1 Introduction
The purpose of this brief article is to explore the role and function of geography in the narrative structure of Visions of Amram (henceforth: VA). This Aramaic composition, which has been preserved in at least five Qumran manuscripts, is clearly a narrative. The protagonist of the story is Amram, father of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.1
The narrative framework is a scene which takes place at Amram’s deathbed. As his final active achievement, he has arranged for and celebrated his daughter Miriam’s wedding to a family member. Having accomplished this, Amram prepares for his death, summons his children to his bedside, and recounts to them the crucial events of his life. The scene is set in Egypt, where the Israelites are situated before the events of the exodus, which are to take place in the generation of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.
In his farewell address to his children, Amram describes a journey he undertook many years ago to the land of Canaan. He went there to build the tombs of his ancestors.2 His sojourn in Canaan, however, dragged on for an extended period because of a war between Egypt and Philistia that kept the boarder closed. Amram had to stay in Canaan for 41 years, while his wife Jochebed remained in Egypt.
Eventually, Amram was able to return to Egypt, although his return is not narrated in the preserved text. Nevertheless, Amram clearly hints at his coming back to Egypt. Before returning from Canaan, though, he experienced a vision, and the account of the vision is the central episode in his farewell address. In a dream vision, Amram encounters a transcendent dualistic world and sees otherworldly beings representing light and darkness, fighting over him. Moreover, he is informed of the dualistic structure of reality and the forces of good and evil. The revelation also includes a series of predictions regarding the future. Amram is told details of what is to take place in the generation of his children—the exodus events, the destruction of Pharaoh’s army, the divine manifestation at Mount Sinai (which is explicitly mentioned in the vision account), and the future achievements of Moses and Aaron and their descendants.
The geography of VA—in its combination with the time-line of the narrative—exhibits a certain degree of complexity. The narrative framework, the scene at Amram’s deathbed and his final address, takes place in Egypt. This level corresponds to the narrative’s present. Amram’s account of his journey—the narrative’s past level—represents a movement from Egypt to Canaan, and back again. The vision seems—as I shall argue in this article—to be set during Amram’s long sojourn in Canaan. Finally, the predictions included in the vision point to events taking place in Egypt and in the wilderness during the Israelites’ wandering towards Canaan. These predictions represent the third, future level of the narrative.
The occurrence of geographical names as “locations” in a narrative like VA is not in itself surprising. The locations mentioned in the text are integral parts of the plot; the movements of the characters give structure and coherence to the story. However, there are good reasons to look for a deeper level of meaning behind the geography of the text: The locations mentioned may also be expected to carry a symbolic significance, in particular since the place-names in VA also play important roles in other literary traditions that were probably known to the author and intended readers.3
The geography of VA, in other words, is closely related to the text’s character of “biblical rewriting.”4 The Aramaic composition was written as a “prequel” to the well-known exodus narrative. Intertextuality is a central element in the author’s strategy. VA builds on familiar material, expanding and developing its characters, and drawing on the reader’s knowledge of what will happen after the events narrated in the text.
I begin by giving a brief overview of the geographical names used in VA and their significance in the context. Next, I attempt to describe the geographical framework of the narrative and to investigate how this framework supports the overall structure of the composition, and which aspects of the geography, and their interplay with the temporal sequences in the narrative, serve to enhance the authority and importance of the story told and the vision it presents. Special attention will be given to the geography of the exodus events as they are presented in VA. I also examine the way in which the spatial movements of persons reflected in the text mirror or echo patterns of movement of exile and return, known to the potential readers from the narratives of the Pentateuch.5
2 The Geographical Names in VA and Their Significance
The preserved fragments of VA contain the following geographical names: Egypt or “the land of Egypt” (
In the longest and best-preserved account of Amram’s journey to Canaan (4Q544 1 1–15), the land in which the tombs of his forefathers are located is referred to consistently as
Between the land of Egypt and the land of Canaan lies, in the mind of VA, the land of Philistia. Philistia and Canaan are perceived as different countries in close vicinity—in 4Q544 1 7 they seem to be mentioned as standing on the same side over against Egypt in a conflict “between Egypt and Canaan and Philistia” (
The geographical language of VA, in other words, seems to be chosen to support the general perspective reflected in the composition, which presents itself as a tale coming out of the distant past, and situates its narrative between the patriarchal period and the exodus from Egypt. This situation is important for the author and the potential readers. It points back to a decisive epoch in the history of Israel, as perceived by the Second Temple period writers, and firmly associates the revealed contents with the authoritative figures of that epoch.
3 The Geographical Scheme of VA
Egypt, where the text’s present, the farewell scene at Amram’s deathbed, takes place, is explicitly characterized as the place where the Israelites are in exile (
This, in my opinion, is also implied in the text itself. An important passage is the opening of the account of Amram’s vision. This text survives in two manuscripts, 4Q544 and 4Q547. The best-preserved text is that of 4Q544 1 9–10:
In the parallel text 4Q547 1–2 9 only the final words of the line are preserved:
At this point in the narrative Amram shifts his focus from recounting his sojourn in Canaan and his long separation from his wife, to describing his dream vision. The sentence “I saw in my vision, the vision of a dream” reads perfectly well as the opening of the description, followed (after a small vacat) by a presentation of the two angelic figures arguing over Amram (4Q544 1 10–11, cf. 4Q547 1–2 10–11). The narrative sequence, then, seems to imply that the vision experience follows immediately upon the account of the separation which still endures at the time the vision occurs. In other words, Amram receives the revelation while he is still in Canaan.
This interpretation depends on reading the imperfect forms (
4Q547 9 8–9 preserves the conclusion of Amram’s vision account:
Here Amram states that he woke up from his sleep, and then wrote down the contents of the vision. The beginning of line 9 has been lost, but the surviving text has a reference to Canaan with the preposition
4 Geographical Locations and the Spatiality of the Vision Account
The location of Amram’s visionary experience in Canaan is reminiscent of the various divine revelations granted to the patriarchs. The general pattern in the patriarchal narratives is that God speaks to them, or reveals himself to them, in the land of Canaan (Gen 12:7; 13:14–17; 15:1–21; 17:1–22; 18:1–33; 22:1–2, 15–18; 28:10–15; 32:25–30; 35:1, 9–12).19
Through the references to the well-known patriarchal narratives and the location of the narrative in Canaan the author of VA creates a familiar setting which supports the authority of the vision account, linking it to the authority of the biblical figures. Furthermore, the geographical reference serves to assimilate Amram to the patriarchs. In this way, VA achieves an upgrading of the relatively peripheral figure of Moses’ father to a significant figure of authority. Not only is Amram firmly associated with his sons Moses and Aaron and his daughter Miriam, he also appears as a direct successor in the line of the authoritative patriarchs.
The preserved passages relating to the vision create a rather different form of spatiality. A transcendent world is revealed to Amram in his dream, an angelic figure addresses him, and he sees two supernatural beings engaged in a strife concerning himself. The angel, apparently one of the two opponents in the heavenly battle, informs him that they are the rulers of two opposing realms, that of light and that of darkness.
The transcendent world, then, is also spatially structured: Darkness and light become the two areas of dominion, ruled over by the angelic princes of evil and of good.
The contours of the transcendent reality shown and explained to Amram in the course of his dream vision, in other words, stand in contrast to the familiar geographical and narrative setting within which it is embedded in VA. Through this contrast the author of VA obtains a neat balance between the well-known landscape and the narratives it represents, and the revelation of an otherworldly reality conveyed to Amram (and to the readers) by the angelic figures. Thus, a twofold authority is created for the vision account: It shares the established authority of the written traditions and enjoys the authority of a divine communication mediated by angels.
5 Geography and the Exodus Events in VA
From the point of view of the narrative in VA the events of the exodus are still in the future, destined to take place in the following generation, acted out by Amram’s children. The scene of Amram’s deathbed address is Egypt, and the events foreseen are set in the wilderness and, possibly, in the land of Canaan after the conquest. The exodus is explicitly alluded to in Amram’s farewell address to his children. In 4Q543 2a–b, Amram appears to be addressing Moses specifically.
That Moses must be envisaged as the addressee of his father’s words here becomes especially clear from the words of line 5:
Further support can be gained from the admittedly fragmentary text of 4Q546 10 which seems clearly to refer to the events of the exodus itself:
This passage would also seem to belong to Amram’s predictions, based on the vision he has received in Canaan, regarding the events leading up to the exodus, with Moses and/or Aaron as protagonists. As observed by Duke, the phrase
It is noteworthy that Moses is designated
6 Moses, Aaron, and “Writing in the Land”
There are some fragmentary passages of VA which are apparently concerned with the revelation on Mount Sinai and with the roles of Moses and especially Aaron.
The fragmentary text raises several questions at the linguistic and syntactical level. A particularly intriguing problem concerns the subject for the verb
The repeated
The passage, in other words, seems clearly to have its main emphasis on the figure of Aaron and on his descendants, the priestly line. Moses, however, is mentioned first, and something important must have been included in the text with respect to him. What the angelic messenger discloses to Amram, then, is divided into a brief section on Moses (lines 14–15), followed by a longer section on Aaron (beginning with
The word
It is less clear what is implied in the term
Regardless of how we interpret the name in line 14, the question remains what is “written” in line 15, and by whom. The letters
The syntax at the end of line 15 is not unambiguous. It would be possible to read the phrase
In any case, it is apparently important for the author to mention that the writing takes place “in the land.” When viewed in the perspective of the entire composition, this reference seems to provide a link to Amram’s account of his own journey to the land of Canaan. This holds true even if we assume that the vision was experienced by Amram at a later stage after he had left Canaan again. The idea of a written message, closely associated with the promised land as the scene of the act of writing, again provides the combined authority of sacred tradition and of direct divine revelation.
The function of Canaan as a central part of the geographical scheme of VA seems again to be, primarily, to support the authority of the divine promises and their significance for the Israelites and especially for the Levites. The Levitical identity of the protagonist and his descendants is clearly central to VA, and compared to the pentateuchal tradition, Aaron’s significance seems to be further enhanced. The text, however, strives to maintain a certain balance between the roles of Moses and Aaron.
7 Moses, Aaron, and an Altar at Mount Sinai
A passage which refers explicitly to Mount Sinai, informing us about events associated with the exodus and the journey of the Israelites towards the promised land, is found in 4Q547 9:
This fragment seems, as far as the state of the text permits us to conclude, to be concerned with events associated with the revelation on Mount Sinai. Here as in 4Q545 4 both sons of Amram, Moses and Aaron, have their respective roles to perform. The fragmentary nature of the text renders it difficult to form a coherent picture of the scenes envisaged, but it does appear that altars and sacrifices are at the center of the discourse: Moses is credited with the construction of an altar, presumably at or near Mount Sinai. The tradition echoes the biblical accounts of Moses building altars (Exod 17:15; 24:4).36 The episode most likely hinted at here would seem to be the building of an altar and twelve pillars at the foot of Mount Sinai representing the Israelite tribes. In line 5 the focus shifts to the altar of bronze and the sacrifices to be performed there. No direct mention of Aaron has been preserved in the fragment, but the assumption suggests itself that Aaron is the person destined to perform these sacrifices, in accordance with the pentateuchal tradition. This assumption is indirectly confirmed when we examine lines 6–7 where the subject is the priestly succession: “His (presumably Aaron’s) sons” shall be anointed priests for all generations.
The tendency of VA to stress the position of Aaron and his descendants over against the overwhelming importance of Moses in the earlier sources is notable also in this passage, although the balance between the brothers and their respective functions is also upheld here.37 The scene of the fundamental divine establishing and fixing of the roles of the paradigmatic leader figures is here explicitly located at Mount Sinai, as is the case in the literary traditions on which our text is modelled.
8 Mirroring Movements: Exile and Return in VA
We may summarize the chronological model presupposed in the VA texts as a sequence of clearly distinguishable periods, based on the literary traditions well known to its readers and authors, presumably from the Pentateuch. The sequence can be expressed as follows:
Temporal/spatial sequence envisioned in VA:
Patriarchs in Canaan – Israelites in Egypt (patriarchs buried in Canaan) – Israelites at Sinai – Israelites in Canaan
This, obviously, is the temporal sequence of the storyline from the Pentateuch, which provides the background story against which the author of VA intended his narrative to be understood. At the same time, we have in this text a sequence of places, indicated by the geographical names, to which major events in the storyline of VA itself are tied:
Temporal/spatial sequence reflected in VA:
Egypt (narrative framework, scene of Amram’s farewell address) – Canaan (Amram’s journey retold – vision retold) – Israelites at Sinai (vision retold) – Egypt (narrative framework)
Scholars have noted that the journey of Amram and the Levites to Canaan prefigures the later movement of all Israel during the exodus and the journey from Egypt to Canaan. Interestingly, we seem also to have in the structure of VA itself an inversion or mirroring of the movement depicted in the Pentateuch:
Furthermore, at a more detailed level in the account of Amram’s journey to Canaan there is another remarkable narrative inversion when this story is compared to the narrative chain of the Pentateuch. Amram is prevented by events beyond his control from leaving the land and returning to Egypt and his wife. This motif we may read as an inversion of the biblical narrative concerning the Israelites who, at the time of the exodus, are prevented by the stubbornness of Pharaoh from leaving Egypt and setting out towards the promised land, Canaan. Amram, on his part, wishes to leave Canaan and return to Egypt but is for 41 years unable to do so.
What we can observe here, it seems, is a rather subtle remodeling of motifs from the earlier tradition with the geographical structure as the point of departure for the deliberate and significant inversions of the narrative material aimed at highlighting the importance of the traditional figures and the message they are made to convey.
9 Concluding Observations
The geographical framework of VA plays a significant role as a structuring element in the composition. The geography of the composition shows a certain degree of complexity. Geographical names in the text are familiar to the reader from the exodus and wilderness traditions and serve to locate the narrative in the distant past between the patriarchal period and the exodus, providing a firm link to the authoritative figures of that time. The location of Miriam’s marriage and Amram’s farewell address reflects the exile of the Israelites in Egypt. The vision experienced by Amram is, however, set in Canaan with all the weight and importance given to the promised land where the patriarchs are buried.
At the same time, the contrast between the familiar geographical framework and the transcendent, dualistic spatiality of Amram’s vision account provides authority to the contents of the vision in VA. The repeated references to Canaan as the place of a divine revelation to Amram, and the place where something of central importance is being “written” (by Amram or someone else?) enhance the authority and importance of the contents. The location of Amram’s visionary experience in Canaan also enhances the authority of the Amram figure: Amram is assimilated to, and becomes a direct successor of the patriarchs, in addition to being the father of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.
Moreover, VA achieves a subtle inversion of the familiar geographical pattern: The storyline and sequence of events and places from the pentateuchal narrative (Canaan – Egypt – Sinai – Canaan) is upheld as the well-known background of VA. Form the point of view of Amram, the patriarchal time in Canaan is in the past, and the exodus events at Mount Sinai in the future. The events narrated in VA, however, form a new temporal/spatial sequence (Egypt – Canaan – Sinai – Egypt), which inverts the sequence of the background story. In other words, the movements of Amram between Egypt and Canaan, and those of the Israelites, not narrated, but predicted in the vision, exhibit a mirroring and inversion of the movements of exile and return depicted in the biblical material. This seems to represent a deliberate and well-designed strategic use of the literary tradition with the purpose of enhancing the authority and persuasiveness of the composition.
Bibliography
Alexander, Philip S. “Early Jewish Geography.” ABD 2:977–988.
Brooke, George J. “Between Authority and Canon: The Significance of Reworking the Bible for Understanding the Canonical Process.” Pages 85–104 in 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. Edited by Esther Chazon et al. STDJ 58. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Duke, Robert R. “Moses’ Hebrew Name: The Evidence of the Vision of Amram.” DSD 14 (2007): 34–48.
Duke, Robert R.. The Social Location of the Visions of Amram (4Q543–547). StBibLit 135. New York: Peter Lang, 2010.
Goldman, Liora. “The Burial of the Fathers in the Visions of Amram from Qumran.” Pages 231–249 in Rewriting and Interpreting the Hebrew Bible: The Biblical Patriarchs in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Devorah Dimant and Reinhard G. Kratz. BZAW 439. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013.
Høgenhaven, Jesper. “Fortschreibung und Kanonisierung in der Bibliothek von Qumran: Bemerkungen mit besonderem Hinblick auf Genesis-Kommentar A (4Q252).” Pages 11–31 in Rewriting and Reception in and of the Bible. Edited by Jesper Høgenhaven et al. WUNT 396. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018.
Høgenhaven, Jesper, and Mogens Müller. “Indledning.” Pages 7–18 in Bibelske genskrivninger. Edited by Jesper Høgenhaven and Mogens Müller. FBE 17. Copenhagen: Tusculanum, 2012.
Jurgens, Blake Alan. “Reassessing the Dream-Vision of the Vision of Amram (4Q543–547).” JSP 24 (2014): 3–24.
Katzenstein, H. J. “Philistines. History.” ABD 5:326–328.
Muraoka, Takamitsu. A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic. ANESSup 38. Leuven: Peeters, 2011.
Puech, Émile. “4QVisions de Amram ara–g.” Pages 208–405 in Qumran grotte 4.XXII: Textes araméens, première partie: 4Q529–549. DJD 31. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001.
Tervanotko, Hanna. “Visions, Otherworldly Journeys and Divine Beings: The Figures of Levi and Amram as Communicators of Godly Will in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 210–238 in Crossing Imaginary Boundaries: The Dead Sea Scrolls in the Context of Second Temple Judaism. Edited by Mika S. Pajunen and Hanna Tervanotko. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 108. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2015.
Zahn, Molly. Rethinking Rewritten Bible: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts. STDJ 95. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
The text was published by Émile Puech in Qumrân grotte 4.XXII: Textes araméens, première partie: 4Q529–549, DJD 31 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001), 283–405. While Puech regards the seven manuscripts 4Q543–549 as belonging to the Visions of Amram, Robert Duke holds that only five of the scrolls (4Q543–547) belong to this group, Robert Duke, The Social Location of the Visions of Amram (4Q543–547), StBibLit 135 (New York: Peter Lang, 2010), 35–42. On the question of overlaps and identity between the text of the different manuscripts, see Søren Holst’s article in the present volume.
On the burial motif in VA, see Liora Goldman, “The Burial of the Fathers in the Visions of Amram from Qumran,” in Rewriting and Interpreting the Hebrew Bible: The Biblical Patriarchs in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Devorah Dimant and Reinhard G. Kratz, BZAW 439 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013), 231–49.
On the mental and symbolic significance of geographical notions and designations, see Philip S. Alexander, “Early Jewish Geography,” ABD 2:977–988.
The terms “biblical rewriting” and “rewritten bible,” and their significance and usefulness, have been extensively debated. In my view, it is fruitful to understand “biblical rewriting” as an interpretative strategy which was, in antiquity, expressed in a variety of literary genres. Defining “rewritten bible” as a genre in its own right seems less relevant in this context. See Jesper Høgenhaven and Mogens Müller, “Indledning,” in Bibelske genskrivninger, ed. Jesper Høgenhaven and Mogens Müller, FBE 17 (Copenhagen: Tusculanum, 2012), 7–18 (7–9). Cf. more generally Molly Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Bible: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts, STDJ 95 (Leiden: Brill, 2011). On the function of reworked compositions as a vehicle for maintaining the authority of the tradition, see George J. Brooke, “Between Authority and Canon: The Significance of Reworking the Bible for Understanding the Canonical Process,” in 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, ed. Esther Chazon et al., STDJ 58 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 85–104. Cf. also Jesper Høgenhaven, “Fortschreibung und Kanonisierung in der Bibliothek von Qumran: Bemerkungen mit besonderem Hinblick auf Genesis-Kommentar A (4Q252),” in Rewriting and Reception in and of the Bible, ed. Jesper Høgenhaven et al., WUNT 396 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 11–31.
We cannot know in which exact form these traditions were known to the author of VA, but it stands to reason that something close to the patriarchal stories in the Pentateuch must lie behind the composition.
4Q544 1 7; 4Q545 1a–b ii 19.
According to Exod 13:17 God did not lead the Israelites “by the way of the land of the Philistines” (
Gen 11:31; 12:5; 13:12; 16:3; 17:8; 23:2, 19; 31:18; 33:18; 35:6; 36:5, 6; 37:1; 42:5, 7, 13, 29, 32; 44:8; 45:17, 25; 46:6, 12, 31; 47:1, 4, 13, 14, 15; 48:3, 7; 49:30; 50:5, 13; Exod 6:4; 16:35; Lev 14:34; 18:3; 25:38; Num 13:2, 17; 26:19; 32:30, 32; 33:40, 51; 34:2, 29; 35:10, 14; Deut 32:49; Jos 5:12; 14:1; 21:2; 22:9, 10, 11, 32; 24:3; Jud 21:12; Ps 105:11; 1 Chron 16:18. The name
We note the high frequency of this geographical designation in the Joseph story, which may be regarded as a central part of the background for the narrative in VA.
Cf. H. J. Katzenstein, “Philistines. History,” ABD 5:326–328.
Quotations in this article are dependent on, and generally follow, Puech’s DJD edition. Differences from DJD are intentional, and based on the PAM photos. The translations are heavily indebted to both Puech’s French translation and Duke’s English translation.
Cf. the references in Puech, DJD 31:325.
Puech, DJD 31:324.
Duke, The Social Location, 17.
Imperfect/prefix conjugation is generally not used for past tense in this type of Aramaic. Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic, ANESSup 38 (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 170, mentions the forms in the sentence
Puech, DJD 31:324.
At the beginning of the Abraham narrative God speaks to him while he dwells in Haran (Gen 12:1–3).
Puech (DJD 31:326–27) finds that tsade is the preferable reading of the first visible letter. Duke (The Social Location, 21–22) reads an ayin and translates: “from the highest until the lowest.” This reading was originally proposed by Milik (cf. DJD 31:327).
Puech (DJD 31:294–95) reads a damaged taw.
I agree with Duke’s interpretation of the passage as pertaining to Moses (The Social Location, 15–16). Puech (DJD 31:295–296) understands the passage as referring to Aaron.
Cf. Duke, The Social Location, 16.
Deut 6:22; Jer 32:20; Ps 135:9; Neh 9:10. The corresponding Aramaic expression in Daniel is
Duke, “Moses’ Hebrew Name: The Evidence of the Vision of Amram,” DSD 14 (2007): 34–48 (43); The Social Location, 15.
Puech (DJD 31:342) reads ]
Puech (DJD 31:342) sees traces of an aleph before the lacuna.
Puech (DJD 31:342–43) restores
Line numbers follow Puech (DJD 31:342), who reconstructs the fragment as the lower part of a column with 19 lines.
Puech (DJD 31:343) translates
Puech (DJD 31:342–43) reads
Cf. Puech, DJD 31:343 (“Le
4Q5451a i 9–10 reads:
Puech, DJD 31:343.
Puech (DJD 31:388–89) restores
Cf. Puech, DJD 31:389, and Liora Goldman’s article in the present volume.
Cf. Hanna Tervanotko, “Visions, Otherworldly Journeys and Divine Beings: The Figures of Levi and Amram as Communicators of Godly Will in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Crossing Imaginary Boundaries: The Dead Sea Scrolls in the Context of Second Temple Judaism, ed. Mika S. Pajunen and Hanna Tervanotko. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 108 (Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2015), 210–238.