually in the context of dipping textiles into colored dye (cf. Judg. 5.30; Dan. 4.12, 20, 30; 5.21; Luke 7.38 [Peshitta]).49 T he physical description of the other Þgure is even less vivid than that of the previous one, with only the mention of his smiling demeanor ( @BFUP:B OHR@) 50 and something •above his eyes• being legible in the fragmentary text. As can be inferred from the second fragment of 4Q544, it appears that Amram gravitates towards this Þgure, asking him more about the identity of the Þrst, ominous Þgure: 49. The usage of the root R<W to describe dye or dyed-material extends back to the Assyrian (群ibûtum, 群ubâtu) and appears in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac. The only time the noun appears in the Hebrew Bible is at the ending of the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5.30), where it is used in the context of being a spoil of war (LF ßS<® Wı J J¬ ¢ı , • spoil of dyed clothing• ). A verbal form of the word appears four times in Daniel (Dan. 4.12, 20, 30; 5.21), each time in the ithpael describing the covering of something in the •dew of heaven• (Rb¬ E¬ Wßı F :®p N¬ ¢ı J E¬ <j). ı The same verb is used in Targum Onqelos to describe the dipping of Aaron•s Þnger in the blood during his inauguration into the priesthood (Levi 9.9). According to Jastrow, the word is used in So啓ah 22b to describe hypocrites; see Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Bavli, Talmud Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature (London: Luzac & Co.; New York: G.P . Putnum & Sons, 1903), p. 1259. 50. The word OHR@ is particularly vexing and difÞcult to make sense of, especially since the parallel text of 4Q543 frgs. 5"9.7 has the word OBHR@. Milik•s approach was to understand the word a combination of the exclamatory particle :@ with the word OHR, • snake• , thus rendering the line as reading • et son visage était celui d•une vipère• . In this way, Milik considered line 14 as a continuation of line 13 and the description of Melchiresha (• 4QVisions de • Amram• , p. 79). Kobelski accepts Milik•s reading, translating the line • and his face was indeed that of a viper• , but admits that the text is problematic both because of its variant reading in 4Q543 as well as due to the proposed usage of :@. In the end, despite these issues, Kobelski follows Milik, stating that •in any case, the only possibility for OHR@ in this text appears to be # viper$• (Melchizedek and Melchire!a@, pp. 31-32). What makes Milik and Kobelski•s reading difÞcult is the words ¥FCD :PYD:B fro m 4Q543, which Milik and Kobelski take adverbially •And I looked again• . Though this is a possible translation of the phrase, it seems rather unlikely, especially considering the mention in line 13 of the appearance of the Þrst being (@BCD OB@PN >DB, • And one who was from them, his appearance• ). Logically, it follows that the description of the second being would entail mentioning him as the • other• being. For the rationale behind the translation •smiling• , see the work of F. García Martínez, • 4QAmram B I,14: Melki-Resha O Melki-Sedeq?• , RevQ 12 (1985), pp. 111-14. Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 26 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 24.1 (2014) F:YN ¥YN:B R[Y FHJN„B [...] Næ O>@ FJ YN:B :B@ ON O „> [...] GFJR EJ„ [„ [...] EJ[N :B@B @CD @ [...] æ> :B@ @HB[D<B G[ F[] D @><R JHB @H æF [...] [æ :N :YB@P JBH JR EFJ[ @P: :FRY: >R :FJ æR[ N...] @P:B @HB[D JBH JR [...J ] æBHB [!]rule over you[!] who is this one? And he said to me • This one is m[!] and Melki-Resha. And I said, • My lord, what ![!]ykh and every work of his is d[ar]k and in darkness he is d[!]h saw, and he is ruling over all darkness and I[!from] the heights unto the earth I rule over all the light and al[l!] (4Q544 frg. 2) Three details stand out in the second Þgure•s response to Amram•s question. First, a name is given for the Þrst Þgure (R[Y FHJN) which afÞrms his portentous appearance from the previous fragment. Second, the work and dominion of this Melchiresha is portrayed as being dark. T hird, the second Þgure contrasts this dark realm of Melchiresha with his own dominion, that of the light. Though little more can be gleaned from this damaged fragment, it appears that Amram has been confronted by two, oppositional Þgures, both campaigning for Amram to choose them over the other, a choice which is embodied by the distinctive appearances of each Þgure.51 51. Of further emphasis for many scholars concerning the naming of these Þgures is fragment 3 of 4Q544 (cf. 4Q543 frg. 14; 4Q546 frg. 4), in which one of the Þgures (presumably the ruler of the light) answers Amram and mentions O]@N[ @¥J ¥ (• three names• ). This has led a number of individuals to postulate that each of the two Þgures possesses three names, with the other two names of Melchiresha following the mention of him in 4Q544 frg. 2 and the three names of the Þgure of light coming in 4Q544 frg. 3. The general consensus seems to side with the work of P uech, who Þlls the lacunae with the names Belial, the P rince of Darkness (@HB[D Y[), and Melchiresha for the dark Þgure, and the names Michael, the P rince of Light (YB:N Y[), and Melchizedek for the light Þgure (DJD, XXXI, pp. 327-29; cf. the original suggestion of Milik, • 4Q Visions de • Amram• , p. 86). I Þnd this problematic on two levels: Þrst, there is no indication in the text whether the three names apply to both Þgures, Melchiresha, or Melchizedek. The fact that I do not consider the text to be depicting a form of pre-Qumranic dualism supports this claim, as then it would not follow that an exact symmetry of contrast would be necessary. Second, the claims made by most scholars concerning possible restorations of the three names all are orchestrated under the presumption that the dream-vision portrays a dualistic angelology. If Melchizedek does possess three names, it is just as possible that the other two would have been •priest of God Most High• (cf. Gen. 14.18) and • priest eternal• (cf. P s. 110.4). In summation, the mention of • three names• , once separated from its dualistic assumptions, is quite ambiguous. Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 JURGENS Reassessing the Dream-Vision of the Vision of Amram 27 The feature which has been deemed most important by many scholars is the occurrence of the name of this dark Þgure%Melchiresha. The only other instance where this name occurs is in a collection of curses from the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q280 frg. 2), where the author exclaims •Cursed be you, Melchiresha, in all the sch[emes of your guilty inclination• and then beseeches that God •[give you up] to terror at the hand of those who exact vengeance•.52 Considering the oppositional nature of the two beings, a number of scholars have attempted to discern the name(s) of the other Þgure who rules over light based upon the appearance of Melchiresha. Interestingly enough, though arriving there by different routes of rationale, a number of scholars have reached an apparent consensus that the opposing Þgure to R [Y FHJN, the •King of Wickedness•, is none other than X>W FHJN.53 The identiÞcation of Melchizedek as the otherworldly being with the pleasant demeanor who rules over the light does make good sense, especially in the oppositional correspondence shared between the two names.54 T hat being said, it is unfortunate that no one has addressed 52. Hebrew: >F< @BRCJ J : [@HP¥F @H¥N[: YWF ¥B<[]DN J BH< R[Y FHJN @¥: YB [Y: LXP FNXBP (4Q280 frg. 2.2-3). Milik• s original rumination of the three names of the two Þgures is based in part on his reading of this text alongside the similar curses found in 1QS ii, leading him to propose that the other names of Melchiresha were the P rince of Darkness and Belial (•4Q Visions de • Amram• , pp. 85-86). 53. Some of the scholars who comprise this consensus include: J.T. Milik, • Milkî醸edeq et Milkî-re'a@ dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens• , JJS 23 (1972), pp. 95144; García Martínez, •4Q Amram B I,14: Melki-Resha O Melki-Sedeq• ; Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchire!a@, p. 36; Puech, DJD, XXXI, pp. 328-29, and La Croyance des Esséniens en la Vie Future: Immortalité, Résurrection, Vie Éternelle? (Ebib, 21; P aris: Gabalda, 1993), p. 536; Eric F. Mason, You Are a Priest Forever: Second Temple Jewish Messianism and the Priestly Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (STDJ, 74; Leiden: Brill, 2008), pp. 167-68. Note also the unique proof presented by Marc P hilonenko (• Melkiresah et Melkira: Note sur les # Visions de Amram$ • , Semitica XLI"XLII [1993], pp. 159-62), who proposes that the two names Melchizedek and Melchiresha are derived from Gen. 14. SpeciÞcally, Philonenko argues that the name Melchiresha is to be associated with wicked King Birsha of Gomorrah in Gen. 14.2, noting that his name ( R[Y<, • in/with wickedness• ) may have served as the etymological inspiration for the Þgure of Melchiresha (R[Y FHJ N, •king of wickedness• ). 54. The roots R[Y and X>W o ften function as antonyms both in Aramaic (e.g. The Words of Ahiqar) as well as in the Hebrew (e.g. P rov. 10.2; 12.3; Eccl. 7.25; 8.8). See K.H. Richards, • A Form and Traditio-historical Study of r!@• (P h.D. diss.; Claremont, 1970). Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 28 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 24.1 (2014) what the identiÞcation of Melchizedek as the oppositional Þgure to Melchiresha entails for the interpretation of the dream-vision. If Melchizedek really is the Þgure opposing Melchiresha in the quarrel over Amram, then the question arises how this affects the way we understand this vision. It seems rather ignorant to assume that the names •Melchizedek• and •Melchiresha• are simply token monikers which were used by the author solely to emphasize a particular dualistic conception of the angelic realm, especially considering that the pair of names appears nowhere else in Jewish literature, both within and without the Dead Sea Scrolls.55 Moreover, if we hold that the author of the Vision of Amram construed this visionary account in connection with the preceding material of the document, then it should follow as more than mere coincidence that a composition that thus far has displayed a distinct fascination with Amram, the grandson of Levi and heir to the priestly inheritance, contains a vision which happens to be concerned with otherworldly Þgures, one of which is plausibly identiÞed with the name Melchizedek. 55. In my opinion, this problematic dualistic stance concerning the dream-vision of the Vision of Amram seems to have been perpetuated by (1) Milik• s initial assumptions (and subsequent restorations) concerning the role of the OFYFR in the document and (2) the eventual inclusion of 4Q548 and 549 into the Vision of Amram corpus. First, Milik•s proposal that the vision concerns the appearance of •Watchers• is based upon no textual evidence, yet has been one of the key points supporting the depiction of a dualistic angelology in the Vision of Amram akin to those found in the War Scroll and the Treatise on the Two Spirits (e.g. Davidson, Angels at Qumran, pp. 265-68; Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchire!a@, pp. 28ff.; Stephen Hultgren, From the Damascus Covenant to the Covenant of the Community: Literary, Historical, and Theological Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls [STDJ, 66; Leiden: Brill, 2007], pp. 32029). Moreover, analysis of the available text provides no conclusive evidence to support the tacit claim that these otherworldly Þgures are angelic to begin with (see n. 43 above), much less that these Þgures should be associated with the Watchers of the Enochic traditions. Second, in my opinion it is extremely unlikely that 4Q548 and 549 are to be identiÞed as copies of the Vision of Amram. In the editio princeps, P uech includes 4Q548 without question, following the earlier considerations of Milik, but is more hesitant with 4Q549 (DJD, XXXI , pp. 391-405). Neither 4Q548 nor 4Q549 contain any material overlapping any of the fragments from 4Q543"547, and neither text can be adequately placed within the Vision of Amram without considerable difÞculties both in lacunae size and in consistency in content. For more on the difÞculties accepting either 4Q548 or 4Q549 as part of the Vision of Amram, see Duke, The Social Location of the Visions of Amram, pp. 35-42. Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 JURGENS Reassessing the Dream-Vision of the Vision of Amram 29 The role of Melchizedek as the enigmatic priest of Salem has intrigued countless interpreters, both ancient and modern.56 As noted by Deborah Rooke, Melchizedek•s sparse presence in the Hebrew Bible emphasizes his role as both king and priest, linking him to the priesthood regarding both its cultic and political authority (cf. Gen. 14.18-20; Ps 110.4).57 T his bifocal perception of Melchizedek as king and priest persisted into the Second T emple period, along with what appears to be a burgeoning interest in the mysterious Melchizedek and 56. For example, note the extensive treatment of Melchizedek in Heb. 5"7, 2 En. 71-72, and the mid-second century CE Melchizedek text of the Nag Hammadi library, which depicts Mechizedek referring to himself as •P riest of [God] Most High• and stating that • I am truly, [verily], the true High P riest [of] God Most High• (translation by B.A. P earson and S. Giversen from The Nag Hammadi Library in English [Leiden: Brill, 1977], p. 402). Modern research on the Þgure of Melchizedek includes, among many others, John G. Gammie, • Loci of the Melchizedek Tradition of Genesis 14:18" 20• , JBL 90 (1971), pp. 385-96; Fred L. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews (SNTSMS, 30; Cambridge: University P ress, 1976); Joseph Fitzmyer, • Melchizedek in the MT, LXX, and the NT• , Biblica 81 (2000), pp. 63-69; James Davila, • Melchizedek: King, P riest, and God• , in S. Daniel Breslauger (eds.), The Seductiveness of Jewish Myth: Challenge or Response? (Albany: State University of New York P ress, 1997), pp. 217-34; M. McNamara, • Melchizedek: Gen 14.17-20 in the Targums, in Rabbinic and Early Christian Literature• , Biblica 81 (2000), pp. 1-31; B.A. P earson, • Melchizedek in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Gnosticism• , in M.E. Stone and T.A. Bergren (eds.), Biblical Figures Outside the Bible (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity P ress International, 1998), pp. 176-202; and the section titled • Melchizedek Traditions• , in A.A. Orlov and G. Boccaccini (eds.), New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only (Studia Judaeoslavica, 4; Leiden: Brill, 2012), pp. 343-472. 57. Deborah W. Rooke, Zadok"s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel (Oxford Theological Monographs; Oxford: University P ress, 2000), pp. 80-103. Eric Mason, in his chapter on Melchizedek traditions in Second Temple Judaism, describes Gen. 14.18-20 as a •historical encounter between Melchizedek, a local priest-king, and Abram• and Ps 110.4 as • a part of a divine oath to a Davidic king• (You are a Priest Forever, pp. 138-39). See also Theo de Kruijf, • The P riest-King Melchizedek: The Reception of Gen. 14.18-20 in Hebrews Mediated by P salm 110• , Bijdr 54 (1993), pp. 393-406; Israel Knohl, • Melchizedek: A Model for the Union of Kingship and P riesthood in the Hebrew Bible, 11QMelchizedek, and the Epistle to the Hebrews• , in R.A. Clements and D.R. Schwartz (eds.), Text, Thought, and Practice in Qumran and Early Christianity: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, Jointly Sponsored by the Hebrew University Center for the Study of Christianity, 11#13 January, 2004 (STDJ, 84; Leiden: Brill, 2009), pp. 25566. Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 30 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 24.1 (2014) his roles as king and as the Þrst High Priest of YHWH .58 One particularly intriguing representation of Melchizedek can be found in 11QMelchizedek (11Q13), an early Herodian thematically ordered pesher concerning the eschatological conclusion of the tenth jubilee and Melchizedek•s redemptive role as liberator and exacter of God•s vengeance upon Belial and the spirits under his lot (11Q13 ii.12-14).59 Interesting enough, the role of Melchizedek as an initiator of justice is interconnected with the author•s interpretation of Ps. 82.1, through which he equates Melchizedek with the subject of the psalm (LF@BJ:), stating that •Elohim shall [st]and in the ass[embly of God]; in the midst of the gods he shall judge• (11Q13 ii.10). This suggests, at the very least, that the author of 11QMelchizedek conceived of Melchizedek as an otherworldly being with the exalted status as an eschatological judge. 60 Yet, Melchizedek•s eschatological role also appears 58. P hilo refers to Melchizedek as V ã* Õë GÚéÚië ìçj ãÚ Nêìçí ÝÚçj (On the Lifeof Abraham, p. 235) while Josephus considers Melchizedek to be the builder of the Þrst temple (War 6.438; see also Ant. 1.179-81). See also Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20) xxii.12-17; Pseudo-Eupolemus (Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 9.17.5-6); Philo, On Preliminary Studies, p. 99; On the Embassy to Gaius 3.79-82. Another possible reference to Melchizedek is Jub. 13.25-27, though the name only appears in the margins of a few Ethiopic manuscripts. See James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (ShefÞeld: ShefÞeld Academic P ress, 2001), p. 49. 59. The initial publication was by A.S. van der Woude, • Melchisedek als himmlische Erlösergestalt in den neugefundenen eschatologischen Midrachim aus Qumram Höhle XI• , OTS 14 (1965), pp. 354-73. The editio princeps was by F. García Martínez, E.J.C. Tigchelaar, and A.S. van der Woude in Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XXIII: Qumran Cave 11 II.11Q2#18, 11Q20#31 (DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon P ress, 1998), pp. 221-42. See also J.J.M. Roberts, • Melchizedek (11Q13 = 11QMelch)• , in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. VIB. Pesherim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents (P TSDSSP , 6B; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox P ress, 2002), pp. 264-73. The paleographic dating of the manuscript is somewhat disputed, with van der Woude (• Melchisedek als himmlische Erlösergestalt• , pp. 356-57) and Horton (The Melchizedek Tradition, p. 73) suggesting a later date sometime around the middle of the Þrst century CE, while P uech (•Notes sur le manuscript de XIQMelkîsédeq• , RevQ 12 (1987), pp. 483-513), Milik (• Milkî醸edeq et Milkî-re'a•• , p. 97), and Roberts all prescribe a date sometime during the middle of the Þrst century BCE. 60. The Hebrew for 11Q13 ii.10 is EBU[F LF@BJ : <YBX<æ [ J: ¥> ]R< æ < Wæ [P] LF@BJ :. It is fairly disputed whether Melchizedek here is angelic, angelomorphic, or otherwise. A majority of scholars, including James Davila (• Michael, Melchizedek, and Holy War• , SBLSP [1998], pp. 259-72), Maxwell Davidson (Angels at Qumran, p. 259), Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 JURGENS Reassessing the Dream-Vision of the Vision of Amram 31 side-by-side a number of references to his high priestly status within the text. As Joseph Angel notes, the name of Melchizedek in and of itself would have evoked images of the OBFJR J:J O@H (Gen. 14.19) and the LJBRJ O@H (Ps. 110.4), and the mention in 11Q13 ii.8 of an •atonement• made for the sons of light and those under the lot of Melchizedek seems to presume a priestly Þgure presiding over such cultic activities. This is afÞrmed in line 7 of the same column, which and Joseph Angel (Otherworldly Priesthood, pp. 152-56), are quicker to identify him as angelic, noting that his status as LF@BJ :, his association with the execution of God• s judgment, and the assistance of FJ: J BH (11QMelch ii.14) all imply an angelic identity. P aul Kobelski (Melchizedek and Melchire!a@, p. 60) also emphasizes the appearance of the phrase X>W[ FH]J N J YB=æ [ F ][P:æ [B , • And] the me[n] of the lot of Mel[chi]zedek• (11QMelch ii.8), noting that the word JYB= is used only in regards to God and Belial in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Other scholars are more suspicious on this angelic identiÞcation, such as Kevin Sullivan (Wrestling with Angels: A Study of the Relationship between Angels and Humans in Ancient Jewish Literature and the New Testament [Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 55; Leiden: Brill, 2004], pp. 96-98), P aul Rainbow (• Melchizedek as a Messiah at Qumran• , Bulletin of Biblical Research 7 [1997], pp. 179-94), and Florentino García Martínez (•Las tradiciones somber Melquisedec en los manuscriptos de Qumrán• , Bib 81 [2000], pp. 70-80). A couple of individuals have also construed Melchizedek• s otherworldly status as divine hypostasis (e.g. Rick van de Water, • Michael or Yhwh? Towards Identifying Melchizedek in 11Q13• , JSP 16 [2006], pp. 75-86) or as a Þgure similar to the Son of Man (e.g. Pierpaolo Bertalotto, • Qumran Messianism, Melchizedek, and the Son of Man• , in A. Lange, E. Tov, and M. Weigold [eds.], The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures [VTSup, 140; Leiden: Brill, 2011], I, pp. 325-40; and, fro m the same volume, J. Harold Ellens, • The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Son of Man in Daniel, 1 Enoch, and the New Testament Gospels: An Assessment of 11QMelch (11Q13)• , I, pp. 341-63). C.H.T. Fletcher-Louis is correct in noting that •there is no doubt that in this cave 11 text Melchizedek is divine, but the opinion that, necessarily therefore, he is entirely suprahuman is misguided• . His observation that the eschatological redemption of Melchizedek in 11Q13 implies an ascent upward into the divine Holy of Holies rather than a descent from the angelic realm is astute (All the Glory of Adam, pp. 216-21; quote on 216). In my opinion, it cannot adequately be ascertained whether Melchizedek is angelic in 11QMelchizedek, much less any one-to-one identiÞcation with Michael or any other angelic being. While I am not denying the possibility of Melchizedek being an angelic Þgure, the only substantial textual evidence supporting such an interpretation only begins to appear in Medieval Jewish literature (e.g. Yal. 均adash f. 115, col. 3, no. 19) and, as I stated earlier, it is not en ti rely evi d en t wh et h er th e ot h erwo rld ly b eing s o f Am ram •s v is io n are ang eli c, su p rahuman, or simply symbolic Þgures in the dream-vision. For a rigorous analysis of the word LF@BJ: in 11QMelchizedek, see Mason, You are a Priest Forever, pp. 177-83. Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 32 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 24.1 (2014) describes the conclusion of this tenth jubilee as being •the D[ay of Atone]ment• (LFY æB[UH@ LB]FB).61 While the earlier articulation of the Melchizedek tradition originating in the Hebrew Bible has certainly been adapted here, morphing Melchizedek into a heavenly deliverer and eschatological judge, it still seems apparent that his underlying role as priest and king was still embraced in 11QMelchizedek, though in a much more otherworldly form.62 Another text that possibly afÞrms the otherworldly status of the priestly Melchizedek is the apparent mention of him in the Songs of Sabbath SacriÞce (4Q400"407, 11Q17, Mas1k), a collection of hymns dating back to the Þrst century BCE concerning Sabbath offerings which depict the ofÞciants as angelic priests. 63 While the name Melchizedek does not appear in full throughout the Songs of Sabbath SacriÞce, a number of scholars have restored the appearance of his 61. Angel, Otherworldly Priesthood, p. 152; this sentiment is echoed by Israel Knohl (• Melchizedek: Union of Kingship and P riesthood• , pp. 263-64) who also writes that both Ps. 110 and 11QMelchizedek depict priestly kings, but it is only in the latter where Melchizedek takes on the subsequent role of redeemer. Note also line 6 of the same column, which states concerning the people that: ]@N@J Ì <BCRJ YBY> @N@J :YXB @N@F¥BPBBR J BH [ :[N, • And liberty is proclaimed to them, to free them ( from) [the burden] of all their iniquities• . If this is, once again, a re ference to the Day of Atonement, then it seems to insinuate that Melchizedek is here fulÞlling the priestly responsibility of expiation (cf. Levi 16.32-34). Kobelski states that it may have been the high priest himself who performed the ceremony (cf. b. Yoma 73a), suggesting that Melchizedek may have been perceived as the High P riest in 11QMelchizedek, a pattern which continues in later Jewish texts (e.g. Targum NeoÞti Gen. 14.18: :B@B @:J R :@J : L>X @¥<Y È¥P@H< [N[N O@H @B@, • And he is a priest serving in the High P riesthood before the Most High God• ), though part of his logic stems from his association of Melchizedek with Michael (Melchizedek and Melchire!a@, pp. 63-65). 62. This conclusion is afÞr med by Eric Mason, who states that •11QMelchizedek envisions him [Melchizedek] as the high priest conducting this eschatological Day of Atonement sacriÞce• , and then proceeds to connect Melchizedek with the heavenly priests found in the Songs of Sabbath SacriÞce. See Mason, You are a Priest Forever, pp. 183-85 (184). 63. Carol Newson, • Shirot •Olat Hashabbat• , in Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XI: Qumran Cave 4 VI Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1 (DJD, XI; Oxford: Clarendon P ress, 1998), pp. 173-402; see also Newsom and J.H. Charlesworth with B.A. Strawn and H.W.L. Rietz, •Angelic Liturgy: Songs of the Sabbath SacriÞce (4Q400"4Q407, 11Q17, Mas1k)• , in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Volume 4B: Angelic Liturgy: Songs of Sabbath SacriÞce (P TSDSSP , 4B; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox P ress, 1999), pp. 1-190. Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 JURGENS Reassessing the Dream-Vision of the Vision of Amram 33 name in three separate places within the composition. First, in 4Q401 frg. 11.3, Melchizedek is referred to as •a priest in the assemb[ly of God• ( J: ¥ ]>R< æ O@BH X>W [ FHJN). Second, Melchizedek is later associated in the same manuscript (fragment 22) with priestly investiture.64 Third, in 4Q403 frg. 1 ii.21, along with the parallel text of 11Q17, there is also a possible reference to the •wonderous pries[thood] of Melchi[zedek•. 65 According to these reconstructions, Melchizedek either was serving as a point of reference concerning the angelic priests (i.e. that the angelic priests are also of the eternal priesthood/ the order of Melchizedek [cf. Ps. 110.4]) or was considered to be an angelic priest himself.66 Returning to the Vision of Amram, if we are to surmise that the Þgure opposing the ominous Melchiresha is none other than Melchizedek the priestly king, then it follows that we should interpret the vision in light of this identiÞcation. It seems extremely unlikely that a Þgure such as Melchizedek, who was nearly exclusively known as a priestly Þgure, would appear in a dream-vision bearing no connection to this background. The question which follows from this observation is just how exactly Melchizedek and Melchiresha relate to each other regarding Amram•s choice between them; that is, what sort of choice is Amram being called to make? The fact that Amram is asked by 64. James Davila, Liturgical W orks (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), pp. 166-67; Newsom restores the former based upon the line being • strongly reminiscent• of 11Q13 ii.10, and the latter based upon the reference in the line above to the Þlling of hands (Læ @F>F æ BJN[), which refers to the consecration of those entering into the priestly ofÞce (DJD XI, pp. 205, 213). 65. Newson, DJD XI, p. 288. For 11Q17, see E.J.C. Tigchelaar and F. García Martínez, • 11QShirot @Olat ha-Shabbat• , in Discoveries in the Judaean Desert: XXIII. Qumran Cave 11.II: 11Q2#18, 11Q20#31 (DJD, 23; Oxford: Clarendon, 1988), pp. 269-70. 66. Davidson (Angels at Qumran, pp. 248, 253-54) writes that, although angelic designations are found elsewhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the dearth of them in the Songs of Sabbath SacriÞce, along with a relatively sparse amount of textual evidence supporting the appearance of the name X>W FHJN, renders theories concerning Melchizedek• s role in the documents • dubious• . Newsom• s suggestion of Melchizedek serving as the primary principal angel in the Songs of Sabbath SacriÞce is supported by Cecilia Wassen, • Angels in the Dead Sea Scrolls• , in F.V. Reiterer, T. Nicklas, and K. Schöpßin (eds.), Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2007. Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings # Origins, Development and Reception (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007), p. 503. Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 34 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 24.1 (2014) Melchizedek and Melchiresha to choose between them is an unique feature of Amram•s vision, one reminiscent of the T wo Ways theology found in a number of Early Jewish and Christian texts.67 Much like texts which depict a parting of ways, Amram•s dream-vision also contains an element of duality which does not provide Amram a third option; the polarized characteristics of both Melchizedek and Melchiresha portray to the reader the extreme nature of Amram•s either-or situation. In this way, Amram•s dream-vision does not concern the future per se, but is instead occupied with his prevailing decision regarding which of these two Þgures%Melchiresha or Melchizedek% he shall allow to rule over him, a choice which is exempliÞed in their respective physical appearances.68 While the physical features of Melchiresha and his depiction as being •dark• may serve any number of indicators, the unique feature of his •dyed clothing• is certainly much more distinguishable. Scholars have associated the colorful garb of Melchiresha with a wide variety of representations and groups, including the fallen angel Asa•el 67. Cf. P rov 2.18-19; 4.27; 7.25; Deut. 30.15; Jer. 21.8-14; Tob. 4.5-6; Sir. 15.1117; 1QS iii.13"iv.26; 4Q473; Mt. 7.13-14; Didache 1"6; Epistle of Barnabas 17"20. For more on the development of Two Ways theology, see George W.E. Nickelsburg, • Seeking the Origin of the Two Ways Traditions in Jewish and Christian Ethical Texts• , in B.G. Wright (ed.), A Multiform Heritage: Studies on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Robert A. Kraft (Atlanta: Scholars P ress, 1999), pp. 95-108; Robert A. Kraft, • Early Development of the # Two Ways Tradition(s)$ in Retrospect• , in R.A. Argall, B.A. Bow, and R.A. Werline (eds.), For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity P ress International, 2000), pp. 136-43; Marinus de Jonge, • The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the # Two Ways$• , in Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb (JSJSup, 111; Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp. 179-94. 68. In my opinion, one of the problems in associating Amram• s vision with a dualistic angelology is the fact that the opposition of these Þgures represents a particular either"or choice for Amram rather than an underlying structure of the universe (i.e. good vs. evil, light vs. darkness, etc.). In this sense, Amram• s choice between these beings is more akin to an internal conßict of the human nature rather than an external dualistic structure. For more on this, see Loren T. Stuckenbruck, • The Interiorization of Dualism within the Human Being in Second Temple Judaism• , in A. Lange, E.M. Meyers, B.H. Reynolds III, and R. Styers (eds.), Light Against Darkness: Dualism in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World (Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements, 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), pp. 145-68. Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 JURGENS Reassessing the Dream-Vision of the Vision of Amram 35 (Milik; cf. 1 En. 6.7), the serpent from Genesis 3 (Puech), and even personiÞed Death (Goldman).69 Unlike these previous suggestions, Robert Duke has associated the clothing of the dark Þgure with the dress of the wealthy ruling class of priests, concluding that •the wealthy class, many of whom were members of the ruling priests, is the most likely antecedent for this evil angel•.70 T his would certainly be quite feasible, especially when one considers the multicolored and bejewele d ¢>X¼F © >­ ı=<ß of the High Priest (cf. Exod. 28; 39.1"7).71 T he Alexandrian historian Philo, in the Þrst book of his Special Laws, recalls in great detail the garb of the High Priest, including its beautiful embroidery, ornamentation, and variant colors (Special Laws 1.8495). Such a garment was, according to Philo, of a costly magniÞcence beyond any work conceived by man, a sentiment echoed by Josephus (Ant. 3.184-86).72 In his praise of the High Priest Simon, the author of Ben Sira provides a metaphorical illustration of the awe-inspiring effect these sacred vestments had: How glorious he was, surrounded by the people, as he came out of the house of the curtain. Like the morning star among the clouds, like the full moon at the festal season; like the sun shining on the temple of the Most High, like the rainbow gleaming in splendid clouds; like roses in the days of Þrst fruits, like lilies by a spring of water, like a green shoot on Lebanon on a summer day; like Þre and incense in the censer, like a vessel of 69. Milik notes that in the Midrash on Shemihazai and Azael that Asa• el is appointed chief over both colored dyes and women•s ornaments to entice men into sin. See • 4QVisions de • Amram• , p. 81, also ibid., The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments from Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon P ress, 1976), pp. 322-29; Puech, DJD, XXXI, p. 326; Goldman, • Dualism in the Visions of Amram• . 70. Duke, The Social Location of the Visions of Amram, pp. 85-88. 71. The elaborate nature of Aaron• s garments are exempliÞed by their various colors and Þne textiles ( FßPƒ® @¬ ¥ ¬SJ¬ k¤¼¥ :© Bı O N®® d Yı :¬ @¼¥ ® :© Bı ¥ ©J ­H¤ı @¼¥ ¬ :© Bı < @® ®n@¼¥ ¬ :© jDXı ßF L@­ Bı ¢ƒ­ @¼¥ ¬ :© B,ı • they shall use gold, blue, purple, and crimson yarns, and Þne linen• , v. 5; cf. vv. 6, 8, 15, 31), precious stones (e.g., L@¢¼F ¬ ­P<ı :¬ • stones of onyx• , v. 9; cf. vv. 1720), and the labor of skilled workers (@N® Hı D® ÑjY ¬ BF ¥: ß w­ Nß , • (those) whom I have Þlled (with) a spirit of wisdom/craft• , v. 3; cf. v. 11). 72. P hilo, Special Laws 1.95: 1Ù" $êì Oä 0 ì6ë GÚéýë $êÝ6ì çë àÕìÕêàÚíｼ, ãｽãÜãÕ ìçj èÕäì ﾀë, ÝÕíãｺêÞçä %é çä àÕO SîÝ6äÕÞ àÕO äçÜÝ6äÕÞ· àÕO üé TðÞä %ïÚÞ àÕì ÕèáÜàì Þàñì ｺìÜä çHÕä ç]Ù+ä bîÕêãÕ ìwä èÕé" 0ãPä (äÚàÕ è çÞàÞáｽÕë Vãçj àÕO è çáíì ÚáÚｽÕë àÕO äﾀÜêÞä ì5ä è ÚéO ìwä Õ]ì6ë ãÚéwä îÞáﾀçîçä (• This is outÞt of the High P riest, construed as a memory of the universe, a wondrous work to be seen and contemplated. For it has an appearance of amaze ment, no such embroidered work has been conceived by us with such extravagance and expense• ). Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 36 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 24.1 (2014) hammered gold studded with all kinds of precious stones; like an olive tree laden with fruit, and like a cypress towering in the clouds. When he put on his glorious robe and clothed himself in perfect splendor, when he went up to the holy altar, he made the court of the sanctuary glorious. (Sir 50.5-11 NRSV)73 Considering the sheer expense and majesty of the priestly garments, it should come as no surprise that descriptions of the sacred regalia, such as Sir 50.5-11, often ßirted with depicting the High Priest as being semi-divine or even angelic.74 If the colorful garb of Melchiresha happens to identify him as a dark priestly Þgure, or a corrupted High Priest, then it would certainly be imaginable that Melchizedek would be depicted as a pure or righteous priest%a R [Y O@H opposed to a X>W O@H. As I exposited earlier, Melchizedek•s prominence as a priestly Þgure in tradition was arguably well-known in Jewish circles during the Second T emple period, so much so that it appears that any reference to him would imply this role. Moreover, Melchizedek was at times portrayed as otherworldly, either as an angelic being or as an exalted human, a trait which may have stemmed from his sparse appearances in the Hebrew Bible and the mysterious persona which accompanied it. Unfortunately, the only physical descriptions available concerning the Þgure opposing Melchiresha is his association with the dominion of light, his smiling demeanor, and a reference to something „F@BPFR J[ RN] (•above his eyes•, 4Q543 frgs. 5"9.8; parallel 4Q544 frg. 1.15).75 The latter 73. Note also ch. 45, which conveys Aaron and his inauguration into the priestly ofÞce, including the •glorious robe• put upon him (vv. 7-12). Verses 10-11 in particular describe the sacred vestment as being • of gold and violet and purple!with twisted crimson, the work of an artisan• . This shows a number of afÞnities with the account of the priestly garments in Exod. 28.1-43. 74. Margaret Barker, The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy (London/New York: T&T Clark International, 2003), pp. 103-45, esp. 130-40. For more on the tendency of ancient Near Eastern societies to bestow divine attributes upon priestly and royal Þgures, see Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature (Chicago: University of Chicago P ress, 1948). Both P hilo and Josephus also attribute to the priestly garments an extended symbolic ãｽãÜãÕ which correlates the majestic wear of the High P riest with the four elements, the sun and moon, the universe, and all of creation (Josephus, Ant. 3.184-87; P hilo, Special Laws 1.84, 86-87, 90-95). 75. The restoration of J[RN is admittedly somewhat difÞcult. The lacuna would appear to Þt two consonants, three if the Þrst one is a waw. The word J[BH is another Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 JURGENS Reassessing the Dream-Vision of the Vision of Amram 37 mention of something above Melchizedek•s eyes may suggest that he is wearing something atop his head, or more likely, upon his forehead. Considering the priestly nature of Melchizedek outside the Vision of Amram, as well as the association of Melchiresha with a wicked or corrupt priest, it seems altogether possible that the unknown object above Melchizedek•s eyes may be the inscribed diadem of the High Priest, an essential accoutrement for the practice of priestly cult and entrance into the presence of the God (cf. Josephus, Ant. 11.331). According to Exod. 28.36-38, the priestly diadem was a rosette made of pure gold (Yk@E® < @® ®C VF ß|) which bore the inscription @B@F ¬J ¢>X © (•Holy is YHWH •) upon the front of it.76 The inscription of the divine name upon the diadem, according to William Propp, indicated the sacred status of the High Priest, afÞrming his status as ¢ >X © due to his association with the divine. In this way, the golden diadem designated the High Priest as a being consecrated and forfeit to God, separating him from the rest of society in the same way the Levites were separated from the rest of the twelve tribes for the service of God.77 It is certainly conceivable that, in opposition to the majestic yet corrupted garb of Melchiresha, the author of the Vision of Amram portrayed Melchizedek as wearing the golden diadem inscribed with possibility, but seems unlikely given that it might suggest Melchizedek is being depicted with an inordinate amount of eyes (cf. P uech, DJD, XXXI, p. 299). 76. Just what exactly this was perceived to look like is difÞcult to ascertain, especially considering the odd usage of the word VF |,ß • blossom• , which seems to indicate that some engraved ßowers or buds were incorporated into the design of the object. Because of the fact that an inscription was written upon it, it seems that at least part of the diadem must have been ßat, perhaps surrounded by golden buds (cf. Josephus, Ant. 3.172-78). From most descriptions outside of Exod. 28, it seems that the diadem was most likely quite similar to a crown (Y©C ­P) supported by chords upon the forehead of the priest (cf. Exod. 39.30; Levi 8.9; Wis. 18.24; Aristeas 98). For an image of what this may have looked like, see K.R. Maxwell-Hyslop, Western Asiatic Jewelry c. 3000#612 B.C. (London: Methuen, 1971), pl. 16. 77. William H.C. P ropp, Exodus 19#40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 2A; Garden City, NJ.: Doubleday, 2006), pp. 448-50. P ropp also notes that the phrase • Holy is Yhwh• speciÞes • goods donated to God and also any sacred space, thing, or person• . Interestingly, sources from the Second Temple period seem to bear some confusion over whether it is • Holy is Yhwh• , the Tetragrammaton, or something else inscribed upon the diadem (cf. P hilo, Moses 2.114; Aristeas 98; Josephus, Ant. 3.178). For more on the diadem being a sign of God• s favor, see also John I. Durham, Exodus (WBC, 3; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), pp. 388-89. Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 38 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 24.1 (2014) the ineffable name of God. Such a symbolic gesture would juxtapose Melchizedek•s status as holy and separate from that of Melchiresha as one who has corrupted the priestly ofÞce.78 Moreover, if Melchizedek is wearing the priestly diadem, it would also demonstrate that Melchizedek has been granted the favor of the Lord and endorsed for admission into the presence of the divine.79 If Amram•s dream-vision in fact depicts his choice between a righteous or corrupted priesthood as reßected by his interaction with Melchiresha and Melchizedek, it would not be without precedent in Jewish literature. For instance, note the episode of Zechariah 3, where the high priest Joshua is confronted in the divine courtroom of God by O E® ® @¬ ıB @B@F s :¬ ıJN¬ (•an angel of YHWH and the Satan•): Then he showed me the high priest Joshua standing before the angel of the L ORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the L ORD said to Satan, • The L ORD rebuke you, O Satan* The L ORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you* Is not this man a brand plucked from the Þre?• Now Joshua was dressed with Þlthy clothes as he stood before the angel. The angel said to those who were standing before him, • Take off his Þlthy clothes• . And to him he said, • See, I have taken your guilt away from you, and I will clothe you with festal apparel• . (Zech. 3.1-4 NRSV) Much like the Vision of Amram, the visionary account of Zechariah depicts two otherworldly beings disputing the priestly status of Joshua and whether he is suitable for the ofÞce. Notable is the appearance of the OE[ in this text, whose role here appears to be the one accusing Joshua of being inadequate for the priestly ofÞce. The OE[ plays a similar role in the Aramaic Levi Document in the Prayer of Levi: 78. An interesting suggestion which may buttress this argument has been alluded to by Duke (The Social Location of the Visions of Amram, pp. 86-88), who notes that while the outÞt of the High P riest was elaborate and ornate, the priestly clothing during the Day of Atonement was white linen, perhaps symbolizing purity (cf. Levi 16.4). It would seem possible that Melchizedek may have been clothed in white linen in Amram• s vision, symbolizing his status as pure and righteous as opposed to the high priestly garments of Melchiresha, which seem to be tinted with his dark aura. 79. An interesting episode which may afÞr m this point can be found in 2 Chron. 26.16-21, where Uzziah enters into the temple in order to make an offering of incense to the chagrin of the priests. In response, a leprous disease breaks out, ironically, kDıW Nß <ı @D® Y®ı C ¥ ¬SY¬ |® @¬ B,ı • upon his forehead• (v. 19), which would be where the diadem of the priest would normally be located, perhaps referencing the fact that Uzziah was not granted entry into the holy presence of God. Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 JURGENS Reassessing the Dream-Vision of the Vision of Amram 39 And let not any satan have power over me ([4QLevi b 1.17] F< EJ[¥ J :æ [ B OE[ JH) to make me stray from your path. And have mercy upon me, my Lord, and bring me forward, to be your servant and to minister well to you. (ALD 3.9-10)80 Levi•s prayer continues to ask God for deliverance from mishap and evil while asking for puriÞcation and participation in God•s words and acts (ALD 3.13-17; cf. 11QPsa).81 In many ways, it seems that Levi•s prayer is asking for strength in regards to his priestly role, both in the implementation of the priestly cult (ALD 5-10) and in the passingdown of the cult to his ancestors, Qahat and Amram (ALD 11-13), in spite of the assault of OE[%something which draws a number of comparisons with Amram•s experience in his dream-vision.82 Assessment and Conclusion As I hope to have shown, the Vision of Amram is a composition deeply concerned with the place of Amram within the Levitical priestly heritage and his role in passing down that inheritance to his children. In this way, the author of the text portrayed Amram not as a passive side-note to the overwhelming signiÞcance of his sons Moses and Aaron, but instead construed him as his protagonist, a signiÞcant individual in his own right.83 T o do so, the author of the Vision of 80. Text and translation from GreenÞeld, Stone, and Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document, pp. 60-62. Drawnel (An Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran, p. 216) sees this line as alluding to Ps. 119.133b (cf. Sir. 33.21), replacing the dominion of OF:, •iniquity• , with that of the OE[. Drawnel also connects this section of the Aramaic Levi Document with incidents where beings of the celestial sphere accuse people in the presence of God, citing Job 1"2 and Zech. 3.1-7 as exa mples. It seems clear that OE[ here is functioning as a term reßecting a speciÞc class of deceptive beings or spirits rather than as a proper noun (cf. 11Q5 xix.15). A similar example can be found in Jub. 34, where Jacob recalls to Isaac how God has directed his ways and •had protected him from every evil one• (34.21: watam xe 矯ano >emkwellu >ekuy). 81. GreenÞeld, Stone, and Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document, p. 131. 82. Interestingly, Drawnel makes this connection as well, comparing the dark appearance of satan with •the angel of darkness, Melchire'a@, from the Testament of Amram• (An Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran, pp. 216-17). 83. This is the conclusion reached by P eter W. van der Horst, • Moses• Father Speak Out• , in A. Hilhorst, E. Puech, and E. Tigchlaar (eds.), Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez (JSJSup, 122; Leiden: Brill, 2007), pp. 491-99. Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 40 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 24.1 (2014) Amram emphasized characteristics of Amram, which would have been considered extremely important for individuals in priestly circles, including his direct descent from Levi (section 1), his stringent dedication to endogamous marriage (sections 2 and 4), and his passing-down of the priestly tradition to his children (section 3). In the present study I have proposed that this pattern is again repeated in Amram•s dream-vision, where he is confronted with a choice between two, otherworldly representations of the priesthood. Just like his choice to remain faithful to Jochebed during his 41-year sojourn in Egypt, so too Amram•s choice in his dream-vision encapsulates a choice concerning either adherence to the priestly traditions passed down to him by his forefathers or succumbing to the temptation of the tarnished priestly splendor of Melchiresha. Interestingly enough, Amram•s apparent choice of Melchizedek over Melchiresha associates him with an entirely different priestly inheritance, one which temporally and genealogically is independent of the Levitical line. This makes Melchizedek an exceptional individual to align one•s self with, especially if one is attempting to exhibit both the ßaws of priestly administration in Jerusalem as well as establish a ground for sacerdotal authority which does not fall under the categories of a corrupted administration. 84 T his means that allegiance with the ancient priesthood of Melchizedek, due to its preLevitical origins, served as a priestly endorsement that was not dependent upon the opinions and approval of other priestly powers. The bestowal of the title •a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek• would have provided the one claiming this pedigree a link to an 84. As Harold Attridge writes concerning the allegiance to the priesthood of Melchizedek: • It anchors his priesthood in a lineage of ßesh and blood, but it also suggests that there is a priestly lineage other than that of the Aaronid/Levite/Zadokite type that provided the leadership for the temple at Jerusalem in pre-Hasmonean times. Such an afÞrmation could serve the interest of various alternative forms of Judaism or its offshoots, including Christians• (• Melchizedek in Some Early Christian Texts and 2 Enoch• , in A.A. Orlov and G. Boccaccini [eds.], New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only [Studia Judaeoslavica, 4; Leiden: Brill, 2012], pp. 387-410 [401]). Similarly, Eric Mason states that role of Melchizedek in Ps. 110 is that of a high priestly authority outside the domain of the Levitical line; that is, it appears that Melchizedek• s identity as a non-Israelite means that his authority as priest is not necessarily governed or controlled by the ofÞcial priestly body (You are Priest Forever, p. 171). Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 JURGENS Reassessing the Dream-Vision of the Vision of Amram 41 ancient priesthood and the cultic authority which derived from it, both of which would have served him well in any case where the legitimacy of his ofÞce was being questioned or threated. It is far from presumptuous to note that such an agenda would have suited a wide array of Jewish sects and groups during the Second T emple period who faced opposition from the reigning priestly authorities in Jerusalem.85 Considering the general consensus that the Vision of Amram was initially composed sometime in the latter third/early second centuries BCE, it seems that Robert Duke•s assessment that the author of the Vision of Amram may be assessing the priesthood of Onias II and intermarriage of his sister into the Tobiad family is certainly plausible, though such speciÞc historical interpolation is difÞcult to discern in a fragmentary document such as the Vision of Amram.86 Nevertheless, it seems rather likely that Amram•s vision is referencing a conßict over the legitimacy of a particular priestly group, a conßict in which the author may be using the choice of Amram as a mirror image of the possible choices others may have been making in light of a perceived corruption of the priestly line and ofÞce. Thus, it should come as no surprise that multiple O=[YU of Amram•s sacred and esoteric words would be extant in the Qumran library, especially when one considers the community•s general opposition to the governing authorities of the T emple.87 T hough the Vision of Amram was not a 85. For a well-written and educated assessment of the priestly conßicts occurring prior to the establishment of the Hasmonean dynasty, see Maria Brutti, The Development of the High Priesthood during the pre-Hasmonean Period (JSJSup, 108; Leiden: Brill, 2006), esp. Chapters 4 and 5. 86. Duke, The Social Location of the Visions of Amram, pp. 89-103. The main place where I differ from Duke in the dating and purpose of the Vision of Amram is that Duke understands the burial episode (possibly located in Hebron) as insinuating an Idumean/Judean conßict in which the Idumeans are asserting their control over Hebron and its signiÞcance as a sacred space. As I noted earlier, the appearance of the name • Hebron• is suspect and the burial scene can easily be interpreted without regard to a particular, regional conßict. 87. E.g. 1QS v.1-7; ix.4-5; 4QpsMos b frg. 3 iii.6; 4QpsMose frg. 1 lines 1-2; 1QpHab frg. 9 line 4; 1QpMic frg. 11 line 1; 4QpNah frgs. 3"4 i.11; ii.9; 4QMMT B 11-13; 16-17. A solid early assessment of the role of the Temple cult at Qumran is Georg Klinzing, Die Umdeutung des Kultus in der Qumrangemeinde und im Neuen Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971). Other treatments of the issue include Robert A. Kugler, • Rewritten Rubrics: SacriÞce and the Religion of Qumran• , in J.J. Collins and R.A. Kugler (eds.), Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014 42 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 24.1 (2014) literary product of the Qumran community,88 the visionary experience of Amram, and his subsequent allegiance with Melchizedek over Melchiresha, could have been reappropriated by the Qumran community and applied to any potential conßicts they may have been experiencing with the Jerusalem T emple, adding clout to their case for sacerdotal legitimacy in opposition to the alleged corruption of the reigning religious authorities. Rapids: Eerdmans), pp. 90-112; P aul Heger, Cult as the Catalyst for Division: Cult Disputes as the Motive for Schism in the Pre-70 Pluralistic Environment (STDJ, 65; Leiden: Brill, 2007), esp. pp. 349-58; D.R. Schwartz, ! On Two Aspects of a P riestly View of Descent at Qumran" , in L.H. Schiffman (ed.), Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ShefÞeld: JSOT P ress, 1990), pp. 157-79. 88. Ctr. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchiresha@, p. 25. Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 31, 2014