1 Charting the Levi-Qahat-Amram Formation1
One of the widely accepted outcomes of more than seven decades of Dead Sea Scrolls research is that the world of Qumran is one that was formative to scripture yet from a time before the media forms, cultural catalysts, and confessional efforts that finalized the canons of Judaism and Christianity. The challenge now is discerning how to move beyond the truism that “the Bible did not yet exist” toward models for mapping the development of emerging traditions regardless of their place within or outside of later biblical collections.
In this regard, Aramaic Levi Document (ALD), Words of Qahat (WQ), and Visions of Amram (VA) present an intriguing case for studying the generation of traditions around ancestral figures.2 In this essay I explore three areas to provide both internal perspective and external context for a new approach to this group of Aramaic priestly pseudepigrapha. These areas and their driving questions are as follows:
Conceptual and compositional correlations: To what degree do the Aramaic Levi, Qahat, and Amram materials at Qumran exhibit shared ideas, terminology, or outlooks? Are the scribes creating the texts participating in similar compositional strategies or developing links between the texts to communicate their staged progression?
Codicological and contextual perspectives: Are there material or scribal indications in the Qumran witnesses to suggest that the Levi, Qahat, and Amram texts were created as a group or interacted with as a cluster?
Cultural precedents: Are there antecedent or emerging constructs available, either internal or external to ancient Jewish culture, that indicate a trend in clustering compositions in groups, particularly in a set of three?
At the close of the essay, I bring these perspectives to bear on how we might rethink the grouping of ALD, WQ, and VA at different stages in the development, reception, and ongoing study of the materials. Using the metaphor of a constellation, I redescribe ALD, WQ, and VA as participants and representatives of an emerging Aramaic, pseudepigraphal, priestly tradition that takes shape in the mid-Second Temple period. En route to that destination, via the above waypoints, it is essential to backtrack into the history of research on these writings as a group.
2 The Modern Makings of a Priestly Trilogy
From an early time in research, ALD, WQ, and VA were described or approached as a tripartite group. After initial work on some of these materials by J. Starcky, the bulk of the Aramaic texts fell to J.T. Milik. Following the publication of DJD 1 and a number of partial and preliminary editions related to the Cave Four materials of these texts, Milik undertook several studies that included individual textual analyses and syntheses of groups of Aramaic texts. In a 1972 Revue Biblique article, Milik advanced the case that the Aramaic Levi, Qahat, and Amram texts were alluded to in Apostolic Constitutions VI 16.3 as
In most cases, the history of scholarship has proceeded with variations of acceptance of this clustered approach. De Jonge’s critique of Milik’s work focused on genre, yet affirmed that the three texts “form a series” of priestly texts read by the Qumran group but likely authored elsewhere in other “priestly sectarian circles.”6 To my knowledge, Milik never used the term “trilogy” in his published works. However, Kugel first drew the association between Milik’s proposal of a priestly group with the concept.7 While Kugel focused on the shape and forms of early Levi traditions, he referenced the Qahat and Amram materials as “the other two parts of a priestly trilogy.”8 Cook proposed that the three works may share a Sitz im Leben and “have formed some of the earliest literature of the ‘Asideans’ (I Macc. 2:42).”9 Puech accepted core elements of Milik’s theory and developed it in his Aramaic edition of the Qahat and Amram texts in DJD 31.10 Based ALD’s existence in Greek, Puech inferred WQ and VA likely also circulated in translation, enabling their Christian reception. Compositionally, he also stated that WQ and VA depended on ALD for elements of their content and outlook, specifically regarding dualism, calendar, and priestly outlooks. Drawnel noted the “general acceptance” of Milik’s prescribed approach of reading and interpreting the texts together and noted that ALD has without a doubt “influenced the vocabulary and content and, most probably, the literary form of the latter to priestly works.”11 Following a summary of some literary and formal qualities of the works, Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel made the following remark:
We should stress the relationship between ALD, 4QTestament of Qahat and 4QVisions of Amram, works associated with the generations of Levi down to Aaron, the direct father of the priestly line of Israel. ALD is the oldest of these three and the other two works might be related to it and perhaps even depend on it to some extent. 4QTestament of Qahat and 4QVisions of Amram might have been written on the pattern of ALD to legitimate the continuity of the priestly line and its teaching.12
The only study to engage the trilogy issue directly is that of Tervanotko.13 Tervanotko evaluated several items of similarity and difference between the texts. The similarities collected from scholarship on the texts include items related to: discourse style, literary themes, linguistic proposals, and compositional dates. Following brief considerations of these, Tervanotko reaches the tentative conclusion that the “linguistic and thematic connections between ALD, TQahat and VA provide the strongest arguments for the association of these texts. Moreover, the three texts are roughly dated to the same era. They were written in the third or second century BCE.”14 Proposed differences include: potential variation in use or popularity by virtue of manuscript counts for each composition, unsettled or unknown provenance of the three works, variation on themes shared by all texts (e.g., views of outsiders and the preferred means of knowledge transmission), and either debated or indeterminate genre. In view of analysis of these items, Tervanotko writes:
All in all, the research history results in a more detailed understanding of what the similarities and differences are between ALD, VA, and TQahat. There is growing scholarly consensus that ALD, VA, and TQahat do reflect common themes, and are connected through their shared literary family lineage. This is virtually accepted by everyone. In contrast to the affinities, other thematic details and especially the material evidence (number of copies and their date and circulation) argues against a common origin between the texts. Furthermore, most scholars working in this area assume that ALD reflects an earlier situation than the other two texts. Therefore, it seems that these texts were not composed together. Meanwhile inquiries concerning their genre or provenance remain open for the time being. Importantly, these observations do not contradict or exclude the idea that TQahat was read together with the other two texts or that the other two texts inspired it.15
Reflecting on this history of research, it is evident that there is a general appreciation of the cogency, coherence, or continuity between ALD, WQ, and VA. However, in many cases, this impression was developed on the basis of a limited set of perceived features. With this in mind, I now deploy the criteria proposed above to gauge the degrees of potential relationships between the Levi, Qahat, and Amram materials.
3 Conceptual and Compositional Correlations
To what degree do the Aramaic Levi, Qahat, and Amram materials at Qumran exhibit shared ideas, terminology, or outlooks? Are the scribes creating the texts participating in similar compositional strategies or developing links between the texts to communicate their staged progression?
This first criterion is already established in the history of research as an important metric for assessing both similarities and differences. It is based largely in literary criticism or theological analogies between the texts. However, a quick pulse check on shared themes or outlooks will not suffice. Rather, what matters most is that items are distinctive in their philological expression or application in a particular literary setting and/or for a focused ideological purpose. The Aramaic Levi, Qahat, and Amram materials exhibit a surprising number of common ideas and compositional features. While some items involve only two of the three texts, the collective force of the growing list of items draws the three together in degrees of relation.
3.1 Forming and Maintaining Internal Identity against Outsiders
The concern for affirming boundaries against outsiders is evident in both ALD and WQ. The priestly application of the rhetoric and terms of reference indicate the scribes behind the texts are likely drawing on and/or contributing to a shared construct. As noted by Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel,
3.2 Endogamous Marriage for Preserving the Priestly Identity and Genealogy
The ideal of endogamy is both embodied and exemplified in memories of the priestly ancestors across all three texts.17 Both Levi and Amram are presented as models of endogamous unions (ALD 62; 4Q544 1 8). Words of Qahat’s rhetoric of avoiding intermixing with outsiders implies a similar commitment (4Q542 1 i 8–9). This emphasis likely intersects with the caution against sexual promiscuity, expressed using the shared terminology of
3.3 The Earthly Priestly Genealogy and Its Otherworldly Counterpart
All three texts secure Abraham as the ancestral anchor and originator of the priestly tradition (ALD 8–61; 4Q542 1 i 11; 4Q545 4 18).18 On this point, Jones remarked the compositions “have extended the patriarchal genealogy by grafting the Levitical genealogy on it, thereby creating a single genealogical chain that runs from Abraham through that segment of the Levitical line that leads to Aaron, the prototypical priest (i.e., Qahat and Amram).”19 This earthly authority, however, is also layered with an otherworldly one underscoring the eternality of the priestly line.20 This shared concept is evident in the approximate terminology of a
3.4 Command-Fulfillment and Transmitting Ancestral Knowledge through Generations
The texts coordinate a chain of transmitting ancestral knowledge through narrative commands for instruction and the actualization of such injunctions in the next priestly generation. 4Q213 1 i 9–10 issued a call for instruction, which Levi fulfilled by passing on the inherited lore from Abraham (4Q213 1 i 9–10; MS E, Mt. Athos 18,2). Words of Qahat emphasized how Qahat too transmitted the ancestral knowledge to the next generation, particularly Amram. In this, he transmits not only knowledge but also affirms the injunction to instruct the priestly lineage is transgenerational (4Q542 1 ii 9–10). The connection with Levi, then, is both in the model of teaching and in the booklore inherited from him (4Q542 1 ii 11–13). Visions of Amram, in turn, features Amram commanding his children (4Q543 1a–c 2 // 4Q545 1a i 2, 11). At a closer level, the literary theme is presented with specific terminology. Each text repeatedly uses inflected forms of the verb
By presenting scenes of ancestral teaching including a call to teach the next generation, each text is sufficiently open-ended. This enables the growth of the tradition. Simply put, where ALD issues a call to teach the next heir of the heritage, WQ steps in to imagine and document this. As WQ exemplifies and emphasizes the necessity of teaching for the next generation, VA extends the tradition by ensuring this task was fulfilled in the life of the next ancestor. At face value, this trend is perhaps a shared motif. However, at the compositional level, this open-endedness and the unfulfilled injunctions to literally command the next generation are perhaps the clearest scribal mechanism that propelled the tradition. Research on the compositional development of pentateuchal traditions at Qumran affirmed that providing narrative fulfillments to previous commands was an important catalyst for the evolution of traditions even before the Samaritan Pentateuch.23 In a similar vein, Tov also observed commands and complementary fulfillments contributed to the incremental growth of the Greek Daniel traditions.24 For our group of Aramaic priestly texts, genealogies matter not only for the identity of the priesthood, but for providing a chain of custody for the inherited tradition.
3.5 Textual Relics and Revelatory Episodes Endorsing the Priestly Heritage
One of the accents on scribalism found in the texts relates to how all three leading patriarchs in the texts are associated with the production or procurement of booklore (ALD 57–59; 4Q542 1 ii 12–13; 4Q543 1a–c 1; 4Q547 9 8). This is inextricably linked to ancestral scribal authority and textuality for the priestly profiles of Levi, Qahat, and Amram. But are there variations in how this is worked out? Perhaps. Tervanotko ranked the role of books in the transmission of each as a difference between the texts, since “Amram does not mention books in his admonition to his children in VA.”25 However, this overlooks both key aspects of VA’s presentation in the larger complex of its pseudepigraphic attribution. The superscripted title of the work as well as the depiction of Amram inscribing his revelation clearly front the importance booklore in the generational model of knowledge production and transmission (4Q543 1a–c 1; 4Q545 1a i 1), which pairs also with Amram’s activity of writing the revelation upon awakening (4Q547 9 8).26 The textuality of ancestral and inherited tradition, therefore, is essential to all three texts.
Aramaic Levi Document and VA also seem to utilize the dream-vision for similar purposes, to either positively endorse or negatively disqualify an ancestral line from the priestly genealogy.27 In ALD 64, the onomastics of Gershom’s name are related to his being cast out of the running for the high priestly office. In VA, a large part of Amram’s dream-vision focuses on the priestly role and position of Aaron, described in strikingly similar terms to Levi (cf. 4Q545 4 16–19; ALD 48, 51, 61).28 Therefore, these two share a common understanding of patriarchs as seers with access to divine knowledge on the future course of the priesthood.
3.6 Pseudepigraphic Attribution and the Collective Cultivation of Priestly Profiles
Notwithstanding the open question of genre, the three texts clearly embody a pseudepigraphic presentation by capturing the voices of priestly figures from the past. Levi’s profile arguably develops out of both narratives and allusions in the Hebrew Scriptures (Gen 34; 49:5–7; 1 Sam 2:27; Mal 2:2–5).29 Qahat and Amram, however, exist only as names in genealogies or among references to the duties of the priestly clans.30 While pseudepigraphy is hardly a unique compositional feature in writings of the Second Temple period, the development of at least two priestly pseudepigrapha out of near blank canvases for two figures is rather striking. Furthermore, the profiles of Levi, Qahat, and Amram develop almost collaboratively as each text contributes to both a developing tradition and the formation of figures. For example, ALD 63–77 cultivates a preliminary profile for Qahat and Amram through expanded birth notices.31 Similarly, WQ extends the importance of Levi’s authority and Amram’s position (4Q542 1 i 11; 1 ii 9, 11). Finally, VA, from the very opening words of the document, anchors its discourses in named references to both Levi and Qahat (4Q545 1a i 1). It also casts Qahat as a character in travel narrative (4Q544 1 1; 4Q546 2 3). In this regard, it is not only the priestly pseudepigraphic perspective of the individual texts that is suggestive but the way the three develop discourses that elevate the founding figures of the priestly lines that matters.
4 Codicological Considerations
Are there material or scribal indications in the Qumran witnesses to suggest that the Levi, Qahat, and Amram texts were created as a group or interacted with as a cluster?
This criterion adopts a material philological approach by studying features within the Qumran manuscripts that relate to a range of issues including their material production, scribal development, or paratextual features.
4.1 The Possibility of a Limited Number Scribal Hands in the Manuscripts
Given the volume of manuscripts represented at Qumran, and presumably more which were lost through decay, it is statistically likely that some scribes either at Qumran or beyond copied multiple manuscripts found in the caves.32 The Aramaic Levi, Qahat, and Amram manuscripts have registered in these discussions in two ways.
The first is external and considers the similarity of their scripts with other known manuscripts at Qumran. Milik proposed that the same scribe was responsible for 4QLevid (4Q214) and 4QEnf (4Q207).33 Strugnell proposed that our WQ manuscript (4Q542) was penned by the same scribe as 4QSamc (4Q53),34 which is generally thought to be the same scribe responsible for 1QS, 1QSa, and 1QSb, and 4Q175.35 If 4Q207 and 4Q214 were penned by the same copyist, it may be a departure point for exploring the profiles of traditionists at work within the Aramaic corpus. If 4Q542 was part of a larger roster of texts copied by the same scribe it is significant that all other items in that list are Hebrew. Both cases, however, are speculative.
The second direction is internal and relates to the possibility that some of the Qumran ALD, WQ, and VA manuscripts were produced by the same scribe. Stone and Greenfield indicated that Cross opined 4QLevib (4Q213a) and 4QLevic (4Q213b) might have been written by the same scribe. Ultimately, their independent analysis concluded otherwise.36 Puech determined that the same scribe copied 4Q542 and 4Q547, which seems to be the case.37 Van der Schoor recently argued that the paleographical profiles of the Cave Four ALD manuscripts exhibit a more limited degree of variation than often recognized, suggesting they may relate to only four manuscripts, not seven as traditionally counted.38
The palaeographical perspective on the Levi-Qahat-Amram fragments, therefore, suggests that at least two of the manuscripts were penned by the same hand (4Q542 and 4Q547). The question now is whether the scribal profiles of these manuscripts relate to any other material philological features of the fragments.
4.2 Manuscript Profiles and Serial Pseudepigraphy
The Levi, Qahat, and Amram Qumran scrolls are often unforgivingly fragmentary. Yet they retain some material features that at least open the question of the possibility that more than one composition featured on the same scroll. There are two key areas of evidence to consider.
The first is the tattered remains of stitching on the right edge of a sheet at the very outset of 4Q543 1 immediately before the title of VA at the top of the column. The question is: what came before? While Milik’s proposal technically pertained to the clustering of the text at the level of Greek translation and reception in early Christian circles, Puech wondered if it was possible that 4Q543 1 retains the hinge once originally attached to a copy of WQ.39 When compounded with his view that 4Q542 and 4Q213 were similar in script, one finds the makings of a material case for securing a trilogy even at Qumran, though Puech is adequately cautious. We do not know if what came before was inscribed content, a handle sheet, or some other element.
The second regards 4Q542 and 4Q547—the two texts likely written by the same scribe—as potentially coming from the same scroll. Machiela noted that these fragments have strikingly short columns, consisting of no more than thirteen lines, with similarly modest marginal measurements.40 This line count is clear on 4Q542 given the preservation of margins and the full column of 4Q542 1 i. The fragments of 4Q547 require reconstruction for column measurements and line counts. However, 4Q547 seems to retain the upper and lower margins of the text, which includes 12 lines of extant material. Puech reconstructed 4Q547 1–2 as a partial column of 13 lines, although these fragments are especially challenging.41 These similarities rank 4Q542 and 4Q547 in among the smaller scrolls in the entire Qumran corpus.42 Most significantly, however, this codicological case complements the palaeographical association noted above to confirm that 4Q542 and 4Q547 were in fact inscribed on the same material object.
This codicological association also requires a context in light of wider trends for composing or collecting texts and traditions on single scrolls in the Qumran Aramaic corpus. Genesis Apocryphon is a clear example of multiple pseudepigrapha associated with different ancestors included on the same scroll, in that case, with the surviving materials coincidentally relating to three verifiably first-person personae (Lamech, Noah, and Abram). The most instructive element of that scroll is the title of the Noah section at 1Q20 5:29.43 Lange proposed that this feature may signify the Noah section was part of a “collection of different literary compositions.”44 While the codicology of the Aramaic Enoch fragmentary manuscripts is complex, at least three of the scrolls at Qumran included materials from multiple traditions attributed to, or associated with, Enoch (4Q204–4Q206).45 Elsewhere I have argued that the Aramaic/Hebrew hybrid of Daniel is yet another example of collecting tales associated with the same figure onto a single piece of media (see esp. 4Q112 14; 4Q113 15, 16–18 i).46 Though its meaning in context is not entirely clear, the so-called Birth of Noah texts include a reference to gaining knowledge from
With this criterion, we may conclude that there is at least one positive instance of a material connection between exemplars of the Qahat and Amram materials. The texts presently available do not indicate if there was a material association with the Levi materials. The contextual framework of the Aramaic corpus indicated that ancestral tales could co-exist on the same scroll in variations of serial pseudepigraphy. If some or all these materials did exist on the same scroll it would then challenge us to reframe our approach: these materials are not necessarily discrete literary compositions but literary units representing a larger priestly tradition. As such, we should not describe these writings as three different Jewish pseudepigraphal texts but as examples of the process of Jewish pseudepigraphy in a growing collection developed around the authority of priestly patriarchs.
4.3 Marginalia in the Priestly Texts
Manuscripts are more than the words on the page. In addition to considering the scribal and codicological character of the Qumran Levi, Qahat, and Amram materials, we can also gain glimpses of marginalia across the texts. This data is limited but provides a space for starting to think about interactions with the texts in antiquity. Of course, there are many unknown variables regarding when, where, why, and by whom marginalia were added to the texts in the transmission and reception processes.
Without minimizing these obstacles, at least one set of marginalia emerges as an intriguing feature in some of the texts. While marginal horizontal strokes or paragraphos (a small horizontal line with a hook) are not uncommon in the Hebrew texts at Qumran,49 there are but four occurrences in the Aramaic literature. At least three manuscripts of our Aramaic priestly texts include a marginal stroke to signal the shift in discourse. Such markings are found at: 4Q542 1 ii 8–9 (horizontal line); 4Q213 1 ii 11–12; 4Q213a 2 10–11 (both paragraphos). The only other occurrence of a paratextual stroke inserted between lines is found in a fragment of the Book of Giants at 4Q532 1 ii 6–7 (horizontal line).
García Martínez undertook a preliminary comparison of scribal features in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls and found that “there are no differences in the scribal practices among the two sorts of texts.”50 While the scribal study of the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls is largely uncharted, separate studies by Machiela and myself have indicated that though similar in scribal and material characters, there are important variations and gradations between the Hebrew and Aramaic texts.51 Among the items García Martínez listed were uses of paragraphos signs in 4Q213a, 4Q542, and 4Q532, with the occurrence in 4Q214b unregistered in his data.52 While he is correct in noting the general similarity in representation of this feature—these forms of marginalia are relatively common in the larger Qumran collection—it is possible that the concentration of this style of marking in the Levi and Qahat texts is instructive. That is, given the paucity of this style of marking in the Aramaic texts, the concentration in our priestly pseudepigrapha is curious.
We could, of course, entertain the question of when the markings were added and by whom. If, on the one hand, the markings were included earlier in the life of these traditions, it may hint at a common scribal approach. If, on the other hand, the markings were included by a later reader, it may suggest at least the materials were interacted with in a common way. Both possibilities open still further questions of the social location of scribes and/or users of the manuscripts. Given the highly fragmentary nature of the materials and underdeveloped study of scribal features in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls, little more can be said of these possibilities.
5 Cultural Considerations
Are there antecedent or emerging constructs available, either internal or external to ancient Jewish culture, that indicate a trend in clustering compositions in groups, particularly in a set of three?
There are several caveats to Milik’s original proposal that demand methodological consideration before moving forward. His conception of a tripartite group was made largely on the basis of his understanding of the transmission and reception of patriarchal traditions in early Christian writings. This theory rests on the presupposition that both the Qahat and Amram materials were translated in Greek and circulated beyond the bounds of what we presently know of their limited reception. To be sure, we also have little secure knowledge of the translation and transmission history of ALD, save for its partial representation in Greek in a tenth century codex.53 Further clouding the chronology required of this thesis is that the Apostolic Constitutions is a liturgical collection dated to the late fourth century CE.54 The issue here, then, is whether or not the concept of a trilogy as a defined cluster of texts would have been operative in the world of the production, transmission, or reception of ALD, WQ, and VA.
There are several areas of interrelated contexts that could factor into this aspect of the study. For example, there is the increasing trend in the Hebrew Scriptures for referencing groups or ancestral figures, not least in threes (e.g., Ezek 14:14). Imagined booklore in the Aramaic texts as well as the material and codicological considerations of the Dead Sea Scrolls discussed above could also factor into cultural contextual considerations. Ancient Near Eastern first-person traditions could also provide another conversation partner, particularly those that engage in varieties of attribution to famed figures and embrace future outlooks.55
For the purposes of this essay, however, I preliminarily explore but one of the relevant cultural spaces of which the Aramaic texts were a part: the Hellenistic world. The following is not an exhaustive consideration of this avenue of study. Rather, it illustrates the types of questions we can begin asking as we consider the context(s) of the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls.
5.1 Emerging Sets of Literature or Performances in Classical Sources
When it comes to their cultural contextualization, the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls have been predominantly studied in terms of their indebtedness to, influence by, or appropriation of Babylonian traditions. While this approach has resulted in some helpful insights into select topics and texts, less energy has been spent on recovering the interactions with traditions from the west.56 Given the general date ranges of writings and witnesses among the Qumran Aramaic corpus from the mid-third century BCE to early-first century CE, the Hellenistic and Graeco-Roman context is arguably more relevant for understanding the ideas and outlooks that were both formative to this literature and informed the way it was understood by audiences living in Judea in the late Second Temple period under the auspices of Graeco-Roman powers.
To be sure, there have been inroads into this topic to demonstrate that the scribes of the Qumran Aramaic texts were indeed conversant in cultural lore and practices of this Mediterranean cultural context. Topics evidencing such cultural interactions include: views of female sexual pleasure as a sign of conception in GenAp 2:9–15,57 Ionian cartography and Noah’s division of the earth in GenAp 16–17,58 patterns of four kingdoms historiography in Dan 2, 7 and the aptly-named Four Kingdoms (4Q552–4Q553),59 perceptions of pre-scientific knowledge such as physiognomy,60 as well as first-person voices in light of the historiographical awareness of Hellenistic writers.61 While there is much uncharted territory in mapping the Hellenistic setting of both authors and audiences of the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls, studies in these areas have demonstrated the increasing importance of this topic for exploring how these Second Temple Jewish texts were informed by, and formed within, Hellenistic cultures of Judea.
In this light, one essential area of investigation yet to register in studies on ALD, WQ, and VA is whether or not the clustering of ancestral lore or cultural media in groups occurred in the Hellenistic or Graeco-Roman worlds. As indicated above, this setting may be relevant both for rethinking the authorial aims of text production (were the scribes of the Levi, Qahat, and Amram texts creating a set of literature in view of patterns in the Hellenistic world?) and the reception or perception of these writings by audiences (were readers, hearers, or users of the texts understanding the group as having some unity in light of clusters of traditions in Hellenistic culture?). Arguably, the most pertinent materials for pressing into this new territory are provided by classical biographies and performances as well as lexical analyses of mentions of three-fold collections of writings.
Classical biographies of the fifth through fourth centuries BCE provide some evidence for emerging clusters. Xenophon of Athens (ca. 430–354 BC) was both prolific in writing memoirs, encomiums, and romances, as well as influential for the emerging biographical models of classical writers. Xenophon’s memoirs in Anabasis (ca. late 380s BCE) are arguably the most relevant for the present topic. In this writing, Xenophon undertakes a detailed account of Cyrus the Younger and his three generals who attempted to topple the Persian throne of Artaxerxes II yet met their untimely deaths either in battle or execution. Given his position, Cyrus’s account is the lengthiest of the lot. Following these, the synopses of the three generals are provided in sequence: Clearchus the Lacedaemonian, Proxenus the Boeotian, and Menon the Thessalian (Anab. 2.6.1– 29). While it is possible that the treatment of three generals is merely incidental—there just happened to be three military leaders in the position—the work ends with mention of two other executed individuals. Agias the Arcadian and Socrates the Achean receive but passing reference (Anab. 2.6.30). In this way, Xenophon’s treatment is possibly a cluster of three memorialized figures set under the umbrella of a fourth major figure, yet it is clear that his treatment of this triad involved their election from among a slightly larger group of candidates.
Though his work survives largely in fragments and served as a source for Plutarch’s Life of Pericles (ca. 75 CE), Stesimbrotus of Thasus’s (ca. 470–420 BCE) On Themistocles, Thucydides, and Pericles provides some hints of a reasonably unified threefold collection. The writing presents a triad of biographies of three Athenian military leaders, which, though not sequential in their lives and times, seem to have some unity. As Hägg observed, “[t]he writing is less concerned with slandering the three Athenian generals and statesman on political grounds than with showing their true characters by means of anecdotes” (FGrHist 107F1–11; 1222F1–11).62 While there is some debate around how to best describe Stesimbrotus’s work, there is a general recognition that it is biographical, perhaps even to be understood as a forerunner to the more fully-developed Greek genre.63
The examples from Xenophon and Stesimbrotus provide some point of reference for treatments of the memories of figures past in threes. However, Aeschylus’s three tragedies in The Oresteia provides the strongest foundation for a Greek trilogy established in performance. The three plays plus a satyr (Agamemnon, The Libation Bearers, The Eumenides, with Proteus) are set against the backdrop of the Trojan War, an ancestral myth which audiences were familiar with not least from the Iliad and Odyssey and, thus, was enabled and extended by both playwright and performers beyond their Homeric origins. The trilogy consists of three self-contained tales that relate to an overarching epic, which are set around the lives of figures who lived sequentially over two generations, and are unified by a common thematic direction, namely asserting the need for a new polis.64 That Aeschylus’s work was both well-known and favorably-received is evident by the The Oresteia’s first-place prize at the 458 BCE Great Dionysian festival of Athens.65 As Burian and Shapiro observed, the cultural currency of Aeschylus’s tragedian trilogy extends into other literary and material culture: “to judge from such evidence as the references to The Oresteia in the comedies of Aristophanes and the reflection of at least two of its plays in vase painting, the Greeks themselves regarded this trilogy as among Aeschylus’ greatest achievements.”66 While Aeschylus’s trilogy is the only known surviving threefold play from this era, the commissioned writing and performance of trilogies of tragedies plus a satyr was a focal point of this annual festival of the polis.67 In this way, the performative aspect of cultural heritage in Athens as exemplified by the formal trilogy of The Oresteia is the clearest evidence for the existence of a trilogy in Hellenistic culture.
While none of these comparisons netted a clear analogy to the proposed triad of priestly texts, they did provide, even in outline, a cultural framework in the Hellenistic period for clustering aspects of cultural memory related to the recent or remote past in groups of three. This perspective, however, sends us back to re-consider the very premise of early proposals over the Aramaic Levi, Qahat, and Amram texts.
6 Conclusions and Constellations
Milik’s initial impression of grouping the Levi, Qahat, and Amram materials was helpful to start the conversation on what were then newly available texts. Yet our growing knowledge of the Dead Sea Scrolls demands ongoing reevaluation of prior proposals. The development and application of the three criteria above resulted in both confirmations and questions related to if, how, and when the Aramaic Levi, Qahat, and Amram texts are a group.
Should we think of the group of texts as conceived as a group in their earliest Aramaic scribal settings? Possibly. The scribes of the Aramaic set of writings were active cultivators of traditions developed in the orbit of ancestral figures and often picked up on lingering loose-ends in traditions to drive the tradition forward. In this way, the chain of injunctions and actualizations of commanding the priestly generations in each text fits quite well with compositional techniques documented elsewhere in ancient Jewish scriptures (e.g., pre-Samaritan texts and “Additions” to Daniel). Similarly, there is some evidence of the convergence or collection of ancestral traditions, specifically Aramaic pseudepigrapha, on singular scrolls at Qumran (i.e., Enoch, Genesis Apocryphon, and Daniel). In light of this trend, the codicological indications that at least two of our priestly traditions, those associated with Qahat and Amram in 4Q542–4Q547, were inscribed on the same scroll takes on new significance. Machiela’s recent argument on rethinking the literary structure of this pair, of course, suggests that there are certainly multiple ways these traditions could have related. Collectively, these items challenge the way Levi, Qahat, and Amram materials have been understood as discrete texts and invite us to rethink how they perhaps function as representations of a larger priestly tradition oriented around three figures.
Should we rethink these writings as a group of received texts, not in early Christianity as Milik averred, but in the Second Temple period? Perhaps. Here the concentration and similarities of marginal markings in the priestly texts documented above may be one factor in helping understand how a culture of scribes and/or users interacted with the texts in similar ways. Similarly, by interrogating the larger cultural frameworks for clustering texts or traditions in the Hellenistic world, we may develop an etic approach by recovering the culturally conditioned cognitive frameworks that may have shaped ancient perceptions of developing groups of texts. In this way, Milik’s suspicion of a priestly group of writings may have pressed in the right direction but the avenue he took to arrive at the conclusion was wrong. I admit, however, we need more work to firm up or refine the question of the earliest reception of our Aramaic pseudepigrapha.68
Regardless of the unknowns of their ancient production and reception as a group, is it beneficial to study the Levi, Qahat, and Amram texts as a group? Absolutely. For all their diversity, there are discernable currents of continuity across clusters of texts in the Qumran Aramaic corpus. Most all scholars agree on this. The converging interests that galvanize priestly identity internally and externally, develop and articulate priestly traditions, and claim and confer authority in the Levi, Qahat, and Amram materials indicate that these writings provide a large-scope impression of priestly ideas and interests cultivated in Aramaic scribal cultures of ancient Judaism. As a collective, then, they achieve this overall impression better than as solo acts.
Exploring and articulating the development, transmission, and reception of ancient textual traditions is complex. As such, metaphors or analogies are at once essential yet unlikely to account for all the variables. From “trilogies,” to “clusters,” to “family portraits,” and even “baklava,” scholars have tried to find images and ideas that help capture the dynamic process and outcomes of the scribal activities in antiquity.69 Of course, every metaphor has its limits. Yet the notion of constellations of texts and growing traditions, introduced at the outset of this essay, has a particular explanatory power even toward its eventual and inevitable breakdown.
The metaphor of a constellation for organizing or arranging ideas hearkens to the philosophical work of Walter Benjamin, especially in The Origins of German Trauerspiel. Najman bridged Benjamin’s notion of the constellation into studies on the formation of ancient Jewish literature, with several others now also applying it to articulate either the generic forms or developmental processes of textual traditions in a pre-canonical age.70 There are at least four aspects of this analogy that are useful and have a particular payoff for the Levi-Qahat-Amram group studied here. I explore these items below neither in a technical astrophysical sense nor from a theoretical perspective of genre theory—I know the limits of my interdisciplinary efforts! Rather, I deploy it here for heuristic purposes.
First, constellations are part of larger systems. This is not unlike the phenomenon of “asterisms,” which are informal clusters of stars that may or may not be part of recognizable constellations. For our metaphor, this allows some fluidity for individual traditions to participate in more than one configuration. In this way, the Levi-Qahat-Amram constellation can exist in its own integrity but this recognition does not unnecessarily distance it from the larger multi-dimensional reality of materials. In this case, we can recognize the group as hanging together in a meaningful way while also underscoring that it is part of larger concentric world of texts and traditions: first the Aramaic writings represented at Qumran, then the wider ring of the Qumran collection. That is, while a given constellation in the sky might capture our attention, its context in a larger cosmos also matters, and membership within a constellation is not exclusive of involvement in other formations.
Second, constellations are configurations of individual items yet form representations that are more than the sum of these parts. The Levi, Amram, and Qahat materials can and do have value on their own. Yet studied together they form what appears to be a cohesive and generative group that gives voice to an emerging Aramaic priestly tradition of pseudepigrapha. Priestly knowledge, practice, tradition, and identity appears to be a key theme of several Aramaic texts at Qumran. As such, we can study these features in individual texts and then also stand back and articulate the overarching dynamics that relate to the larger network. That is, while the given stars of a constellation have their own brilliance and character, as a collective they present an image that helps guide and direct our understanding.
Third, the configurations and positions of constellations change over time due to the vantage point of the viewer. As we learn more about the contents and shape of individual texts and the traditions in which they participate, we can re-chart or re-position the proximity of texts as needed. Whereas a trilogy, for example, locks texts into a book-based metaphor, the constellation approach is inherently more open. As noted above, there is value in studying these texts as a group. As we learn more about this group and the features that define it or distance it from others, we can increasingly determine the degrees of relation of the traditions and adjust them accordingly. That is, a chart of these constellations is not fixed and finalized but, like the universe of which they are a part, is open to incremental change.
Fourth, individual astral items and constellations are part of the larger, rapid inflation of an ever-expanding universe. The event colloquially known as “The Big Bang” is what resulted in our system and existence. The Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls represent what appears to be a rather sudden burst of scribal creativity in the mid-Second Temple period. The causes of this scribal big bang are yet unknown, although the outcomes are evident. This collection includes a large group of ancient Jewish pseudepigrapha developed around the orbits of ancestral figures (e.g., Enoch, Noah, or Abraham) or new personae from the more recent past (e.g., Daniel or Tobit) all penned in Aramaic. The opportunity now is to press ahead in studying new stars, rethinking old ones, and discerning emerging networks within the newly formed group. That is, as we increasingly map the stars of constellations in this space, we gain both a focused view of its features and work towards a better understanding of its beginnings.
References
Angel, Joseph L. Otherworldly and Eschatological Priesthood in the Dead Sea Scrolls. STDJ 86. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Ben-Dov, Jonathan. Head of All Years: Astronomy and Calendars at Qumran in Their Ancient Context. STDJ 78. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Bonani, George, Susan Ivy, Willy Wölfli, Magen Broshi, Israel Carmi, and John Strugnell. “Radiocarbon Dating of Fourteen Dead Sea Scrolls.” Radiocarbon 34 (1992): 843–849.
Burian, Peter, and Alan Shapiro, eds. The Complete Aeschylus: The Oresteia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Carmignac, Jean. “Les Horoscopes de Qumran.” RevQ 5 (1965): 199–217.
Collins, John J. “Epilogue: Genre Analysis and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” DSD 17 (2010): 389–401.
Conacher, D.J. Aeschylus’ Oresteia: A Literary Commentary. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987.
Cook, Edward M. “Remarks on the Testament of Kohath from Qumran Cave 4.” JJS 44 (1993): 205–219.
Cooley, Jeff. “The Book of Giants and the Greek Gilgamesh.” Pages 67–79 in Windows to the Ancient World of the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of Samuel Greengus. Edited by Bill T. Arnold, Nancy L. Erickson, and John H. Walton. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014.
Crawford, Sidnie White. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Cross, Frank Moore, Donald W. Parry, Eugene C. Ulrich, and Richard J. Saley, eds. Qumran Cave 4: XII.1–2 Samuel. DJD 17. Oxford: Clarendon, 2005.
Davila, J.R. “Aramaic Levi.” Pages 121–142 in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures. Edited by Richard Bauckham, James R. Davila, and Alexander Panayotov. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013.
Dimant, Devorah. “Melchizedek at Qumran and in Judaism: A Response.” Pages 361–367 in New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only. Edited by Andrei Orlov, Gabriele Boccaccini, and Jason M. Zurawski. Studia Judaeoslavica 4. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Dimant, Devorah. “Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts.” Pages 173–191 in From Enoch to Tobit. FAT 114. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017.
Drawnel, Henryk. An Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran: A New Interpretation of the Levi Document. JSJSup 86. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Drawnel, Henryk. “The Literary Form and Didactic Content of the Admonitions (Testament) of Qahat.” Pages 55–73 in From 4QMMT to Resurrection: Mélanges qumraniens en hommage à Émile Puech. Edited by Florentino García Martínez, Annette Steudel, and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar. STDJ 61. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Eshel, Hanan. “The Damascus Document’s ‘Three Nets of Belial’: A Reference to the Aramaic Levi Document?” Pages 243–255 in Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity, and Tradition in Ancient Judaism. Edited by Lynn LiDonnici and Andrea Lieber. JSJSup 119. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Falk, Daniel K. The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures Among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 8. LSTS 63. London: T&T Clark, 2007.
Feldman, Ariel. “Patriarchs and Aramaic Traditions.” Pages 469–480 in T&T Clark Companion to Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by George J. Brooke and Charlotte Hempel. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2018.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “The Aramaic ‘Elect of God’ Text from Qumran Cave IV.” CBQ 27 (1965): 348–372.
Frevel, Christian, ed. Mixed Marriages: Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Temple Period. LHBOTS 547. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2011.
Fröhlich, Ida. “Medicine and Magic in Genesis Apocryphon: Ideas on Human Conception and Its Hindrances.” RevQ 25 (2011): 177–198.
Fröhlich, Ida. “Enmeduranki and Gilgamesh: Mesopotamian Figures in Aramaic Enoch Traditions.” Pages 635–653 in A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam. Edited by Eric F. Mason. JSJSup 153. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
García Martínez, Florentino. Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran. STDJ 9. Leiden: Brill, 1992.
García Martínez, Florentino. “Scribal Practices in the Aramaic Literary Texts from Qumran.” Pages 327–341 in Myths, Martyrs, and Modernity: Studies in the History of Religions in Honour of Jan N. Bremmer. Edited by Jitse Dijkstra, Justin Kroesen, and Yme Kuiper. SHR 127. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Goff, Matthew. “Gilgamesh the Giant: The Qumran Book of Giants’ Appropriation of ‘Gilgamesh’ Motifs.” DSD 16 (2009): 221–253.
Goldhill, Simon. Aeschylus: The Oresteia. 2nd ed. Landmarks of World Literature. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Greenfield, Jonas C. “The Words of Levi Son of Jacob in Damascus Document IV, 15–19.” RevQ 13 (1988): 319–322.
Greenfield, Jonas C., and Michael E. Stone. “Aramaic Levi Document.” Pages 1–72 in Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3. Edited by George Brooke, John Collins, Torleif Elgvin, Peter Flint, Jonas Greenfield, Erik Larson, Carol Newsom, Émile Puech, Lawrence H. Schiffman, Michael Stone, and Julio Trebolle Barrera, in consultation with James VanderKam. DJD 22. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996.
Greenfield, Jonas C., and Michael E. Stone. “Remarks on the Aramaic Testament of Levi from the Geniza.” RB 86 (1979): 214–230.
Greenfield, Jonas C., Michael E. Stone, and Esther Eshel. The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary. SVTP 19. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Grelot, Pierre. “Hénoch et ses écritures.” RB 82 (1975): 481–500.
Hägg, Tomas. The Art of Biography in Antiquity. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Hayes, Christine E. Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Henze, Matthias. The Madness of King Nebuchadnezzar: The Ancient Near Eastern Origins and Early History of Interpretation of Daniel 4. JSJSup 61. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Hogeterp, Albert. Expectations of the End: A Comparative Traditio-Historical Study of Eschatological, Apocalyptic and Messianic Ideas in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. STDJ 83. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Hollander, Harm W., and Marinus de Jonge, eds. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary. SVTP 8. Leiden: Brill, 1985.
Horst, Pieter W. van der. “Bitenosh’s Orgasm (1QapGen 2:9–15).” JSJ 43 (2012): 613–628.
Jones, Robert. “Priesthood and Cult in the Visions of Amram: A Critical Evaluation of Its Attitudes toward the Contemporary Temple Establishment in Jerusalem.” DSD 27 (2020): 1–30.
Jurgens, Blake A. “Reassessing the Dream-Vision of the Vision of Amram (4Q543–547).” JSP 24 (2014): 3–42.
Kapera, Zdzisław J. “Preliminary Information about Józef T. Milik’s Unpublished Manuscripts of ‘The Testament of Levi’.” The Polish Journal of Biblical Research 6 (2007): 109–112.
Kratz, Reinhard. “Nabonid in Qumran.” Pages 253–270 in Babylon: Wissenskultur in Orient Und Okzident. Edited by Eva Cancik-Kirschbaum, Margaret van Ess, and Joachim Marzahn. Topoi 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011.
Kugel, James L. “Levi’s Elevation to the Priesthood in Second Temple Writings.” HTR 86 (1993): 1–64.
Kugler, Robert A. From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi. EJL 9. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996.
Lange, Armin. “The Parabiblical Literature of the Qumran Library and the Canonical History of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 305–321 in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by Shalom M. Paul, Robert A. Kraft, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Weston W. Fields. VTSup 94. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Lange, Armin. “Your Daughters Do Not Give to Their Sons and Their Daughters Do Not Take for Your Sons (Ezra 9,12): Intermarriage in Ezra 9–10 and in the Pre-Maccabean Dead Sea Scrolls: Teil 1.” BN 137 (2008): 17–39.
Lange, Armin. “Your Daughters Do Not Give to Their Sons and Their Daughters Do Not Take for Your Sons (Ezra 9, 12): Intermarriage in Ezra 9–10 and in the Pre-Maccabean Dead Sea Scrolls: Teil 2.” BN 139 (2008): 79–98.
Lemaire, André. “Nabonide et Gilgamesh: L’araméen en Mésopotamie et à Qoumrân.” Pages 125–144 in Aramaica Qumranica: Proceedings of the Conference on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran in Aix-en-Provence, 30 June–2 July 2008. Edited by Katell Berthelot and Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra. STDJ 94. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Longman, Tremper. Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1991.
Machiela, Daniel A. The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon: A New Text and Translation with Introduction and Special Treatment of Columns 13–17. STDJ 79. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Machiela, Daniel A. “Lord or God? Tobit and the Tetragrammaton.” CBQ 75 (2013): 463–472.
Machiela, Daniel A. “Is the Testament of Qahat Part of the Visions of Amram? Material and Literary Considerations of 4Q542 and 4Q547.” JSJ 52 (2021): 1–12.
Milik, Józef T. “4Q Visions de ‘Amram et une citation d’Origène.” RB 79 (1972): 77–97.
Milik, Józef T. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976.
Milik, Józef T. “Écrits préesséniens de Qumrân: D’Hénoch à Amram.” Pages 91–106 in Qumrân: Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu. BETL 46. Edited by M. Delcor. Paris: Duculot, 1978.
Milik, Józef T. “Les modèles araméens du livre d’Esther dans la grotte 4 de Qumrân.” RevQ 15 (1992): 321–399.
Najman, Hindy. “The Idea of Biblical Genre: From Discourse to Constellation.” Pages 307–321 in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of Her 65th Birthday. Edited by Jeremy Penner, Ken M. Penner, and Cecilia Wassen. STDJ 98. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Nautlin, P. “Apostolic Constitutions.” Pages 1:197–1:198 in Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity. Edited by Angelo Di Berardino. 3 vols. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014.
Nickelsburg, George W.E. and James C. VanderKam. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001.
Perrin, Andrew B. “Capturing the Voices of Pseudepigraphic Personae: On the Form and Function of Incipits in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls.” DSD 20 (2013): 98–123.
Perrin, Andrew B. The Dynamics of Dream-Vision Revelation in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls. Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015.
Perrin, Andrew B. “Tobit’s Context and Contacts in the Qumran Aramaic Anthology.” JSP 25 (2015): 23–51.
Perrin, Andrew B. “Physiognomy and Forgiveness: Who Is the Diviner in Prayer of Nabonidus and What Is He Doing?” Paper Presented at the Aramaic Science and Qumran Conference, Pázmány Péter Catholic University. Budapest, 16 July 16 2018.
Perrin, Andrew B. “Expressions of Empire and Four Kingdoms Patterns in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 96–120 in Four Kingdoms Motifs Before and Beyond the Book of Daniel. Edited by Andrew B. Perrin and Loren Stuckenbruck. TBN 28. Leiden: Brill, 2020.
Perrin, Andrew B. “Daniel Traditions and the Qumran Movement? Reconsidering the Interface between Texts, Traditions, Identities, and Movements.” In Re-Imagining Apocalypticism: Apocalypses, Apocalyptic Literature, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Matthew Goff and Lorenzo DiTommaso. EJL. Atlanta: SBL Press, forthcoming.
Perrin, Andrew B. “Redrafting the Architecture of Daniel Traditions in the Hebrew Scriptures and Dead Sea Scrolls.” JTS (2021): forthcoming.
Popović, Mladen. Reading the Human Body: Physiognomics and Astrology in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hellenistic-Early Roman Period Judaism. STDJ 67. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Popović, Mladen “Pseudepigraphy and a Scribal Sense of the Past in the Ancient Mediterranean: A Copy of the Book of the Words of the Vision of Amram.” Pages 308–318 in Is There a Text in This Cave? Studies in the Textuality of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of George J. Brooke. Edited by Ariel Feldman, Maria Cioată, and Charlotte Hempel. STDJ 119. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
Puech, Émile. “Le Testament de Qahat en araméen de la grotte 4 (‘4QTQah’).” RevQ 15 (1991): 23–54.
Puech, Émile. Qumrân Grotte 4.XXII: Textes Araméens, Première Partie 4Q529–549. DJD 31. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001.
Schattner-Rieser, Ursula. “J.T. Milik’s Monograph on the Testament of Levi and the Reconstructed Aramaic Text of the Prayer of Levi and the Vision of Levi’s Ascent to Heaven from Qumran Caves 4 and 1.” Qumran Chronicle 15 (2007): 139–154.
Schoor, Hanneke van der. “The Assessment of Variation: The Case of the Aramaic Levi Document.” DSD 28 (2021): 179–206.
Stanford, W.B., ed. The Oresteia: Agamemnon, The Libation Bearers, The Eumenides. Translated by Robert Fagles. New York: Penguin Classics, 1984.
Starcky, Jean. “Les quatre étapes du messianisme à Qumrân.” RB 70 (1963): 481–505.
Steiner, Richard C. “The Heading of the ‘Book of the Words of Noah’ on a Fragment of the Genesis Apocryphon: New Light on a ‘Lost’ Work.” DSD 2 (1995): 66–71.
Stone, Michael E. Ancient Judaism: New Visions and Views. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011.
Stone, Michael E., and Esther Eshel. “Aramaic Levi Document.” Pages 2:1490–2:1510 in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture. Edited by Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman. 3 vols. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2013.
Stuckenbruck, Loren T. “The Early Traditions Related to 1 Enoch From The Dead Sea Scrolls: An Overview And Assessment.” Pages 41–63 in The Early Enoch Literature. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini and John J. Collins. JSJSup 121. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Stuckenbruck, Loren T. “Pseudepigraphy and First Person Discourse in the Dead Sea Documents: From the Aramaic Texts to Writings of the Yaḥad.” Pages 295–326 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture: Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (July 6–8, 2008). Edited by Adolfo D. Roitman, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Shani Tzoref. STDJ 93. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Tervanotko, Hanna. “A Trilogy of Testaments? The Status of the Testament of Qahat versus Texts Attributed to Levi and Amram.” Pages 41–59 in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures. Edited by Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar. BETL 270. Leuven: Peeters, 2014.
Tigchelaar, Eibert. “In Search of the Scribe of 1QS.” Pages 339–352 in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by Shalom M. Paul, Robert A. Kraft, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Weston W. Fields. VTSup 94. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Tov, Emanuel. “The Nature and Background of Harmonizations in Biblical Manuscripts.” JSOT 31 (1985): 3–29.
Tov, Emanuel. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert. STDJ 54. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Tov, Emanuel. “Three Strange Books of the LXX: 1 Kings, Esther, and Daniel Compared with Similar Rewritten Compositions from Qumran and Elsewhere.” Pages 369–393 in Die Septuaginta: Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.–23. Juli 2006. Edited by Martin Karrer, Wolfgang Kraus with the assistance of Martin Meiser. WUNT 219. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
Ulrich, Eugene C. “4QSamc: A Fragmentary Manuscript of 2 Samuel 14–15 from the Scribe of the Serek Hay-yaḥad (1QS).” BASOR 235 (1979): 1–25.
Ulrich, Eugene C. “The Bible in the Making: The Scriptures at Qumran.” Pages 77–93 in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Eugene Ulrich and James C. VanderKam. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 10. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994.
VanderKam, James C. “Isaac’s Blessing of Levi and His Descendants in Jubilees 31.” Pages 497–519 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Eugene C. Ulrich. STDJ 30. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Waerzeggers, Caroline. “The Prayer of Nabonidus in the Light of Hellenistic Babylonian Literature.” Pages 64–75 in Jewish Cultural Encounters in the Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern World. Edited by Mladen Popović, Myles Schoonover, and Marijn Vandenberghe. JSJSup 178. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
Wright, Benjamin G. “Joining the Club: A Suggestion about Genre in Early Jewish Texts.” DSD 17 (2010): 289–314.
Zahn, Molly M. Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts. STDJ 95. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Zahn, Molly M. Genres of Rewriting in Second Temple Judaism: Scribal Composition and Transmission. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2020.
This essay is part of a larger forthcoming commentary project on the Aramaic Levi, Qahat, and Amram texts at Qumran funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Thanks to Brandon Diggens and Shelby Bennett for their editorial support on aspects of this paper.
While the “Testament of Qahat” has become a common title for 4Q542, Drawnel (“The Literary Form”) critiqued that the text lacks distinctive features of that later defined genre. As such, he proposed the title “Admonitions of Qahat.” However, I prefer the title “Words of Qahat,” since this captures the essential pseudepigraphal nature and persona of the traditions.
Milik, “4Q Visions de ʿAmram.”
Milik, The Books of Enoch, 24; Milik, “Écrits préesséniens de Qumrân,” 95 n. 9. See also Kapera, “Preliminary Information”; Schattner-Rieser, “J.T. Milik’s Monograph”; and Drawnel’s forthcoming essay in RevQ.
Milik, “Écrits préesséniens de Qumrân,” 106.
Hollander and de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 22.
Thanks to Eibert Tigchelaar for bringing this nuance and reference to my attention.
Kugel, “Levi’s Elevation,” 45.
Cook, “Remarks on the Testament of Kohath,” 207.
Puech, DJD 31: 258–62.
Drawnel, An Aramaic Wisdom Text, 87.
Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document, 31. For a similar perspective, see also Stone and Eshel, “Aramaic Levi Document,” 1490.
Tervanotko, “A Trilogy of Testaments?”
Tervanotko, “A Trilogy of Testaments?,” 44.
Tervanotko, “A Trilogy of Testaments?,” 49–50.
Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document, 29 (cf. Puech, DJD 31: 259).
Endogamous marriage is recognized as a key theme in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls (e.g., Dimant, “Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts,” 178–85; Perrin, “Tobit’s Context and Contacts,” 35–42) as well as a current within the Levi, Qahat, and Amram materials (Tervanotko, “A Trilogy of Testaments?,” 46). For a still larger context, see Frevel, Mixed Marriages; Hayes, Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identity; Lange, “Your Daughters Do Not Give to Their Sons, Teil 1”; and Lange, “Your Daughters Do Not Give to Their Sons: Teil 2.”
Puech, DJD 31: 343; Perrin, The Dynamics of Dream-Vision Revelation, 164–65.
Jones, “Priesthood and Cult,” 21–22.
Angel, Otherworldly and Eschatological Priesthood, 54–55.
The name Melchizedek is not extant in the VA fragments. Given the revelation of the
For Milik’s early remarks on this earthly-heavenly association with respect to VA, see Milik, “Écrits préesséniens de Qumrân,” 93.
Tov, “The Nature and Background,” 7; Falk, The Parabiblical Texts, 119; White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 23–35, 124–25; Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture, 35–45, 155–56.
Tov, “Three Strange Books,” 390. Tov highlights how the addition of the actualization of the divine command to chop down the tree in Dan 4:14a LXX is akin to other instances of ensuring harmony between commands and fulfillments in Exod 7–11 SP and Kish’s command to Saul in 1 Sam 9:3 LXXLuc and Peshitta.
Tervanotko, “A Trilogy of Testaments?,” 47.
On the form of VA’s title and its role in the pseudepigraphic strategy of linking a paratextual feature with imagined booklore within the narrative, see Perrin, “Capturing the Voices,” 109–11. On the cultural context of this mechanism, see Popović, “Pseudepigraphy and a Scribal Sense of the Past.”
On the broader apocalyptic and revelatory traditions of the Qumran Aramaic texts, see Perrin, The Dynamics of Dream-Vision Revelation, 165; Perrin, “The Aramaic Imagination.”
Perrin, The Dynamics of Dream-Vision Revelation, 165.
On the allusions in Malachi, see Kugel, “Levi’s Elevation,” 33; and Perrin, The Dynamics of Dream-Vision Revelation, 152–54. For the traditions in 1 Samuel, see VanderKam, “Isaac’s Blessing,” 519; and Perrin, The Dynamics of Dream-Vision Revelation, 154–56.
For references to these figures and their families, see the following. Qahat: Gen 46:11; Exod 6:16, 18; Num 3:17, 19, 27; 4:2; 16:1; 26:57–58; Josh 21:5, 20, 26; 1 Chr 6:1–2, 16, 18, 22, 38, 61, 66, 70; 15:5; 23:6, 12. Amram: Exod 6:18, 20; Num 3:19, 27; 26:58–59; Ezra 10:34 (an individual of the same name among the returnees); 1 Chr 6:2–3, 18; 23:12–13; 24:20; 26:23.
Kugler (From Patriarch to Priest, 117) commented that this section “establishes Levi’s lineage and indicates how his seed became a priestly family.”
For proposed portfolios of individual scribes, see Tov, “The Scribes of Qumran,” 150–51; Tov, Scribal Practices, 23–24.
Milik, The Books of Enoch, 5.
Bonani, Ivy, Wölfli, Broshi, Carmi, and Strugnell, “Radiocarbon Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 28. See also Tov, Scribal Practices, 23; Hogeterp, Expectations of the End, 15 n. 83.
Ulrich, “4QSamc: A Fragmentary Manuscript,” 1; Ulrich, DJD 17: 247; Tigchelaar, “In Search of the Scribe of 1QS”; Tov, Scribal Practices, 24.
Stone and Greenfield, DJD 22: 37.
Puech, DJD 31: 259, 377. In a previous study, Puech (“Le Testament de Qahat,” 27) observed the stylistic similarity between 4Q542 and 4Q213, which suggests they were approximate contemporaries, though not of the same hand.
van der Schoor, “The Assessment of Variation: The Case of the Aramaic Levi Document.” I am grateful to the author for sharing a prepublication version of the study, aspects of which were also shared at 2019 IOQS meeting in Aberdeen.
Puech, DJD 31: 259.
Machiela, “Is the Testament of Qahat Part of the Visions of Amram?” Thanks to the author for sharing an advance copy of the article.
Puech, DJD 31: 379.
For the other material measurements, see Puech’s detailed analyses in DJD 31: 257–58; 375–76. Tov (Scribal Practices, 84) summarized the data for scrolls with “small writing blocks” as follows: “The average number of lines per column in Qumran scrolls is probably twenty, with a height of approximately 14–15 cm (including top and bottom margins). Larger scrolls contained columns with from 25 to as many as 60 lines. Scrolls of the smallest dimensions contained merely 5–13 lines and their height was similarly small.” The Aramaic texts at Qumran are diverse in their material quality, though several other items in the corpus also fit in this category. These include: 4QBirth of Noahb (4Q535, 6 lines), 4QJews in the Persian Courta, b, d (4Q550, 4Q550a, 4Q550c, between 7–8 lines), 4QRécit (4Q551, 8 lines), 4QList of False Prophets (4Q339 [Hebrew?], 9 lines), 4QAramaic Apocalypse (4Q246, 9 lines), 4QBrontologion (4Q318, 9 lines), 4QDane (4Q116 [Hebrew], 9 lines), 4QEnGiantsc (4Q531 22, 12 lines?), 4QBirth of Noahc (4Q536, 13 lines). For Tov’s comprehensive list of line numbers for Qumran texts, see Scribal Practices, 84–90.
For this feature in GenAp, see Steiner, “The Heading of the Book of the Words of Noah.”
Lange, “The Parabiblical Literature,” 312.
See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 81–108; Stuckenbruck, “The Early Traditions Related to 1 Enoch.”
Perrin, “Redrafting the Architecture of Daniel Traditions.”
What traditions—actual or imagined—are in view with this reference in 4QBirth of Noaha is a matter of debate. Starcky (“Les quatre étapes du messianisme,” 502) suggested they were otherworldly writings. Carmignac (“Les horoscopes de Qumran,” 212) concluded that one of these writings was doubtless the equally elusive
See Tov, Scribal Practices, 165–66.
Tov, Scribal Practices, 180–87.
García Martínez, “Scribal Practices in the Aramaic Texts,” 337.
See Machiela, “Lord or God?”; Perrin, “Daniel Traditions and the Qumran Movement?”
García Martínez, “Scribal Practices in the Aramaic Texts,” 338.
Greenfield and Stone, “Remarks on the Aramaic Testament,” 215.
Nautlin, “Apostolic Constitution,” 197–98.
See Davila, “Aramaic Levi,” 124; Longman, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography; Neujahr, Predicting the Past.
See, for example, the insightful studies of Ben-Dov, Head of All Years; Drawnel, An Aramaic Wisdom Text; a growing cluster of treatments on giants traditions in Cooley, “The Book of Giants and the Greek Gilgamesh”; Fröhlich, “Enmeduranki”; Goff, “Gilgamesh the Giant”; Lemaire, “Nabonide et Gilgamesh;” as well as research on Nabonidus traditions with an eye to Mesopotamian texts; Henze, The Madness of the King; Kratz, “Nabonid in Qumran”; Perrin, “Physiognomy and Forgiveness”; and Waerzeggers, “The Prayer of Nabonidus.”
Fröhlich, “Medicine and Magic”; van der Horst, “Bitenosh’s Orgasm.”
Machiela, The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon, 87–90.
Perrin, “Expressions of Empire.”
Popović, Reading the Human Body. This study is an excellent example of how contextual consideration must look in multiple directions from Mediterranean cultures to those across the Near East.
Stuckenbruck, “Pseudepigraphy and First Person Discourse.”
Hägg, The Art of Biography in Antiquity, 14.
For scholarly proposal around the formative place of Stesimbrotus in the development of biographical literature see Hägg, The Art of Biography in Antiquity, 14 n. 13; 16 n. 22.
For more detailed synopses of the themes of each, see Goldhill, Aeschylus: The Oresteia and the complete commentary by Conacher, Aeschylus’ Oresteia. For introduction and translation, see Stanford, The Oresteia.
Goldhill, Aeschylus: The Oresteia, x.
Burian and Shapiro, The Oresteia, 3–4.
Goldhill, Aeschylus: The Oresteia, 13.
Of course, the Levi allusion in CD 4:14–19 indicates some Qumran Hebrew literature interacted with at least one area of priestly traditions associated with the figure of Levi. The relatedness of this reference to ALD, however, is a point of debate. See Drawnel, An Aramaic Wisdom Text, 214, 267; Eshel, “The Damascus Document’s ‘Three Nets;”; Greenfield, “The Words of Levi Son of Jacob”; and Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document, 229.
For a robust explanation of textual clusters, see Stone, Ancient Judaism, 151–54. On the likening of layered traditions to baklava, see Ulrich, “The Bible in the Making.” On the origins and limits of the notion of “family resemblance” for genre analysis, see Collins, “Epilogue,” 421–22.
Najman, “The Idea of Biblical Genre”; Wright, “Joining the Club,” 295–95; Perrin, The Dynamics of Dream-Vision Revelation, 227–33; Zahn, Genres of Rewriting, 94–95.