Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Exodus Doze Man Commenter PDF
Exodus Doze Man Commenter PDF
Exodus Doze Man Commenter PDF
Supplements
to
Vetus Testamentum
Editor in Chief
Christl M. Maier
Editorial Board
Editors
Craig A. Evans
Peter W. Flint
volume 164
Edited by
Thomas B. Dozeman
Craig A. Evans
Joel N. Lohr
leiden | boston
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
The book of Exodus : composition, reception, and interpretation / edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Craig A.
Evans, Joel N. Lohr.
pages cm. – (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, ISSN 0083-5889 ; VOLUME 164)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-90-04-28265-0 (hardback : alk. paper) – ISBN 978-90-04-28266-7 (e-book)
1. Bible. Exodus–Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Dozeman, Thomas B., editor. II. Evans, Craig A., editor.
III. Lohr, Joel N., editor.
BS1245.52.B66 2014
222'.1206–dc23
2014034596
This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering
Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more
information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface.
issn 0083-5889
isbn 978-90-04-28265-0 (hardback)
isbn 978-90-04-28266-7 (e-book)
Preface ix
Abbreviations x
List of Contributors xix
part 1
General Topics
part 2
Issues in Interpretation
The Miracle at the Sea: Remarks on the Recent Discussion about Origin
and Composition of the Exodus Narrative 91
Jan Christian Gertz
From the Call of Moses to the Parting of the Sea: Reflections on the
Priestly Version of the Exodus Narrative 121
Thomas Römer
Decalogue 193
Christoph Dohmen
vi contents
Tabernacle 267
Helmut Utzschneider
part 3
Textual Transmission and Reception History
The Vetus Latina and the Vulgate of the Book of Exodus 370
David L. Everson
part 4
Exodus and Theology
Indices
Thomas B. Dozeman
United Theological Seminary
Craig A. Evans
Acadia Divinity College
Joel N. Lohr
University of the Pacific
July 1, 2014
Abbreviations
For most terms, sigla, and abbreviations of journals and other secondary
sources, see Patrick H. Alexander et al., eds., The sbl Handbook of Style for
Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (Peabody: Hendrick-
son, 1999). For Qumran sigla, see also Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls:
Major Publications and Tools for Study (rev. ed.; sblrbs 20; Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1990), 1–8.
bdb F. Brown, S.R. Driver, and C.A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of
the Old Testament (Oxford, 1907)
bdbat Beihefte zu den Dielheimer Blättern zum Alten Testament
betl Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
bhs Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia
Bib Biblica
BibOr Biblica et orientalia
BibRev Bible Review
BibSem The Biblical Seminar
bioscs Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate
Studies
bis Biblical Interpretation Series
bjs Brown Judaic Studies
bk Bibel und Kirche
bkat Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament
bn Biblische Notizen
bn/nf Biblische Notizen / Neue Folge
bo Bibliotheca orientalis
br Biblical Research
BThSt Biblisch-Theologische Studien
bwant Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament
bz Biblische Zeitschrift
bzabr Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsge-
schichte
bzaw Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
cad Ignac J. Gelb et al., eds., The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute
of the University of Chicago (Chicago, 1956–)
cal Stephen A. Kaufman, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Michael Sokoloff, eds., The
Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati)
cat Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament
cat Manfried Dietrich, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquín Sanmartín, eds., The
Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places
(Münster, 1995)
cb Coniectanea biblica
cbc Cambridge Bible Commentary
cbet Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology
cbq Catholic Biblical Quarterly
cbqms Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series
cbr Currents in Biblical Research
cc Continental Commentaries
xii abbreviations
cc Covenant Code
ccsl Corpus Christianorum Series Latina
cd Damascus Document
chane Culture and History of the Ancient Near East
cja Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity
cjas Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series
col(s). column(s)
ConBOT Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series
cos William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger Jr., eds., Context of Scripture (3
vols.; Leiden, 1997–2002)
cqs Companion to the Qumran Scrolls
crint Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad novum testamentum
cscd Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine
csco Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium
d. died
djd Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
dsd Dead Sea Discoveries
dssrl Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature
dtr. Deuteronomistic
DtrH Deuteronomistic History
ecc Eerdmans Critical Commentary
EdF Erträge der Forschung
ehs Europäische Hochschulschriften
ei P.J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, and W.P. Hein-
richs, eds., Encyclopaedia of Islam (2nd ed.; 12 vols. Leiden: 2002)
ExAud Ex Auditu
fat Forschungen zum Alten Testament
fb Forschung zur Bibel
ff Forschungen und Fortschritte
fiotl Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament Literature
frlant Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testa-
ments
ga Gesammelte Aufsätze
gh Gorgias Handbooks
gkc E. Kautzsch, ed., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (trans. A.E. Cowley; 2nd
ed.; Oxford, 1910)
glajj Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (3 vols.;
Jerusalem, 1974)
hacl History, Archaeology, and Culture of the Levant
halot L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and J.J. Stamm, eds., The Hebrew and Ara-
abbreviations xiii
maic Lexicon of the Old Testament (ed. and trans. under the supervision
of M.E.J. Richardson; 4 vols.; Leiden, 1994–1999)
har Hebrew Annual Review
hat Handbuch zum Alten Testament
hb Hebrew Bible
hbs Herders biblische Studien
hcot Historical Commentary on the Old Testament
HeBAI Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel
Hermeneia Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible
hkat Handkommentar zum Alten Testament
hnt Handbuch zum Neuen Testament
hos Handbook of Oriental Studies
hr History of Religions
HrwG Hubert Cancik, Burkhard Gladigow, and Matthias Laubscher, eds.,
Handbuch Religionswissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe (5 vols; Stuttgart,
1988–2001)
hs Hebrew Studies
hss Harvard Semitic Studies
htkat Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament
htknt Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
htr Harvard Theological Review
huca Hebrew Union College Annual
hup Harvard University Press
ibc Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching
icc International Critical Commentary
IDBSup The Interpreters’ Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary Volume
iecot International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament
iej Israel Exploration Journal
iekat Internationaler Exegetischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament
Int Interpretation
ios Israel Oriental Society
isfcj International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism
jaj Journal of Ancient Judaism
jaos Journal of the American Oriental Society
jarce Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt
jbl Journal of Biblical Literature
jbt Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie (Monograph Series)
jcs Journal of Cuneiform Studies
je Jüdische Enzyklopädie
jea Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
xiv abbreviations
Rainer Albertz
Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster
Suzanne Boorer
Murdoch University, Perth, Australia
Walter Brueggemann
Columbia Theological Seminary, Decatur
Bruce Chilton
Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson
Lutz Doering
Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster
Christoph Dohmen
Universität Regensburg
Joel C. Elowsky
Concordia Seminary, St. Louis
David L. Everson
Xavier University, Cincinnati
Terence E. Fretheim
Luther Seminary, St. Paul
Lester L. Grabbe
University of Hull, England
Leonard J. Greenspoon
Creighton University, Omaha
William Johnstone
University of Aberdeen
Jerome A. Lund
Accordance Bible Software, Kviteseid, Norway
Wolfgang Oswald
Universität Tübingen
Thomas Römer
Collège de France, Paris and Université de Lausanne
Konrad Schmid
Universität Zürich
Paul Spilsbury
Ambrose University College, Calgary
Gregory E. Sterling
Yale Divinity School, New Haven
Helmut Utzschneider
Augustana-Hochschule, Neuendettelsau
Burton L. Visotzky
Jewish Theological Seminary, New York
David P. Wright
Brandeis University, Waltham
part 1
General Topics
∵
Reading Exodus in Tetrateuch and Pentateuch
William Johnstone
Deuteronomy, the final book in the present Pentateuch, is couched as, in the
main, Moses’ farewell address to the Israelites on the last day of his life. In its
first eleven chapters, Moses recalls a series of events that preceding books of
the Pentateuch, especially Exodus and Numbers (but not Leviticus), record.
Unexpectedly, however, the reminiscences in Deut 1–11 differ in many respects
from the record of these events as it now stands in these preceding books. In
this article, I wish to develop the thesis, which I have presented in a number of
previous studies,1 that the reminiscences in Deuteronomy enable the recovery
of a matching account of events in Exodus and Numbers that a later edition
has overlaid. The Pentateuch is composite but provides its own instrument for
the identification and appreciation of its component parts. The thesis will be
illustrated first by the version of the “Ten Commandments” that Deut 5:6–21
recalls and the influence that that Decalogue has had on the composition of the
“Sinai pericope” in Exod 19–40. The deviations in the present book of Exodus
from the version that Deuteronomy attests will be attributed to a later edition.
The account of Israel’s journey from exodus to Sinai in Exod 12–18 will further
illustrate the radicality of that later edition’s revisions.
The Pentateuch records the Decalogue twice, Exod 20:2–17 and Deut 5:6–
21.2 One would expect that the Decalogue engraved on stone by the “finger of
1 For an account of the beginnings of the project, see my Chronicles and Exodus: An Analogy
and its Application (JSOTSup 275; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 9–17. For its
further development, see the bibliography below. See also my reviews of Eckart Otto, Die
Torah: Studien zum Pentateuch (bzabr 9; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009) in bo 67 (2010):
374–385; and of The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (ed. Thomas
B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz; fat 78; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011)
in jss 59 (2014): 437–440.
2 For the substantial secondary literature, see, e.g., Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, “Der Stand der
Dekalogforschung,” in Recht und Ethik im Alten Testament: Beiträge des Symposiums “Das
Alte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne” anlässlich des 100. Geburtstags Gerhard von Rads
(1901–1971) Heidelberg, 18.–21. Oktober 2001 (ed. Bernard M. Levinson and Eckart Otto; Altes
God” (Exod 31:18; Deut 9:10) would be immutable, yet, while there is indeed sub-
stantial agreement between these two records, there are, if one counts carefully,
about thirty variations between them. These include many minor matters of
spelling and punctuation but there is one major difference: the motive for keep-
ing the Sabbath. In Exod 20:11, it is to commemorate the completion of creation,
“For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth … but rested the seventh day;
therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it,”3 while in Deut
5:15 it is to celebrate Israel’s liberation, “Remember that you were a slave in the
land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there …; therefore
the Lord your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day.” Deuteronomy
5:12, however, claims to be accurately remembering the wording of the Sabbath
commandment as originally promulgated, by explicitly adding the phrase, “as
the Lord your God commanded you.”4 Deuteronomy 5:16 adds the same phrase
in connection with the parents’ commandment, “Honor your father and your
mother, as the Lord your God commanded you.” The most obvious candidate
for identification as the original promulgation that Deuteronomy claims to cite
is the substantially identical Decalogue of Exod 20:2–17.5 In the case of the
parents’ commandment, the wording between Deut 5 and Exod 20 is essen-
tially the same. The wording of the Sabbath commandment in Exodus may
then once have been, like the wording of the parents’ commandment, essen-
tially as Deuteronomy recollects. That is, Exod 20:11 originally justified Sabbath
observance by reference to Israel’s exodus from Egypt, a hardly surprising sanc-
tion in the light of the opening words of the Decalogue in Exod 20:2: “I am the
Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt,” which is, in turn,
the distillation of the whole narrative in Exod 1–19. The thesis is thus that the
Testament und Moderne 13; Münster: lit 2004), 57–65; Michael Konkel, “Was hörte Israel am
Sinai? Methodische Anmerkungen zur Kontextanalyse des Dekalogs,” in Die Zehn Worte: Der
Dekalog als Testfall der Pentateuchkritik (ed. Christian Frevel, Michael Konkel, and Johannes
Schnocks; qd 212; Freiburg: Herder, 2005), 11–42.
3 All biblical citations are from nrsv, unless stated otherwise. Verse numbering follows mt.
4 This article does not address the issue of hypothetical earlier stages of development of
the Decalogue, e.g., whether it originated in shorter, independent collections; nor does it
speculate on the social and historical contexts in which such collections might have arisen.
See, e.g., Erhard Blum, “The Decalogue and the Composition History of the Pentateuch,” in
Dozeman, Schmid, and Schwartz, The Pentateuch: International Perspectives, 289–301.
5 Hossfeld, “Vom Horeb zum Sinai: Der Dekalog als Echo auf Ex 32–34,” in Die Zehn Worte: Der
Dekalog als Testfall der Pentateuchkritik (ed. Christian Frevel, Michael Konkel, and Johannes
Schnocks; qd 212; Freiburg: Herder, 2005), 92, relates the cross-references in Deut 5 to the
Book of the Covenant and the “Privilegrecht” (for which, see below).
reading exodus in tetrateuch and pentateuch 5
1. Deuteronomy 5 attests that the Decalogue was already present in the earlier
version in Exod 20:1–17 that it recollects.6
6 For a strong body of opinion that the Decalogue is secondary in Exodus, see Thomas B. Doze-
man, Exodus (ecc; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 472.
7 Except Deut 33:2 in the concluding section, Deut 32:48–34:12, that the final editor has prob-
ably heavily edited, as, e.g., the itinerary notes and vocabulary of Deut 32:48–52 suggest. In
Exodus, “Sinai” occurs only in material attributable to the final editor (16:1; 19:1–2a, 11, 18, 20,
23; 24:16; 31:18; 34:2, 4, 29, 32).
8 Deut 1:2, 6, etc.
9 A parallel to this framing of a contemporaneous event by continuous tenses may be seen
6 johnstone
precisely the scenario that the framework of the Decalogue in Deut 5:4–5, 22–31
recalls: yhwh’s original intention was to speak to Israel “face to face” (v. 4; cf.
Exod 19:13b as fulfillment of the promise in Exod 3:12b: “you [pl.] shall worship
God on this mountain”); in the event, the people recoil in terror; they witness
the deafening theophany accompanying the revelation of the Decalogue but for
the communication of its content in intelligible speech they require the medi-
ation of Moses.10
3. Deuteronomy 5:31 recalls that at Horeb yhwh made the covenant with Israel
on the basis not only of the Decalogue but also of “all the commandments, the
statutes, and the ordinances, that you shall teach them.”11 The most obvious
candidate for these other stipulations is the Book of the Covenant (b) in Exod
20:22–23:33, that continues on directly from the revelation of the Decalogue.
b exhibits the following structure:
Exod
20:22–26 21:1–11 21:12–17 21:18–22:16 22:17–19 22:20–23:9 23:10–19 23:20–33
The terms proposed in the above table for the varieties of stipulation in b are
uncertain but, assuming that Hebrew did use technical terms in this field, are
surely not unreasonable. The most certain is “ordinance [ ”]משפטthat the title
in Exod 21:1 explicitly uses. The material in 21:18–22:16 is formulated in similar,
discursive, “casuistic” style (“When …, if …, then …”). The terse, “apodictic”
in 2Chron 5–7 where the recoiling of the priests, 5:11–14 resumed in 7:1–4, frames Solo-
mon’s prayer in 6.
10 I affirm, thus, against strong opinion, the coherence of Deut 5:4–5, 22–31. So Samuel
R. Driver, Deuteronomy (icc; 3rd ed.; Edinburgh: t&t Clark, 1902), 83–84.
11 I hold that Deut 5:31 belongs to the retrospect of events at Horeb and does not refer forward
to the code in Deut 12–26. Contrast, e.g., Eckart Otto, Die Tora, 278, 432, 570.
reading exodus in tetrateuch and pentateuch 7
4. b provides the basis for making the covenant in Exod 24:3–8, as Exod 24:7
explicitly states. How does that statement cohere with the claim of Deut 4:13
that the Decalogue is the covenant? Every stipulation in the Decalogue is rep-
resented in b, in my view (see Table, p. 6). Following the older mode of counting
the Decalogue as in Deut 5, Words i (“You shall have no other gods”) and ii
(“You shall not make wrongful use of the name”) form the opening theolog-
ical framework of Words/Commandments in Exod 20:22–26, while Words ii
(resumed in 23:13) and iii (“Observe the sabbath”), encompassing both sabbat-
ical year and weekly Sabbath, along with other annual festivals, provide the
closing theological framework in Exod 23:10–19.13 Naturally, given the theme
of Exodus, the legislation on the debt-slave (21:1–11) opens the humanitarian
core of b, thus picking up the prologue to Word i. The general prohibitions of
murder (v) and theft (vii) enfold the protection of parents’ life and possessions
(iv). The long section of ordinances in 21:18–22:16 deal with injuries to the per-
son (cf. v) and damages to property (cf. vii) with supplementation from ix and
x of even the intention that might lead to the impairment of the neighbor’s
interests. Word viii (“You shall not bear false witness”) is explicitly the central
topic in 22:20–23:9 (see 23:1–3, 6–8). It may be argued that Word vi (“You shall
not commit adultery”) is missing, but not if “adultery” is taken in the figurative
theological sense of covenant-breaking (cf. the combination of “covenant” and
“fornication” in Exod 34:10–16). Exodus 22:17–19 widens the discussion to vari-
eties of sexual/religious deviancy. It may be argued that b functions as author-
v. 32, with “the inhabitants of the land,” v. 31, who are “going,” v. 27, to become a
“snare,” v. 33, “among you,” v. 25).
The second merism opens in Exod 34:17, “You [sg.] shall not make for yourself
idols of cast metal []מסכה.” This prohibition is the equivalent of Exod 20:4,
“You [sg.] shall not make for yourself a graven image [rsv].” The reason for the
choice of this particular clause of Word i and for substitution of “cast idol” for
“graven image” seems clear: “idol of cast metal [ ”]מסכהdescribes in Exod 32:4,
8 the golden calf, the worship of which precisely precipitates the need for the
reaffirmation of the covenant.16 Strikingly, this second merism too opens with
the citation of part of Word i of the Decalogue in its Deuteronomic recension.
The second merism closes with 34:18–26. This passage, I should argue, is
essentially parallel to 23:12–19, the concluding legislation of B.17 Parallelism
may indicate common origin (as in 2Kgs 24:18–25:30//Jer 52); there may be
no necessity to inquire after “direction of influence.” A comparison between
34:18–26 and 23:12–19 shows that much of the material in the two passages
is identical. In the Hebrew text, 34:18–26 contains 121 “words,” 23:12–19, 105;
of these words, sixty-one, or just over half, are the same. Explanations for
the variations may readily be proposed. Context influences the structure of
each. Exodus 23:12–19 is the concluding part of the in extenso exposition of the
Decalogue in B. Thus 23:13a is a general exhortation, “Be attentive to all that I
have said to you”; 23:13b, “Do not invoke the name of other gods,” picks up again
the prohibition on the misuse of the divine Name of Word ii to construct the
symmetrical theological framework for B. It is thus not surprising that there is
no equivalent to 23:13 in 34:18–26.
The place of the “seventh day” in the two passages indicates that the logic of
the structure of the two passages is subtly different. Exodus 23:12–19 is the more
logical. In v. 12, the “seventh day” stands apart as the weekly day of rest. A rubric
in v. 14 introduces the three annual pilgrimage festivals, which are then dealt
with in two parallel sections, vv. 15–16; 17–19, with a rubric in v. 17 introducing
the second section.18 The “seven days” of unleavened bread in v. 15 provides a
hebdomadal link with the “seventh day” of v. 12.
16 nrsv of Exod 34:17 and 32:4, 8 marginally modified to make clear the connection.
17 Exodus 34:17–26 has provoked intense discussion: does it contain an independent code,
even a rival “Decalogue”–as 34:27–28 seems to require—ritual or otherwise, or a “Priv-
ilegrecht”? The term Privilegrecht refers to the rights that a suzerain can demand from
subjects in return for lands bestowed on them. For the abeyance of the term, principally
because of the ahistoricity of the biblical account of Israel’s conquest of the Promised Land
and the apportioning of territories under yhwh’s direction, see Otto, Die Tora, 81, n. 169.
18 Contra nrsv, which takes v. 17 with the preceding as forming an inclusio with v. 14.
10 johnstone
version: it is a corollary of the conquest of the land and the expulsion of its
former inhabitants as in the closing exhortation of b (23:27–33). For the vocab-
ulary, “I shall cast out nations before you, and enlarge your borders,” see Deut
12:20; 19:8.
The substantial identity of the remainder of Exod 23:15–19 and 34:18–26 sug-
gests that 34:5–26 no more presupposes an alternative version of b than it does
of the Decalogue. It is striking that mt delimits Exod 34:1–26 as a single para-
graph, in sharp contrast to the forty-three demarcated clauses of Decalogue and
b in Exod 20:1–17; 20:22–23:33: in mt’s tradition of reading, Exod 34:1–26 consti-
tutes a single act of reaffirmation of the terms of the covenant conceived as a
totality; it is not a promulgation of multiple individual stipulations in a new
code as in Exod 20–23.
19 26:33, 34; 30:6, 26; 39:35; 40:3, 5, 21. nrsv renders the term עדות, “covenant,” rather than
the traditional “testimony” (nrsv n.). The assumption that עדותis related to Assyrian
ʿadê, the oath of loyalty imposed as by the Assyrian Esarhaddon on his vassals in favor
of his son Asshurbanipal in 672 bce (see Eckart Otto, Gottes Recht als Menschenrecht:
Rechts und literaturhistorische Studien zum Deuteronomium [bzabr 2; Wiesbaden: Harras-
sowitz, 2002], 125), and is thus virtually a synonym of “covenant,” perhaps governs nrsv’s
choice.
12 johnstone
includes not only the construction of the Ark of the Covenant but also the
appointment of the Levites “to stand before the Lord to minister to him.”
The latter phrase implies the existence of a shrine, in which the Levites would
minister and which would in any case be expected as shelter for the ark. The
existence of such a shrine is indicated in Exod 33:7–11. Frequentative verbs
express Moses’ habitual practice throughout the wilderness after departure
from Horeb: “Moses used to take the tent and pitch it20 outside the camp. …
When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand
at the entrance …, and the Lord would speak with Moses.” It seems clear
that Exod 33:7–11 is misplaced. The account of habitual practice of people
and Moses after leaving Horeb should follow the command to depart from
Horeb in Exod 34:29. It is surely a reasonable deduction that the final editor,
who was responsible for the introduction of the complex materials on the
specification and construction of the tabernacle in Exod 25:1–31:17; 35:1–40:38
and the chronological note on the second year of the exodus in Num 10:11 with
associated materials, has transposed this material on the tent of meeting in the
older version from its original chronological position. That the tent of meeting
belongs to the conception of Deuteronomy is confirmed by the reference to it in
Deut 31:14–15. The later editor gives prominence to the tabernacle as the place
where the Lord will meet with Moses to impart instruction for the people. It
is here that the whole of Leviticus and Num 1:1–10:10 is revealed to Moses (Lev
1:1). At Exod 27:20–21 with the introduction of the Aaronic priesthood, the later
editor modulates his “tabernacle” into the traditional “tent of meeting,” thus
combining the two institutions. With the transposition of the material now in
Exod 33:7–11, Exodus 34:29 introduces a replacement habitual practice. In place
of the frequentative pitching of the tent, Moses now frequentatively dons a veil
whenever he communicates with the people after audience with yhwh (Exod
34:29–35).
20 Hebrew adds ( לוignored by nrsv), which in context might be construed as the “dative of
advantage,” i.e., “for himself.” I should in common with many translate, “for it,” i.e., for the
ark (cf. the same prepositional phrase in connection with the tent that David pitched for
the ark in 2Sam 6:17).
14 johnstone
The reminiscence in Deut 9:7–10:11 recognizes that Horeb is only the first
of four other locations in the wilderness where Israel “provoked the Lord
to wrath”: Taberah, Massah, Kibroth-hattaavah, and Kadesh (Deut 9:22–23).22
These reminiscences in Deuteronomy arouse the expectation that one will find
matching narratives in the account of Israel’s wanderings in the wilderness
in Numbers after departure from Horeb.23 That expectation is immediately
realized, at least in part.
Narratives matching Taberah and Kibroth-hattaavah occur in Num 11, fol-
lowing departure from “the mountain of yhwh” in Num 10:29–36. But there is
a marked imbalance between the two accounts:
– the Taberah narrative in Num 11:1–3 is strangely truncated: it does not even
explain what the issue was that provoked yhwh’s breaking out in fire that
gave the place its name, “burning”;
– the Kibroth-hattaavah narrative in Num 11:4–34 is, by contrast, overfull. It
combines three separate issues: the request for bread met by manna; the
craving for flesh met by quails; and the appointment of judges. Only the
second of these issues, the craving for flesh, reflects the name given to the
place, “the graves of craving.”
Exod 32:25–29 (which borrows motifs from Deut 33:8–11), where it concerns
the avenging Levites. The transposition of Massah material from post-Horeb in
Deut 9:22 to pre-Sinai in Exod 15:25b–26 and 17:1–7 marks a major divergence
between the present narrative in Exod 15:22b–19:2a and the reminiscence in
Deuteronomy: the creation of a whole cycle of murmuring narratives before
arrival at the mountain of God in Exod 19:2b, of which Deuteronomy knows
nothing. Deuteronomy is also innocent of knowledge of place-names in this
new pre-Sinai cycle of murmuring narratives in Exod 15:22b–19:2a: Marah, Elim,
Wilderness of Sin, Rephidim, and, as noted, even Sinai, for which Deuteronomy
uses “Horeb”; for good measure, the place-names in the preceding narrative
in Exod 12:37–15:21, Rameses, Succoth, Etham, and Pi-hahiroth, Deuteronomy
likewise does not know. All these place-names, however, figure in the “final
form” summary of Israel’s itinerary in Num 33. Massah(-Meribah) in Exod
17:1–7 is the only Deuteronomy name occurring in the pre-Sinai narrative
but even it receives its alternative “final form” name, “Rephidim,” marking its
reuse in a new context (contrariwise, Massah-Meribah does not occur in Num
33).
In the light of this evidence in connection with Massah, the identification of
similarly radical editorial procedures in connection with Taberah and Kibroth-
hattaavah is not, then, unexpected. If the place-name “Kibroth-hattaavah”
raises the expectation that the issue at that location in Num 11:4–35 is confined
to the gift of flesh in the form of quails, then not only is the appointment of
judges (vv. 11–12, 14–17, 24–30) a secondary editorial addition (displaced from
the junction of Exod 34:29/Num 10:29; see below) but also the gift of manna
(presupposed in vv. 7–9). Where, then, is the gift of manna located in the earlier
version? The strangely truncated Taberah narrative in Num 11:1–3 immediately
suggests itself. This can be supported first negatively by elimination: as Massah
throughout its disjecta membra is associated with water, and Kibroth-hattaavah
with quail, then it is not implausible to suggest that Taberah is associated with
manna. Deuteronomy provides no explicit location for the provision of manna.
However, its reminiscence in Deut 8:1–18 indicates that, from the first, manna
was given to test Israel’s commitment (v. 16). Psalm 78 provides further associ-
ations: the gift of manna is associated with the overflowing of yhwh’s wrath
as fire (v. 21).25 The brazen serpent passage in Num 21 may, then, belong in this
25 There may be a play on the place-name Tabʿerah in the verb “[the Lord] was full of rage
[( ”]ויתעברwith metathesis), as there is on the place-name Kibroth-hattaavah in the noun
“what they craved [ ”]תאותםin Ps 78:29–30.
16 johnstone
context too:26 there Israel’s complaint about “meager bread”27 is met with pun-
ishment by fiery serpents (the association of “serpents” and “fire” in Num 21:6
recurs only once again: Deut 8:1528). The bronze serpent on its pole (nēs) is
echoed in the name of the altar in Exod 17:15, “yhwh nissî.” The p-editor seems
then to have handled the Taberah narrative in the older narrative in a manner
scarcely less radical than the Massah older narrative. The disjecta membra of
the older Taberah narrative are to be sought in Num 11:1–3, 7–9; 21:4–9, Exod
16 (again an overloaded narrative where, as in Num 11:4–35, three issues are
combined: this time, manna, quails, and Torah on Sabbath, now inseparably
intertwined), and Exod 17:15–16. In the reconstructed older Taberah narrative,
Israel’s untrusting complaint about the meager diet of unleavened bread is met
by the punitive breaking forth of yhwh’s anger in fire in the form of fiery ser-
pents. Nonetheless, the punishment is mitigated by the “banner of the Lord,”
the brazen serpent on its pole (an idea abhorrent to the later editor,29 substi-
tuted by the altar in Exod 17:15), and the complaint of meager bread is answered
by the gift of manna.
The story of Moses’ triumph over Amalek in Exod 17:8–16 likewise represents
polemical correction by the later editor of the scenario presented in Deuteron-
omy, in this case of events at Kadesh, the final location of enraging yhwh
in Deut 9:22–23. Deuteronomy 1:19–46 provides a substantial supplementary
narrative. yhwh’s initial plan is that Israel should proceed directly to inherit
the Promised Land already in the first year of the exodus. Israel demurs; they
request preliminary reconnaissance; Moses succumbs to their pressure and
incurs the penalty of exclusion from the Promised Land. Too late, the people
repent of their initial refusal. They advance into Amorite territory and suffer
a disastrous defeat. The later editor has an entirely different view of events at
Kadesh. Israel arrives there for the first time in the fortieth year of the exodus
(Num 33:36–39). It provides the launch pad for successful attack from the south
at Hormah (Num 21:1–3) and for the expedition up the east bank. The nega-
tive events are attached to Massah-Meribah which now receives the combined
26 Commentators note the parallels in structure between Num 11:1–3 and 21:4–9 (sin, pun-
ishment, cry, intercession, removal of crisis) and vocabulary (התפלל, only in Num 11:2; 21:7,
and Gen 20:7, 17 in the Tetrateuch); see Horst Seebass, Numeri (bk 4; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 1993–2010), 21–25, 315.
27 The reference is probably to the unleavened bread that Israel brought out of Egypt; cf. the
final edition’s view on the substitution of unleavened bread with manna in Exod 16:1–4.
28 Seebass, Numeri, 316.
29 Cf. Hezekiah’s reform, 2 Kgs 18:4.
reading exodus in tetrateuch and pentateuch 17
name Meribath-kadesh (Num 20:13; 27:14; Deut 32:51).30 Exodus 17 reflects these
complex editorial procedures: it interprets the encounter with Amalek in vv. 8–
16 in successful terms (cf. Num 21:1–3, on Hormah).
The absence of a pre-Horeb narrative of murmuring in the older version of
Exodus is confirmed by the location of the appointment of judges. According
to the reminiscence in Deut 1:9–18, the judges are appointed on the eve of
departure from Horeb, not as in Exod 18 on the eve of arrival at Sinai, still less as
one of the three issues dealt with at Kibroth-hattaavah as the text now stands
in Num 11:4–35. In the light of the reminiscence of Deut 1:9–18, in the older
narrative the appointment of judges should be located on the eve of departure
from Horeb at the junction of Exod 34:29/Num 10:29, as the appearance of
Hobab, from the entourage of Jethro, in Num 10:29 may confirm.
It seems undeniable that a version of “enraging yhwh” at and post- Horeb,
matching the reminiscences in Deut 9:7–24, can be recreated in Exod 32:1–
34:29/Num 10:29–21:9. The newer edition has undertaken radical transposition,
redistribution, and reinterpretation of this older material in both the “giving”
texts in the reconstructed older version in Exod 32:1–34:29/Num 10:29–21:9
and the “receiving” texts in the newer edition of pre-Sinai murmuring in the
wilderness in Exod 15:22b–19:2a. The evidence can be tabulated in outline as
follows:
The reminiscence
in Deut 9–10 of The matching older Redistribution in
Israel’s infuriating Supplementation version in the the newer edition
of yhwh in Deuteronomy “Tetrateuch” of the Pentateuch
30 One may assume that at the end of Num 20:13 the later editor has suppressed the phrase,
“so he called the name of that place Kadesh,” that may have stood in the older version (cf.
the etiologies for the names Taberah and Kibroth-hattaavah in Num 11:3, 34).
18 johnstone
(cont.)
The reminiscence
in Deut 9–10 of The matching older Redistribution in
Israel’s infuriating Supplementation version in the the newer edition
of yhwh in Deuteronomy “Tetrateuch” of the Pentateuch
The fact that, with minimal adjustment, Exod 19:2b joins seamlessly with Exod
15:22a31 confirms the absence of a pre-Horeb narrative of murmuring in the
older version of Exodus.
The observation that, in the older version, Exod 19:2b links directly with
15:22a has dramatic implications for the older version’s view of chronology and
associated festivals. The resulting short chronology of Israel’s journey to the
mountain of yhwh matches Moses’ request to Pharaoh in Exod 3:18; 5:3; 8:23
31 The singular verb in Exod 19:2b, “[and] Israel camped there in front of the mountain,”
would support the reading in the Samaritan Pentateuch in Exod 15:22aβ (cited in bhs):
“and he [Moses] brought them [sg. suffix] out into the wilderness of Shur.”
reading exodus in tetrateuch and pentateuch 19
32 Contra nrsv, “eagle” is probably to be translated in the singular: the plural in the Hebrew
is governed by “wings” (see gkc 124q, not, however, citing this passage; cf. “two tablets of
stone [pl.],” 34:1). The figure of “eagle [sg.]’s wings” recurs in Deut 32:11.
33 For connections between the narrative in Exodus/Numbers and the legislative section in
Deuteronomy, see already the Amalekites in Exod 17:8–15 that Deut 25:17–19 refers to; the
legislation in Deut 24:9 refers to Miriam’s leprosy in the narrative in Num 12.
20 johnstone
34 Transposed, I have argued, by the final editor from its original position as motivation for
the final plague in Exod 11:3/4. See my article, “ ‘p’ as Editor: The Case of Exodus 4:18–26,” in
On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies (ed. James K. Aitken, Katherine
J. Dell, and Brian A. Mastin; bzaw 420; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 225–238.
reading exodus in tetrateuch and pentateuch 21
It is now time to raise the question of names for these two diverging accounts
(though “older Horeb covenant narrative” and “newer Sinai cosmic revision”
would serve well enough). In continuity with the long history of scholarship
that recognized “p” as the latest “document” of the Pentateuch, I am content
to name the later account the “p-edition.” “p,” related to “priestly,” seems an
eminently appropriate siglum, given the concern of that material with priestly
matters as expressed through the ministry of the house of Aaron.
The dominant argument all through this paper is that p is an edition. It
is not incompatible with the terminology “edition” to recognize that p has
undoubtedly contributed huge blocks of independent material (in Exodus, the
most distinctive sections, 25:1–31:17; 35:1–40:38, amount to more than one-third
of the entire content, but all focused on a single year in the life of Israel and
all easily detachable). If, however, p is also an edition, intricately intervening
outside these large self-contained blocks in the inherited and thus earlier
material, then that has implications for the identity of that earlier version.
There is a body of influential interpretation that regards p as providing the
first continuous connection between Genesis and Exodus.35 In that case, non-
p interconnections must be later than P. But it is surely possible to argue for
pre-p interconnections.36 The Joseph cycle in Gen 37; 39–50*, for instance, pro-
vides the necessary preface to Exod 1:1–24:8* as narrative counterpart to the d-
legislation on debt-slavery. The indigent Israelites, forced early in a seven-year
famine to find sustenance in Egypt (Gen 45:6), pay off their debt by supply-
ing their labor as indentured shepherds to the Pharaoh (Gen 47:6). Legitimate
debt-slavery deteriorates into the horrors of illegal chattel-slavery only when
“a new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Joseph” (Exod 1:8–11).37 The
“confession of faith” that the Israelite makes on the presentation of first-fruits
in Deut 26:5–9 sets up a significant set of interconnections: it identifies the ini-
tial status of the Israelites in Egypt as “sojourners,” few in number, v. 5, as in
35 Konrad Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der
Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments (wmant 81; Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1999), summarized 368–372.
36 For a review of pre-p connections between Genesis and Exodus (and critique of Schmid,
Erzväter), see Graham I. Davies, “The Transition from Genesis to Exodus,” in Genesis, Isaiah
and Psalms. A Festschrift to Honour Professor John Emerton for His Eightieth Birthday (ed.
Katharine J. Dell, Graham Davies, and Yee Von Koh; VTSup 135; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 59–78.
37 Further anticipatory narratives of enslavement occur in Genesis (12:10–20; 29–31; 37:25–28;
44:9–10, 33).
22 johnstone
Gen 47:4; their becoming “a nation, great, mighty, and numerous” reflects the
language of Exod 1:9.38 Beyond question, it seems to me, that older version is
indeed earlier than p, as the subsequent adjustments by p require.39 If so, that
older version cannot appropriately be identified by reference to the later edi-
tion by the widely current negative term “non-P.” It must have some intrinsic
quality of its own as a prior self-standing version that justifies a positive term.
Because of the high instrumentality of the reminiscence in d in recovering that
older version, I call it the “d-version.” It is the version that reminiscences and
legislation in Deuteronomy attest; it shares language and view of events with
Deuteronomy, in particular, its concepts of Realien, the substantive matters of
itinerary, chronology, and institution.
Further grounds for so naming the d-version are its links with the “Deuteron-
omistic History” (DtrH) in Joshua–2Kings. Above all, Aaron’s golden calf in
Exod 32 anticipates the golden calves of Jeroboam in 1 Kgs 12:26–33. The plural,
“These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt,” in
Exod 32:4, 8, inappropriate to Aaron’s single calf, are clearly appropriate to Jer-
oboam’s two calves in 1Kgs 12:28, where the same phrase recurs. These “sins of
Jeroboam that he committed and that he caused Israel to commit” then become
for DtrH the destructive thread that runs down through the entire later history
of Israel (1Kgs 14:16 and many times through 2Kgs 23:15). They provide the ulti-
mate explanation for the exile of both the northern and southern kingdoms
(2Kgs 17:16–23), just as the golden calf and the further episodes of enraging
yhwh account for Israel’s forty-years wandering in the wilderness and delay
their entry into the land until the whole wicked generation dies out (Deut 1:35;
2:14).40
38 There are other strong interconnections between Deuteronomy and Genesis. Deuteron-
omy alludes to “the oath sworn to the ancestors” no fewer than twenty-nine times, with
seventeen further references to the ancestors (see my “Recounting the Tetrateuch,” 226,
nn. 13, 14). The view that the names “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” are secondary in Deuter-
onomy is no more self-evident to me than that “Horeb” as the name of mountain of God
is secondary in Exod 3:1; 17:6; 33:6.
39 I share the “American” view in Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid, eds., A Farewell to
the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (Atlanta:
sbl, 2006) that “Non-p” is pre-P.
40 There are many other links between Exodus and DtrH. Solomon is a new Pharaoh: “store-
cities” (Exod 1:11) recur in Solomon’s oppressive measures against his people (1Kgs 9:19);
Solomon, so-to-speak, caused his people “to return to Egypt” (cf. the condemnation of the
oppressive king in Deut 17:16–17, modeled on Solomon). The command to Moses at the
burning bush, “Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing
is holy ground,” Exod 3:5, is paralleled in Josh 5:15. 1Samuel 6:6 alludes to the hardening of
reading exodus in tetrateuch and pentateuch 23
Once d-version and p-edition have been disentangled in Exodus, there is, in
my view, no residual material to be ascribed to earlier “sources,” “j,” “e,” and
“je,” traditional in scholarship.42 Exodus is to be read in the context of the
Pharaoh’s heart in the plague narrative in Exod 7–12. The transportation of Joseph’s bones
from Egypt in Exod 13:19 links with Gen 50:25 and Josh 24:32. The narrative of the crossing
of the Red Sea in Exod 14 has its counterpart in the narrative of the crossing of the Jordan in
Josh 3 (cf. Josh 24:6–7). The memorandum on the annihilation of the Amalekites in Exod
17:8–15 recurs in 1 Sam 15:2–3. The promise of the “angel” in Exod 23:20 is fulfilled in Judg
2:1–5.
41 See Ernest W. Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Well-
hausen (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 157: “The nature of the opening chapters of Deuteron-
omy as retrospect on the plains of Moab seems naturally to point to some such narrative
of events of preceding years as je [the term for the traditional scholarly postulate] offers.”
42 Reinhard G. Kratz’s objection (Dozeman, Schmid, and Schwarz, The Pentateuch: Interna-
tional Perspectives, 44 n. 40) that I am merely relabeling traditional “je” with “d-version,”
and am following Blum, overlooks the fact that I am seeking through an analysis ab ini-
tio, with the help of the objectively available reminiscences in Deuteronomy, to develop
the most economical theory possible of the composition of a composite Pentateuch. My
observation of, above all, transpositions of material and attribution of more or less parallel
materials to common sources make my account of the implied earlier version substantially
24 johnstone
Select Bibliography
46 Michael Carasik, The Commentators’ Bible: The jps Miqraʾot Gedolot, Exodus (Philadelphia:
Jewish Publication Society, 2005), 160.
47 Theodoor C. Vriezen, An Outline of Old Testament Theology (trans. S. Neuijen; Oxford:
Blackwell, 1962), 76–77.
26 johnstone
1 Introduction
John Durham opens his Exodus commentary with the sentence: “The Book
of Exodus is the first book of the Bible.”1 This is obviously meant to be a
provocative statement that tries to lay more emphasis on the significance of the
book of Exodus itself than on its placement after the book of Genesis. Indeed,
it is striking that the exodus story introduced in the book of Exodus takes up
four of the five books of the Pentateuch and that its foremost hero, Moses,
even provides the name for the overall narrative in later Jewish and Christian
tradition as the “Torah of Moses” or the “Five Books of Moses,” even though
these titles also includes the book of Genesis.
In terms of narrative logic, the story that begins in the book of Exodus
seems to continue into (at least) the book of Joshua, as the exodus from Egypt
finds its logical completion in the eisodos into the promised land as presented
in the book of Joshua.2 The book of Exodus apparently also includes literary
elements that anticipate narrative and theological developments narrated still
later in the book of Kings, most notably the episode of the golden calf (Exod
1 John I. Durham, Exodus (wbc 3; Waco: Word, 1987), xxix, xxiii. Less provocative, but more
correct is Thomas B. Dozeman, Exodus (ecc; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 1: “The book of
Exodus is the second book in the Hebrew Bible.” Dozeman offers a helpful discussion of the
relationships of Exodus with Deuteronomy, Exodus with the Former Prophets, and Exodus
with Genesis (10–20). On the historical origins of the book divisions in Genesis–Kings, see
Konrad Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible (Siphrut
3; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 23–29; cf. also Menachem Haran, “Book-Size and the
Thematic Cycles in the Pentateuch,” in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte
(ed. Erhard Blum et al.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990), 165–176.
2 Wolfgang Oswald, “Die Exodus-Gottesberg-Erzählung als Gründungsurkunde der judäischen
Bürgergemeinde,” in Law and Narrative in the Bible and in Neighbouring Ancient Cultures
(ed. Klaus-Peter Adam, Friedrich Avemarie, and Nili Wazana; fat 2.54; Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2012), 35–51, especially 34–36, favors an “Exodus-Gottesberg-Erzählung,” reaching
from Exod 1–24*. See also his Israel am Gottesberg: Eine Untersuchung zur Literargeschichte
der vorderen Sinaiperikope Ex 19–24 und deren historischem Hintergrund (obo 159; Fribourg:
Universitätsverlag, and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 114–149.
3 See below 6.3. Cf. also the prominent link between Exod 19:3b–8 and 2Kgs 18:12, see Erik
Aurelius, Zukunft jenseits des Gerichts: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zum Enneateuch
(bzaw 319; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003). Therefore, it is unwarranted to do pentateuchal studies
without addressing Joshua–Kings, see Konrad Schmid, “The Emergence and Disappearance
of the Separation between the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History in Biblical Stud-
ies,” in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch: Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through
Kings (ed. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Thomas Römer; sbl Ancient Israel and
its Literature 8; Atlanta: sbl, 2011), 11–24.
4 See e.g. David M. Carr, “Genesis in Relation to the Moses Story,” in Studies in the Book of
Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History (ed. André Wénin; betl 155; Leuven: Peeters, 2001),
293–295; idem, “The Moses Story: Literary-Historical Reflections,”HeBAI 1 (2012): 7–36; Eckart
Otto, Mose: Geschichte und Legende (Munich: Beck, 2006); Schmid, Genesis and the Moses
Story. See also John Van Seters, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers
(Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 1994).
5 See the considerations about a vita Mosis e.g. in Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des
Pentateuch (bzaw 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 208–218, and Thomas Römer, “Transforma-
tions in Deuteronomistic and Biblical Historiography: On ‘Book-Finding’ and other Literary
Strategies,” zaw 109 (1997): 1–11. For a different approach see Graham I. Davies, “The Compo-
sition of the Book of Exodus: Reflections on the Theses of Erhard Blum,” in Texts, Temples,
and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran (ed. Michael V. Fox et al.; Winona Lake: Eisen-
brauns: 1996), 71–85. For methodological considerations about how to determine the extent
of a literary work, see Erhard Blum, “Pentateuch—Hexateuch—Enneateuch? Or: How Can
One Recognize a Literary Work in the Hebrew Bible?” in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Ennea-
teuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings (ed. Thomas B. Dozeman, Thomas
Römer, and Konrad Schmid; sbl Ancient Israel and its Literature 8; Atlanta: sbl, 2011), 43–
71, esp. 54–57; trans. of “Pentateuch—Hexateuch—Enneateuch? Oder: Woran erkennt man
ein literarisches Werk in der Hebräischen Bibel?” in Textgestalt und Komposition: Exegetische
Beiträge zu Tora und Vordere Propheten (ed. Erhard Blum; fat 69; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2010), 375–404, esp. 387–390.
exodus in the pentateuch 29
10:11; 11:13; 19:30; 1Sam 4:8; 6:6; 8:8; 10:18; 12:6; 15:2; 2 Sam 7:6; 1 Kgs 8:16; 8:51;
9:9; 2Kgs 17:7, 36).6 Other traditions of the Hebrew Bible, especially the book
of Psalms, also place more weight on the exodus motive than on the Genesis
traditions.7
In light of these very basic observations, it seems odd that in the last hundred
years of critical scholarship the book of Exodus has been interpreted primarily
within the framework of the Documentary Hypothesis, prompting scholars
to perceive the texts in Exodus foremost as elements of narrative threads
identified as the sources j, e, and p that started before the book of Exodus in the
book of Genesis. Scholars therefore perceived the book mainly in light of, and
as a second act to, the Genesis narratives.8 Of course, some acknowledgement
of the self-contained nature of the exodus tradition was conceded within the
documentary approach as well, but this was usually relegated to the stages
of its oral prehistory. Especially Martin Noth in his Überlieferungsgeschichte
des Pentateuch identified the exodus theme as one of the larger blocks of the
Pentateuch that was originally independent—at least on a conceptual level.9
In fact, he considered it the most preeminent theme of the Pentateuch, but
he went on to argue that already the alleged source g, from which j and e
drew, had combined the different themes of the Pentateuch in a comprehensive
narrative—Noth left open the question of whether this was an oral or written
source.10
Why was the Documentary History, and the interpretation of the book of
Exodus that followed from it, so dominant?11 This was probably due to two
6 See also Uwe Becker, “Das Exodus-Credo: Historischer Haftpunkt und Geschichte einer
alttestamentlichen Glaubensformel,” in Das Alte Testament—ein Geschichtsbuch?! Ges-
chichtsschreibung oder Geschichtsüberlieferung im antiken Israel (ed. Uwe Becker and
Jürgen van Oorschot; abg 17; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2005), 81–100.
7 See the assessment in Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story, 69–80.
8 Mutatis mutandis, this is also true for Genesis, see Konrad Schmid, “Genesis in the Pen-
tateuch,” in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (ed. Craig
A. Evans, Joel N. Lohr, and David Petersen; VTSup 152, Leiden: Brill, 2012), 27–50.
9 Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (2d ed.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,
1948), trans. as A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (trans. with introduction by Bernard
W. Anderson; Chico: Scholars Press, 1981); see also Udo Rüterswörden, ed., Martin Noth—
aus der Sicht der heutigen Forschung (Biblisch-theologische Studien 58; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 2004).
10 Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, 2.
11 The commentaries of Martin Noth, Das zweite Buch Mose: Exodus, übersetzt und erk-
lärt (atd 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959); trans. as Exodus: A Commen-
tary (trans. John S. Bowden; otl; Philadelphia 1962), Josef Scharbert, Exodus (neb 24;
30 schmid
main factors. First, it seemed reasonable to identify the same basic sources in
Genesis and Exodus because the observations leading to the source division
were similar in these two books: there were doublets, contradictions, and
the alternation between yhwh and Elohim. Second, Gerhard von Rad’s 1938
hypothesis of the great antiquity of the so-called “historical creed” in Deut
26:5–9 seemed to corroborate this view: j, e, and p were not inventors of the
hexateuchal scope of Israel’s salvation history, but rather they merely adapted
a traditional creedal position which itself relied on corresponding historical
realities.12 In other words and in contrast to the statement by Durham quoted
above, this period of scholarship definitely viewed Genesis as the first book of
the Bible.
Both factors, however, have lost much of their plausibility in the past forty
years, at least in the eyes a considerable group of scholars who no longer assume
that the Documentary Hypothesis is a safe starting point for the exegesis of the
Pentateuch (to be sure, it might be a possible result, but it cannot be a given
presupposition).13 Regarding the first point, even pioneers of the Documentary
Würzburg: Echter, 1989); William H.C. Propp, Exodus 1–18/19–40: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary (ab 2/2a; New York: Doubleday, 1999/2006), follow this
approach, as does Werner H. Schmidt, Exodus 1–7 (bk 2.1, Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirch-
ener, 1988), which, however, is not yet completed. A helpful summary of these approaches
is offered by Peter Weimar, “Exodusbuch” in Neues Bibel-Lexikon 1:636–648. Recent com-
mentaries often take a different approach, cf. Christoph Dohmen, Exodus 19–40 (htkat;
Freiburg: Herder, 2004), Dozeman, Exodus; Georg Fischer and Dominik Markl, Exodus
(nskat 2; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009); Helmut Utzschneider and Wolfgang
Oswald, Exodus 1–15 (iecot; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2013).
12 Gerhard von Rad, “Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuchs,” in Gesammelte Stu-
dien zum Alten Testament (tb 8; Munich: Kaiser, 1958), 9–86; trans. as “The Form Criti-
cal Problem of the Hexateuch” in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (trans.
E.W. Trueman Dicken; London: scm Press, 1984), 1–78.
13 See e.g. Rolf Rendtorff, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (bzaw 147;
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977); Erhard Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte (wmant 57;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1984); Reinhard Kratz, The Composition of the Narra-
tive Books of the Old Testament (London: t&t Clark, 2005); trans. of Die Komposition der
erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments (utb 2157, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2000); Eckart Otto, Das Gesetz des Mose (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,
2007); Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story; Schmid, “Genesis in the Pentateuch,” in The
Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (ed. Craig A. Evans, Joel N. Lohr,
and David Petersen; VTSup 152; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 27–50; Christoph Berner, Die Exo-
duserzählung: Das literarische Werden einer Ursprungserzählung Israels (fat 73; Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2010); recent defenses of the Documentary Hypothesis are offered e.g. by
Ludwig Schmidt, “Im Dickicht der Pentateuchforschung: Ein Plädoyer für die umstrit-
exodus in the pentateuch 31
Hypothesis like Gerhard von Rad noticed that the exegesis of the Pentateuch
has unwisely been dominated by the results of the analysis of the book of
Genesis.14 Martin Noth even admitted openly in the preface to his commentary
on Numbers that he would not have interpreted the book in terms of the
Documentary Hypothesis if he had focused on that book alone:
If we were to take the book of Numbers on its own, then we would think
not so much of ‘continuing sources’ as of an unsystematic collection of
innumerable pieces of very varied content, age and character (‘Fragment
Hypothesis’). … It is, therefore, justifiable to approach the book of Num-
bers with the results of Pentateuchal analysis elsewhere and to expect the
continuing Pentateuchal ‘sources’ here, too, even if, as we have said, the
situation in Numbers, of itself does not exactly lead us to these results.15
Regarding the second factor, it has become widely accepted that texts like
Deut 26:5–9 are not traditional pieces from early times, but later theological
syntheses that even seem to presuppose the Priestly texts in the Pentateuch.16
It is only the Priestly document that still enjoys broad acceptance in biblical
scholarship globally.17 This hypothesis—it is still a theory, no more and no
less—seems to be sufficiently well grounded, since the Priestly texts show both
a specific language and an identifiable theological program, though there is
some debate regarding its literary nature (source or redaction) and its original
end.18
The Pentateuch shows clear signs of literary growth not only before, but also
after p (this latter point has often been neglected),19 but serious doubts have
arisen regarding the traditional description and evaluation of the pre-Priestly
history of the Pentateuch. In current scholarship, the j and e sources can no
longer be taken for granted as safe starting points for Pentateuchal criticism.
Therefore, I will start discussion of the place of the exodus story within the
Pentateuch by addressing p and then move to the more disputed non-Priestly
elements.
und die Geschichten der Deuteronomisten,” in The Future of the Deuteronomistic History
(ed. Thomas Römer; betl 147; Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 101–118; Philippe Guillaume, Land
and Calendar: The Priestly Document from Genesis 1 to Joshua 18 (lhbots 391; London:
t&t Clark, 2009), see the conclusion of pg in Joshua. For a sketch of the land thematic
in p see Matthias Köckert, “Das Land in der priesterlichen Komposition des Pentateuch,”
in Von Gott reden: Beiträge zur Theologie und Exegese des Alten Testaments (ed. Dieter
Vieweger and Ernst-Joachim Waschke; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner 1995), 147–162;
Ludwig Schmidt, Studien, 251–274; Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story, 238–248. A dis-
cussion is provided by Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 20–25.
19 See, e.g., Eckart Otto, “Forschungen zum nachpriesterschriftlichen Pentateuch,” TRu 67
(2002): 125–155; Reinhard G. Kratz, “Der vor- und der nachpriesterschriftliche Hexateuch,”
in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (ed.
Jan Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte; bzaw 315; Berlin: de Gruyter,
2002), 295–323, see also the contributions in Thomas Römer and Konrad Schmid, eds.,
Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque (betl 203;
Leuven: Peeters, 2007).
20 Peter Weimar, Untersuchungen zur priesterschriftlichen Exodusgeschichte (fb 9; Würzburg:
Echter, 1973); Thomas Römer, “The Exodus Narrative according to the Priestly Document,”
in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions (eds.
Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden; atant 95; Zurich, tvz, 2009), 157–174; Albertz, Exodus
1–18, 50–52, regarding the narrative cohesion of Exodus 1–24 cf. also the proposal of
Oswald, “Exodus-Gottesberg-Erzählung” (see n. 2).
34 schmid
the same time, it is clear that p’s exodus story is not a self-standing narrative. It
presupposes and takes up p’s storyline from Genesis, revealing very clear and
undisputable links to Genesis texts.
One example can be found in Exod 1:7 (“But the Israelites were fruitful and
prolific; they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong, so that the land was filled
with them”). Exodus 1:7 is strongly reminiscent of several key passages from
Genesis, all of which belong to P. First, it alludes to the divine commandment
in Gen 1:28 (“Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth”). This commandment is
repeated after the flood, where it is addressed to Noah and his family (Gen 9:1:
“Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth”). In p the increase of the Israelites
seems to be shaped as a partial fulfillment of the commands in Gen 1:28 and
9:1. Exodus 1:7 also uses the root “ שׁרץto be prolific” or “to swarm,” which the
Bible normally only applies to animals, especially to worms. The only other
instance in the Bible where שׁרץis applied to human beings is Gen 9:7 (“Be
fruitful and multiply and be prolific, and fill the earth”). This suggests that Exod
1:7 not only reflects upon Gen 1:28 and 9:1, but also on Gen 9:7. Why? In Gen
9:7, the root שׁרץis probably used to stress the almost explosive multiplication
of the human beings after the flood because only one chapter later, in Gen 10,
the wide-reaching table of nations reporting the populating of the earth implies
that the earth must already be fully populated.21 The use of שׁרץin Exod 1:7 has
a similar function: in Exod 1:5 the family of Jacob, comprising no more than 70
persons, is reported to have immigrated to Egypt. In the immediate context of p,
this family needs to have multiplied into a full blown nation by the next verses
(Exod 1:13–14). Apparently the Priestly Document saw a biological problem
here, which it solves by introducing the root שׁרץ. This term indicates that the
sudden increase of the Israelite people in Exod 1 is the result of extraordinary
divine agency.
Another strong link from Exodus to Genesis is provided in p by Exod 6:2–3.22
In the context of his commissioning as the leader of the exodus out of Egypt,
God tells Moses: “… I am yhwh. And I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
as El Shadday. But by my name yhwh I did not make myself known to them.”
Exod 6:2–3 explicitly refers back to passages like Gen 17:1; 28:3; and 35:11; and
explains why God appeared as El Shadday to the ancestors in Genesis, but now
to Moses and his generation as yhwh. While it is clear that Exod 6:3 links the
21 Bernard Gosse, “Transitions rédactionelles de l’histoire des clans à l’histoire des peuples
en Ex 1,7; 2,24b,” EstB 51 (1993) 163–170; Gosse, “Moïse entre l’alliance des patriarches et
celle du Sinaï,” sjot 11 (1997): 3–15, esp. 4.
22 See William R. Garr, “The Grammar and Interpretation of Exodus 6:3,” jbl 111 (1992):
385–408.
exodus in the pentateuch 35
A final example pertains to the close links between the end of p’s creation
account in Gen 2:1–3 and the completion of the sanctuary in Exod 39–40:26
Gen 1:31–2:3: “God saw everything that Exod 39:43a: “When Moses saw that they
he had made, and indeed, it was very had done all the work just as yhwh had
good. […] Thus the heavens and the commanded, he blessed them.”
earth were finished, and all their 39:32a: “In this way all the work of the
multitude. And on the seventh day God tabernacle of the tent of meeting was
finished the work that he had done. […] finished.”
So God blessed the seventh day.” 40:33b: “So Moses finished the work.”
39:43b: “[Moses] blessed them.”
Creation apparently only comes to an end with the creation of the sanctuary
(which itself can be characterized as a “creation within creation”).27
More examples of cross references between p texts in Genesis and Exodus
could be added. Nevertheless, it is sufficiently clear that p provides some of the
most prominent links between these two textual blocks.
The connections between the Genesis and Exodus materials in p follow a
certain logic and are embedded in an overarching structure: For p there is a
specific relation between the “world cycle” (Gen 1–9) and the “Abrahamic cycle”
(Gen 11–Exod 1) in Genesis, and the “Israel cycle” (Exod 1–40) in Exodus. There
is a concentric theological organization of the world in which the creator God
is Elohim for the world (Gen 9:1), El Shaddai for the Abrahamic people (Gen
17:1), and yhwh for Israel (Exod 6:2). This logic highlights the prominence of
the Exodus material within p (as is also evident from the inclusio between Gen
2:1–3 and Exod 39–40, shown above, and the elaborate nature of the narrative
in Exod 25–31 and 35–40).28
26 See Peter Weimar, “Sinai und Schöpfung: Komposition und Theologie der priesterschrift-
lichen Sinaigeschichte,” in Studien zur Priesterschrift (fat 56; Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck,
2008), 269–317, see also Bernd Janowski, “Tempel und Schöpfung: Schöpfungstheologische
Aspekte der priesterschriftlichen Heiligtumskonzeption,” in Schöpfung und Neuschöpfung
(ed. Ingo Baldermann et al.; jbt 5; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990), 37–69; repr. in
Gottes Gegenwart in Israel: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 1993), 214–246.
27 See Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, 289–332, esp. 311.
28 For a fuller discussion, see Konrad Schmid, “Judean Identity and Ecumenicity: The Polit-
ical Theology of the Priestly Document,” in Judah and Judeans in the Achaemenid Period:
Negotiating Identity in an International Context (ed. Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and
Manfred Oeming; Winona Lake: 2011), 3–26.
exodus in the pentateuch 37
stress that there is no basic qualitative difference between them. This empha-
sis emerges from the “decalogue-like” subtext of Lev 17–26 (see e.g. Lev 19:3–4,
11–18):35 the regulations in “h” include manifold allusions to the Decalogue. In
addition, the exhortations to “do” ( )עשהand/or to “keep” ( )שמרGod’s laws (18:4,
5, 26, 30; 19:19, 37; 20:9, 22; 22:31) also have counterparts in the book of Exodus
by which they might have been influenced (cf. Exod 19:5; 23:13).36 The notion
of Israel’s exodus out of Egypt is also of crucial significance for “h”’s theological
understanding, as Frank Crüsemann especially has stressed.37 In “h” Israel is
not defined by its land—the land is God’s possession (Lev 25:23)—but rather
by its status as God’s people brought out of Egypt.
Vice versa, there are also texts in the book of Exodus that pave the way for
specific regulations found in Lev 17–26. Some scholars attribute them to “h”
as well. Exodus 12:14–20, for instance, is aware of and anticipates Lev 23:5–8 in
order to combine p’s legislation on the Passover (Exod 12:1–13) with the cele-
bration of the Unleavened Bread and align it with h’s calendar.38 Another such
passage is found in the Sabbath legislation in Exod 31:12–17, which shows close
proximity with Lev 17–26 both in terminological and theological respects.39
Some of the closest links to p texts in the books of Exodus (but also in
Genesis) appear in the blessings portion of the “Holiness Code” in Lev 26. As
Norbert Lohfink has pointed out,40 Lev 26:9, 11–13 adopts central promises from
Priestly texts such as Gen 17, Exod 6:2–8, and Exod 29:45–46. However, Lev 26
reorients them by integrating them in the concluding blessings/curses section
of the “Holiness Code,” which is introduced by “if you follow my statutes and
keep my commandments and observe them faithfully” (Lev 26:3). Thus their
fulfillment is made dependent on obedience to the law, which amounts to a
certain “Deuteronomization” of Priestly theology.
Gen 17:6–7: “I will make you exceedingly Lev 26:3, 9–13: “If you follow my statutes
fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and keep my commandments and
and kings shall come from you. I will observe them faithfully, (9) I will look
establish my covenant between me with favor upon you and make you
and you, and your offspring after you fruitful and multiply you; and I will
throughout their generations, for an maintain my covenant with you …. I will
everlasting covenant, to be God to you place my dwelling in your midst, and I
and to your offspring after you.” shall not abhor you. And I will walk
among you, and will be your God, and
Exod 6:4–7: “I also established my you shall be my people. I am yhwh
covenant with them … I will free you your God who brought you out of the
from the burdens of the Egyptians and land of Egypt, to be their slaves no more;
deliver you from slavery to them. I will I have broken the bars of your yoke and
redeem you with an outstretched arm made you walk erect.”
and with mighty acts of judgment. I will
take you as my people, and I will be your
God. You shall know that I am yhwh
your God, who has freed you from the
burdens of the Egyptians.”
porary Debate and Future Directions (ed. Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden; atant 95;
Zurich: tvz, 2009), 89–115, especially 104–115. A different interpretation is given by Jeffrey
Stackert, “Distinguishing Innerbiblical Exegesis from Pentateuchal Redaction: Leviticus
26 as a Test Case,” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (ed.
Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz; fat 78; Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2011), 369–386, see esp. 376, who interprets Lev 26 as a supplement only to p and
no connection to d or other non-Priestly sources in the Pentateuch. This approach is con-
sistent with a pre-exilic dating of H.
40 schmid
The “Priestly” laws in the book of Numbers seem to have a different, though
special affiliation with the book of Exodus. The legal sections of Numbers seem
especially to include laws that constitute, in diachronic terms, additions to the
laws given at Sinai.41 The Sinai pericope had apparently already been “closed”
at a specific point in the formation of the Pentateuch, and additional laws
needed to be allocated to a different location than Mount Sinai.42 Blum and
Nihan have pointed out that Num 1–10 are to be understood as a complement to
Exod 25–40 rather than to Leviticus. This insight might, accordingly, hint to the
diachronic order of these texts.43 At any rate, there are close links both in terms
of narrative continuity and supplementation of legal materials between Exodus
and Numbers. These links demonstrate the interconnectedness of p’s exodus
story with Priestly material in the subsequent books, though the “Priestly” texts
in Numbers should probably be seen as additions to the original p document.44
41 For the notion of Sinai as a desert and as a mountain in p and post-p, see Konrad Schmid,
“Der Sinai und die Priesterschrift,” in “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” (Gen 18,19): Stu-
dien zur altorientalischen und biblischen Rechtsgeschichte, zur Religionsgeschichte Israels
und zur Religionssoziologie (eds. Reinhard Achenbach and Martin Arneth; bzar 13; Wies-
baden: Harrassowitz, 2009), 114–127; repr. in Schriftgelehrte Traditionsliteratur: Fallstudien
zur innerbiblischen Schriftauslegung im Alten Testament (fat 77; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2011), 143–158.
42 See Thomas Römer, “Das Buch Numeri und das Ende des Jahwisten: Anfragen zur ‘Quellen-
scheidung’ im vierten Buch des Pentateuch,” in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition
des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (ed. Jan Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and
Markus Witte; bzaw 315; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 215–231; see also Thomas Römer, “De
la périphérie au centre: Les livres du Lévitique et des Nombres dans le débat actuel sur
le Pentateuque,” in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers (ed. Thomas Römer; betl 215;
Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 3–34, esp. 22–32. Notable evidence for a late dating of at least
prominent portions of Numbers is provided by Hans-Peter Mathys, “Numeri und Chronik:
Nahe Verwandte,” in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, 555–578.
43 Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, 301–305; Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 72–75.
44 Cf. Reinhard Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des
Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch (bzar 3; Wiesbaden, Harras-
sowitz, 2003).
exodus in the pentateuch 41
3.1 Genesis and the Moses Story As the Two Main Constituents of the
Pentateuch
Even viewed synchronically, the most decisive break within the narrative flow
of the Pentateuch takes place between Genesis on the one hand, and Exo-
dus through Deuteronomy on the other hand—not between Numbers and
Deuteronomy.45 The narrative from Exodus through Deuteronomy is bound
together as a presentation of the life of Moses, framed by the reports of his birth
(Exod 2) and his death (Deut 34), covering the 120 years of his life. In addition,
Exodus through Deuteronomy offer all the law collections of the Torah. In terms
of the final shape(s) of the Torah, the book of Genesis serves as an introduction
to this vita Mosis, extending over a much longer time period of about 2200 years,
beginning with the creation of the world.
It is quite likely that this synchronic caesura is also relevant for diachronic
analysis, and virtually all scholars engaged in the historical interpretation of the
Pentateuch assume a certain independence of the exodus story and maintain
that the underlying exodus tradition once was an independent narrative entity,
which was not originally introduced by any of the material now extant in the
book of Genesis. This conclusion was also accepted by early critical scholars
such as Hugo Gressmann and Hermann Gunkel.46
The question, however, is whether this independence is only to be posited for
the oral prehistory of the material now preserved in the Pentateuch or whether
there was once a written exodus story that was not introduced by material from
Genesis. Martin Noth left open the question of whether the basis of j and e,
which he termed “g” (for “Grundlage”), was oral or written.47 More important
to him was the aspect that there were clear, conceptual precursor stages to j
and e that were different in shape and profile than these later sources.48
45 See the discussion in Dozeman, Exodus, 18–20; and also Ehud Ben Zvi, “The Closing Words
of the Pentateuchal Books: A Clue for the Historical Status of the Book of Genesis within
the Pentateuch,” bn 62 (1992): 7–11. For the problem of the book division see above, n. 1.
46 Hugo Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit: Ein Kommentar zu den Mose-Sagen (frlant 18;
Göttingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht, 1913), 5; Hermann Gunkel, “Mose,” in rgg (2d. ed.)
5:230–237; see most recently David M. Carr, “The Moses Story: Literary-Historical Reflec-
tions,” HeBAI 1 (2012): 7–36.
47 See above n. 8 and Noth Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, 41: “Die Frage, ob schrift-
lich oder mündlich, ist kaum noch mit einiger Sicherheit zu beantworten, aber auch
überlieferungsgeschichtlich nicht so belangreich.”
48 Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, 41: “Die Tatsache selbst aber ist sehr wich-
42 schmid
tig, da sie ein der Abfassung der Quellenschriften j und e vorausliegendes Stadium im
Werden in hinreichend sichtbare Erscheinung treten läßt.”
49 See the extended discussion of this in my Genesis and the Moses Story and the exchange
on this issue between Joel S. Baden, “The Continuity of the Non-Priestly Narrative from
Genesis to Exodus,” Bib 93 (2012): 161–186; and Konrad Schmid, “Genesis and Exodus as
Two Formerly Independent Traditions of Origins for Ancient Israel,”Bib 93 (2012): 187–208.
50 See Odil H. Steck, Old Testament Exegesis: A Guide to Methodology (2d. ed.; sbl Resources
for Biblical Study 39; Atlanta: sbl, 1998), 54. The original German term is “sekundäre
Verklammerungen” (Odil H. Steck, Exegese des Alten Testaments: Leitfaden der Methodik
[14th. ed.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1999], 54). Joel S. Baden, “From Joseph to
Moses: The Narratives of Exodus 1–2,” vt 62 (2012): 133–158, especially 136 n. 5, sees Exod
1:8 as an organic connection between the Joseph story and the exodus story. This is true
for the function of the verse in the current form of the story, but not for its diachronic
interpretation.
51 Pharaoh is a wise man in the Joseph story, but he has no connection whatsoever to God and
does not seem to be in need of such a connection, according to the narrative. Pharaoh in
the exodus story is the main antagonist to yhwh (Exod 5:2), and he is actually supposed to
acknowledge yhwh. As many scholars have observed, Pharaoh in Exodus is portrayed as
exodus in the pentateuch 43
It also becomes clear from this verse that the Joseph story does not fit
smoothly as an introduction to the Moses story, and, vice versa, the Moses story
is not a logical continuation of the Joseph story in many respects. Exod 1:8
becomes especially plausible as a redactional element that was needed to link
together two different, literarily-fixed stories to construct an overall account of
Israel’s history that included both Genesis and Exodus materials.52
Nevertheless, if this is correct, a basic question arises. Can a self-contained
Moses story begin in Egypt without explaining how the Israelites got there?
An answer informed by the biblical texts is affirmative. There is no need to
postulate an eisodos exposition for an exodus story according to texts such as
Deut 6:21–23; Ezek 20:5–26; Amos 2:10; Hos 2:17; 11:1–11; 12:10, 14; 13:4; Ps 78:12–72;
106:6–8; 136:10–15. These passages demonstrate that the Hebrew Bible can
speak of the origins of the people of Israel in Egypt and the exodus without
commenting on how they came to be there. Israel is Israel from Egypt, as many
formulaic expressions in the Bible show. To assume that the exodus story is only
understandable by referring to the Joseph story is shown to be false on the basis
of p as well, which does not have a Joseph story, at least according to the usual
delimitations of p in Genesis 37–50.53
see Rüdiger Lux, “Geschichte als Erfahrung, Erinnerung und Erzählung in der priester-
schriftlichen Rezeption der Josefsnovelle,” in Erzählte Geschichte: Beiträge zur narrativen
Kultur im alten Israel (ed. Rüdiger Lux; BThSt 40; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2000),
147–180.
54 See on this Eckart Otto, “Mose und das Gesetz: Die Mose-Figur als Gegenentwurf Politis-
cher Theologie zur neuassyrischen Königsideologie im 7. Jh. v. Chr.,” in Mose: Ägypten und
das Alte Testament (ed. Eckart Otto; sbs 189; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2000), 43–
83. In this respect, it is noteworthy that Schmidt in his Exodus commentary was unable to
attribute the opening story in Exod 2:1–10 to one of the traditional sources of the Penta-
teuch; see Schmidt, Exodus 1–7, 63–64.
55 It is only p which in Exod 6:20 introduces “Amram” and “Jochebed” as the parent’s names.
By determining Jochebed as Amram’s aunt, Exod 6:20 shows clear dependency from Exod
2:1, where a difference in generation regarding Moses’ parents can be perceived (“a man
from the house of Levi” can be at best a grandson, “the daughter of Levi” is one generation
up).
exodus in the pentateuch 45
of a genocide. Finally, the daughter of Pharaoh does not seem to know anything
about her father’s command from Exod 1 when she picks up Moses out of the
Nile and raises him like her own child.
Therefore, one may assume that the Moses story originally began with Exod
2, and Exod 1 formulates a later reconceptualization, where it is no longer Moses
alone who is in danger, but the people of Israel as a whole.56
56 For more detailed discussion of Exod 1 see Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story, 216–221.
57 See the contributions and discussions in Matthias Köckert and Erhard Blum, eds., Gottes
Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10 (vwgt 18; Gütersloh: Gütersloher
Verlagshaus, 2001).
58 See e.g. Kratz, Composition, 279–293 (cf. “Shittim” in Num 25:1 and Josh 2:1, for a critique see
Blum, “Pentateuch–Hexateuch–Enneateuch,” 54–57); Gertz et al., t&t Clark Handbook,
356–360. A different proposal is made by Oswald, “Exodus-Gottesberg-Erzählung” (see
n. 2). Blum, Komposition des Pentateuch, 216–217; and Van Seters, Life of Moses, assume
the end of the pre-Priestly Moses story in Deut 34.
59 On this process see Konrad Schmid, “The Late Persian Formation of the Torah: Obser-
vations on Deuteronomy 34,” in Judah and the Judaeans in the Fourth Century (ed. Oded
Lipschits, Rainer Albertz, and Gary Knoppers; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 236–245;
and Schmid, “The Persian Imperial Authorization as Historical Problem and as Biblical
Construct: A Plea for Differentiations in the Current Debate,” in The Pentateuch as Torah:
New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance (ed. Gary N. Knoppers and
Bernard M. Levinson; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 22–38.
46 schmid
but also the conquest of the land. Recent studies on this subject have tended
to revise Noth’s apodictic position and strive to identify material in the book
of Joshua that can be interpreted as an earlier continuation of the storyline
beginning in Exodus.60 At this time, however, it is not possible to present
a sufficiently well-founded hypothesis of the assignment of specific texts to
particular sources for such a pre-Priestly account that includes both the exodus
from Egypt and the conquest of the land.
4 The Decalogue and the Covenant Code in the Book of Exodus and
Their Relation to Deuteronomy
The book of Exodus not only marks the beginning of the Moses story in the
Pentateuch, but also provides the context for the first legal corpora in the nar-
rative flow of the Pentateuch, the Decalogue (Exod 20:2–17) and the Covenant
Code (Exod 20:22–23:33). Both have close connections to the book of Deuteron-
omy and are, therefore, of relevance when discussing the place of the book of
Exodus in the Pentateuch.
60 For discussions of an early or a late “Hexateuch,” cf. Thomas Römer and Marc Z. Bret-
tler, “Deuteronomy 34 and the Case for a Persian Hexateuch,” jbl 119 (2000): 401–419;
Kratz, “Der vor- und der nachpriesterschriftliche Hexateuch,” 295–323; Thomas Römer,
“Das doppelte Ende des Josuabuches: einige Anmerkungen zur aktuellen Diskussion um
‘deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk’ und ‘Hexateuch,’” zaw 118 (2006): 523–548; Rein-
hard Achenbach, “Pentateuch, Hexateuch, und Enneateuch: Eine Verhältnisbestimmung,”
zar 11 (2005): 122–154; and Dozeman, Exodus, 16–18.
61 Cf. Matthias Köckert, “Wie kam das Gesetz an den Sinai?” in Vergegenwärtigung des Alten
Testaments: Beiträge zur biblischen Hermeneutik (ed. Christoph Bultmann, Walter Diet-
rich, and Christoph Levin; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002), 13–27; Köckert,
Die Zehn Gebote (Munich: Beck, 2007); and Erhard Blum, “The Decalogue and the Compo-
sition History of the Pentateuch,” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current
Research (ed. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz; fat 78; Tübin-
gen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 289–301. See also Dominik Markl, Der Dekalog als Verfassung des
Gottesvolkes: Die Brennpunkte einer Rechtshermeneutik des Pentateuch in Exodus 19–24 und
Deuteronomium 5 (hbs 49; Freiburg: Herder, 2007). Consult also the essay by Dohmen in
the present volume.
exodus in the pentateuch 47
62 Bernard M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1997); William S. Morrow, Scribing the Center: Organization and
Redaction in Deuteronomy 14:1–17:13 (sblms 49; Atlanta: sbl, 1995); and Eckart Otto, Das
Deuteronomium: Politische Theologie und Rechtsreform in Juda und Assyrien (bzaw 284;
48 schmid
Even the literary core of the law of centralization itself, found in Deut 12:13–
14, is dependent literarily on the law for the altar in the Book of the Covenant
in Exod 20:24 which it even seems to cite:63
Deut 12:13–14: “Take care that you do Exod 20:24: “You need make for me only
not offer your burnt offerings in every an altar of earth and sacrifice on it your
place you happen to see. But only at the burnt offerings and your offerings of
place that yhwh will choose in one of well-being, your sheep and your oxen; in
your tribes—there you shall offer your every place where I cause my name to be
burnt offerings and there you shall do remembered I will come to you and bless
everything I command you.” you.”
Deut 15:12–18: “If a member of your Exod 21:2–7: “When you buy a male
community, whether a Hebrew man or a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years,
Hebrew woman, [sells himself or herself but in the seventh he shall go out a free
to you] and works for you six years, person, without debt ….
in the seventh year you shall set that
person free. And when you send a male
slave out from you a free person, you shall
not send him out empty-handed …. But if But if the slave declares, “I love my
he says to you, “I will not go out from master, my wife, and my children; I will
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999). John Van Seters (A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study
of the Covenant Code [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003]) has argued for a reversal of
the traditional dependency and deems the Covenant Code to be an exilic reinterpreta-
tion of Deuteronomy, arguing for a de-centralization of the cult in the diaspora, but this
proposal has not proven convincing. See Bernard M. Levinson, “Is the Covenant Code
an Exilic Composition? A Response to John Van Seters,” in In Search of Pre-exilic Israel:
Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (ed. John Day; JSOTSup 406; London:
t&t Clark, 2004), 272–325. Nevertheless, for certain pieces in the Covenant Code, this
argument may be valid; see e.g. Thomas Römer’s interpretation of Exod 20:24–26 (The So-
Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction [Lon-
don: t&t Clark, 2005]).
63 See e.g. Levinson, Deuteronomy; Gertz et al., t&t Clark Handbook, 313–314.
64 See Bernard M. Levinson, Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008).
exodus in the pentateuch 49
you,” because he loves you and your not go out a free person,” then his master
household, since he is well off with you, shall bring him before God. He shall be
then you shall take an awl and thrust it brought to the door or the doorpost; and
through his earlobe into the door, and he his master shall pierce his ear with an
shall be your slave forever. You shall do awl; and he shall serve him for life.”
the same with regard to your female
slave.
Do not consider it a hardship when you
send them out from you free persons,
because for six years they have given
you services worth the wages of hired
laborers; and yhwh your God will bless
you in all that you do.”
The reformulation of the slave law of Exod 21:2–7 in Deut 15:12–18 shows in
exemplary fashion the way Deuteronomy updates the Covenant Code. Slavery
as an institution is regarded as a matter of course in Exod 21 (“when you buy
a male slave”); in Deuteronomy it is accepted but regarded critically (“sells
himself or herself to you,” that is, “has to sell himself or herself to you”; “member
of your community [lit.: ‘brother’]”). When the slave is set free, Deut 15 requires
that she or he be equipped in such a way that the former slave can construct
an independent existence and will not immediately fall back into slavery.
However, if the slave wishes to serve in the master’s house for life, it is sealed
by a ritual that was sacred in nature in Exod 21 (“before God”). In Deut 15 it
appears in a “secular” form. Apparently the author of Deut 15 was not willing
to tolerate religious acts outside the cultic center of Jerusalem; therefore, the
ritual can no longer take place “before God.” Especially noteworthy, finally, is
the closing passage in Deut 15, which on the one hand formulates a motivation
for releasing the slave and on the other hand highlights the divine blessing
that accompanies obedience to this commandment. The law in Deuteronomy
apparently attempts to motive through empathy, not by executive power.
In terms of legal hermeneutics, the incorporation of both the Covenant Code
in the book of Exodus and of the Deuteronomic law corpus in the Pentateuch is
a quite noteworthy feature of the Torah. It includes both laws and their updated
versions. As such, the dynamics of renewing legal traditions is anchored promi-
nently in the Torah itself.65
65 The relation between Exodus and Deuteronomy is also relevant in terms of the shift
of Israel’s liberation from the servitude to Egypt to the service of yhwh; see Wolfgang
50 schmid
It is well known that the wilderness stories in Exodus and in Numbers are
closely related to each other (see especially Exod 15:22–17:7 and Num 11:1–
20:13).66 One major difference is that the stories in the book of Numbers, after
the Sinai events, end with much more serious consequences than the stories
in Exodus. The lawgiving at Mount Sinai appears to serve as a watershed event
taking place between the wilderness stories. Murmuring before the giving of
the law is tolerated; afterwards it is not.
The diachronic relationship between these stories is much debated. For our
purpose here it suffices to remark that the wilderness stories in Exodus have
counterparts in Numbers and accordingly balance the exodus story in the wider
Pentateuch. It is interesting to note that the murmuring motif occurs earlier on,
in the story of the miracle at the sea; to see this, compare Exod 14:11–12 with
Exod 16:3; 17:3; Num 11:4–6; 14:2; 16:13; 20:5. The “murmuring” motif belongs,
according to the authors of Exod 14, among the most basic elements of the
exodus. The Israelites already murmured during their exceptional rescue from
the Egyptians at the sea.
There is an additional close link between Exodus 32–34 and Numbers 13–14,
as has often been seen:67 both episodes recount Israel’s failure and God’s severe,
but nevertheless limited, punishment. They also both include similar liturgical
formulas (Exod 34:6–7/Num 14:18), the role of Moses as intercessor (Exod
32:9–14/Num 14:13–19), and the significance of God’s presence among Israel
(Exodus 33/Num 14:42–43).
Oswald, “Auszug aus der Vasallität: Die Exodus-Erzählung (Ex 1–14) und das antike Völker-
recht,” tz 67 (2011): 263–288; see also the earlier Georges Auzou, De la servitude au service:
Etude du livre de l’Exode (Connaissance de la Bible 3; Paris: Editions de l’Orante, 1961).
66 Christian Kupfer, Mit Israel auf dem Weg durch die Wüste: Eine leserorientierte Exegese der
Rebellionstexte in Exodus 15:22–17:7 und Numeri 11:1–20:13 (ots 61; Leiden: Brill, 2012); cf.
David Frankel, The Murmuring Stories of the Priestly School: A Retrieval of Ancient Sacerdo-
tal Lore (VTSup 89; Leiden: Brill, 2002); Thomas Römer, “Exode et Anti-Exode: La nostalgie
de l’Egypte dans les traditions du désert,” in Lectio difficilior probabilior? l’exégèse comme
expérience de décloisonnement (ed. Thomas Römer; bdbat 12; Heidelberg: Wiss.-theol.
Seminar, 1991), 155–172; Schmidt, Studien zur Priesterschrift, 179–207; and Zenger, “Bücher
Leviticus und Numeri,” 57–61.
67 Blum, Komposition des Pentateuch, 190–191; Michael Widmer, Moses, God, and the Dynam-
ics of Intercessory Prayer: A Study of Exodus 32–34 and Numbers 13–14 (fat 2.8; Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 7–8; and Zenger, “Bücher Leviticus und Numeri,” 58–59.
exodus in the pentateuch 51
6 Further Links between Exodus and the Other Books from Genesis
to Kings
In what follows, I will briefly discuss passages in the book of Exodus that are
likely part of literary layers that function to connect larger narrative blocks.
These larger blocks may have, at some point, even existed as independent
literary works (like a Hexateuch, a Pentateuch, or an Enneateuch). There are
probably additional texts that could be mentioned here as well, but I will limit
myself to a few examples.
6.1 Redactional Texts of Exodus That Embed the Book in the Hexateuch
The most obvious, albeit very short, text in Exodus that shows undeniable
links to Genesis on the one hand, and Joshua on the other hand (and there-
fore can be deemed “hexateuchal in nature”), is Exod 13:19: “And Moses took
with him the bones of Joseph, who had made the Israelites swear to him, say-
ing, ‘God will surely take care of you, and then you must carry my bones with
you from here.’” Exodus 13:19 refers explicitly back to Gen 50:25 where Joseph
took an oath from his brothers; it also anticipates the burial of Joseph’s bones
in Shechem as reported in Josh 24:32.68 Exodus 13:19 testifies, therefore, to a
redaction comprising the Hexateuch (Genesis–Joshua). It may or may not be
that there are more texts in Exodus belonging to such a layer, but Exod 13:19
provides the best evidence for it. Traditional exegesis often assigned the state-
ments in Gen 50:25 and Exod 13:19 to e, but given the narrative connection
with Josh 24:32, an interpretation of Exod 13:19 just within the literary scope of
the Pentateuch is not convincing, and the fragmentary nature of e remains an
unsolved problem for its proponents. In addition, Josh 24 is a text that presup-
poses p, therefore Exod 13:19 can hardly be earlier.69 It is disputed whether this
redaction attempts to establish a stand-alone Hexateuch or whether this is a lit-
erary device to constitute only a “literary” Hexateuch70 within an Enneateuch
68 See Markus Witte, “Die Gebeine Josefs,” in Auf dem Weg zur Endgestalt von Genesis bis ii
Regum (ed. Martin Beck and Ulrike Schorn; bzaw 370; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 139–156.
69 See Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story, 197–213; Schmid, “Die Samaritaner und die
Judäer: Die biblische Diskussion um ihr Verhältnis in Josua 24,” in Die Samaritaner und
die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samari-
tanischen Traditionen / The Samaritans and the Bible: Historical and Literary Interactions
between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions (ed. Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser, and Kon-
rad Schmid; sj 7; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012), 21–49.
70 Erhard Blum, “Der kompositionelle Knoten am Übergang von Josua zu Richter: Ein Ent-
flechtungsvorschlag,” in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature (ed. Marc Vervenne
52 schmid
6.2 Redactional Texts in Exodus That Embed the Book in the Pentateuch
(Exod 32:13; 33:1)
There are, as we have seen, many textual links from the book of Exodus to
neighboring books in the Pentateuch. At this point, I will focus on a series of
texts that seem to be especially interested in the formation of a Pentateuch as
a closed textual unit. Exodus 32:13 and 33:1 speak of the promise of the land to
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as an oath:
Exod 32:13: “Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, how
you swore to them by your own self, saying to them, ‘I will multiply your
descendants like the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised
I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’”
Exod 33:1: “yhwh said to Moses, ‘Go, leave this place, you and the people
whom you have brought up out of the land of Egypt, and go to the land
that I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, ‘To your descendants I
will give it.’’”
As David Clines and Thomas Römer have observed, this notion of the promise
of the land to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as an oath—without the apposition
“fathers”—can be found also in Gen 50:24, Num 32:11, and Deut 34:4. It therefore
and Johan Lust; betl 133; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997), 181–212; Eckart Otto,
Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und im Hexateuch: Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von
Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens (fat 30; Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2000), 175–211; Achenbach, “Pentateuch, Hexateuch, und Enneateuch”; Römer
and Brettler, “Deuteronomy 34 and the Case for a Persian Hexateuch;” and Römer, “Das
doppelte Ende des Josuabuches.”
71 Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story, 208–213, 342; Kratz, “Der vor- und der nachpriester-
schriftliche Hexateuch.”
72 See the contributions in Römer and Schmid, eds., Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque,
de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque.
exodus in the pentateuch 53
runs through the Pentateuch as a whole.73 Most notably, this motif cannot be
found in the subsequent books of Joshua–2Kings.74 The promise of land to
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as an oath apparently serves to bind together the
Pentateuch and the Pentateuch alone.
How Exod 32:13 and 33:1 are interlinked with their relevant contexts and how
these texts are to be dated in literary-historical terms is a matter of debate.75
However, a conceptual observation might provide some guidance: The texts
of Gen 50:24; Exod 32:13; 33:1; Num 32:11, and Deut 34:4, which advance the
notion of the promise of the land to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as an oath,
seem to presuppose p and d. Thus, they probably belong to the latest literary
developments of the Torah. It seems that they have combined the motif of
the land promise as oath that is prominent in the Deuteronomistic parts of
Deuteronomy (see Deut 1:8, 35; 6:10, 18, 23; 7:13; 8:1; 9:5; 10:11; 11:9, 21; 19:8; 26:3,
15; 28:11; 30:20; 31:7, 20–21; 34:4) with the Priestly conviction that God’s actions
towards Israel are rooted in the covenant with the ancestors (cf. Gen 17; Gen
35:11–12). The result is the notion of the promise of the land to Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob in the form of an oath.76
73 David J.A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch (rev. ed.; JSOTSup 10; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1997); Thomas Römer, Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik
im Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition (obo 99; Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 566.
74 Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story, 271–279.
75 See e.g. Jan Christian Gertz, “Beobachtungen zu Komposition und Redaktion in Exodus
32–34,” in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10 (ed. Matthias
Köckert and Erhard Blum; vwgt 18; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001), 88–106.
76 For detailed analysis, see Römer, Israels Väter, 561–566.
77 In terms of connections of the book of Exodus to other books of the Pentateuch, the links
of Exod 32–34 to Deut 9–10 also need to be taken into account, but this issue cannot be
addressed here. See, e.g., Norbert Lohfink, “Deuteronomium 9,1–10,11 und Exodus 32–34:
Zu Endtextstruktur, Intertextualität, Schichtung und Abhängigkeiten,” in Gottes Volk am
54 schmid
(the “golden calf”), but also in terms of theological transformation and adapta-
tion.78
The statements in Exod 32:4b, 8b, “These are your gods, o Israel, who brought
you up out of the land of Egypt!” are very similar to 1 Kgs 12:28b. However, unlike
1Kgs 12, where two calves are fabricated, the plural in Exod 32 does not fit
its context because Aaron produces only one calf. Exodus 32:4b, 8b appear to
have been primarily shaped as an allusion to 1 Kgs 12:28b, pointing the reader
to the source of Jeroboam’s sin as narrated in 1 Kgs 12.79 What, we might ask,
prompted the biblical authors of Exod 32 to establish this link, even at the
expense of a grammatical problem of subject-verb agreement in Exodus 32:4b,
8b? Exodus 32 seems to hold the entire people accountable for idolatry rather
than merely the instigator, Aaron. By doing so, Exod 32 argues that the sin of
Jeroboam, which is a recurrent motif in 1Kgs 12 through 2 Kgs 17, is not only the
responsibility of Jeroboam and his royal successors, but the people as a whole
are complicit as well.80
This link between Jeroboam’s sin in the period of the kings, as presented in
the books of Kings, is further highlighted by the expression “sinning a great sin,”
which occurs both in the reflection after the demise of the northern kingdom
Israel in 2Kgs 17:20–21 and in Exod 32:30–31:
Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10 (ed. Matthias Köckert and Erhard Blum;
vwgt 18; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001), 41–87.
78 Cf. Michael Konkel, “Exodus 32–34 and the Quest for an Enneateuch,” in Pentateuch,
Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings (ed. Thomas
B. Dozeman, Thomas Römer, and Konrad Schmid; sbl Ancient Israel and its Literature 8;
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 169–184.
79 See among many others, e.g., Lothar Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (wmant
36; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1969), 208. For further discussion see Gary N. Knop-
pers, “Aaron’s Calf and Jeroboam’s Calves,” in Fortunate the Eyes that See (ed. Astrid B. Beck
et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 92–104; for 1Kgs 12 see Uwe Becker, “Die Reich-
steilung nach i Reg 12,” zaw 112 (2000): 210–229; see also the proposal of Juha Pakkala,
“Jeroboam without Bulls,” zaw 120 (2008): 501–525.
80 See Gertz, “Beobachtungen zur Komposition und Redaktion in Ex 32–34,” 99.
exodus in the pentateuch 55
Exod 32:30–31: “On the next day Moses said to the people: You have sinned
a great sin. But now I will go up to yhwh; perhaps I can make atonement
for your sin. So Moses returned to yhwh and said, Alas, this people has
sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold.”
Exodus 32:30 appears to stress that not only Jeroboam “sinned a great sin,”
but the whole people at Mount Sinai had engaged in similar behavior
during the period of Israel’s origins. The transfer of responsibility from the
kings to the people seems to reflect the prior demise of both the kingdoms
of Israel and of Judah. And the relative chronology in Exod 32, according
to Jan Gertz, also suggests an “exilic” setting of its earliest layers “at the
earliest.”81
It could also be conceivable that Exod 32 is alluding to 1 Kgs 12 and 2 Kgs 17,
not as texts within one and the same work (which then would extend from
Genesis or Exodus to Kings), and this possibility cannot be ruled out. At any
rate, it seems plausible that Exod 32 is a reinterpretation of “Jeroboam’s sin,”
and the new perspective that emerges in Exod 32 would be most effective if it
was part of the same work as the texts from Kings.
In Exodus it is especially the first chapter that displays close links to the book
of Genesis. But we have already seen that the pre-Priestly Moses story probably
originally started in Exod 2. Vice versa, there are indications in Exod 1 that this
chapter consists only of p and post-p elements, although this proposal remains
contested.83
Besides Exod 1 and the p-links, explicit references back to Genesis especially
appear in the report of the commissioning of Moses in Exod 3 (see Exod 3:6,
13–16). Again, recent discussions have proposed that either the whole chapter
or at least these references are post-p, although others have argued to the
contrary.84 A comparison of Exod 3 with its p counterpart in Exod 6:2–8 reveals
some striking features that might support the case for a post-p setting of Exod
3:1–4:17. Firstly, Exod 6:2–8 plays out in Egypt, whereas Exod 3 is located on
the mountain of God, that is, on holy territory. It is improbable that p would
have secondarily profaned the place of Moses’ commissioning. Secondly, Exod
3–4 seems to integrate the problems that arise later in the Priestly narrative
with Moses’ mandate into the story of the call of Moses itself. Exodus 6:9
reports Israel’s unwillingness to listen to Moses after he has spoken with the
people, and then Moses is to perform the signs before Pharaoh. In Exod 4:1,
Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpreta-
tion (ed. Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid; SBLSymS 34; Atlanta: sbl, 2006), 73–87.
83 Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story, 62–65, 216.
84 On the the whole chapter as post-p, see: Eckart Otto, “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Penta-
teuchredaktion im Buch Exodus,” in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction—Reception—
Interpretation (ed. Marc Vervenne; betl 126; Leuven: Peeters, 1996), 61–111; Schmid, Gen-
esis and the Moses Story, 172–193. On these references alone as post-p, see: Jan C. Gertz,
Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung (frlant 189; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 2000), 233–348; Blum, “Die literarische Verbindung;” and Thomas Römer,
“Exodus 3–4 und die aktuelle Pentateuchdiskussion,” in The Interpretation of Exodus (ed.
Reimer Roukema; cbet 44; Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 65–79. For contrary opinions, see:
Thomas B. Dozeman, “The Commission of Moses and the Book of Genesis,” in A Farewell
to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (ed.
Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid; SBLSymS34; Atlanta, sbl, 2006), 107–129; John
Van Seters, “The Patriarchs and the Exodus: Bridging the Gap between Two Origin Tra-
ditions,” in The Interpretation of Exodus (ed. Reimer Roukema; cbet 44; Leuven: Peeters,
2006), 1–15; Hans-Christoph Schmitt, “Erzväter- und Exodusgeschichte als konkurrierende
Ursprungslegenden Israels—ein Irrweg der Pentateuchforschung,” in Die Erzväter in der
biblischen Tradition (eds. Anselm C. Hagedorn and Henrik Pfeiffer; bzaw 400; Berlin: de
Gruyter, 2009), 241–266; Graham I. Davies, “The Transition from Genesis to Exodus,” in
Genesis, Isaiah and Psalms (eds. Katharine J. Dell, Graham I. Davies, and Yee Von Koh;
VTSup 135; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 59–78.
exodus in the pentateuch 57
7 Conclusions
While the Pentateuch provides a quite coherent overall storyline from the
creation of the world, the patriarchs, the exodus, the events at Mount Sinai,
and the wilderness to Moses’ farewell speech in the Transjordan, it is plausible
that this storyline neither reflects the earliest conception of the literature now
comprised in the Pentateuch nor denotes an actual sequence of historical
events.
Despite its links to the book of Genesis and the following books, the Moses
story in the book of Exodus (and in the continuing books, possibly originally
until Joshua) was probably first an independent literary piece that was later
combined with the Genesis material that precedes it in the canonical Penta-
teuch.
For the reconstruction of the pre-p redaction history of the Pentateuch, it
has, at any rate, become difficult to explain the texts in the book of Exodus
as an original continuation of the pre-Priestly material in Genesis. Apparently,
p was the first author to combine Genesis and the Moses story.86 In Exod
6:2–3,87 p seems still to struggle with the sequence of Genesis and Exodus
and the mediation of their different theological perspectives. Furthermore,
the prophetic books and the Psalms also, at least in their alleged earlier text
portions, do not yet seem to presuppose the clear sequence of Genesis and
Exodus or the material now contained in these books.88
Scholars like Albert de Pury, Thomas Römer, Reinhard Kratz, Jan Gertz,
Matthias Köckert, Eckart Otto, Jean-Louis Ska, and others,89 following some
basic observations made earlier by Kurt Galling and Martin Noth,90 are there-
fore inclined to see Exodus not in every respect as the second book of the Bible,
especially not from the beginning of the Bible’s literary history.91
Select Bibliography
88 Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story, 70–80; see, however, differently Schmitt, “Erzväter-
und Exodusgeschichte als konkurrierende Ursprungslegenden Israels,” 242–245. For Hos
12, see Albert de Pury, “Erwägungen zu einem vorexilischen Stämmejahwismus: Hos 12
und die Auseinandersetzung um die Identität Israels und seines Gottes,” in Ein Gott
allein? jhwh-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und
altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte (ed. Walter Dietrich and Martin A. Klopfenstein;
obo 139; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 413–439 on the one hand, and Erhard
Blum, “Hosea 12 und die Pentateuchüberlieferungen,” in Die Erzväter in der biblischen
Tradition (ed. Anselm C. Hagedorn and Henrik Pfeiffer; bzaw 400; Berlin: de Gruyter,
2009), 318–319, on the other.
89 See Römer, Israels Väter; Albert de Pury, “Le cycle de Jacob comme légende autonome des
origines d’Israël,” in Congress Volume Leuven 1989 (ed. John A. Emerton; VTSup 43; Leiden:
Brill, 1991), 78–96; Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung, 381–388; Otto,
“Mose und das Gesetz,” 43–83; Otto, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und im Hexateuch;
Otto, Mose: Geschichte und Legende (Munich: Beck, 2006); Otto, Das Gesetz des Mose;
Kratz, The Composition of the Historical Books of the Old Testament; and Jean-Louis Ska,
Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 196–202.
90 Kurt Galling, Die Erwählungstraditionen Israels (Gießen: Töpelmann, 1928); Noth, Über-
lieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch.
91 See n. 1.
exodus in the pentateuch 59
Leuven: Peeters, 2007. Repr. from pages 13–42 in Die Patriarchen und die Priester-
schrift: Les Patriarches et le document sacerdotal: Gesammelte Studien zu seinem 70:
Geburtstag: Recueil d’articles, à l’occasion de son 70e anniversaire. Edited by Albert
de Pury. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 99. Zurich:
Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2010.
Römer, Thomas. “The Exodus Narrative according to the Priestly Document.” Pages 157–
174 in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions.
Edited by Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten
und Neuen Testaments 95. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009.
Schmid, Konrad. Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible.
Siphrut 3. Translated by James Nogalski. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010. Revised
and Updated Translation of Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten
Begründung der Ursprünge Israels in den Geschichtsbüchern des Alten Testaments.
Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und zum Neuen Testament 81. Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1999.
Ska, Jean-Louis. Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
2006.
Utzschneider, Helmut, and Wolfgang Oswald. Exodus 1–15. International Exegetical
Commentary on the Old Testament. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2013.
Exodus and History
Lester L. Grabbe
1 Biblical Account
Critical scholars generally agree that the earliest references to the exodus tra-
dition do not come from the exodus narrative in the Pentateuch but other
writings, such as the early prophetic books, primarily Amos and Hosea, about
the middle of the eighth century bce: Hos 2:17; 8:13; 9:3; 11:1, 5, 11; 12:10, 14; 13:4;
5; Amos 2:10; 3:1, 9; 4:10; 8:8; 9:5, 7; also Mic 6:4; 7:15. Although we could debate
some of these passages, overall the exodus tradition seems to be presupposed,
though it would take us back only to the eighth century, long after the alleged
event. Whatever the reality, it is clothed in a thick layer of mythical interpreta-
tion. The Pharaoh is a generic figure, without a name. A series of ten miracles is
enacted and attempts to find naturalistic explanations miss the point:1 the aim
of the narrative is to magnify the power of yhwh and his servant Moses. Yair
Hoffman has argued that the original tradition was a northern one, no older
than the ninth or tenth century bce.2 Stephen Russell agrees that the exodus
tradition originated about the eighth century bce, but it is not unified, with
differences between the Cis-Jordanian and Transjordanian tribes.3
The vast bulk of the Pentateuchal text describing the exodus and related
events seems to be quite late, “exilic or early post-exilic.”4 It was once widely
argued that the exodus was embodied in certain passages quoting an early
Israelite “credo,” but subsequent study suggested that some of these passages
(e.g., Deut 6:21–23; 26:5–9; Josh 24:2–13) were actually late.5 However, it has
been argued that one section in the exodus narrative was quite early: based
on a linguistic analysis of the Hebrew text, Exodus 15 was proposed as one of
the earliest passages in the Hebrew Bible.6
Some elements of Exodus 15 remind one of the Chaoskampf in which yhwh
defeated the forces of chaos, but a number of passages also speak of interaction
on the human level. This already begins in v. 1 with the casting of horse and
rider into the sea. yhwh is a man of war (v. 3) who throws the chariots and the
entire army of Pharaoh into the sea (v. 4). Frank Cross attempted to argue that
1 E.g., Greta Hort, “The Plagues of Egypt,” zaw 69 (1957): 84–103; Hort, “The Plagues of Egypt,”
zaw 70 (1958): 48–59.
2 Yair Hoffman, “A North Israelite Typological Myth and a Judaean Historical Tradition: The
Exodus in Hosea and Amos,” vt 19 (1989): 169–182; Hoffman, “The Exodus-Tradition and Real-
ity: The Status of the Exodus Tradition in Ancient Israel,” in Jerusalem Studies in Egyptology
(ed. Irene Shirun-Grumach; äat 40; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1998), 193–202.
3 Stephen C. Russell, Images of Egypt in Early Biblical Literature: Cisjordan-Israelite, Transjor-
dan-Israelite, and Judahite Portrayals (bzaw 403; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009).
4 Rainer Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period (2 vols.; London: scm,
1994), 1:23–24, 42–45.
5 Gerhard von Rad, “The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch,” in The Problem of the
Hexateuch and other Essays (trans. E.W. Trueman Dicken; Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1965),
1–78; Ernest W. Nicholson, Exodus and Sinai in History and Tradition (Oxford: Blackwell, 1973);
cf. Manfred Görg, Die Beziehungen zwischen dem alten Israel und Ägypten: Von den Anfängen
bis zum Exil (EdF 290; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1997), 124–125.
6 David A. Robertson, Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry (sblds 3; Missoula:
sbl, 1972); cf. also Brian D. Russell, The Song of the Sea: The Date of Composition and Influence
of Exodus 15:1–21 (SBLit 101; New York: Peter Lang, 2007). See also Frank M. Cross, Jr. and David
Noel Freedman, “The Song of Miriam,” jnes 14 (1955): 237–250; and Cross, Canaanite Myth
and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 121–144. For the argument that
Exod 15 is not early, see Martin Noth, Exodus (otl; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962).
exodus and history 63
widespread acceptance.11 At most, one could say that a memory of the Egyptian
figure was used to create the figure of Moses in the biblical text. Graham Davies
finds the attempts “not very convincing,” but this makes his conclusion that the
exodus “tradition is a priori unlikely to have been invented” appear tacked on
rather than arising from his data.
A number of Egyptian texts from the second millennium bce mention peo-
ples who were non-Egyptian and probably Semitic.12 The Egyptian texts refer to
“foreigners” under the categories of “Asiatics” (ʿ3mw), Nubians, and Libyans.13
Recent study and archaeological excavation shows that Asiatics settled peace-
fully in Egypt from an early period and were often co-opted to work for the
government, including in the army and navy.14 In the Old Kingdom, at least,
they often settled in the northeastern part of the Delta, the general area where
the family of Jacob was supposedly assigned land. On the other hand, there are
several aspects of the biblical tradition that do not accord with a New Kingdom
context:
11 First proposed by Ernst Axel Knauf (Midian: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas
und Nordarabiens am Ende des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. [adpv 7; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
1988], 135–139), though others have followed him. See Davies (“Was There an Exodus?”
34–36) who surveys the proposals and evidence.
12 See the survey in Abraham Malamat, “The Exodus: Egyptian Analogies,” in Exodus: The
Egyptian Evidence (ed. Ernest S. Frerichs and Leonard H. Lesko; Winona Lake: Eisen-
brauns, 1997), 15–26.
13 Anthony Leahy, “Foreign Incursions,” oeae 1:548–552, here 548.
14 Manfred Bietak, “The Predecessors of the Hyksos,” in Confronting the Past: Archaeological
and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever (ed. Seymour Gitin,
J. Edward Wright, and J.P. Dessel; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 285–293; Andrew
Gordon, “Foreigners,” oeae 1:544–548.
15 Donald B. Redford, “An Egyptological Perspective on the Exodus Narrative,” in Egypt,
Israel, Sinai: Archaeological and Historical Relationships in the Biblical Period (ed. Anson
F. Rainey; Tel Aviv University Kaplan Project on the History of Israel and Egypt; Tel Aviv:
Tel Aviv University, 1987), 137–161, here 146–148.
exodus and history 65
All in all, it seems that the reference to Israel is reasonably secure, though the
name Ysr3r has been read as “Jezreel,” as well as some less credible renderings.
From a philological point of view, this seems an unlikely reading, as do some of
the other suggestions.17
16 Translation of Donald B. Redford, “The Ashkelon Relief at Karnak and the Israel Stela,”
iej 36 (1986): 188–200, here 197; Egyptian text quoted from Alviero Niccacci, “La stèle
d’Israël: grammaire et stratégie de communication,” in Études égyptologiques et bibliques
à la mémoire du Père B. Couroyer (ed. Marcel Sigrist; Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 36; Paris:
Gabalda, 1997), 43–107, here 64.
17 Michael G. Hasel, Domination and Resistance: Egyptian Military Activity in the Southern
Levant, ca. 1300–1185bc (PdÄ 11; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 197–198; Kenneth A. Kitchen, “The
Victories of Merenptah, and the Nature of their Record,” jsot 28 (2004): 259–272, here
270–271.
66 grabbe
Much debate has centered around the determinative.18 The other three
names have the three-hills and throw-stick signs, which are normally used for
a foreign territory, whereas Israel has a seated man and woman with the throw
stick, which suggests a people rather than a fixed geographical site. Another
question concerns the phrase “his seed is not” (bn prt.f ). It has often been
taken metaphorically to refer to “descendants, offspring,” but the argument that
this means “grain” seems to be prevailing (perhaps suggesting that Israel is a
sedentary community of agriculturists at this time).19
Is this inscription only a piece of royal propaganda—a triumph-hymn—
with little or no historical value?20 The assertion that Israel is only an eponym
(“analogous to Genesis’ Israel: the patriarch of all Palestine’s peoples”) ignores
the determinative, which is plural and which refers to a people. The oft-made
statement that a number of errors in determinatives are found in the inscrip-
tion seems to be incorrect.21 As for Israel’s being paired with Kharu, this is only
one possible analysis. In fact, a number of different literary structures have been
seen in the passage.22 There is also the question of whether Pekanaʿan refers to
“Canaan” or “Gaza.” The conclusion that this inscription “has been considered
correctly as concrete proof of an Israel in Palestine around 1200 bce” remains
the most reasonable one.23
A major question, though, has been about where Israel is supposed to reside.
Kenneth Kitchen argues that each name refers to a section of Palestine: Ashke-
lon to the coast, Gezer to the inland area, Yanoʿam to the Galilee; therefore,
Israel would refer to the hill country.24 This is far from cogent. There is nothing
in the inscription to suggest that the individual names were meant to refer to
a specific part of the country; Merenptah may just be listing sites and peoples
conquered. Also, the sections of Palestine listed for the first three names do
18 Cf. Frank J. Yurco, “Merenptah’s Canaanite Campaign,” jarce 23 (1986): 189–215 (190 n. 3);
Hasel, Domination and Resistance, 198–199.
19 Niccacci, “La Stèle d’Israël,” 92–93; Hasel, Domination and Resistance, 201–203; “Meren-
ptah’s Inscription and Reliefs and the Origin of Israel,” in The Near East in the Southwest:
Essays in Honor of William G. Dever (ed. Beth Alpert Nakhai; aasor 58; Boston: American
Schools of Oriental Research, 2003), 19–44.
20 As asserted by Ingrid Hjelm and Thomas L. Thompson, “The Victory Song of Merneptah,
Israel and the People of Palestine,” jsot 27 (2002): 3–18.
21 So Kitchen, “The Victories of Merenptah, and the Nature of their Record,” 271.
22 Summarized in Hasel, Domination and Resistance, 257–271.
23 Niels Peter Lemche, Prelude to Israel’s Past: Background and Beginnings of Israelite History
and Identity (trans. E.F. Maniscalco; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998), 75.
24 Kitchen, “The Victories of Merenptah, and the Nature of their Record.”
exodus and history 67
not cover all the territory except the hill country: what of the Valley of Jezreel,
the Jordan Valley, the Negev, the Transjordanian region, the plain of Sharon,
and so on? Nadav Naʾaman points out that it is possible the author mentioned
the cities first and then the people, so there was no sequential listing.25 The
conjectured location is highly speculative: some put “Israel” in the area of
Shechem, but the Egyptians called it “the land of Shechem” or “the mountain
of Shechem”; putting Israel in Manasseh is nothing more than guesswork. In
conclusion, it is “best to refrain from building on this isolated reference any
hypothesis concerning the location and formulation of Israel at that time.”26
Thus, no argument has so far been presented to pin down the exact location
in the land of this entity Israel. Ultimately, the only thing we can say is that
the inscription proves there was an entity called “Israel” in Palestine about
1200bce. This is an important datum, but it does not allow us to be certain
of where it was located (if indeed there was a single location) or the precise
organization or status of this entity “Israel.”
Therefore, appeals to the Merenptah stela as evidence for the exodus are very
problematic. The inscription provides no evidence for any sojourn in Egypt for
those identified in the text as “Israel”; on the contrary, this entity appears to
be in Palestine. Nothing relates to the conquest of Canaan or to any event in
the biblical text. On the contrary, it suggests a situation in which Canaan is still
controlled by Egypt, a situation not envisaged by Joshua or Judges.
25 Nadav Naʾaman, “The ‘Conquest of Canaan’ in the Book of Joshua and in History,” in From
Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel (ed. Israel
Finkelstein and Nadav Naʾaman; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994), 218–281, here
247–249.
26 Naʾaman, “Conquest of Canaan,” 249.
27 For example, John J. Bimson (Redating the Exodus and Conquest [2d ed.; JSOTSup 5;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1978; 1981]) has an appendix on the Amarna tablets
but no detailed analysis. Bryant G. Wood (“From Ramesses to Shiloh: Archaeological
Discoveries Bearing on the Exodus–Judges Period,” in Giving the Sense: Understanding and
Using Old Testament Historical Texts [ed. David M. Howard, Jr. and Michael A. Grisanti;
Leicester: Apollos, 2003], 256–282) mentions them only in passing. For a study by a
specialist that summarizes the contents of the Amarna texts and their implications for
history, see Nadav Naʾaman, “Amarna Letters,” abd 1:174–181.
68 grabbe
of Israel into the land could have taken place before the time of the events
described in these texts. In spite of many references to the tablets as describ-
ing a situation “similar to the period of the judges,” a careful reading of the
texts excludes anything like the biblical scenario. Israel does not control the
land, nor is it even referred to. The petty kings of the various cities rule in
a way incompatible with either Joshua or Judges. Egypt is in control of the
country. The frequent reference to the ʿApiru cannot be construed as refer-
ences to Israel because the numbers involved are few and, of course, some of
the references are simply accusations that a neighboring king has become an
ʿApiru.
If there was an exodus and entry into the land anything like the account in
the Bible, it would have to have been after the Amarna period. There cannot
have been such an event in the fifteenth century, as some want to date the
exodus and entrance into the land.
28 Alan H. Gardiner, The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1909); R.B. Par-
kinson, “Ipuwer,” oeae 2:182.
29 Immanuel Velikovsky, Ages in Chaos (Garden City: Doubleday, 1952).
30 See, e.g., the website of Rabbi Mordechai Becher: http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/838 (ac-
cessed 6 June 2013).
exodus and history 69
2.5 Omissions
What seems surprising in the text is the lack of information that one would
expect in a contemporary historical account. This especially applies to names
of Egyptian persons. In the exodus narrative—as, indeed, in the whole of the
Pentateuch—the Pharaoh is never named. One would have thought that in a
historical account names of the leading Egyptian protagonists would have a
place somewhere. But the Pharaoh seems to be a generic figure, much as stock
figures appear in folk tales. Yet even in folk tales, names are sometimes to be
found, although they might well be symbolic. We have geographical names;
why no personal names? We have names of persons on the Israelite side; why
none on the Egyptian? As Donald Redford has pointed out, when Isaiah and
Jeremiah refer to Egyptological matters, it has the feel of authenticity: “it is at
once familiar and precise.” This is not the case with the exodus narrative where
the Egyptian coloring is almost entirely geographical.31
2.6 Conclusions
This background has produced some conclusions on which the rest of the
investigation can proceed:
Some have argued that elements within the text fit the period of Rameses ii,32
but this is not sufficient; one must show that they do not fit any other period in
history. It has been widely accepted that there are names and other references
that suggest some knowledge of Egypt in the exodus narrative, but how early
are they? As noted above, there are few incidental or accidental references to
Egypt, such as one might expect, unlike some other biblical passages such as
found in Isaiah and Jeremiah; most of what is present is topographical.33 More
important, a number of the Egyptian elements in the exodus story are most
likely anachronistic, as we shall see. There is no agreement among Egyptolo-
gists about elements that could only be dated to an early period.
A further problem is the tendency of some researchers to seek an identity
only with sites that seem to fit the Egyptian New Kingdom and ignore sites
known from a later time. Such a procedure ignores the possibility that a later
writer used later data (perhaps from his own time) in order to create the
narrative. A number of conservative writers attempt to defend the integrity
of the narrative by claiming that it was early but was “updated” at a later
time. They thus admit that some elements within the text are much later
than the time of the New Kingdom or the Late Bronze Age or late second
millennium bce (or whatever early date is assigned to the supposed historical
event). Historicity can be determined only when all possibilities have been
considered.
32 James K. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).
33 Redford, “Egyptological Perspective on the Exodus Narrative,” 138.
34 J. Vergote, Joseph en Égypte: Genèse Chap. 37–50 à la Lumière des Études Égyptologiques
Récentes (obl 3; Leuven: Publications Universitaires, 1959), 183–187; William A. Ward,
“Goshen,” abd 2:1076–1077; Alan H. Gardiner, “The Supposed Egyptian Equivalent of the
Name of Goshen,” jea 5 (1918): 218–223; Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, 121.
exodus and history 71
found in Ptolemaic texts which was read as Gsm.t; however, this reading has
now generally been rejected because of linguistic problems.35 More recently
a number of scholars have agreed that the name derives at a late period from
the name of the Qedarite leader whose area of control evidently related to the
northern Egyptian and Delta area. The name “Geshem” (cf. Neh 2:19; 6:1–2, 6)
seems to have been borne by several individual rulers.36 The Septuagint of Gen
45:10 and 46:34 translates Goshen with Gesem Arabia. Because of the linguistic
differences between Goshen and Geshem, it would be necessary to postulate
dialectic variation.
Next is Pithom. It seems to be universally accepted that the Hebrew name
comes from Egyptian pr-ʾItm “the house of Atum.” This was originally a refer-
ence to a temple (probably the temple of Re-Kharakhty at Heliopolis), as shown
by a number of Egyptian texts, including the Abu Simbel stela, the Papyrus Har-
ris, and the Piankhi stela.37 The town determinative does not appear with the
name. Basically, three sites have been identified, with some fairly strong feel-
ings being expressed about one or the other.38 First, considerable argument
has been made for Tell el-Maskhuta.39 Secondly, Alan Gardiner argued for Tell
er-Retabah, and he has been followed by Kitchen and James Hoffmeier in this
identification.40 Finally, Edward Uphill has put the case for Heliopolis or bibli-
cal On (Egyptian Iwnw).41
35 It is thus somewhat disconcerting to have the theory revived by Sarah I. Groll (“The Egyp-
tian Background of the Exodus and the Crossing of the Reed Sea: A New Reading of Papyrus
Anastasi viii,” in Jerusalem Studies in Egyptology [ed. Irene Shirun-Grumach; äat 40;
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1998], 173–192, here 190), though in a somewhat different form,
relating Goshen to the Egyptian word gsm (a body of water of some sort). This is specula-
tive, of course, and no full argumentation is given to support it.
36 Isaac Rabinowitz, “Aramaic Inscriptions of the Fifth Century bce from a North-Arab
Shrine in Egypt,” jnes 15 (1956), 1–9.
37 Redford, “Exodus i 11,” vt 13 (1963): 401–418, here 403–404.
38 Tom F. Wei, “Pithom,” abd 5:376–377.
39 Redford, “Exodus i 11,” 403–408; John S. Holladay, Jr., “Pithom,” oeae 2:50–53; cf. Wei,
“Pithom.”
40 Alan H. Gardiner, “The Delta Residence of the Ramessides,” jea 5 (1918): 127–138, 242–271,
here 268–269; Kenneth A. Kitchen, “Exodus, The,” abd 2:700–708; “Egyptians and Hebrews,
from Raʿamses to Jericho,” in The Origin of Early Israel—Current Debate: Biblical, Historical
and Archaeological Perspectives (ed. Shmuel Aḥituv and Eliezer D. Oren; Beer-Sheva 12;
Beersheba: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 1998), 65–131; Hoffmeier, Israel in
Egypt, 119–121.
41 Edward P. Uphill, “Pithom and Raamses: their Location and Significance,” jnes 27 (1968):
291–316; Uphill, “Pithom and Raamses: their Location and Significance,” 28 (1969): 15–39.
72 grabbe
42 Redford, “Exodus i 11,” 406; Wolfgang Helck, “Ṯkw und die Ramses-Stadt,” vt 15 (1965):
35–48 (36).
43 Cf. Carol A. Redmount, “The Wadi Tumilat and the ‘Canal of the Pharaohs,’” jnes 54 (1995):
127–135.
44 Cf. John Van Seters, “The Geography of the Exodus,” in Changing Perspectives i: Studies
in the History, Literature and Religion of Biblical Israel (London: Equinox, 2011), 115–133
(117).
45 James K. Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilder-
ness Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 61–62.
46 Kitchen, “Egyptians and Hebrews,” 75.
47 Redford, “Exodus i 11,” 406–408; Ellen Fowles Morris, The Architecture of Imperialism:
Military Bases and the Evolution of Foreign Policy in Egypt’s New Kingdom (PdÄ 22; Leiden:
Brill, 2005), 506.
48 Van Seters, “Geography of the Exodus,” 121.
49 Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai, 59.
50 Redford, “Exodus i 11,” 403–408; Holladay, “Pithom,” 2.50–53; cf. Wei, “Pithom.”
exodus and history 73
Raameses has usually been considered the same as the Egyptian Pi-Ramesse
and has been widely identified with Qantir,51 though Redford asked where the
“Pi” (Egyptian pr “house”) of Pi-Ramasse had gone.52 In a seminal article of 1963
and also in a more recent study in 2009, Redford drew attention to a couple
of important points about the place name Raamses in the Bible.53 First, the
form of the name Ramesses found in the biblical text (רעמסס: Gen 47:11; Exod
12:37; Num 33:3, 5), spelled with a samek, is a late transliteration, whereas an
early form would have had ש. Secondly, the “land of Rameses” (Gen 47:11) is
based on a misunderstanding of the original t3 ḥwt Rʿ-ms-sw (“the Mansion of
Ramesses”) which was heard as t3 Rʿ-ms-sw (“the Land of Ramesses).” The place
name Ramesses has entered the text at a late stage or, more likely, is evidence
of a late text. There was no “land of Rameses” in Egypt; to quote Redford, “The
alleged ‘Land of Ramesses’ in Genesis has no more historicity than the ‘Land of
Oz.’”54
Much the same argument was already used by Redford in 1963 but was
opposed by Wolfgang Helck in an article of 1965.55 Helck discussed the sibi-
lants in Hebrew and Egyptian proper names and their correspondences. It
may well be that only an Egyptologist can properly evaluate the two argu-
ments, but it seems to me that for all his philological discussion Helck has
not negated one of Redford’s main arguments: the transcription of Egyptian
s (ś) with Hebrew samek occurs only at a later time, after about the ninth cen-
tury bce.
Now, Redford has additional support in the form of his student James Hoch’s
study on Semitic words in Egyptian texts of the New Kingdom and Third Inter-
mediate Period.56 Hoch found that in the 500 words he investigated, gleaned
51 Edgar B. Pusch, “Piramesse,” oeae 2:48–50; Manfred Bietak, “Comments on the ‘Exodus,’”
in Egypt, Israel, Sinai: Archaeological and Historical Relationships in the Biblical Period (ed.
Anson F. Rainey; Tel Aviv University Kaplan Project on the History of Israel and Egypt;
Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1987), 163–171, here 164; Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt,
117.
52 Redford, “Exodus i 11,” 408–410; “Egyptological Perspective on the Exodus Narrative,” 138–
139; but cf. Helck, “Ṯkw und die Ramses-Stadt.”
53 Redford, “Exodus i 11”; Redford, “The Land of Ramesses,” in Causing His Name to Live:
Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murname (ed. Peter
J. Brand and Louise Cooper; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 175–177.
54 Redford, “Land of Ramesses,” 177.
55 Helck, “Ṯkw und die Ramses-Stadt.”
56 James E. Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate
Period (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994).
74 grabbe
from a wide range of Egyptian texts (mainly from the Eighteenth to Twenty-
Fourth Dynasty), Egyptian s (ś) was used to transcribe Semitic [ṯ], [š], and [ś]
(= Hebrew )ש, while ( סsamek) was used to represent Egyptian ṯ (pronounced
č). If the Egyptian name Ramesses (Rʿ-ms-sw) had been written in Hebrew of
the fifteenth to twelfth centuries bce, it would have had ש, whereas the name
in the biblical text has samek. This shows that the Egyptian name Ramesses
entered the Hebrew text no earlier than the eighth century bce.57 In dismiss-
ing this argument, neither Kitchen nor Hoffmeier discuss the dating of usage:
both cite texts from various periods indiscriminately, ignoring that translitera-
tion with samek is found in late texts but not early ones.58
The site Succoth (Exod 12:37; 13:20; Num 33:5–6) is usually identified with
Egyptian Ṯkw (the Hebrew name probably arising from the Egyptian form but
then assimilated to the Hebrew place name Sukkot).59 Inscriptions at Tell el-
Maskhuta frequently mention the name Ṯkw. This was an important frontier
checkpoint for those wanting to enter or leave Egypt. It was situated in the
Wadi Tumilat that served as a corridor for those seeking entrance into Egypt.
If Pithom is Tell el-Maskhuta, this might make it identical with Succoth; how-
ever, this could be explained by the juxtaposition of traditions from different
time periods, so that the same site is referred to both as Pithom and Suc-
coth.
Migdol is something of a problem in that the Hebrew term means “fortress”
or “stronghold” and is applied to a number of geographical sites. The Semitic
word was evidently borrowed into Egyptian and was used of more than one
site.60 Arguments have been given that associate it with either Tell el-Her or
Tell Qedua (t-21) outside the Delta, within a kilometer or so of each other.61
Tell el-Her has remains from the Persian and the Greco-Roman periods, while
Tell Qedua’s are from the Saite and Persian periods. Hoffmeier accepts these
identities but tries to find the site of Migdol mentioned in New Kingdom texts;
unfortunately, his identification with site t-78 of the North Sinai Survey is rather
speculative. Similarly, Benjamin Scolnic toys with the possibility of Tell el-Borg
but only concludes that Migdol was in the near vicinity.62 However, in both
cases the distance from Tell el-Her is only a few kilometers.63 For purposes of
plotting the route of the exodus as found in the text, especially considering
how the topography has changed over the centuries, this probably makes little
difference.
More difficult are Pi-hahiroth and Baal-zephon. Pi-Hahiroth seems to mean
“mouth of the canals,” probably a Semitic folk etymology, but it may be an
Egyptian name borrowed from Semitic.64 It has been noted that the terms p3
ṯwf (Yam Suf?), p3 ḥr (Pi-hahiroth?), p3 š-ḥr (Shihor?: Josh 13:3), and the “waters
of Baal” all occur in the same general context in Papyrus Anastasi iii (2:8–12).65
This is interesting and might be significant, but the uncertainties also make
it speculative. Essentially, we are back in the same general region as the other
sites but without the precise location. Redford notes that the name Pi-hahiroth
is close to P-ḥ3-r-ti of the El-ʿArish naos, which seems to reflect the Demotic
name Ḥnt t3 Ḥ3-r-ti, probably situated somewhere near Lake Timsah.66 As for
Baal Zaphon, Cairo Demotic Papyrus 31169 refers to the site side by side with a
Migdol.67
In dating the time to which the textual data point one must consider not
only the sites named but also any important ones that are omitted. Particularly
notable for its absence is the site with the classical name of Sile. This was
a strongly fortified frontier site and armory built in the New Kingdom and
still standing in the Saite period (though it was now replaced by Migdol as
the primary border entrance).68 The Egyptian name of Sile was Ṯrw, known
already in the Middle Kingdom and as a fortress in the reign of Tutmose iii
(c. 1500–1450bce). Until recently it was identified with Tell Abu Sefeh, but
archaeological excavations have found no remains earlier than the Persian
period. On the other hand, the site of Hebua has yielded not only New Kingdom
remains but also a votive statue with the name of Ṯrw. Yet Ṯrw/Sile seems to find
no place in the biblical account.
The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions (ed. James
K. Hoffmeier and Alan Millard; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 91–120.
63 Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai, 94–105.
64 Cf. Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 232 (#322).
65 See the comments in Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai, 105–108; for the translation of the
text, see cos 3.15.
66 Redford, “Egyptological Perspective on the Exodus Narrative,” 142–143.
67 Redford, “Egyptological Perspective on the Exodus Narrative,” 143.
68 Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1992), 203, 457; Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai, 90–94; Morris, The Architecture
of Imperialism, 509–511.
76 grabbe
It has been argued that the reason for silence was that the Israelites avoided
Egyptian fortresses and other sites where soldiers might confront them.69 If
that is the case, why do we have other sites that had a clear Egyptian pres-
ence named as stages on their march, even though soldiers were likely to be
stationed there: Ramesses, Succoth; indeed, the whole route along Wadi Tumi-
lat? This argument is not very convincing.
As an argument used as evidence of historical authenticity, it is noted that
Ramesses went into rapid decline in the eleventh century, so that any reference
to the site showed knowledge of the Ramesside period. This makes a large
assumption about knowledge of geographical sites in the Delta by Jews who,
it should be noted, knew the region from living there. As Angela Roskop puts
the situation,
Ramesses as a piece of topography had not been forgotten after its decline.
Dated to the Twenty-First and Twenty-Second Dynasties (c. 1000 bce), the Ono-
masticon of Amenemope mentions it, along with other place names in the
Delta. Sheshonq i (c. 930–910bce) made the old site of Pi-Ramesses his res-
idence and used part of the old name in his new name for it.71 The name
“Ramesses” occurs sporadically in the Twenty-Second Dynasty and later; for
example, the name “Mansion (temple) of Ramesses” occurred from the Twenty-
Fourth Dynasty to Ptolemaic times.72
69 Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai, 93–94; Israel in Egypt, 184, with citations of others taking
this view.
70 Angela R. Roskop, The Wilderness Itineraries: Genre, Geography, and the Growth of Torah
(hacl 3; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 243–244.
71 Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, 314.
72 Redford, “The Land of Ramesses,” 176.
exodus and history 77
To conclude this section, some of the geographical sites in the exodus narra-
tive might be as early as the Ramesside period, but some are definitely later.
On the other hand, there is nothing against a Saite or later date for all the
sites. If Tell el-Maskhuta is Pithom, as seems to be the majority opinion, this
site was not settled between the sixteenth and the seventh centuries. Interest-
ingly, it possessed massive storehouses, but these were Persian and Hellenis-
tic;73 however, they would fit nicely a final production of the Pentateuch in the
late Persian period.74 The nearby site of Tell el-Retabah is another possibility,
but it was reoccupied only about 1200bce.75 If Tell el-Maskhuta was known as
“Pithom” from about 600bce76 and topographical names with “Rameses” were
also widespread in the first millennium bce,77 this argues that the tradition of
Exod 1:11 was likely to be late, rather than Ramesside. It is therefore difficult to
understand Davies’s statement, “they are more likely as a pair to belong to a tra-
dition that originated in the Ramesside period than to a later time.”78 On the
balance of historical considerations, the data in the narrative—and probably
the narrative in its present form—are no earlier than the Saite period or later
(eighth to fifth century bce).
then a few stages later arriving at the Yam Suf, whereas in Exod 13:18 and 15:4, 22
it is the Yam Suf that they cross to escape from Pharaoh’s army. A recent study
notes that Yam Suf normally refers to the Red Sea, whether the Gulf of Aqaba
or the Gulf of Suez (Exod 23:31; Num 21:4; 1Kgs 9:26; Jer 49:21), but the “Reed
Sea” (Lake Timsah or its vicinity in the Suez region?) in the exodus narrative.80
Num 21:10–13 appears to be a conflation of Numbers 33 and Judges 11.81
Secondly, certain of the sites in the Transjordanian area appear to be simply
creations from the names of mythical figures, as are the peoples associated with
them. Some of the most feared inhabitants of the land are the Anakim who
are descended from the Rephaim (Num 13:35; cf. Deut 1:28; 2:10, 11, 21; 9:2; Josh
11:21–22; 14:12, 15; 15:14). One of the main figures is Og of Bashan. He is said to
be from the remnant of the Rephaim and dwells in Ashtarot and Edrei (Num
21:33–35; Deut 1:4; 3:10–11; Josh 9:10; 12:4; 13:12; cf. Num 13:33). These names are
significant. Other passages (such as Job 26:5; Psalm 88:11–13; Isa 26:14, 19; Prov
9:18), as well as the Ugaritic texts, associate the Rephaim with the dead. The god
Raphaʾu of a Ugaritic incantation seems to dwell in Ashtarot and Edrei (ktu
1.108). Thus, it appears that myth has been historicized, and the shades of the
dead have been turned into ethnographical entities. The writer seems at times
to have taken traditional or mythical names and used them to create a narrative
about ethnic groups.
Finally, some have argued that the route of the Israelites’ journey in the Bible
matches the actual topography and Egyptian settlements on the ground.82 A
more careful look shows, however, that the text does not reflect the fifteenth
or thirteenth centuries bce but the seventh or eighth.83 The writer has drawn
on topographical knowledge of the eighth or seventh centuries to create his
list of journeys. Some of the itineraries are rather vague, showing little actual
knowledge of the topography supposedly being described (Deut 2:1–25; Num
21:10–20), with Num 33:1–49 going the farthest in suggesting knowledge of a
ness Itineraries and Recent Archaeological Research,” Studies in the Pentateuch (ed. J.A.
Emerton; VTSup 41; Leiden: Brill), 161–175.
80 Roskop, Wilderness Itineraries, 196–198, 247.
81 Graham I. Davies, “The Wilderness Itineraries and the Composition of the Pentateuch,” vt
33 (1983): 1–13.
82 Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai; Charles R. Krahmalkov, “Exodus Itinerary Confirmed by
Egyptian Evidence,” bar 20.5 (1994): 55–62, 79.
83 Burton MacDonald, “East of the Jordan”: Territories and Sites of the Hebrew Scriptures (asor
Books 6; Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2000), 63–100; William G. Dever,
Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2003), 18–20.
exodus and history 79
real travel route.84 Only at the end of Iron ii (but not Iron i or early Iron ii) were
most of the sites that can be identified actually occupied. The largest portion
of the Edomite Iron Age sites that have been excavated originated only in the
seventh or eighth century.85 Overall, the Negev and Transjordanian sites and
settlements are mainly later than the Late Bronze.86
The study by Roskop (quoted above) attempts to explain the purpose of
such itineraries. Although those relating to the wilderness journey of Israel
bear the form (and thus the genre) of itinerary texts from elsewhere in the
ancient Near East, their function is to use geographical data for theological
purposes:
The wilderness narrative is ostensibly a story of Israel’s past, but this story
is not a history. It is a vision for the future set in valorized [artificially cre-
ated] rather than historical time, and it authors did not … “insist upon the
same principles of temporality and consistency” that we would expect to
find in an administrative document or a standard historiographical nar-
rative. While a setting in the distant past was key at the beginning of the
wilderness narrative in order to ground it referentially, the scribes appar-
ently did not feel the need to maintain that same setting consistently,
since they drew geographical repertoire from other historical contexts
as it served their literary goals …. the scribe had to turn to his mental
map of the Negev in the sixth century b.c.e. for this geographical reper-
toire.87
Bronze and the tenth century bce or even later.88 The excavated remains, pri-
marily a fortress, are dated by the excavator from the tenth to the sixth centuries
bce, followed by an unfortified settlement of the fifth to fourth centuries bce.
As has become abundantly clear in the preceding survey, opinions about the
historicity of the exodus are diverse. Whatever one’s view, however, even some
of the more skeptical do not rule out the possibility that the text contains a
distant and distorted memory of an actual event. Some feel that the tradition is
so strong in the Bible that some real event must lie behind it. This is accepted
even by some of those proposing theories about the indigenous origin of Israel
in Canaan. In what follows I present some of the possibilities, along with the
concomitant question of how convincing they are.
88 Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision
of Ancient Israel and the Origin of the Sacred Texts (New York: Free Press, 2001), 62–64;
Rudolf Cohen, “Excavations at Kadesh-barnea 1976–1978,” ba 44 (1981): 93–107; Cohen,
“Qadesh-barnea,” oeane 4:365–367; Dever, “Is There Any Archaeological Evidence for the
Exodus?” 72–73; Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites? 19–20; and David Ussishkin, “The
Rectangular Fortress at Kadesh-Barnea,” iej 45 (1995): 118–127. A discussion of Qadesh
in the context of the wilderness tradition is given by Roskop (The Wilderness Itineraries,
252–271).
89 For the best recent treatment, focusing on Neo-Assyrian inscriptions, see Marco de Odo-
rico, The Use of Numbers and Quantifications in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions (saas 3;
Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1995).
exodus and history 81
To begin, there are some who see no necessity for assuming there was an
exodus in the early history of Israel.90 There is no external evidence for such
an event, and any arguments must depend on the biblical tradition. Despite
some fundamentalist arguments, there is no way to salvage the biblical text
as a description of a historical event. A large population of Israelites, living in
their own section of the country, did not march out of an Egypt devastated
by various plagues and despoiled of its wealth and spend 40 years in the
wilderness before conquering the Canaanites. We also know of many Egyptian
connections with Israel and Judah at later times, from the time of the monarchy
to the Persian and Hellenistic periods (cf. Isa 19:19–25; Jer 42–44), which could
have been sufficient to give rise to the story in the biblical text. Many scholars
now agree that there is little clear evidence that the biblical tradition is an
early one. On the other hand, it does appear to occur at least as early as the
eighth century bce and might even go back to the tenth or eleventh. We
would then have to look for some inspiration of the tradition at a fairly early
time.
It is only as a matter of curiosity that one mentions Velikovsky’s attempt to
rewrite Egyptian history by relating the Ipuwer Papyrus to the exodus, but it
shows what an extreme example of taking the biblical account (or at least some
aspects of it) at face value can lead to.
Already in the first century Josephus quotes Manetho extensively with re-
gard to the Huksōs and claims that these are “our ancestors” (hēmeteroi pro-
gonoi) who left Egypt and settled in “this country” (Ag. Apion 1.14–16 §§ 73–105).
Some modern scholars have accepted that the exodus story is a reflection of
what happened with the Egyptian revolt against Hyksos rule in the sixteenth
century bce, even if a rather hazy remembrance.91 The problem with this is that
there is nothing in the original Hyksos account to evoke Israel; it is only Jose-
phus, reading Manetho, who comes up with this idea. Why should the ancient
Israelites identify themselves with the Hyksos or their history?
One cannot help noticing a similar mentality in some conservative scholars
who, though not disciples of Velikovsky, still try to follow biblical chronology
slavishly and find evidence of an exodus in the fifteenth century. Both John Bim-
son and Bryant Wood argue for this position.92 Yet neither seems to recognize
that their thesis founders on the Amarna letters. No one can read the situation
in Canaan that arises from the contents of the Amarna letters without seeing
a major contradiction with Joshua and Judges. For one thing, the Egyptian
presence has no place in the biblical books, even though Egypt continued to
rule the region for a couple of centuries or so.
It has long been argued in modern scholarship that the exodus tradition
arose when a small group of (slave?) (Israelite?) escapees fled Egypt, perhaps
being rescued in the face of capture by Egyptian officials in the marshy area
of the Sinai peninsula, because of the fortunate recession of waters (before
freak local winds) and then the sudden return flooding that overwhelmed the
pursuers. Although this seemed to give unjustified credence to some details
of the narrative, the general principle was appealing, especially in light of
Anastasi 5 (19.2–20.6) that records the example of runaway slaves (though no
miracle of waters).93 Sarah Groll has argued that Papyrus Anastasi viii shows
an ecological disaster in the “Reed Sea” area during the reign of Ramesses ii,
with a major drought. During this time some slaves were able to escape across
a former body of water that had temporarily dried up.94
The previous thesis can be combined with the next one. Ernst Knauf has
proposed that in the first half of the twelfth century bce refugee Israelites
returned to Canaan.95 They were descendants of prisoners of war taken cap-
tive by Merenptah (whose war against Israel was described in the Merenptah
stela discussed toward the beginning of this article). Knauf also notes that the
subsequent removal of Egyptian rule from Canaan in the late twelfth century
could be considered as “coming out of Egypt.” It was this that gave rise to
the tradition of an exodus from Egypt. How these former captives left Egypt,
whether by being voluntarily released or by escaping, is not known, but the
mode of their escape could be responsible for some of the details of the bibli-
cal account.
Yet whatever early material might be found in it, the biblical exodus tradition
is also clearly based on and inspired by much later events.96 The most impor-
tant influence is the return of Jews from Mesopotamia to Judah in the sixth
and fifth centuries bce, an event which was interpreted as a “second exodus”
in the biblical tradition itself (Isa 51:9–11; Jer 16:14–15; 23:7–8). Yet there is also
the influence from the Assyrian period, since references to Egypt often func-
tion as a metaphor for Assyria, and Assyrian deportation ends with a return just
like the exodus from Egypt.97 Also, as Knauf argues, the biography of Moses has
some remarkable parallels with the story of Jeroboam i. The Moses story shows
“growth rings” which indicate a development that drew on the Jeroboam tra-
dition in order to develop the biblical life of Moses. Knauf, like many before
him, recognizes that while individual details in the tradition might well reflect
historical events, the tradition is made up of different materials from different
periods and contexts.98
5 Conclusions
Israel and the Jews had associations with Egypt through a good deal of their
history during the First and Second Temple periods. If we want to find times
when the story of the exodus might have arisen, we do not have to go back
to the Bronze Age. The Bible itself does not refer to the “Bronze Age,” the
“Ramesside period,” the “Second Intermediate Period,” the “New Kingdom,” or
the “fifteenth” or “thirteenth century bce.” When scholars attempt to situate
the events of the Pentateuch in the second millennium bce, this is only an
interpretation—and not one well founded for some events or details of the text.
No Egyptian king is named in the biblical text, and no reference to the exodus
or associated events is found in Egyptian texts.
Thus, when the some scholars relate the exodus story to the sixth cen-
tury bce or the Saite period or the Persian period, they are not necessarily being
less true to the text than some conservative scholars who, it must be pointed
out, also overlook or ignore aspects of the text when they try to find a place
for it in the thirteenth or fifteenth centuries bce. One of the first things such
scholars usually try to do is explain away the textual statements about 600,000
armed men, plus women, children, and animals, coming out of Egypt on the
96 Knauf, “Exodus and Settlement”; Mario Liverani, Israel’s History and the History of Israel
(trans. Chiara Peri and Philip R. Davies; London: Equinox, 2005), 270–282.
97 Cf. Hos 11:11. See also Liverani, Israel’s History and the History of Israel, 278–280.
98 Cf. Russell, Images of Egypt: e.g., 10–11, 195–196.
84 grabbe
first Passover night. Reading the biblical text as literally and/or historically true
is not necessarily a better way of reading it than is reading Shakespeare as liter-
ally and/or historically true. The following points summarize some of the main
conclusions arising from the present study:
– The exodus story has a place in the Israel of the eighth century bce or
perhaps a bit earlier. Some argue that the earliest version of the story is
found in Exod 15, yet it probably does not take us much further back in
time. In any case, the exodus narrative of the Pentateuch is not so early,
with influences and details from a much later time. The story as we have
it is not a monolith but is made up of elements from a variety of periods and
milieux.
– Although there may well be early elements within the exodus narrative,
some perhaps even going back to Ramesside times, the form of the story
as we presently have it in Exodus and Numbers contains data that are most
closely associated with the Saite and Persian periods, or about the seventh
to fifth centuries bce. Only some of the details could fit the Egyptian New
Kingdom, but almost all could have a home in the Late Kingdom.
Select Bibliography
Davies, Graham I. Way of the Wilderness: A Geographical Study of the Wilderness Itiner-
aries in the Old Testament. Society for Old Testament Study Monograph Series 5.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
. “Was There an Exodus?” Pages 23–40 in In Search of Pre-exilic Israel: Proceed-
ings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by John Day. Journal for the Study
of the Old Testament, Supplement 406. London: t&t Clark, 2004.
Dever, William G. “Is There any Archaeological Evidence for the Exodus?” Pages 67–86
in Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence. Edited by Ernest S. Frerichs and Leonard H. Lesko.
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997.
. “Merenptah’s ‘Israel,’ the Bible’s, and Ours.” Pages 89–96 in Exploring the
Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager. Edited by J. David Schloen.
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009.
Fieger, Michael, and Sigrid Hodel-Hoenes. Der Einzug in Ägypten: Ein Beitrag zur alttes-
tamentlichen Josefsgeschichte. Das Alte Testament im Dialog 1. Bern: Peter Lang,
2007.
Frerichs, Ernest S., and Leonard H. Lesko, eds. Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997.
Gardiner, Alan H. The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1909.
. “The Supposed Egyptian Equivalent of the Name of Goshen.” Journal of Egyp-
tian Archaeology 5 (1918): 218–223.
. “The Geography of the Exodus: An Answer to Professor Naville and Others.”
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 10 (1924): 87–96.
Görg, Manfred. Die Beziehungen zwischen dem alten Israel und Ägypten: Von den Anfän-
86 grabbe
gen bis zum Exil. Erträge der Forschung 290. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchge-
sellschaft, 1997.
Grabbe, Lester L. “Comparative Philology and Exodus 15,8: Did the Egyptians Die in a
Storm?” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 7 (1993): 263–269.
. “Adde Praeputium Praeputio Magnus Acervus Erit: If the Exodus and Conquest
Had Really Happened ….” Pages 23–32 in Virtual History and the Bible. Edited by
J. Cheryl Exum. Biblical Interpretation 8. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
. Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? London: t&t Clark,
2007.
Haran, Menahem. “Exodus, The.” The Interpreters’ Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary
Volume (1976): 304–310.
Hasel, Michael G. Domination and Resistance: Egyptian Military Activity in the Southern
Levant, ca. 1300–1185 bc. Probleme der Ägyptologie 11. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
. “Merenptah’s Inscription and Reliefs and the Origin of Israel.” Pages 19–44 in
The Near East in the Southwest: Essays in Honor of William G. Dever. Edited by Beth
Alpert Nakhai. The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 58. Boston:
American Schools of Oriental Research, 2003.
Helck, Wolfgang. “Ṯkw und die Ramses-Stadt.” Vetus Testamentum 15 (1965): 35–48.
Hoffmeier, James K. Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus
Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
. Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness
Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Hoch, James E. Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Interme-
diate Period. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.
Kitchen, Kenneth A. “Egyptians and Hebrews, from Raʿamses to Jericho.” Pages 65–131
in The Origin of Early Israel—Current Debate: Biblical, Historical and Archaeological
Perspectives. Edited by Shmuel Aḥituv and Eliezer D. Oren. Beer-Sheva 12. Beersheba:
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 1998.
Knauf, Ernst Axel. “Exodus and Settlement.” Pages 241–250 in Israel in Transition: From
Late Bronze ii to Iron iia (c. 1250–850bce): Volume 2: The Text. Edited by Lester
L. Grabbe. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 521. European Seminar
in Historical Methodology 8. London: t&t Clark, 2010.
MacDonald, Burton. “East of the Jordan”: Territories and Sites of the Hebrew Scriptures.
American Schools of Oriental Research Books 6. Boston: American Schools of Ori-
ental Research, 2000.
Morris, Ellen Fowles. The Architecture of Imperialism: Military Bases and the Evolution
of Foreign Policy in Egypt’s New Kingdom. Probleme der Ägyptologie 22. Leiden: Brill,
2005.
Naʾaman, Nadav. “The ‘Conquest of Canaan’ in the Book of Joshua and in History.”
Pages 218–281 in From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects
exodus and history 87
of Early Israel. Edited by Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Naʾaman. Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society, 1994.
Niccacci, Alviero. “La stèle d’Israël: grammaire et stratégie de communication.” Pages
43–107 in Études égyptologiques et bibliques à la mémoire du Père B. Couroyer. Edited
by Marcel Sigrist. Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 36; Paris: Gabalda, 1997.
Rainey, Anson F., ed. Egypt, Israel, Sinai: Archaeological and Historical Relationships in
the Biblical Period. Tel Aviv University Kaplan Project on the History of Israel and
Egypt. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1987.
Redford, Donald B. “An Egyptological Perspective on the Exodus Narrative.” Pages 137–
161 in Egypt, Israel, Sinai: Archaeological and Historical Relationships in the Biblical
Period. Edited by Anson F. Rainey. Tel Aviv University Kaplan Project on the History
of Israel and Egypt. Tel Aviv University, 1987.
. Egypt and Canaan in the New Kingdom. Beer-Sheva 4. Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion
University of the Negev Press, 1990.
. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1992.
. “The Land of Ramesses.” Pages 175–177 in Causing his Name to Live: Studies in
Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murname. Edited by Peter
J. Brand and Louise Cooper. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Roskop, Angela R. The Wilderness Itineraries: Genre, Geography, and the Growth of Torah.
History, Archaeology, and Culture of the Levant 3. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011.
Stiebing, William H., Jr. Out of the Desert? Archaeology and the Exodus-Conquest Narra-
tives. Buffalo: Prometheus, 1989.
Van Seters, John. “The Geography of the Exodus.” Pages 115–133 in Changing Perspec-
tives i: Studies in the History, Literature and Religion of Biblical Israel. With an Intro-
duction by Thomas L. Thompson. London: Equinox, 2011. Reprint of pages 255–
276 in The Land that I Will Show You: Essays on the History and Archaeology of the
Ancient Near East in Honor of J. Maxwell Miller. Edited by J. Andrew Dearman and
M. Patrick Graham. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series
343. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
Weinstein, James. “Exodus and Archaeological Reality.” Pages 87–103 in Exodus: The
Egyptian Evidence. Edited by Ernest S. Frerichs and Leonard H. Lesko. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1997.
part 2
Issues in Interpretation
∵
The Miracle at the Sea
Remarks on the Recent Discussion about
Origin and Composition of the Exodus Narrative
The story of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt in Exod 1–15 “constitutes
the point of crystallization of the great Pentateuchal narrative in its entirety.”1
It is, therefore, hardly surprising that the Exodus narrative plays an important
role and often served as a paradigm in the recent debate about the formation
of the Pentateuch.2 As a result there is much controversy about these chapters
in pentateuchal scholarship.
The classic formulation of the New Documentary Hypothesis assumes a
Yahwistic, Elohistic, and Priestly source in Exod 1–15, as well as several pre-
and post-priestly additions that were joined in successive stages. If we survey
the commentaries and monographs of recent years, we find copious refutations
and modifications of this model.3 By name but hardly with regard to approach,
* My sincere thanks to my colleague Anselm C. Hagedorn for the translation of this article. The
research was done while I was part of the group “Convergence and Divergence in Pentateuchal
Theory” at the Israel Institute for Advanced Studies in Jerusalem and supported by the
eurias Fellowship Programme.
1 Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (trans. with an introduction by Bernhard
W. Anderson; Chico, Calif.: Scholar Press, 1981), 51; trans. of Überlieferungsgeschichte des
Pentateuch (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1948), 54.
2 Cf. inter alia Marc Vervenne, “Current Tendencies and Developments in the Study of the Book
of Exodus,” in The Book of Exodus (ed. Marc Vervenne; betl 126; Leuven: Peeters, 1996), 21–59;
Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (bzaw 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990),
9–43; Jan Christian Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung: Untersuchungen
zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch (frlant 186; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000);
Christoph Berner, Die Exoduserzählung (fat 73; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010); and David
M. Carr, “The Moses Story: Literary-Historical Reflections,” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 1
(2012): 7–36.
3 Martin Noth, Das zweite Buch Mose. Exodus (7th ed.; atd 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1984); Fujiko Kohata, Jahwist und Priesterschrift in Exodus 3–14 (bzaw 166; Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1986); Werner H. Schmidt, Exodus 1–7 (bk 2.1, Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener,
1988–1999); William H.C. Propp, Exodus 1–18/19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary (ab 2/2a; New York: Doubleday, 1999/2006); Ludwig Schmidt, Beobachtungen zu
der Plagenerzählung in Exodus vv 14–xi 10 (StB 4; Leiden: Brill, 1990); and Axel Graupner, Der
Elohist: Gegenwart und Wirksamkeit des transzendenten Gottes in der Geschichte (wmant 97;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2002).
4 Baruch J. Schwartz, “The Torah: Its Five Books and Four Documents,” in The Literature of the
Hebrew Bible: Introductions and Studies (ed. Z. Talshir; The Ancient Literature of Eretz Israel
and its World 1; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2011), 161–226 (Hebrew); Joel S. Baden, j, e and the
Redaction of the Pentateuch (fat 68; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009).
5 Two quotations taken from a letter by Julius Wellhausen to Adolf Jülicher written on Octo-
ber 8, 1880 will illustrate the sharp contrast: “I am by no means wedded to the views I
expressed about the composition of the Hexateuch except for the principle that except for
the main sources there were all kind of excrescences, that the supplementary hypothesis
can be justified, and that the mechanical mosaic hypothesis is absurd.” A little later in the
same letter he characterizes the task of literary-critical analysis as being able “to grasp prin-
ciples and main tendencies, know to observe literary growth, and not deal with these mat-
ters as if it were a game of skittles” (quoted according to the English excerpt prepared by
M. Kohl for the 2013 iosot congress in Munich, from Julius Wellhausen-Briefe [ed. Rudolf
Smend, with the assistance of Peter Porzig and Reinhard Müller; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2013]).
the miracle at the sea 93
6 See the fundamental criticism of the thesis in Paul Volz and Wilhelm Rudolph, Der Elohist als
Erzähler: Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? (bzaw 63; Gießen: Töpelmann, 1933); and Wilhelm
Rudolph, Der „Elohist“ von Exodus bis Josua (bzaw 68; Gießen: Töpelmann, 1938). For an
overview of additional literature, see Jan Christian Gertz, “Elohist,” in Encyclopedia of the Bible
and its Reception 7 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014), 777–781.
7 For a detailed analysis of this pericope, see Gertz, Tradition, 254–348.
94 gertz
The inconsistencies between Exod 2:15–23aα, 4:19 and Exod 3:1–4:18 as well
as the seamless connection between Exod 2:23aα and 4:19, which suggests that
they originally represented a continuous story, support the assumption that
the description of yhwh’s revelation in the burning bush in Exod 3:1–4:18
was inserted between the narrative of Moses’ flight in Exod 2:14–23aα and
the corresponding command to return to Egypt in Exod 4:19. This observation
cannot be reconciled with the assumption of two parallel and non-priestly
narrative strands in Exod 1–15.8
An internal analysis of Exod 3:1–4:18 lends support to this thesis. The often-
noted tensions were long interpreted as a classic example for a differentiation
between a Yahwistic and an Elohistic source in the Exodus narrative.9 How-
ever, the textual support for this position is better explained when one assumes
a basic layer with additional reworking. Here too some passing remarks will
have to suffice. The most important argument for assuming two sources is the
change between the divine name and divine title ( יהוהand )אלהיםand the dou-
blets in the dialogue between yhwh and Moses in Exod 3:7–9. In v. 7 and v. 9
yhwh announces that he has seen the affliction of the Israelites and heeded
their outcry. Exodus 3:8, 10 are then seen as a doublet of the themes of divine
intervention and the deliverance from Egypt. Since v. 8 connects to v. 7 and v. 10
to v. 9, two sources are assumed. Against this, Erhard Blum has argued that the
differences between v. 8 and v. 10 are more important than the consistencies
between v. 7 and v. 9 and that this observation holds the key to unlocking the
meaning of the text:10 Exodus 3:8 simply deals with God’s intention to deliver
Israel. Verse 10, however, focuses on Moses’ special mission through which God
will realize his intention to deliver Israel. As a result, the parallels between
v. 7 and v. 9 cannot be explained as being a doublet. Rather, it is a resump-
tion (Wiederaufnahme) that frames the declaration of principle in v. 8 and
8 Rudolph, Elohist, 6–7; Blum, Studien, 20–21; Konrad Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus
(wmant 81, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1999), 188–190; Schmid, Genesis and the
Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible (trans. James D. Nogalski; Siphrut 3;
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 173–175; Gertz, Tradition, 254–256; Helmut Utzschnei-
der and Wolfgang Oswald, Exodus 1–15 (iecot; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2013), 117; and
Thomas Römer, “Exodus 3–4 und die aktuelle Pentateuchdiskussion,” in The Interpreta-
tion of Exodus. Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman (ed. Riemer Roukema; cbet 44,
Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 65–79, 77. Pace Graupner, Elohist, 77–88; Hans-Christoph Schmitt,
“Erzvätergeschichte und Exodusgeschichte,” in Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition:
Festschrift für Matthias Köckert (ed. Anselm C. Hagedorn and Henrik Pfeiffer; bzaw 400;
Berlin, 2009), 241–266, 252.
9 See especially Schmidt, Exodus, 106–207.
10 Blum, Studien, 22–23.
the miracle at the sea 95
Unlike the Elohist, there remains broad based agreement on the identification
of the Priestly Source in the Exodus narrative.14 The agreement allows for the
formal distinction between priestly and non-priestly texts. But many literary
details concerning the relationship between the priestly and non-priestly texts
in Exod 1–15 are debated, which has implications for the overall view of the
origin of the Pentateuch. Central questions include whether the non-priestly
text of Exod 1–15—like the Yahwist of the New Documentary Hypothesis—
forms an original literary connection with the non-priestly texts in Gene-
sis.15 Or, do the non-priestly Patriarchal narrative and the non-priestly Exodus
narrative represent two competing accounts of Israel’s origin that were only
connected to one narrative in the priestly material?16 The majority of scholars
11 Moshe Greenberg, Understanding Exodus (New York: Behrman House, 1969), 73–74.
12 Greenberg, Exodus, 9. Cf. also (with some minor variations) Gertz, Tradition, 283.
13 Cf. Blum, Studien, 22–28; Levin, Jahwist, 326–333; Gertz, Tradition, 254–305; Römer, “Exo-
dus 3–4,” 71–77; Berner, Exoduserzählung, 68–85.
14 Cf. Thomas Römer’s contribution to this volume.
15 Thus (with significant differences in the details) Levin, Jahwist; John Van Seters, The Life of
Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers (Louisville: Westminster / John Knox
Press, 1992); and Thomas B. Dozeman, Exodus (ecc; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009).
16 Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story; Gertz, Tradition; Erhard Blum, “Die literarische
Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus: Ein Gespräch mit neueren Endredaktionshy-
pothese,” in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskus-
sion (ed. Jan Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte; bzaw 315; Berlin: de
Gruyter, 2002), 119–156. See also Reinhard G. Kratz, Die Komposition der erzählenden
Bücher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der Bibelkritik (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2000), 301–304; Kratz, The Composition of the Historical Books of the Old
96 gertz
characterizes the priestly texts as a source beginning with creation and extend-
ing at least into the Sinai pericope.17 Others see in p an editing of the non-
priestly narrative.18 Following a proposal made by Erhard Blum, it is often
assumed that the priestly edition also added individual traditional material
already existing in written form.19 Still others attribute extensive parts of the
non-priestly texts in Exod 1–15 to a post-priestly edition of p or to a revised
priestly narrative kernel, so that the existence of a distinctive pre-priestly Exo-
dus narrative is called into question.20
The results gleaned from the analysis of the Exodus narrative cannot simply
be transferred to the Pentateuch as a whole, since the redaction-history of the
individual books and of smaller parts of the Pentateuch are often different. In
spite of this limitation, the redaction-historical findings in Exod 1–15 provide
insight into the history of the literary origins of the Pentateuch. The same
has to be said mutatis mutandis for the depiction of the miracle at the sea
in Exod 13:17–14:31 and its relationship to the Exodus narrative as a whole.
The following passage will serve as an example to discuss some fundamental
questions regarding the analysis of Exod 1–15.
Testaments (trans. J. Bowden; London: t&t Clark, 2005), 292–295. According to Kratz the
connection is of a redactional nature but was done before the origin and incorporation of
P. On the discussion see further the contributions in A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Com-
position of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (ed. Thomas B. Dozeman and
Konrad Schmid; SBLSymS 34; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006); Joel S. Baden,
“From Joseph to Moses: The Narratives of Exodus 1–2,” vt 62 (2012): 133–158; Baden, “The
Continuity of the Non-Priestly Narrative from Genesis to Exodus,” Bib 93 (2012): 161–186;
and Konrad Schmid, “Genesis and Exodus as Two Formerly Independent Traditions of Ori-
gins for Ancient Israel,” Bib 93 (2012): 187–208.
17 Compare proponents of the New Documentary Hypothesis; e.g., Levin, Jahwist; Schmid,
Genesis and Moses Story; Gertz, Tradition; Kratz, Komposition, 230–233 (Composition, 229–
232); Dozeman, Exodus; and Römer’s contribution to this volume.
18 Cf. Van Seters, The Life of Moses; Berner, Exoduserzählung.
19 Blum, Studien. See also from the commentaries Dozeman, Exodus; Utzschneider and
Oswald, Exodus 1–15; and Rainer Albertz, Exodus, Band i: Ex 1–18 (zbkat 2.1; Zürich:
Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2012).
20 Cf. Eckart Otto, “Die nachpriesterliche Pentateuchredaktion im Buch Exodus,” in Studies in
the Book of Exodus: Redaction—Reception—Interpretation (ed. Marc Vervenne; betl 126;
Leuven: Peeters, 1996, 61–111); Christoph Berner, “Gab es einen vorpriesterschriftlichen
Meerwunderbericht?” Bib 95 (2014): 1–25. I would like to thank Christoph Berner for
making the unpublished ms available to me.
the miracle at the sea 97
21 I have presented a detailed analysis of the passage on the basis of a two source model (p,
non-p and a balancing redaction) in Gertz, Tradition, 189–232. The following remarks are
based on that analysis. In the current essay I simply note modifications and corrections
of my own work there. Footnote 22 below provides an overview of the history of research.
Additional references to other studies limit themselves to the current debate.
22 The majority of scholars follows a proposal first made by Johann Severin Vater, Com-
mentar über den Pentateuch (Halle: Verlag der Waisenhaus Buchhandlung, 1802), 46–64
and assumes that Exod 13:17–14:31 unites two versions of the narrative of the miracle at
the sea. In addition, fragments of a third version as well as several redactions are often
postulated. The literature on the topic is legion. I simply list the following: Julius Well-
hausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments
(3d ed.; Berlin: Reimer, 1899), 75–77 (j, e, remnants of q [= p]); Noth, Exodus, 80–95 (j,
p, remnants of e); Kohata, Jahwist, 277–295 (j, p, redaction, fragments of an Elohistic
note on the Exodus); Levin, Jahwist, 341–347; Noth, “Source Criticism: The Miracle at the
Sea,” in Method Matters: Essays on the Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of David
L. Petersen (ed. Joel M. Lemmon and Kent Harold Richards; sblrbs 56; Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature, 2009), 39–61 (j, p, redactional editing); Marc Vervenne, “The ‘p’ Tradi-
tion in the Pentateuch: Document and/or Redaction? The ‘Sea Narrative’ (Ex 13,17–14,31) as
a Text Case,” in Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers read at the xiiith iosot
Congress Leuven 1989 (ed. C. Brekelmans and J. Lust; betl 94; Leuven: Peeters, 1990), 67–
90 (non-p base text, priestly redaction); Blum, Studien, 256–262 (incorporation of a text
already composed by the priestly compilator [Kp] into the narrative of a Deuteronomistic
compositional layer [Kd]); Thomas Krüger, “Erwägungen zur Redaktion der Meerwunder-
erzählung (Exodus 13,17–14,31),” zaw 108 (1996): 519–533 (j, p, redactional compensation);
Van Seters, Life, 131 (j, priestly reworking); Propp, Exodus 1–18, 476–485 (j, e, p and redac-
tion); Robert D. Miller ii, “Crossing the Sea: A Re-assessment of the Source Criticism of the
Exodus,” zabr 13 (2007): 187–193 (tradition-historical distinction of three layers); Berner,
Exoduserzählung, 343–389 (non-p narrative, priestly edition, extensive post-p additions);
Hans-Christoph Schmitt, “ ‘Priesterliches’ und ‘prophetisches’ Geschichtsverständnis in
der Meerwundererzählung Ex 13,17–14,31,” in Theologie in Prophetie und Pentateuch (ed.
Ulrike Schorn and Matthias Büttner; bzaw 310; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001), 203–219 (system-
atic accentuation of the priestly narrative by the non-p texts that consist of fragments of
a pre-p narrative of the miracle at the sea); Dozeman, Exodus, 305–318 (non-p narrative,
priestly redaction); Albertz, Ex 1–18, 224–236 (the priestly redactor constructs an alterna-
tive narrative in knowledge of the context and incorporates it in a second step into the
non-p material); Oswald and Utzschneider, Exodus 1–15, 325–327 (redaction of the older
98 gertz
Exod 14:21 Then Moses stretched out his ויט משׁה את־ידו על־הים
hand over the sea. yhwh drove the sea ויולך יהוה את־הים ברוח קדים עזה כל־הלילה
back by a strong east wind all night, and וישׂם את־הים לחרבה
turned the sea into dry land; and the ויבקעו המים׃
waters were divided.
Exod 14:22 The Israelites went into the sea ויבאו בני־ישׂראל בתוך הים ביבשׁה
on dry ground, the waters forming a wall והמים להם חמה מימינם ומשׂמאלם׃
for them on their right and on their left.
Exodus 14:21–22 contains the following series of tensions. Moses holds out his
hand over the sea (v. 21aα1) but yhwh causes a strong easterly wind throughout
the night that drives the sea back and turns it into dry ground (v. 21aα2β).
Following this, it is reported that the waters were divided (v. 21b) so that the
Israelites can pass through (v. 22a). Apparently the order of events is based
on the notion that the action of the human miracle worker Moses initiates
the divine intervention. Equally apparent are the conceptual and contextual
tensions between the drainage of the sea by a strong easterly wind on the one
hand and the report of the division of the waters on the other, something which
appears odd since within the narrative context the sea is already dry. These
observations suggest that the current account is not original—to use the least
prejudicing formulation with respect to redaction-history. This suspicion grows
stronger when we look at yhwh’s command in Exod 14:16 and the description
of the return of the waters and the fate of the Egyptians in Exod 14:26–27:
Exod 14:16 But you lift up your staff, and ואתה הרם את־מטך ונטה את־ידך על־הים
stretch out your hand over the sea and ובקעהו
divide it, that the Israelites may go into ויבאו בני־ישׂראל בתוך הים ביבשׁה׃
the sea on dry ground.
In v. 16 the command is issued to Moses to stretch out his hand over the sea and
divide it so that the Israelites may pass through on dry ground. V. 21aα1 reports
the stretching out of the hand and the continuation necessary of v. 16* is found
in v. 21b (division of the waters) and v. 22a (passing through of the Israelites). In
contrast, the statement of yhwh’s intervention in v. 21aα2β has no equivalent in
the divine command and announcement of the following events in vv. 16–18*.
non-p Exodus narrative by insertion of the priestly composition); and Berner, “Meerwun-
derbericht,” 1–25 (non-p reworking of a priestly base narrative that was then incorporated
by a redaction into the non-p itinerary).
the miracle at the sea 99
Exod 14:26 Then yhwh said to Moses, ויאמר יהוה אל־משׁה נטה את־ידך על־הים
“Stretch out your hand over the sea, so וישׁבו המים על־מצרים על־רכבו ועל־פרשׁיו׃
that the water may come back upon
the Egyptians, upon their chariots and
chariot drivers.”
Exod 14:27 So Moses stretched out his hand ויט משׁה את־ידו על־הים
over the sea, and at dawn the sea וישׁב הים לפנות בקר לאיתנו ומצרים נסים
returned to its normal depth. As the לקראתו וינער יהוה את־מצרים בתוך הים׃
Egyptians fled before it, yhwh tossed the
Egyptians into the sea.
Exod 14,28 The waters returned and covered וישׁבו המים ויכסו את־הרכב ואת־הפרשׁים
the chariots and the chariot drivers, לכל חיל פרעה הבאים אחריהם בים לא־נשׁאר
the entire army of Pharaoh that had בהם עד־אחד
followed them into the sea; not one of
them remained.
According to v. 27aα1 (up to “ על היםover the sea”), Moses follows yhwh’s order
reported in v. 26 and holds his hand out over the sea. The remaining portion
of v. 27 describes how the sea returns to its normal state at daybreak whereby
yhwh traps the Egyptians in the deluge of water. In v. 28a, however, the return
of the waters and the drowning of the Egyptian army are again reported. Both
reports are doublets with underlying conceptions about the course of events:
according to v. 27* (from )וישבthe Egyptians flee at the water’s approach while
in v. 28 they follow the Israelites into the sea and are subsequently surprised by
its return. One of the two versions of the doom of the Egyptians—v. 28—is con-
nected to the command and the notice about Moses’ holding out his hand in
vv. 26–27aα1. This is made clear by the broad agreement of the announcement
of the return of the waters and its consequences in v. 26b with the correspond-
ing report in v. 28a. The correlation between yhwh’s command and announce-
ment and Moses’ execution in v. 26 and v. 27aα1.28 corresponds exactly to those
in vv. 16–18* and in vv. 21aα1b.22.23. The notion of Moses’ actions (compare
v. 16a*.21aα1 and v. 26a.27aα1) and the course of the miracle at the sea (compare
v. 16b.17.21b–23 and v. 26b.28a) also correspond—Moses divides the waters to
enable a dry passage for the Israelites and to create a death trap for the pursuing
Egyptians. This is a clear indication for a connection of vv. 16*.17.18.21aα1b.22.23
and vv. 26.27aα1.28. Also, the respective doublets in v. 21aα2β and in the remain-
ing text of v. 27 agree in the motifs of yhwh acting alone, the nightly driving
back of the sea, and its return the next morning.
The differentiation between the priestly and non-priestly texts, which is
essential for a literary analysis of the narrative of the miracle at the sea, can
100 gertz
23 Theodor Nöldeke, “Die s.g. Grundschrift des Pentateuchs,” Untersuchungen zur Kritik des
Alten Testaments (Kiel: Schwers, 1869), 1–144, 45–46: Exod 14:1–4, 8–9, 10*, 15–18, 21*, 22–23,
26, 27*, 28–29. On the deviations from Nöldeke in my own analysis in v. 2bβ.8b.9.16aα*
( )הרם את מטך וsee below.
24 Blum, Studien, 260.
the miracle at the sea 101
25 Cf. Marc Vervenne, “ ‘p’ Tradition,” 86; Van Seters, Life, 131; Berner, Exoduserzählung, 354;
and Dozeman, Exodus, 310–311.
26 Krüger, “Erwägungen,” 521.
27 Cf. Propp, Exodus 1–18, 490.
28 Vervenne, “‘p’ Tradition,” 79. Cf. Berner, Exoduserzählung, 363.
29 Cf. Ludwig Schmidt, Studien zur Priesterschrift (bzaw 214; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993), 27–28.
102 gertz
34 Numbers 33 is a late compilation of the stations that merges priestly and non-priestly
information; in addition, the chapter uses otherwise unknown and possibly older material
when it lists the place names Dophkah and Alush only mentioned here. The composi-
tional nature of the chapter is further highlighted by the note “in the wilderness of Zin, that
is Kadesh.” This information joins the priestly statement about the arrival of the Israelites
in Zin (Num 20:1aα) with the non-priestly note of the stay of the Israelites at Kadesh (Num
33:1aβ). Cf. Ludwig Schmidt, Das 4. Buch Mose: Numeri (atd 7.2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 2004), 202–208.
35 Thus Berner, Exoduserzählung, 345–346.
104 gertz
36 The base layer can be found in Exod 13:20, 21aα*; 14:5a, 6–7, 9aα2, 13–14, 19b, 20*, 21aα2β,
24*, 25a, 27aα2b, 28b, 30 (15:22b). Exod 13:17–19, 21*, 22; 14:5b, 11–12, 19a, 20* )והחשך ויאר את
(הלילה, 24* ()וענן, 25a, 31 (15:22a) are post-priestly additions. For the arguments for such a
differentiation, see below 4.2.
37 Berner, “Meerwunderbericht,” 8–11.
38 Cf. Berner, “Meerwunderbericht,” 12.
the miracle at the sea 105
other source may be disputed but does not offer any difficulties. The note is
placed beyond the resumption of v. 8aβ in v. 9aβ1. Hence it is not certain that
it belongs to the addition to the priestly text introduced by the resumption.39
Because the note speaks of the pursuers in the plural while the priestly pas-
sages do not, it cannot belong to P.40 On the other hand, a direct link to the
non-p narrative thread is unproblematic.41 Even if one does not follow this
attribution of the part of the verse, the argument of a “yawning gap” is hardly
convincing. If Exod 14:10* as part of a non-priestly narrative once followed Exod
14:6–7 directly, then the narrator would not have mentioned the pursuit but
simply stated it from the perspective of the Israelites later: “the Israelites caught
sight of the Egyptians advancing upon them and they were very afraid” (Exod
14:10*).42 Such literary “catching up” (Nachholen) of information—like the first
mentioning of the sea in the description of the miracle—would not have been
an unusual narrative style.
(2) As part of the non-priestly narrative thread of the Exodus narrative, the
miracle at the sea reads like an epilogue to the plagues resulting in the release of
the Israelites from slavery (Exod 12:33–34).43 A brief look at the priestly text sup-
ports this view.44 The priestly plague-narrative is shaped as a contest between
Moses and the Egyptian magicians. The incessantly increasing confrontation
with Pharaoh forms the background to this. The miracles themselves serve
as Moses and Aaron’s authentication before Pharaoh. They have to be distin-
guished from the “extraordinary chastisements” (Exod 6:6; 7:4, cf. 12:12) during
the Exodus. Accordingly, the mission of Moses and Aaron to Pharaoh looks
ahead to both the plagues and the miracle at the sea: the miracles performed by
Moses and Aaron testify to the announced resistance of Pharaoh. After the mir-
acles this resistance can only be interpreted as hardening provoked by yhwh
(Exod 9:12, cf. 7:4a). Meanwhile, the final deliverance, as well as the announced
recognition of yhwh, are the result of the miracle at the sea (Exod 14:4a, 8a; cf.
Exod 7:4b–5).
In comparison to the well thought out two-act play in the priestly plague-
narrative, the non-priestly compilation of the plagues and the miracle at the sea
appears far less structured and more cumulative. How do we evaluate this evi-
dence? Is it an indication of the thesis that the non-priestly texts are a rework-
ing of the p text to fit the context much better? Or can the loose integration be
explained on the basis of the prehistory of the non-priestly Exodus narrative?
The question can be answered when we look at the opening of the non-priestly
narrative in Exod 14:5a. There we read that the flight of the Israelites is reported
to the king of Egypt. In the previous context, be it non-p or p, a flight has not
yet been mentioned. In the context of the priestly material, where Pharaoh is
informed about the exodus of the Israelites (cf. Exod 14:3), Exod 14:5 creates
an awkward doublet. Why an editor of a priestly base text should have created
such a tension is unclear unless he was forced to do so by his written Vorlage.
As a result, the thesis that Exod 14:5a and the non-priestly text of the narrative
as a whole represent a reworking of the priestly version is highly unlikely. It
is not Exod 14:5a that is redactional but the connection of the verse with the
priestly context that is. On the other hand, the tensions between Exod 14:5a
and the rest of the non-priestly context cannot be ignored. Even if we assume
that ברחdoes not denote a public flight in the strict sense but only the act
of slipping away,45 the connection to the non-priestly context lacks smooth
literary style. This is strong evidence for a tiered origin of the non-priestly mate-
rial. Because the Exodus narrative does not mention a flight of the Israelites
apart from Exod 14:5 (cf., however, Exod 2:15), we must consider the possibility
that such a motif was pushed aside during the process of tradition when more
important motifs gained momentum, such as the negotiations with Pharaoh
as well as the plagues.46 Be that as it may, the non-priestly narrative about the
miracle at the sea was written into the context of the itinerary at Exod 12:37a;
13:20 and 15:22b.47
(3) The non-priestly version of the miracle at the sea describes an act of
war of yhwh (Exod 14:25b). To imagine God as a warrior is quite conventional.
God and king fighting together is part of the basic inventory of the theology
practiced at the courts of the ancient Near East.48 Moses, however, announces
that yhwh fights alone and is not only on the side of human warriors (Exod
14:13). This, too, is quite common in the war ideology of the Hebrew Bible and in
the wider ancient Near East.49 As Reinhard Müller has aptly stated, the absence
of the king, however, is a special feature of the narrative about the miracle at
the sea:
yhwh does not fight for a king but solely to protect Israel (v. 25b). Moses
may appear as a traditional prophet of salvation but he does not direct his
oracle to a ruler but to the Israelites (v. 13–14*). The fact that they do not
fight themselves receives then a completely different meaning: they are
not equipped with any military power but in their entirety the Israelites
are as close to God as a king. Israel does not require a royal ruler to be able
to exist as a people.50
47 Cf. Levin, Jahwist, 349. According to Berner, “Meerwundererzählung,” 16–17, this could
have only happened at a post-priestly stage as the mentioning of the Sea of Reeds in
Exod 15:22a has its reference point solely in the post-priestly passages of the narrative (cf.
Exod 10:19; 13:17). This argument is not compelling. On the one hand it was often assumed
that the mention of the Sea of Reeds is a secondary addition prompted by the song in
Exod 15 (cf. Exod 15:4) and that the original transition simply consisted of Exod 15:22aα1:
“Then Moses caused Israel to set out” (cf. Levin, Jahwist, 348). Such small insertions into
a text cannot be excluded. On the other hand it is equally possible that Exod 14:30 was
immediately followed by Exod 15:22b in a non-priestly narrative. Exodus 15:22a, then,
would owe its existence to the insertion of the song in Exod 15 after which an immediate
connexion was no longer possible syntactically or in terms of content.
48 Cf. Reinhard Müller, “Jahwekrieg und Heilsgeschichte,” ztk 106 (2009): 265–283.
49 Müller, “Jahwekrieg und Heilsgeschichte,” 270, with reference to an inscription of Ashur-
banipal.
50 Müller, “Jahwekrieg und Heilsgeschichte,” 270 (trans. Anselm C. Hagedorn).
51 Cf. Jan Christian Gertz, “Mose und die Anfänge der jüdischen Religion,” ztk 99 (2002):
3–20.
108 gertz
neither imagined as being brokered by kingship nor shaped by the idea of the
land and its history; it is based instead solely on the “founding events of the
Exodus.”52 The striking, perhaps even critical renunciation of royal ideology is
expressed in forms that have had—just like the Heilsorakel—their original Sitz-
im-Leben at the royal court. This suggests a post-monarchic transformation of
such forms and contents here.53 Because of the occasional flashes of a neo-
Assyrian background in the Exodus narrative, and its well-known tradition-
historical connections to the territory of the former Northern kingdom, a date
after the fall of Samaria in 722bce appears likely for such a transformation.54
Taking all of that into account we can see that the non-priestly Exodus nar-
rative cannot be part of the literary- and theological-historical realm of a late
post-priestly Deuteronomism. Rather, it has to be seen as the precursor to the
deuteronomistic concept by which God freely elects his people outside the land
and without any royal brokerage. In addition, the narrative of the miracle at
the sea represents the archetype of such a specific form of a yhwh-war story in
which God alone fights for his people.55
52 Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story, 146; originally Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus, 160.
53 Cf. Müller, “Jahwekrieg und Heilsgeschichte,” 270, with reference to Martti Nissinen, “Fear
Not: A Study on an Ancient Near Eastern Phrase,” in The Changing Face of Form Criticism
for the Twenty-First Century (ed. Marvin A. Sweeny and Ehud Ben Zvi; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2003), 122–161, 148–158. According to Müller, the motif of “Yahweh’s help in the
morning,” too, belongs to the context of a court theology.
54 On the neo-Assyrian background of Exod 1:11, 2:1–10 cf. Gertz, “Mose,” 12–13 (with further
bibliography). On the dating of the first literary Gestalt of the Exodus narrative (not the
traditions used!), cf. also Blum, Studien, 215–218; Kratz, Komposition, 294–295 (= Composi-
tion, 286–287); and Müller, “Jahwekrieg und Heilsgeschichte,” 270. On the Northern origin
of the Exodus tradition, see Hosea who is the only eighth century prophet who mentions it
(Hos 11:1; 12:1, 10, 14; 13:4); see also Yair Hoffman, “A North Israelite Typological Myth and a
Judean Historical Tradition: The Exodus in Hosea and Amos,” vt 39 (1989): 169–182; Rainer
Albertz, “Exodus: Liberation History against Charter Myth,” in Religious Identity and the
Invention of Tradition (ed. Jan Willem van Henten and Anton Houtepen; str 3; Assen:
Royal Van Gorcum, 2001), 128–143; Karel van der Toorn, “The Exodus as Charter Myth,” in
Religious Identity, 113–127; John J. Collins, “The Development of the Exodus Tradition,” in
Religious Identity, 144–155; Matthias Köckert, “yhwh in the Northern and Southern King-
dom,” in One God—One Cult—One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives (ed.
Reinhard G. Kratz and Hermann Spieckermann; bzaw 405; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 357–
394; and Erhard Blum, “Der historische Mose und die Frühgeschichte Israels,”Hebrew Bible
and Ancient Israel 1 (2012): 37–63, 42–46.
55 Levin, Jahwist, 343. Contrast Berner, “Meerwundererzählung,” 8–11, who proposes that the
non-priestly passages in Exod 14 develop the miracle at the sea into an example for the
late deuteronomistic prelude of the laws concerning warfare in Deut 20 (cf. Deut 20:1–4
the miracle at the sea 109
with Exod 14:13–14a, 30). This proposal is compellingly refuted by Hans-Christoph Schmitt,
“Wie deuteronomistisch ist der nichtpriesterliche Meerwunderbericht von Exodus 13,17–
14,31?” Bib 95 (2014): 26–48. In comparison with Exod 14:13–14, the amended war speech
of Moses in Deut 20:2 demonstrates that it is exactly the other way around. The laws con-
cerning warfare are amended several times. Here, Moses’ speech is transformed into an
exemplary war address and the recollection of the Exodus becomes the reason for con-
fidence: “When you go out to war against your enemies, and see horses and chariots, an
army larger than your own, you shall not be afraid of them; for yhwh your God is with you,
who brought you up from the land of Egypt” (Deut 20:1). Earlier Berner, Exoduserzählung,
348 n. 23, firmly rejected the idea that the non-priestly narrative of the miracle at the sea
was rooted in the deuteronomistic traditions.
110 gertz
56 Cf. inter alia Blum, Studien, 363–365; Gertz, Tradition, 208–209, 364–365 (with additional
bibliography).
57 Krüger, “Erwägungen,” 524. Cf. Levin, Jahwist, 340; Berner, Exoduserzählung, 366. Contrast
Blum, “Feuersäule,” 130–131. On the place names, see Cornelis Houtman, Exodus: Volume 1
(hcot; Kampen: kok Publishing House, 1993), 122, 124, 126–129 (with additional bibliog-
raphy).
58 Rudolph, Elohist, 27.
the miracle at the sea 111
a pillar of fire by night. Verse 21 in a rather redundant style explains the purpose
of the two clouds. Verse 22 mainly repeats v. 21a. The Septuagint shortens the
passage without any loss of content. This is a first indication of reworking in the
passage. Similar things can be said about the serious problems that Exod 14:20a
created for the Septuagint, Peshitta, and Targumim.59 The verse incorporates
Exod 13:20 and speaks of an illumination by night. It also adds Exod 14:20b
stating that both camps cannot see each other during the night because of
darkness. In Exod 14:19b the guidance by the pillar of cloud is subsequently
explained by the angel of God in Exod 14:19a. When Exod 14:24 mentions a pillar
of fire and cloud, it is noticeable that the order has been changed, that it is one
single cloud, and that the cloud is undetermined even though it has already
been mentioned. In addition, Exod 14:24 seems to imply that yhwh either looks
at the camp of the Egyptians from above or from within the pillar of fire and
cloud. Exodus 13:21–22, by contrast, suggests that the pillar is a manifestation
of either yhwh or his angel (compare Exod 14:19a).60
Most of the noted tensions are associated with the description of the pillar
of fire that enables the Israelites to continue to travel by night. Following a
proposal by Walter Groß, we can explain the anomalies as being the result
of balancing the priestly and non-priestly chronology.61 Not only in terms of
geography is the representation of the miracle at the sea very different! In the
59 Cf. Cornelis Houtman, Exodus: Volume 2 (hcot; Kampen: kok Publishing House, 1993),
267–268; Propp, Exodus 1–18, 468, 498. The versions are of little help for a reconstruction
of an original text. They show, however, that ancient readers already had problems with
it. This reminds us to exercise caution with regard to harmonizing attempts, attempts
sometimes promoted in recent exegesis.
60 Cf. Propp, Exodus 1–18, 549–550.
61 Walter Groß, “Die Wolkensäule und die Feuersäule in Ex 13+14: Literarkritische, redaktion-
sgeschichtliche und quellenkritische Erwägungen,” in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaft-
licher Wandel: Festschrift Norbert Lohfink (ed. Georg Braulik, Walter Groß, and Sean McEv-
enue; Freiburg: Herder, 1993), 142–165. Cf. (with variations in detail) Krüger, “Erwägungen,”
524–526; Gertz, Tradition, 209–214; and Berner, Exoduserzählung, 371–375 (though con-
trast now his, “Meerwundererzählung,” 17: a literary unity and post-priestly). Contrast
Blum, “Feuersäule,” 117–129, who argues against a redaction-critical explanation of the lin-
guistic difficulties and favors a literary homogeneity of the pillar of cloud and fire. The
problems in Groß’s analysis listed by Blum vanish when one realizes that the pillar of fire
is original in Exod 14:24 (see below). Blum’s own synchronic reading, however, is not with-
out problems as his complicated explanation shows. Amongst other things he has to add
the explanation of the decisive statement in brackets to the translation of v. 20. That the
text can be read synchronically is undisputed. The question remains, however, in which
context: in the non-priestly one or in the current one which grew redactionally.
112 gertz
priestly text data is also missing concerning the time of the miracle at the sea. If
we apply the standards of Antiquity in affairs of daily life and warfare, it seems
logical that the passage of the Israelites happened during the day.62 In the
non-priestly version, however, yhwh drives the sea back with strong easterly
wind all night (Exod 14:21aα2β) and before daybreak throws the Egyptian army
into a panic (Exod 14:24*). As a result the Egyptians flee towards the returning
waters (Exod 14:27aα2βb). In the morning the Israelites see Egyptians dead on
the shore of the sea (Exod 14:30). In contrast to the version in p, the Israelites’
passage is never stated and the miracle at the sea does not happen during the
day but in the course of the night. Only the redactional combination of both
concepts creates a scene that synchronizes the passage through the sea with the
nocturnal events of the non-priestly version. The shift of passage to the night
is possible without a deletion of text, as the priestly version does not specify
the time of day. The shift, however, requires that both the Israelites and the
Egyptians find their way in darkness. Therefore, the pillar of fire is added in
Exod 13:20–21; 14:20. To check this proposal one simply needs to eliminate the
nocturnal radiance in Exod 14:19–20 ( )ויאר את־הלילהthat in turn takes up the
introduction of the pillar of fire in Exod 13:21 ()בעמוד אש להאיר להם. The result
is a coherent text that fits quite well into the non-priestly presentation:
Exod 14:19b And the pillar or cloud shifted ויסע עמוד הענן מפניהם ויעמד מאחריהם׃
from in front of them and took up place
behind them.
Exod 14:20* And it came between the army ויבא בין מחנה מצרים ובין מחנה ישׂראל
of Egypt and the army of Israel (and it )ויהי הענן והחשׁך( … ולא־קרב זה אל־זה
was the cloud and the darkness) … so כל־הלילה׃
that one could not come near the other
all through the night.
During a critical stage of the Egyptian pursuit, the pillar of cloud leaves its place
at the head of the procession to a location behind, that is, between the Israelites
and the pursuing Egyptians. The cloud or pillar of cloud63 then protects the
62 On warfare see Exod 17:12; Josh 8:9, 13 as well as the exceptions mentioned in Josh 10:9;
Judg 7:20 (torches); 2 Kgs 7:12; 25:4; and 1 Macc 5:29.
63 With Groß, “Wolkensäule,” 150, we define the change from ‘pillar of cloud’ to ‘cloud’ in two
directly successive phrases as a stylistic variant. It is possible that the mentioning of cloud
and darkness in v. 20 could be seen as a late correction (Levin, Jahwist, 315) that became
necessary after the introduction of the radiance in the dark let the separation of the two
camps appear implausible; cf. also Berner, Exoduserzählung, 372.
the miracle at the sea 113
Israelites by preventing an attack, which sets the stage for the hidden divine
intervention (cf. Josh 24:7). Since the cloud or pillar of cloud is already assumed
to be identified in Exod 14:19b, it is likely that there was an introduction of
the cloud prior to Exod 13:21aα*. The rest of Exod 13:21–22—like the radiance
during the night—is triggered by the redactional balancing that now requires
a nocturnal journey of the Israelites.
It is often assumed that the editor was inspired by the notion of the cloud
in late priestly texts in which it rested over the “dwelling place” and also sig-
naled the time of departure for the Israelites in their journey; this imagery of
the cloud also appears as fire during the night (Num 9:15–16; cf. Exod 40:36–
38).64 The influence from late priestly texts is indeed possible. We have to note,
however, that we are dealing with different concepts here: in contrast to Exod
13:21–22, the late priestly texts presuppose the occasional presence of the pillar
of cloud.65 It may, therefore, be better to regard Exod 14:24 as the model for the
redactional activity. That yhwh looks down from a pillar of fire is due to the
setting of the scene at dawn and thus belongs to the non-priestly core, in con-
trast to the above mentioned additions in Exod 13:21–22 and 14:20.66 This may
be the first mention of a pillar of cloud, since there is no prior identification.
Such a conclusion is supported further by the literary-critical analysis of Exod
13:20–21; 14:20. The reference to the cloud in Exod 14:24 is meant to address the
obvious question of what happened to it after the introduction of the pillar of
cloud (Exod 14:19b). It cannot be decided with absolute certainty whether this
is the work of an editor or whether the text mentioned a pillar of fire and cloud
from the beginning. In my judgment, a redactor, who wanted to harmonize the
priestly and non-priestly chronology, placed the passage of the Israelites dur-
ing the night. This redactor, or a later one, drew the conclusion from Exod 13:21*
and Exod 14:24 that yhwh guided the Israelites by a pillar of cloud during the
day and by a pillar of fire during the night. The additions in Exod 13:21–22 and
Exod 14:20 are thus the result of inner-biblical exegesis.
(4) The information about the pursuit by the king of Egypt and his army
in Exod 14:6–7 most likely immediately followed the news about the flight of
the Israelites. Exodus 14:5b interrupts this context and shifts the emphasis: the
pursuit is now ordered because Pharaoh and his servants (!) regret the release
of the Israelites. This shift is often understood as the reason to allocate Exod
14:5a and 5b to an Elohistic and a Yahwistic version of the narrative about the
miracle at the sea.67 Despite the literary tension, the change of heart stated in
v. 5b lacks cause and motivation without the reported flight in v. 5a. This is a
strong argument against the allocation to two different sources and an equally
strong argument for some editorial work. This reworking was either done in the
context of the integration of the cycle of plagues or in an attempt to harmonize
with the priestly narrative.68
(5) The murmuring of the Israelites in Exod 14:11–12 is also a supplement;
according to the non-priestly narrative, Moses reacts to the panic of the Israel-
ites in light of the pursuing Egyptians (Exod 14:10abα) with a salvation oracle
introduced by the appeal not to be afraid (Exod 14:13–14). This seamless connec-
tion is interrupted by the priestly note about the crying of the Israelites (Exod
14:10bβ) and by the complaint and accusations of the Israelites against Moses
(Exod 14:11–12). The allegation that yhwh brought the Israelites out of Egypt
only to let them die in the desert does not refer to the pursuit by Pharaoh, but
to the dangers of the desert.69 It is therefore reasonable that the allegations
are formulated along the lines of the murmuring narratives of the wilderness
period (cf. e.g. Exod 15:24–26; 16:2–3; 17:2–3), even though the keywords “to
murmur” ( )לוןand “to quarrel” ( )ריבare not used. In contrast to the wilderness
stories of complaint, however, murmuring is not used to emphasize Israel’s dis-
obedience in the narrative about the miracle at the sea. Rather, the motif is
used to provide some context for the crying of the Israelites in the priestly text
(Exod 14:10bβ). The result is a dialogue (Exod 14:11–14) that is at best an example
of a failed communication and that is clearly not homogenous. Moses, then, in
v. 13–14 ignores the “murmuring” of the Israelites. Additionally, an oracle of sal-
vation is hardly an appropriate response to the open rebellion of the Israelites
against Moses and his mission.70
How do we characterize the literary horizon of this addition? That the
Israelites quickly prove to be fickle and in the sight of danger prefer servitude in
of the miracle at the sea we can bolster the claim of a post-priestly origin with
the insight that only Exod 13:19 opens a similarly wide literary horizon like Exod
14:31 (and 14:11–12). In addition, Exod 14:31 unites the priestly perspective of a
deity acting from afar via Moses with the non-priestly perspective of a directly
engaging God.
(6) Exodus 14:19a and 14:19b are a literary duplication in almost identical
construction:
Exod 14:19a The angel of God who was going ויסע מלאך האלהים ההלך לפני מחנה ישראל
before the Israelite army moved and went וילך מאחריהם
behind them;
Exod 14:19b and the pillar of cloud moved ויסע עמוד הענן מפניהם ויעמד מאחריהם׃
from in front of them and took its place
behind them.
und seine theologische Intention,” in Congress Volume Cambridge 1995 (ed. J.A. Emerton;
VTSup 66; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 261–279.
75 Levin, Jahwist, 345 (trans. Anselm C. Hagedorn).
76 Blum, Studien, 365–377.
the miracle at the sea 117
the aim of the addition is to identify the two pillars (respectively the one pillar
in two forms) with the divine messenger.
(7) yhwh’s appearance in a pillar of cloud terrifies the Egyptians (Exod
14:24) who then take flight (Exod 14:25b).77 Exodus 14:25a reports further that
yhwh clogs the wheels of the chariots so that they moved forward with dif-
ficulty. This sequence appears inconsistent especially because the decision of
the encamped army (Exod 14:20) to depart is only reported afterwards (Exod
14:25b). The literary strategy appears differently when Exod 14:25a is read in
conjunction with the priestly and non-priestly version. According to the non-
priestly narrative the frightened Egyptians storm towards the returning waters
(Exod 14:27*). The quicker they are the more certain is their death. p’s version
is different and it shapes both the current context as well as the reception his-
tory of the text. Here the Egyptians pursue the Israelites while crossing the sea.
Naturally they cannot overtake them should they not reach dry land together
with the Israelites. For this reason v. 25a assumes the pace of the narrative.78
5 Conclusion
Starting with the basic literary tensions in the presentation of the miracle
at the sea in Exod 14:21–22 we found that one can differentiate between a
priestly and non-priestly stratum in the narrative. It is possible to read the
p version of the events as a closed and independent narrative with a clear
concept. The same can be said for the non-priestly text. It is noteworthy that
in terms of the final form of the text, both versions appear less complete. But
the alleged gaps do not question the substantive and conceptual coherence of
the two versions. The final text is more than the sum of its parts. This is due
to later expansions. These expansions have balanced the two representations
regarding chronology, geography, and nature of the miracle and also added
their own accentuation. Whether we owe these expansions to one or more
editors can hardly be decided. As it stands, it appears likely to assign Israel’s
initial doubts and the people’s ultimate faith in Exod 14:11–12 and 14:31 to an
77 According to Blum, “Feuersäule,” 147, the narrative sequence Exod 14:25a, 25 is deficient.
That the terror of God is enough to cause an army to panic is demonstrated by the
remaining occurrences of ( חמםEx 23:27; Josh 10:10; Judg 4:15; 1Sam 7:10; 22:15; Pss 18:15;
144:6). Here it is completely irrelevant whether the terror of God is simply stated or firmly
anchored in a scene.
78 Similarly Berner, Exoduserzählung, 348, 378–380 (with detailed remarks on the translation
of Exod 14:25a).
118 gertz
editor. It cannot be said, however, whether this editor is also responsible for
the slowing down of the Egyptian troops in Exod 14:25 and for the explanation
of the route and the transport of the bones of Joseph in Exod 13:17–19.79
The question concerning the role of redaction criticism in the development
of the story of the miracle at the sea is answered already in its core. In light
of the recent discussion, however, the answer must be once again highlighted
clearly. The description of the redaction-historical relationship between the
two representations of the miracle at the sea with their conceptual and fac-
tual tensions depends on whether we assume that the priestly part of the text
was structured a priori as a reworking of the non-priestly text and vice versa,
or whether two self-supporting versions were only subsequently connected. It
is important that the differences between the two representations are not sim-
ply limited to conceptual emphases, but also to geographical and chronological
details that cannot be derived from the conceptual shifts. An editor would not
have produced the massive chronological and geographical discrepancies only
to defuse them again. Those who are responsible for the present representa-
tion of the miracle at the sea were not free in their formulations. This clearly
favors the adoption of two self-supporting versions and their secondary con-
nection. The genesis of the narrative about the miracle at the sea can hardly be
explained without the assumption of sources. As evidenced by the subsequent
expansions, the supplementary hypothesis also has its merit. In this respect,
the findings in the narrative about the miracle at the sea are paradigmatic for
the Pentateuch and its sub-collections.
In general, we conclude that the two versions of the narrative about the
miracle at the sea are part of a larger context—thus a two-source model. It is
also conceivable that one of these two versions once formed a unique tradition
(Einzeltradition) that has been inserted by their editors into the other text.80
One might assume that the decision between the two options was already made
by the existence of subsequent supplements that try to balance both texts. It is
in fact tempting to attribute these supplements, at least in part, to those who
79 In this regard, the assignments of almost all extensions to the “final editing” (as done
in Gertz, Tradition) has to be modified. “Final editing” is a slightly unfortunate selected
generic term and includes not only the connection of the priestly and non-priestly text,
but also those texts that seek (among other things) to find a balance between the two
entities or to harmonize the given text. Whether or not further extensions within these
literary historical differences can be justified and whether these differentiations generate
any literary and religion-historical insights, is an entirely different matter.
80 Thus Blum, Studien, 229–285, who favors this for the priestly texts.
the miracle at the sea 119
are responsible for the connection of the priestly and non-priestly text. On the
other hand, it also cannot be excluded that the described compensation efforts
were made independently of the connection between the two representations.
They may also be the work of later editors who, like the myriad of biblical
scholars who followed them, were disturbed by the tensions in the text. It is
clearly an argument for a two-source model, however, that we can delineate a
priestly and non-priestly version of the miracle at the sea, the cycle of plagues
and the call of Moses, and that the non-priestly and the priestly texts are each
connected to one another. However, to show this lies beyond the analysis of our
text.
Select Bibliography
Kratz, Reinhard G. Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments:
Grundwissen der Bibelkritik. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. (Translated
by J. Bowden. The Composition of the Historical Books of the Old Testaments. London:
t&t Clark, 2005).
Krüger, Thomas. “Erwägungen zur Redaktion der Meerwundererzählung (Exodus 13,
17–14,31).” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 108 (1996): 519–533.
Levin, Christoph. “Source Criticism. The Miracle at the Sea.” Pages 39–61 in Method
Matters: Essays on the Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of David L. Petersen.
Edited by Joel M. Lemmon and Kent Harold Richards. Society of Biblical Literature
Resources for Biblical Study 56. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009.
. Der Jahwist. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Testaments 157. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990.
Propp, William H.C. Exodus 1–18/19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Com-
mentary. Anchor Bible 2/2a. New York: Doubleday, 1999/2006.
Rudolph, Wilhelm, Der „Elohist“ von Exodus bis Josua. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 68. Gießen: Töpelmann, 1938.
Schmitt, Hans-Christoph. “„Priesterliches“ und „prophetisches“ Geschichtsverständnis
in der Meerwundererzählung Ex 13,17–14,31.” Pages 203–219 in Theologie in Prophetie
und Pentateuch. Edited by Ulrike Schorn and Matthias Büttner. Beihefte zur Zeit-
schrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 310. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001.
. “Wie deuteronomistisch ist der nichtpriesterliche Meerwunderbericht von
Exodus 13,17–14,31?” Bib 95 (2014): 26–48.
Ska, Jean-Louis. Le passage de la mer. Analecta Biblica 109. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1986.
. “Exode xiv. Contient-il un récit de ‘guerre sainte’ de style deutéronomistique?”
Vetus Testamentum 33 (1983): 454–467.
Van Seters, John. The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus—Numbers.
Louisville: Westminster / John Knox, 1992.
Vervenne, Marc. “Le récit de la mer. Reflète-t-il une rédaction de type deutéronomi-
que?” Pages 365–380 in Congress Volume Cambridge 1995. Edited by J.A. Emerton.
Vetus Testamentum Supplements 66. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
. “The ‘p’ Tradition in the Pentateuch: Document and/or Redaction? The ‘Sea
Narrative’ (Ex 13,17–14,31) as a Text Case.” Pages 67–90 in Pentateuchal and Deuteron-
omistic Studies: Papers Read at the xiiith iosot Congress Leuven 1989. Edited by
C. Brekelmans and J. Lust. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium
94. Leuven: Peeters, 1990.
From the Call of Moses to the Parting of the Sea
Reflections on the Priestly Version of the Exodus Narrative1
Thomas Römer
1 This article is a slightly modified English version of an article in German: “Von Moses Berufung
zur Spaltung des Meers. Überlegungen zur priesterschriftlichen Version der Exoduserzäh-
lung,” to be published. I thank Dr. Jonathan Robker for the English translation. All possible
errors are of course mine.
some kind of mere coincidental writings that developed from a huge number
of successive expansions (Fortschreibungen)?
If, however, one postulates “den vollständigen Abschied von der Urkun-
denhypothese, die sich als ein dem Denken des 19. Jh. verhaftetes Paradigma
schlicht überlebt hat,”2 this assertion is not statistically correct. The rejec-
tion of the traditional source theory can be found primarily in Pentateuchal
research of German-speaking Protestants. In Anglo-Saxon—especially North
American—exegesis, the documentary hypothesis is still being utilized and
objections to it are raised by a minority of scholars (e.g. Thomas Dozeman
or David Carr3). In the usa, students of Baruch Schwartz (Joel Baden, Jeffrey
Stackert) started a strong dogmatic defense of the “New Documentary Hypoth-
esis” as a reaction to objections against the model based on Wellhausen.4 Going
beyond Wellhausen, they assume that the three or four sources in all of the
narrative texts of the Pentateuch (including the story of Joseph) can be recon-
structed almost in their entirety. These were simply compiled mechanically
without any redactor(s) adding any substantial amount of their own writing.
This is probably not the mainstream (yet) in North American scholarship.
However, most North American textbooks still present the traditional Docu-
mentary hypothesis as the best way to explain the formation of the Penta-
teuch.
Thus, scholarship on the Hebrew Bible is currently in the unfortunate situa-
tion that certain discussions and approaches are confined to specific “schools”
that are sometimes restricted to a small group of researchers and their students.
This situation makes the development of a new, widely accepted model quite
difficult.
However, a few points can be enumerated in which a consensus may be
possible:
2 Christoph Berner, Die Exoduserzählung: Das literarische Werden einer Ursprungslegende Is-
raels (fat 73; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 49.
3 Thomas B. Dozeman, Exodus (ecc; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009); David M. Carr, The
Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (New York: Oxford University Press,
2011).
4 See, e.g., Baruch J. Schwartz, “How the Compiler of the Pentateuch Worked: The Composition
of Genesis 37,” in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (ed. Craig
A. Evans, Joel N. Lohr, and David L. Petersen; VTSup 152; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 263–278; Joel
S. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (aybrl;
New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012); and Jeffrey Stackert, A Prophet Like Moses: Prophecy,
Law, and Israelite Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).
from the call of moses to the parting of the sea 123
– in the middle of the Persian Period, around 400–350 bce, the Pentateuch
existed as a concept; this does not exclude later additions and revisions;
– in the Pentateuch, priestly and non-priestly texts can be differentiated; non-
priestly does not necessarily mean pre-priestly.
5 Georg Fischer, “Keine Priesterschrift in Ex 1–15?” zkt 117 (1995): 203–211; reprinted in Fischer,
Die Anfänge der Bibel. Studien zu Genesis und Exodus (sbabat 49; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholi-
sches Bibelwerk, 2011), 128–137.
6 Georg Fischer, “Zur Lage der Pentateuchforschung,” zaw 115 (2003): 608–616, 612.
7 Robert N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study (JSOTSup 53;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987).
124 römer
8 Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The Structure of p,” cbq 38 (1976): 275–292; Norbert Lohfink, “Die
Priesterschrift und die Geschichte,” in Congress Volume: Göttingen 1977 (ed. J.A. Emerton;
VTSup 29; Leiden: Brill, 1978), 189–225 (repr. in Norbert Lohfink, Studien zum Pentateuch
[sbab 4; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988], 213–253).
9 Horst Seebass, “Josua,” bn 28 (1985): 53–65; E.A. Knauf, “Die Priesterschrift und die Ge-
schichten der Deuteronomisten,” in The Future of the Deuteronomistic History (ed. Thomas
Römer; betl 147, Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 101–118. In his Josua (zbkat 6; Zürich: Theolo-
gischer Verlag, 2008), 29, Knauf adds as a possibility verse 24,29b.
10 According to Knauf, Josua, 29, p comprises in Joshua only 4:19a; 5:10–12, 18:1, (24:29b).
11 Ludwig Schmidt, Studien zur Priesterschrift (bzaw 214; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993); Christian
Frevel, Mit dem Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern: Zum Ende der Priestergrund-
schrift (hbs 23; Freiburg: Herder, 2000).
from the call of moses to the parting of the sea 125
require secondary priestly texts like Num 27:12–23 and stand out due to a style
that mixes priestly and Deuteronomc elements that is characteristic of late
texts.12 Consequently, the end of p can be found neither in Deut 34, nor in Num
27, as recently suggested (by Ska, García López).13
As no satisfying end for pg can be found in the books of Num, Deut, or Josh,
it is not very surprising that the conclusion of p has recently been increasingly
sought in the Sinai pericope. Thomas Pola’s thesis,14 in which he claims that pg
finished his work in Exod 40 with the erection of the shrine in the desert, marks
the beginning of this tendency. According to Pola, the priestly texts in Numbers
clearly differ from pg (in the “priestly texts” of Num, Israel is constructed as an
“ecclesia militans,” and the division into twelve tribes plays an important role in
contrast to the books of Gen–Lev). The close interplay between pg and Ezek 20
are another of Pola’s arguments. According to Ezek 20:40, the goal of the inter-
vention of yhwh for Israel is service on Mount Zion. From this Pola concludes
that the shrine on Sinai was not originally designed to be transportable but was
a kind of projection of Zion into the desert. Consequently, Pola categorizes all
of the verses that presume the mobility of the shrine as secondary and recon-
structs the end of pg in the following texts: Exod 19:1; 24:15b, 16–17, 18a; 25:1, 8a,
9; 29:45–46; 40:16, 17a, 33b.
This reconstruction offers an readble text, however, the question remains
whether such a short hand somewhat lapidary text (about two percent of Exod
19–40) really can be seen as a plausible conclusion of pg; the problem is that Pola
considers most of the verses that refer back to Gen 1 as secondary (cf. also Otto,
who identifies the end of the original Priestly source in Exod 29:42b–46 since
the descriptions of the construction do not match the commandments15). The
parallelization of the creation of the world and the erection of the Tabernacle
(which, we might add, can be found in parallels from the ancient Near East like
the Enuma Elish and the Ugaritic Baal-mythos), something already observed by
the Rabbis, constitutes an important argument in favor of the theory according
to which the priestly narration finds its appropriate end with the construc-
tion of the Tabernacle.16 Is it possible that pg only narrated the erection of the
shrine and without recounting the installation of the Aaronide priesthood and
the establishment of the sacrificial cult? Therefore, would not Lev 9 be a more
plausible end to the priestly source (Zenger17)? It recounts the consecration of
Aaron and his sons (however with some deviations from Exod 29). A conclusion
at Lev 9 also permits the assumption that pg already included some basic ritual
regulations in Lev 1–7*. This would preclude the presumption that has often
been made that pg consisted exclusively of narrative material. Another option
would be to allow the original priestly source to continue until the so-called
Holiness Code, at the Yom Kippur in Lev 16, which emphasizes God’s forgive-
ness and the never-ending opportunity to purify the shrine and the community.
This too seems to be a plausible climax and conclusion to the priestly source
(Köckert, Nihan18). In contrast to that, one could agree with Kratz and others
that pg initially concluded with Exod 40 and that Lev 1–16 (on another scroll)
presented “Nachträge im Rahmen der noch selbständigen Priesterschrift” with
the result that pg consisted of two scrolls: one “narrative” (Gen–Exod*), and one
“ritual” (Lev 1–16*).19 But such an abbreviated p raises the question of how to
understand the promises regarding the land included in p texts.
The question of whether to understand p as an originally autonomous doc-
ument or as a redaction of older, non-priestly-sources remains controversial.
The idea of p as a redactor, promoted primarily by Frank Cross, Rolf Rendtorff,
and John Van Seters, finds advocates in Rainer Albertz and Christoph Berner
in more recent discussions.20 This thesis is based on the observation that,
16 Moshe Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord: The Problem of
the Sitz im Leben of Genesis 1:1–2:3,” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de
M. Henri Cazelles (ed. André Caquot and Mathias Delcor; aoat 212; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 1981), 501–512.
17 Erich Zenger, “Priesterschrift,” tre 27 (1997): 435–446.
18 Matthias Köckert, "Leben in Gottes Gegenwart. Zum Verständnis des Gesetzes in der
priesterschriftlichen Literatur," JBT 4 (1989): 29–61. Christophe Nihan, From Priestly Torah
to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus (fat 2.25; Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2007), 150–198.
19 Reinhard G. Kratz, Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testamentsz (utb
2157; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 116. The English translation is The
Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament (trans. J. Bowden; London: t&t
Clark, 2005).
20 Rainer Albertz, Exodus, Band i: Ex 1–18 (zbkat 2.1; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich,
2012); Berner, Exoduserzählung. See also, with some hesitation, Jakob Wöhrle, “The Un-
Empty Land: The Concept of Exile and Land in p,” in The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel
and its Historical Contexts (ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin; bzaw 404; Berlin: de
Gruyter, 2010), 189–206.
from the call of moses to the parting of the sea 127
v. 2 אני יהוה
v. 3 וארא אל אברהם אל יצחק ואל יעקב
v. 4 הקמתי את בריתי אתם לתת להם את ארץ כנען
v. 5 נאקת בני ישראל אשר מצרים מעבדים אתם
ואזכר את בריתי
21 Jeffrey H. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl-
vania Press, 1982).
22 Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (bzaw 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990),
229–286.
128 römer
v. 6 אני יהוה
והוצאתי אתכם מתחת סבלת מצרים
וגאלתי אתכם
v. 7 ולקחתי אתכם לי לעם
והייתי לכם לאלהים
אני יהוה
המוציא אתכם מתחת סבלת מצרים
v. 8 והבאתי אתכם אל הארץ אשר נשאתי
את ידי לתת אתה לאברהם ליצחק וליעקב ונתתי אתה לכם מורשה
אני יהוה
23 This introduction is often and mainly used in Ezekiel, when the prophet is commanded
to deliver a speech: Ezek 11:16–17; 12:23, 28; 20:30; 33:25; 36:22.
from the call of moses to the parting of the sea 129
24 Cf. Fujiko Kohata, Jahwist und Priesterschrift in Exodus 3–14 (bzaw 166; Berlin: de Gruyter,
1986), 29–31; Bernard Gosse, “Le livre d’Ezéchiel et Ex 6,2–8 dans le cadre du Pentateuque,”
bn 104 (2000): 20–25.
25 Cf. Kohata, Jahwist und Priesterschrift, 28 f.; Jan Christian Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion in
der Exoduserzählung: Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch (frlant 186; Göt-
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 243, and recently Berner, Exoduserzählung, 158.
26 Eckart Otto, “Die nachpriesterliche Pentateuchredaktion im Buch Exodus,” in Studies in
the Book of Exodus: Redaction—Reception—Interpretation (ed. Marc Vervenne; betl 126;
Leuven: Peeters, 1996), 61–111.
27 Konrad Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchung zur doppelten Begründung der Ur-
sprünge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments (wmant 81; Neu-
130 römer
kirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1999); cf. further Jürgen Kegler, “Die Berufung des Mose als
Befreier Israels: Zur Einheitlichkeit des Berufungsberichts in Exodus 3–4,” in Freiheit und
Recht: Festschrift für Frank Crüsemann zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Christof Hardmeier, Rainer
Kessler, and Andreas Ruwe; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2003), 162–188.
28 Schmid, Erzväter, 193. For the following arguments, see 193–209.
29 Cf. also the criticism of Schmid’s thesis in Erhard Blum, “Die literarische Verbindung von
Erzvätern und Exodus: Ein Gespräch mit neueren Endredaktionshypothesen,” in Abschied
vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (ed. Jan Christian
Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte; bzaw 315; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 124–127.
30 Berner, Exoduserzählung, 64–65, recently argued against this solution, which has been
presented by Werner H. Schmidt, Exodus 1,1–6,30 (bkat 2.1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirch-
ener, 1974), 79; Alain Le Boulluec and Pierre Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie. 2. L’Exode
(Paris: Cerf, 1989), 87 among many others. His argument of the lectio difficilior is, how-
ever, untenable since the consonantal text does not distinguish between Qal and Nifal.
The Nifal form is more logical if Exod 2:23–25 had preceded Exod 6:2ff., as 6:3 refers to the
yhwh’s revelation to the patriarchs. The Nifal form can be found more often in p-texts like
in Exod 25:22; 29:42; 30:6, 36. The Masoretic vocalisation can explained by the fact that
“durch die Trennung von 62 der Bezugspunkt verlorenging und eine Aussage über Gottes
Offenbarung vor 31 zu früh kommt” (Schmidt, Exodus, 79). Therefore the Masoretes opted
for a Qal and did not understand the end of 2:25 as a transition but as a conclusion.
from the call of moses to the parting of the sea 131
fact—which Schmid does not discuss—that in Exod 3–4 the triad of the patri-
archs often appears in contexts which make literary criticism necessary, it is
hardly conceivable that an author familiar with Exod 2:23–25 would have omit-
ted a reference to the patriarchal berît mentioned in 2:24 when introducing the
land. In fact, the land is reintroduced in Exod 3 without any reference to God’s
promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but rather with phrases known primar-
ily from Deuteronomy and not from Genesis.
The other noted observation cannot prove the post-priestly dating of Exod
3–4 in its entirety, either. Schmid indicates31 that Exod 3–4 already alludes
to the priestly plague narratives and the later text of Num 12 (this narrative,
which is often mentioned as parallel to Moses’ leprous hand, is however not the
most plausible textual referent; we can more likely identify in its background
a reflection of the tradition of Moses as the leader of a group of lepers, as
found in Manetho in the third century bce32). These arguments refer to the
episode of Exod 4:1–17, which actually can readily be considered post-priestly
Fortschreibung, but not to Exod 3*.33
Is it therefore more reasonable to interpret Exod 2:23–25 and 6:2–12 as a
priestly redaction of the older narration of Moses’ commissioning in Exod 3?
As evidence, one could note the inclusion of non-priestly expressions in those
texts. This is, however, only convincing if one presumes that an independent
priestly source had been written without any knowledge of the priestly Exodus
narrative. But the idea of various completely autonomous milieus for the pro-
duction of proto-biblical literature seems unlikely in terms of literary-sociology.
Furthermore, assuming that every part of p has a redactional function, it
remains generally inexplicable that the assertions that differ from, or advance
beyond, Exod 3 were not directly incorporated into the text.
Franck Michaeli, Käre Berge, Konrad Schmid, and others have observed that
Exod 6 and Exod 3 agree in their perceptions that the revelation of yhwh’s
name to Moses is the reason for Israel’s knowledge of God’s name.34 According
to biblical and non-biblical authors, the fact that the knowledge of yhwh’s
name is connected with Moses or rather the Exodus is a solid date in terms
of tradition criticism and tradition history. Had the author of p been working
as a redactor from the outset, he could have inserted his theory of the revelation
into the scene of Moses’ calling in Exod 3 without any difficulties. The idea in
Exod 6:3 that the name yhwh was not known to the patriarchs is more difficult
to explain as a redactional concept than it would be if the Genesis texts that are
traditionally ascribed to pg were considered separately.
Furthermore, the transition from 6:1 to 6:2, which bears difficulties in terms
of style and contents and which some textual witnesses have already tried to
smooth, is difficult to explain assuming a redactor’s work in 6:2 ff. If the author
of 6,2ff. had already seen and read 6:1 on a scroll, he could have spared himself
the writing of an introduction to the speech or could have characterized this
one as a continuation by using a ( עודas in, e.g., Exod 3:15).
Therefore, the comparison of Exod 3 and Exod 6 more likely leads to the
conclusion that Exod 1:13f.; 2:23aß–25; 6:2ff. should be read in a continuous
and coherent context.35 The fact that Moses is not introduced separately can
be explained by the supposition that the author of this context presumed the
knowledge about Moses or a familiarity with some Moses narrative.
35 Thus: [1:13] The Egyptians became ruthless in imposing tasks on the Israelites, [1:14] and
made their lives bitter with hard service in mortar and brick and in every kind of field
labor. They were ruthless in all the tasks that they imposed on them. [2:23*] The Israelites
groaned under their slavery, and cried out. Out of the slavery their cry for help rose up to
God. [2:24] God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob. [2:25] God looked upon the Israelites, and God took notice of them. [6:2]
God also spoke to Moses and said to him: “I am the yhwh. [6:3] I appeared to Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but by my name yhwh I did not make myself known to
them” (adapted from nrsv).
36 Norbert Lohfink, “Die priesterschriftliche Abwertung der Tradition von der Offenbarung
des Jahwenamens an Mose,” Bib 49 (1968): 1–8 (repr. in Norbert Lohfink, Studien zum
Pentateuch [sbab 4; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988], 71–78).
from the call of moses to the parting of the sea 133
The covenant with the patriarchs,37 mentioned in Exod 2:24 and 6:4, actually
becomes the main reason for yhwh’s intervention; the revelation of yhwh’s
name is, however, left to the time of Moses. The apparent three-stage theology
of the revelation of p (God reveals himself to humankind as Elohim in Gen 1, to
Abraham and his descendants as El Shaddai in Gen 17, and to the Israelites via
Moses as yhwh in Exod 638) works better if the p-texts in Genesis and Exodus
are separated from the non-priestly texts. Besides the theological concern of
p, which can be called “inclusive monotheism” and which according to Albert
de Pury contains an ecumenical perspective, Exod 6 literarily emphasizes the
connection between the patriarchs and the exodus.39
Recent research has increasingly interpreted the connection between Gen
17 and Exod 6 in the following way: the literary link of patriarchs and exo-
dus was created by P. Consequently, p would be responsible for the theolog-
ical and literarily associative joining of two originally autonomous traditions
about Israel’s origin. If this thesis were correct, it could also explain why an
autonomous priestly source sometimes appears brief and apparently trun-
cated. This would require its addressees being familiar with the pre-priestly
patriarchal and Moses narratives. Among other things, this narrative connec-
tion would have had to have been dedicated to demonstrating that the patri-
archal and the Exodus traditions belong together theologically and literarily.
However, the thesis identifying p as the creator of the literary connection of
Genesis and Exodus is vehemently doubted, too. For some, this connection
is the work of an exilic (Van Seters, Levin40) or an older (Ludwig Schmidt41)
37 The p-texts of Genesis only explicitly recount a berît for Abraham. Genesis 17:19ff. pre-
sumes that a covenant will be made with Isaac, but it is not mentioned. Is this a stylistic
device or maybe a sign that some p-texts were not incorporated in the process of the com-
pilation of the Pentateuch? For Jacob, one could think of Gen 35:10–13, where Gen 17 is
played upon, although it does not attest the keyword “covenant.”
38 Michaeli, Exode, 67.
39 Albert de Pury, “pg as the Absolute Beginning,” in Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque,
de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque (ed. Thomas Römer and Konrad Schmid; betl 203;
Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 99–128.
40 John Van Seters, “The Patriarchs and the Exodus: Bridging the Gap Between Two Origin
Traditions,” in The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman (ed.
Riemer Roukema; cbet 44, Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 1–15; Christoph Levin, “The Yahwist
and the Redactional Link Between Genesis and Exodus,” in A Farewell to the Yahwist? The
Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (ed. Thomas B. Dozeman
and Konrad Schmid; SBLSymS 34; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 131–141.
41 Ludwig Schmidt, “Die vorpriesterliche Verbindung von Erzväter und Exodus durch die
Josefsgeschichte (Gen 37; 39–50*) und Exodus 1,” zaw 124 (2012): 19–37.
134 römer
2.4 The Meaning of the Land in Exodus 6:2–8 and in the Priestly-Source
Exodus 6:2–8 contains two explicit references to yhwh’s promising the gift of
the land.
v. 4 מִתי ֶאת־ְבּ ִריִתי ִאָתּם ָלֵתת ָלֶהם ֶאת־ֶא ֶרץ ְכּ ָנַען ֵאת ֶא ֶרץ ְמ ֻג ֵריֶהם ֲאֶשׁר־ ָגּרוּ ָבהּ ֹ ְו ַגם ֲהִק
v. 8 אָתהּ ְלַאְב ָרָהם ְל ִיְצָחק וְּל ַיֲעקְֹב
ֹ וֵהֵבאִתי ֶאְתֶכם ֶאל־ָהָא ֶרץ ֲאֶשׁר ָנָש ֹאִתי ֶאת־ ָי ִדי ָלֵתת
אָתהּ ָלֶכם מוֹ ָרָשׁה ֹ ְו ָנַתִתּי
The relevance of the land for p has been interpreted differently within exeget-
ical discourse. For one group, the theme of the land only plays a marginal
role (Noth, Smend45); for others the land represents a primary concern of
the priestly source (Elliger, Klein46). The promise of the land also touches on
the aforementioned discussion about the end of P. David Carr, for example,
מִתי ֶאת־ְבּ ִריִתי ֵבּי ִני וֵּבי ֶנָך וֵּבין ַז ְרֲעָך ַאֲח ֶריָך ֹ ַוֲהִק מִתי ֶאת־ְבּ ִריִתי ִאָתּם ֹ ְו ַגם ֲהִק
ְו ָנַתִתּי ְלָך וְּל ַז ְרֲעָך ַאֲח ֶריָך לֵתת ָלֶהם
ֵאת ֶא ֶרץ ְמ ֻג ֶריָך ֵאת ָכּל־ֶא ֶרץ ְכּ ַנַען ָאת־ֶא ֶרץ ְכּ ָנַען ֶא ֶרץ ְמ ֻג ֵריֶהם ֲאֶשׁר־ ָגּרוּ ָבהּ
ַלֲאֻח ַזּת עוָֹלם
p considered the promise of the land to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as fulfilled,
something Matthias Köckert correctly emphasized48 and the ְו ָנַתִתּיin Gen 17
and לֵתת ָלֶהםin Exod 6:4 prove. According to this, the expression “the land
in which they resided as aliens” does not mean that the land granted to the
patriarchs was something temporary. Should one agree with Köckert, Bauks,
and others that the term אחזהin Gen 17:8 can be understood as “privilege of
use” (Nutzungsrecht),49 the expression explains itself against the backdrop of
Lev 25:23–24: “the land is mine; with me you are but aliens and tenants” (nrsv).
yhwh alone owns the land, but he allows his people to use it in perpetuity. In
contrast to dtr theology, the priestly understanding of the land-grant does not
contain the expulsion of other peoples and does not depend on obedience to
the law.
When the land is mentioned for the second time in 6:8, אֻח ַזּהis substituted
by the expression מוֹ ָרָשׁה. Does this mean that Exod 6:8 represents a different
perspective than 6:4 and that therefore this verse should be assigned to a
47 David M. Carr, “The Moses Story: Literary-Historical Reflections,” HeBAI 1 (2012): 7–36, 27.
48 Matthias Köckert, “ ‘Land’ als theologisches Thema im Alten Testament,” in Ex oriente Lux:
Studien zur Theologie des Alten Testaments. Festschrift für Rüdiger Lux zum 65. Geburstag
(ed. Angelika Berlejung and Raik Heckl; abg 39; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt,
2012), 154. Cf. also Jakob Wöhrle, “The Un-Empty Land: The Concept of Exile and Land
in p,” in The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and its Historical Contexts (ed. Ehud Ben
Zvi and Christoph Levin; bzaw 404; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 196f., who points out that
the p-texts Gen 28:4 and 35:12 presuppose that yhwh renews the land-grant for each
individual patriarch.
49 Michaela Bauks, “Die Begriffe מוֹ ָרָשׁהund ֲאֻח ָזהin pg. Überlegungen zur Landkonzeption in
der Priestergrundschrift,” zaw 116 (2004): 171–188; Nihan, Torah, 66–68.
136 römer
In this way, p would have transferred the promise of land to the ancestors in
Egypt, as recorded in Deut and Ezek, to the patriarchs. This transfer from the
ancestors in Egypt to the patriarchs would have presumably been undertaken
in order to emphasize the connection of the two traditions of Israel’s origin (as
it is also done in Deut 1:8; 30:20 and other verses assigned to the Pentateuch
redaction).
50 Deuteronomy 11:19 adds “their seed”; cf. the tables in Thomas Römer, Israels Väter: Unter-
suchungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition
(obo 99; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 13.
51 נשא ידto describe a gesture of swearing can be seen mostly in Ezek; cf. Römer, Väter, 504–
506, and Johan Lust, Traditie, redactie en kerygma bij Ezechiel: Een analyse van Ez., xx, 1–26
(Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en
Schone Kunsten van België Klasse der Letteren 65; Brussel: Paleis der Academiën, 1969),
218–222.
from the call of moses to the parting of the sea 137
The lexeme מוֹ ָרָשׁהin Exod 6:8, which is not often attested in the hb and
mostly in the book of Ezekiel,52 refers to Ezek 33:24, in which Abraham, having
previously possessed the land, is correlated with the claim to the land of the
population of Judah that was not deported:
ֶאָחד ָה ָיה ַאְב ָרָהם ַו ִיּי ַרשׁ ֶאת־ָהָא ֶרץ ַוֲא ַנְחנוּ ַרִבּים ָלנוּ ִנְתּ ָנה ָהָא ֶרץ ְלמוֹ ָרָשׁה
52 Exodus 6:8; Deut 33:4; Ezek 11:5; 25:4, 10; 33:24; 36:2, 5; see also מורשin Isa 14:23; Obad 17;
Job 17:11.
53 Gosse understands Exod 6:8 to be an answer to Ezek 33:24; see Bernard Gosse, “Exode 6,8
comme réponse à Ezéchiel 33,24,” rhpr 74 (1994): 241–247.
54 Pola, Priesterschrift, 348.
138 römer
55 Rainer Albertz, “The Canonical Alignment of the Book of Joshua,” in Judah and the Judeans
in the Fourth Century b.c.e. (ed. Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Rainer Albertz;
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 287–303.
56 Peter Weimar, Untersuchungen zur priesterschriftlichen Exodusgeschichte (fb 9; Würzburg:
Echter, 1973); Schmidt, Exodus, 280–285; Gertz, Tradition, 245–248, and especially Lust,
Traditie.
57 For this, cf. Römer, Väter, 506–517.
from the call of moses to the parting of the sea 139
Following the priestly introduction of the quarrel between the pharaoh, Moses,
and Aaron in Exod 7:1–7, which presumes and advances the narrative in 6:1–12
(cf. the “mighty acts of judgment” in 6:6 and 7:4), a broad consensus exists
regarding the extent of the priestly narration preserved in Exod 7–9. Priestly
material can be identified in 7:8–13, 19–20a, 21b, 22; 8:1–3, 11aγb, 12–15; 9:8–12,
which most likely comes to an end in 11:10. This verse sums up once more the
wonders of Moses and Aaron, as well as the obstinacy of the pharaoh, which
also fulfills the prediction in 7:4.
According to Kratz, these narratives do not belong to the original priestly
exodus narrative because of the breadth of their presentation and their “con-
currency” with the narration of the parting of the sea.59 A certain randomness
adheres to this argumentation; it is not obvious to me that the narrative mate-
rial about the confrontation with the king of Egypt contradicts the narrative
of the parting of the sea in Exod 14*. Rather, they can best be understood as
transition to this story.
The five scenes, of which the first four can more readily be characterized
as “evidentiary miracles” (Erweiswunder) than as plagues, are constructed in a
parallel way and contain a clearly recognizable line of narration:60 the Egyptian
magicians, who can generally keep up with Moses and Aaron,61 finally have to
admit that the god whom they do not know is stronger than their arts and pow-
ers. The elimination of the Egyptian magical-priests from the core of the narra-
tive, as has been occasionally suggested,62 would render this story superfluous
because, as Gertz has correctly commented, “die priesterliche Plagendarstel-
lung allein von dem Wettstreit mit den Magiern lebt.”63
The five scenes are constructed in a parallel way and can be read as a single
narrative without any problems:
yhwh said:
“Speak to Aaron” 7:9 7:19 8:1 8:12
“Take your staff” 7:9 7:19 8:164 8:12
“Stretch out your hand” 7:19 8:1
Miracle to be executed 7:9 7:19 8:1 8:12 9:8–9
7:1 The yhwh said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh,
and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet. 2 You shall speak all that
I command you, and your brother Aaron shall tell Pharaoh to let the
61 Thus, one should consider (with Berner, Exoduserzählung, 184) whether the statement in
7:12b that emphasizes the superiority of Aaron’s staff should be understood as a gloss.
62 E.g. Christoph Levin, Der Jahwist (frlant 157; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993),
336.
63 Gertz, Tradition, 82 n. 24.
64 “Stretch out you hand with your staff.”
65 The note about the hardening of pharaoh’s heart is missing, probably due to the connec-
tion with the non-priestly v. 11a*.
from the call of moses to the parting of the sea 141
Israelites go out of his land. 3 But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and I will
multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt. 4 When Pharaoh does
not listen to you, I will lay my hand upon Egypt and bring my people the
Israelites, company by company, out of the land of Egypt by great acts of
judgment. 5 The Egyptians shall know that I am yhwh, when I stretch out
my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out from among them.”
6 Moses and Aaron did so; they did just as yhwh commanded them. 7
Moses was eighty years old and Aaron eighty-three when they spoke to
Pharaoh.
(a) 8 yhwh said to Moses and Aaron, 9 “When Pharaoh says to you,
‘Perform a wonder,’ then you shall say to Aaron, ‘Take your staff and throw
it down before Pharaoh, and it will become a snake.’” 10 So Moses and
Aaron went to Pharaoh and did as yhwh had commanded; Aaron threw
down his staff before Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. 11
Then Pharaoh summoned the wise men and the sorcerers; and they also,
the magicians of Egypt, did the same by their secret arts. 12 Each one threw
down his staff, and they became snakes; [but Aaron’s staff swallowed up
theirs]. 13 Still Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he would not listen to
them, as yhwh had said.
(b) 19 yhwh said to Moses, “Say to Aaron, ‘Take your staff and stretch
out your hand over the waters of Egypt—over its rivers, its canals, and
its ponds, and all its pools of water—so that they may become blood;
and there shall be blood throughout the whole land of Egypt, even in
vessels of wood and in vessels of stone.’” 20* Moses and Aaron did just as
yhwh commanded. 21* And there was blood throughout the whole land
of Egypt. 22 But the magicians of Egypt did the same by their secret arts;
so Pharaoh’s heart remained hardened, and he would not listen to them;
as yhwh had said.
(c) 8:1 And yhwh said to Moses, “Say to Aaron, ‘Stretch out your hand
with your staff over the rivers, the canals, and the pools, and make frogs
come up on the land of Egypt.’” 6 So Aaron stretched out his hand over
the waters of Egypt; and the frogs came up and covered the land of Egypt.
7 But the magicians did the same by their secret arts, and brought frogs up
on the land of Egypt. 11* Pharaoh did not listen to them, just as the lord
had said.
(d) 12 Then yhwh said to Moses, “Say to Aaron, ‘Stretch out your staff
and strike the dust of the earth, so that it may become gnats throughout
the whole land of Egypt.’” 13 And they did so; Aaron stretched out his hand
with his staff and struck the dust of the earth, and gnats came on humans
and animals alike; all the dust of the earth turned into gnats throughout
142 römer
the whole land of Egypt. 14 The magicians tried to produce gnats by their
secret arts, but they could not. There were gnats on both humans and
animals. 15 And the magicians said to Pharaoh, “This is the finger of a god!”
But Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, just
as yhwh had said.
(e) 9:8 Then yhwh said to Moses and Aaron, “Take handfuls of soot
from the kiln, and let Moses throw it in the air in the sight of Pharaoh. 9 It
shall become fine dust all over the land of Egypt, and shall cause festering
boils on humans and animals throughout the whole land of Egypt.” 10 So
they took soot from the kiln, and stood before Pharaoh, and Moses threw
it in the air, and it caused festering boils on humans and animals. 11 The
magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils, for the boils
afflicted the magicians as well as all the Egyptians. 12 But yhwh hardened
the heart of Pharaoh, and he would not listen to them, just as yhwh had
spoken to Moses.
11:10 Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh;
but yhwh hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not let the people of
Israel go out of his land.
Christoph Berner also notes this methodical and elaborate structure. He con-
cludes, however, that this does not permit the exegete to identify an author’s
compositional will, “sondern der Fall beweist vielmehr, daß selbst noch so
kleinschrittige Redaktionsprozesse alles andere als willkürlich verlaufen.”66
Here, the methodological question arises as to whether it is more plausible to
attribute a narrative to five or more selectively acting redactors, who were able
to arrive at a surprisingly cogent narrative, rather than to ascribe a coherent
and tension-free story to a single author.
The aforementioned episodes about the quarrel with the Egyptian magical-
priests can be understood as a single narration without any problem.67 In my
opinion, its intention and objective become more obvious if you read these
scenes in succession, which would contradict the supposition that these pas-
sages can be ascribed to one (Van Seters68) or several (Berner) priestly redac-
tions. It is indeed quite astounding that redactors editing an older text would do
this in such a way that their insertions into the text produce an independently
sensible context. When considering the dtr redactions in the Former Prophets,
we can see that this is not correct. The narrations about the dispute suitably
match the priestly context in terms of contents and theology.
In Exod 7:1 yhwh appoints Moses as “elohim,” in contradistinction to the
“divine” pharaoh, and Aaron as his prophet, who therefore equals the Egyptian
magical-priests. This matches the constellation of the narrative about the dis-
pute. After the Egyptian magicians fail to keep up in the fourth round, Aaron
also takes a step back in the final scene;69 now it is Moses who uses soot from
a kiln to produce abscesses that affect all of the Egyptians, even the magi-
cians, as explicitly stated. If it were true that the plague of the killing of the
first-born (Exod 12) was not recounted in pg,70 one might identify the end of
the original priestly cycle of plagues in 9:8–12. Then the mighty acts of judg-
ment announced in 7:4 would refer to this scene. This question shall however
remain unanswered at this point. The explicit declaration in 9:12 that yhwh
can harden pharaoh’s heart can be understood as the fulfillment of Exod 7:3
and transition to 11:10 and 14:4, 8.
In the fourth scene the magician-priests admit their inefficacy with the state-
ment: “this is the finger of (a) God” (8:15). This widely-discussed expression71
probably refers primarily to Aaron’s staff; it might, however, also be explained in
the priestly context as an allusion to Moses’ elohim-role in Exod 7:1. The excla-
mation of the Egyptian magicians should also be understood in the context of
the priestly revelation-theology, according to which yhwh is only available as
elohim to the all peoples who cannot claim Abraham as their ancestor.
The priestly narrative in Exod 7–9* therefore fits the context of Ex 6–7*
and 14*, but also has a certain characteristic profile. Consequently, one might
ask whether p possessed a written Vorlage or knew oral tradition, a question
that is not broadly discussed in contemporary research. Such a Vorlage is
sometimes believed to have existed for the priestly account of creation in
69 Cf. also Michaela Bauks, “Das Dämonische im Menschen: Einige Anmerkungen zur pries-
terschriftlichen Theologie (Ex 7–14),” in Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-
jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt (Demons: The Demonology
of Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian Literature in Context of their Environment) (ed. Armin
Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and K.F. Diethard Römheld; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2003), 244–245.
70 Cf. Jean-Louis Ska, “La sortie d’Egypte (Ex 7–14) dans le récit sacerdotal et la tradition
prophétique,” Bib 60 (1979): 191–215.
71 Bernard Couroyer, “Le ‘doigt de Dieu’ (Exode, viii, 15),” rb 63 (1956): 481–495.
144 römer
Gen 1;72 for Exod 7–9, Blum recalled Reindl’s thesis that, in this case, we find
a narrative from the Egyptian diaspora that sought to depict yhwh’s and
his servants’ superiority vis-à-vis the Egyptian magicians.73 The parallels with
Egyptian magical fairy-tales and also the expression ֲח ְרֻטִמּים, which appears in
the fifth scene (7:22; 8:3, 14–15; 9:22) and apparently is an Egyptian loanword
which only appears in the hb in contexts of the diaspora (Gen 41:8, 24 and Dan
1:20; 2:2), could speak in favor of such a hypothesis. It remains questionable,
however, to what extent such a Vorlage could be literarily reconstructed if Exod
7–9* p requires the context of Exod 1–15. Nevertheless, the question of possible
sources or Vorlagen for p should not be neglected.
The priestly version of the parting of the sea in Exod 14 confirms the exam-
ination of Exod 7–9*. The analysis of this text, which has traditionally been
regarded as an exemplary text for source criticism, has achieved a broad con-
sensus regarding the determination of the priestly elements, just as in Exod
7–9*. The question as to what extent traces of Fortschreibungen can be identi-
fied within the p portions74 will not be discussed here. It is, however, notable
that the parts that had been identified as p (here, I am relying roughly on Levin’s
reconstruction) fit into a coherent narrative:
14:1 Then yhwh said to Moses: 2* Tell the Israelites to turn back and
camp in front of Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, in front of
Baal-zephon. 3 Pharaoh will say of the Israelites, “They are wandering
aimlessly in the land; the wilderness has closed in on them.” 4 I will harden
Pharaoh’s heart, and he will pursue them, so that I will gain glory for
myself over Pharaoh and all his army; and the Egyptians shall know that
I am yhwh. And they did so. 8 yhwh hardened the heart of Pharaoh
king of Egypt and he pursued the Israelites, who went out with hands
72 See on this question also Jürg Hutzli, “Tradition and Interpretation in Gen 1:1–2:4a,” jhs
10/12 (2010): 1–22.
73 Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, 252; Joseph Reindl, “Der Finger Gottes
und die Macht der Götter. Ein Problem des ägyptischen Diasporajudentums und sein
literarischer Niederschlag,” in Dienst der Vermittlung: Festschrift Priesterseminar Erfurt (ed.
Wilhelm Ernst, Konrad Feiereis, and Fritz Hoffmann; Erfurter Theologische Studien 37;
Leipzig: St. Benno Verlag, 1977), 49–60.
74 Cf., e.g., Levin, Jahwist, 345.
from the call of moses to the parting of the sea 145
raised. 9 The Egyptians pursued them, all Pharaoh’s horses and chariots,
his chariot drivers and his army; they overtook them camped by the sea,
by Pi-hahiroth, in front of Baal-zephon. 10a As Pharaoh drew near, the
Israelites looked back, and there were the Egyptians advancing on them.
15* Then yhwh said to Moses, “Tell the Israelites to go forward. 16* But
you stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it, that the Israelites
may go into the sea on dry ground. 17 Then I will harden the hearts of
the Egyptians so that they will go in after them; and so I will gain glory
for myself over Pharaoh and all his army, his chariots, and his chariot
drivers. 18 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the lord, when I
have gained glory for myself over Pharaoh, his chariots, and his chariot
drivers.” 21a* Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea. 21b And the
waters were divided. 22 The Israelites went into the sea on dry ground,
the waters forming a wall for them on their right and on their left. 23
The Egyptians pursued, and went into the sea after them, all of Pharaoh’s
horses, chariots, and chariot drivers.
26 Then yhwh said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand over the sea, so
that the water may come back upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots
and chariot drivers.” 27a So Moses stretched out his hand over the sea. 28
The waters returned and covered the chariots and the chariot drivers, the
entire army of Pharaoh that had followed them into the sea; not one of
them remained. 29 But the Israelites walked on dry ground through the
sea, the waters forming a wall for them on their right and on their left.
The repetitions within the priestly narrative that have sometimes been crit-
icized do not necessarily have to be categorized into various layers; a sim-
ilar redundancy can also be found in Gen 17. Furthermore, Thomas Krüger
commented correctly that three scenes can be differentiated in the priestly
narration of Exod 14: “Mit der wiederholten Ankündigung und Ausführung in
14,*1–10.*15–23 und *26–29 demonstriert sie [= p] die souveräne Lenkung des
Geschehens durch Jahwe.”75 In contrast to the pre-priestly version (j or d), the
priestly depiction of the parting of the sea is deliberately constructed as a myth.
Ernst Axel Knauf correctly states that “für p ist der Durchzug durch das Meer
kein geschichtlicher, sondern ein ur-geschichtlicher, ein mythischer Sachver-
halt. In ihm kommt die Schöpfung Israels … zum Abschluss.”76 At this point a
literary observation also becomes relevant. In the same way that Exod 6 delib-
erately refers back to Gen 17, Exod 14 p obviously casts a line back to Gen 1 (and
also to Gen 7–8 p), and thereby draws a parallel between the creation of the
world and the creation of Israel:77 in this way ַה ַיָּבָּשׁהappears in Exod 14:16, 22,
and 29 and in Gen 1:9–10, where the dry land builds the necessary basis for the
life-forms about to be created. Also the expression ְבּתוְֹך ַה ָיּםin Exod 14:16, 22–23,
27,78 and 29 reminds the reader of בּתוְֹך ַהָמּ ִיםin Gen 1:6 where the firmament
appears in the middle of the water. The parting of the sea ( )בקעin Exod 14:21
reminds the reader of the parting of the deep in Gen 1:6 (there however with
;)בדלthe root appears in Gen 7:11 where the wells of the deep open up. As in Gen
1, in which God’s word is the primary agent of creation, yhwh’s word in Exod
14 p is the reason for Israel’s being able to march through the parted sea. In this
way, with the help of Exod 14, p accomplishes a theological and literary inclusio
with Gen 1. The textual hinges of Gen 1:17; Exod 6; and 14 underscore the con-
nection of the proto-history, the patriarchs, and the exodus. The creation of the
world fulfills a double objective for p: the “birth” of Israel as yhwh’s people in
Exod 14, and the erection of the tabernacle in the desert as a place of encounter
between yhwh and Israel in Exod 25–31* and 35–40* (in these chapters the
allusions to Gen 1:1–2:3 are obvious as well).
5 Conclusion
This analysis of Exod 6:7–9 and 14 demonstrated that these texts belonged to
what was originally an autonomous priestly-source. By clearly referring back
to Gen 1 and Gen 17, they create a strong connection to the traditions of The
book of Genesis and thereby design a proto-history consisting of three parts.
Exodus 6 can be more readily understood as an independent version of Moses’
calling in Exod 3 than as its redaction. Exod 7–9 and 14 p can be read and
understood more easily when connected to each other than in their current
literary context; this datum also favors the assumption of an originally inde-
pendent document. Proponents of redaction-historical hypotheses, however,
are right when they say that p’s narrative strand cannot be reconstructed in
its entirety. This means that in all likelihood not all texts were kept when the
priestly source was edited. The idea that literary criticism can reconstruct every
source and older tradition word for word is based on the anachronistic assump-
tion that these texts possessed a kind of canonical status from the time of their
initial composition. The fact that the authors of p were familiar with the non-
p traditions and even sometimes inserted something or reinterpreted does not
necessarily prove redaction-critically oriented models; as Knauf informally, but
correctly, noted: “Im kleinen Kreis der Jerusalemer Elite, der beide Versionen
entstammen, kannte man sich, war verwandt und verschwägert.”79 Ehud Ben
Zvi goes even further with his postulation of a group of literati in the temple of
Jerusalem in the Persian period that undertook the maintenance and editing of
most of the proto-biblical writing and that was capable of imitating and mixing
various styles and ideas.80 This assumption does not do justice to the complex
structure of the texts, though it can be understood as a warning not to multiply
the redactors and tradents ad infinitum. It is, for example, probable that the
tradents of p were also involved in the process of editing the Ezekiel scroll and
were familiar with other non-priestly scrolls. The compilation and promulga-
tion of the Pentateuch is possibly the best example for the close collaboration
of the presumably small, intellectual groups that consisted of priests and other
members of the Judean (and Samaritan) elite.
Select Bibliography
Albertz, Rainer. “The Canonical Alignment of the Book of Joshua.” Pages 287–303 in
Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century b.c.e. Edited by Oded Lipschits, Gary
N. Knoppers, and Rainer Albertz. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007.
Bauks, Michaela. “Das Dämonische im Menschen: Einige Anmerkungen zur priester-
schriftlichen Theologie (Ex 7–14).” Pages 239–253 in Die Dämonen: Die Dämonolo-
gie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt
(Demons: The Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian Literature in Con-
text of their Environment). Edited by Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and
K.F. Diethard Römheld. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
Berge, Käre. Reading Sources in a Text: Coherence and Literary Criticism in the Call of
Moses: Models, Methods, Micro-Analysis. Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten
Testament 54. St. Ottilien: eos Verlag, 1997.
Berner, Christoph. Die Exoduserzählung: Das literarische Werden einer Ursprungsle-
gende Israels. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 73. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.
Blum, Erhard. “Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus: Ein Gespräch
mit neueren Endredaktionshypothesen.” Pages 119–156 in Abschied vom Jahwisten:
Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion. Edited by Jan Christian
Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttesta-
mentliche Wissenschaft 315. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002.
. Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttes-
tamentliche Wissenschaft 189. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990.
Carr, David M. “The Moses Story: Literary-Historical Reflections.” Hebrew Bible and
Ancient Israel 1 (2012): 7–36.
. “What Is Required to Identify Pre-Priestly Narrative Connections between
Genesis and Exodus? Some General Reflections and Specific Cases.” Pages 159–180
in A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European
Interpretation. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid. Society of Bibli-
cal Literature Symposium Series 34. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006.
Fischer, Georg. “Keine Priesterschrift in Ex 1–15?” Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie
117 (1995): 203–211. Reprinted from pages 128–137 in Fischer, Die Anfänge der Bibel.
Studien zu Genesis und Exodus. Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände Altes Testament
49. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2011.
. “Zur Lage der Pentateuchforschung.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wis-
senschaft 115 (2003): 283–292.
Gertz, Jan Christian. Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung. Untersuchungen
zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten
und Neuen Testaments 186. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999.
Gosse, Bernard. “Exode 6,8 comme réponse à Ezéchiel 33,24.” Revue d’Histoire et de
Philosophie Religieuses 74 (1994): 241–247.
Kegler, Jürgen. “Die Berufung des Mose als Befreier Israels: Zur Einheitlichkeit des
Berufungsberichts in Exodus 3–4.” Pages 162–188 in Freiheit und Recht: Festschrift für
Frank Crüsemann zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Christof Hardmeier, Rainer Kessler,
and Andreas Ruwe. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2003.
Knauf, Ernst Axel. “Der Exodus zwischen Mythos und Geschichte: Zur priesterschrift-
lichen Rezeption der Schilfmeer-Geschichte in Ex 14.” Pages 73–84 in Schriftausle-
gung in der Schrift: Festschrift für Odil Hannes Steck zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Edited
by Reinhard G. Kratz, Thomas Krüger, and Konrad Schmid. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000.
Köckert, Matthias. “ ‘Land’ als theologisches Thema im Alten Testament.” Pages 503–522
in Ex oriente Lux: Studien zur Theologie des Alten Testaments. Festschrift für Rüdiger
from the call of moses to the parting of the sea 149
Lux zum 65. Geburstag. Edited by Angelika Berlejung and Raik Heckl. Arbeiten zur
Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 39. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012.
Kohata, Fujiko. Jahwist und Priesterschrift in Exodus 3–14. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 166. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1986.
Kratz, Reinhard G. Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments:
Grundwissen der Bibelkritik. Uni-Taschenbücher 2157. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2000.
Krüger, Thomas. “Erwägungen zur Redaktion der Meerwundererzählung (Exodus
13,17–14,31).” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 108 (1996): 519–533.
Le Boulluec, Alain, and Pierre Sandevoir. La Bible d’Alexandrie. 2. L’Exode. Paris: Cerf,
1989.
Levin, Christoph. Der Jahwist. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und
Neuen Testaments 157. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993.
Lust, Johan. Traditie, redactie en kerygma bij Ezechiel: Een analyse van Ez., xx, 1–26. Ver-
handelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren
en Schone Kunsten van België Klasse der Letteren 65. Brussel: Paleis der Academiën,
1969.
Michaeli, Franck. Le livre de l’Exode. Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament 2. Neuchâtel:
Delachaux et Niestlé, 1974.
Otto, Eckart. “Die nachpriesterliche Pentateuchredaktion im Buch Exodus.” Pages 61–
111 in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction—Reception—Interpretation. Edited by
Marc Vervenne. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 126. Leu-
ven: Peeters, 1996.
Pola, Thomas. Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift: Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und
Traditionsgeschichte von pg. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und
Neuen Testament 70. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1995.
Reindl, Joseph. “Der Finger Gottes und die Macht der Götter: Ein Problem des ägyptis-
chen Diasporajudentums und sein literarischer Niederschlag.” Pages 49–60 in Dienst
der Vermittlung: Festschrift Priesterseminar Erfurt. Edited by Wilhelm Ernst, Konrad
Feiereis, and Fritz Hoffmann. Erfurter Theologische Studien 37. Leipzig: St. Benno
Verlag, 1977.
Römer, Thomas. Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium
und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 99. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990.
Schmid, Konrad. Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchung zur doppelten Begründung der
Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments. Wissen-
schaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 81. Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 1999.
Schmidt, Werner H. Exodus 1,1–6,30. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament 2.1. Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1974.
150 römer
Ska, Jean-Louis. “La sortie d’Egypte (Ex 7–14) dans le récit sacerdotal et la tradition
prophétique.” Biblica 60 (1979): 191–215.
Ska, Jean-Louis. Le passage de la mer: Etude sur la construction du style et de la symbol-
ique d’Ex 14,1–31. Analecta biblica 109. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1986.
Van Seters, John. “A Contest of Magicians? The Plague Stories in P.” Pages 569–580 in
Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual,
Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited by David P. Wright, David Noel
Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995.
Weimar, Peter. Untersuchungen zur priesterschriftlichen Exodusgeschichte. Forschung
zur Bibel 9. Würzburg: Echter, 1973.
Wöhrle, Jakob. “The Un-Empty Land: The Concept of Exile and Land in P.” Pages 189–
206 in The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and its Historical Contexts. Edited by
Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 404. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010.
Wilderness Material in Exodus (Exodus 15–18)
Rainer Albertz
Most scholars define the limits of the wilderness stories from Exod 15:22 to
18:27,1 as seems to be suggested also by the editors of the present volume.
This division has to do with, on the one hand, the fact that the long Song of
Moses (15:1–18) accompanied by the short Song of Miriam (15:21) together, at the
beginning of the unit, constitute a heavy compositional marker that interrupts
the narrative flow and seems to conclude the entire process of Israel’s liberation
from Egypt in the first part of the book (Exod 1:1–14:31). On the other hand, it
takes into consideration that Exod 19:1, at the end of the unit, begins the story
of yhwh’s revelation on Mount Sinai, something which paves the way for all
of the legislation and establishment of the sanctuary in the second part of the
book (19–40). Despite these observations, however, the limits of the unit are not
certain.
As far as its beginning is concerned, the statement “Then Moses made the
Israelites set out from the Reed Sea and they went into the wilderness of Shur”
(Exod 15:22) does not set a clear compositional marker for a new period of
Israel’s existence, even less so since 13:20 had already indicated that the people
1 See e.g. Bruno Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri (hat 1.2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-
precht, 1903), 138; Martin Noth, Das zweite Buch Mose: Exodus (4th ed.; atd 5; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968), 101; Brevard S. Childs, Exodus: A Commentary (otl; London:
scm Press, 1974), 254; William H.C. Propp, Exodus 1–18 (ab 2; New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1999), 572; Thomas B. Dozeman, Commentary on Exodus (ecc; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2009), 347.
In its present form, the unit of Exod 15:22–18:27 not only shows blurred limits,
it also has no clear structure. Aaron Schart attempted to argue for a type of
2 See George W. Coats, “An Exposition for the Wilderness Traditions,” vt 22 (1972): 288–295.
3 Aaron Schart, Mose und Israel im Konflikt: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Wüsten-
erzählungen (obo 98; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 38–44, is one of the few
interpreters who explicitly addresses the differing limits of the unit, but does not offer an
explanation.
wilderness material in exodus (exodus 15–18) 153
ring composition;4 but he has conceded that the element “gift of water,” which
appears in 15:22–25a and 17:1–7, does not enclose the entire unit. And one may
ask whether the passages 16:16–36 and 17:8–16 are functioning in parallel with
the labels “discovery of the Sabbath” and “discovery of Amalek’s enmity” as he
argued. “Sabbath” and “enmity” belong to different categories, and according
to 17:8–16 Israel did not “discover” Amalek’s enmity but was confronted with
it. The closest parallels can be drawn between the two narratives in which
Israel is saved from the distress of thirst: the Marah story in 15:22–26 and the
Massah-Meribah story in 17:1–7. Both show a similar structure (depiction of
the distress, Israel’s protest against Moses, Moses’ complaint to yhwh, and
yhwh’s instruction for salvation) and share the same murmuring motif (lôn:
15:25; 17:3). Next to these, the Manna and Quail story Exod 16, or at least its first
part (16:1–15) also deals with Israel’s salvation from the distress of hunger and
contains the murmuring motif (16:2–3). The structure of the narrative, however,
varies slightly from the others: Moses does not complain to yhwh but trusts in
his attendance and salvation (vv. 6–7); further, much more prominently than
in 17:6 this story contains an explicit theophany (16:9–10). In any case, the
three narratives about Israel’s salvation from natural distress—Exod 15:22–26,
16:1–36, and 17:1–7—form a kind of triptych within the broader unit. Only the
notice that Israel found a wonderful oasis in Elim with plenty of water and fruits
(15:27) contrasts to the stories about distress from thirst. The notice of the oasis
at Elim, however, does not really fit the Manna story, even though this story too
aims to highlight the people’s continuous feeding in the wilderness, wherever
they traveled.
The theme of conflict and testing is also developed in the three stories of
distress. The Israelites increasingly protest against Moses. The motif of protest
can be detected already in their worried question (15:24), it continues with a
bitter accusation (16:3) and it cumulates in an open revolt against him (17:3–4)
and a test (niśśâ) about yhwh’s presence with his people (v. 7). Interestingly
enough, the motif of a test is already introduced in Exod 15:25b–26 and 16:3–4,
28–29, but there it is understood in the different way in that yhwh intended to
test Israel’s readiness to obey his statues and ordinances, demonstrated with
respect to the Sabbath commandment. Thus the basic structure of distress
and salvation is overlaid with the topic of educating and examining Israel,
emphasizing throughout the importance of law.
Furthermore, the story of Manna and Quail departs from the basic structure
of distress and salvation, since it describes in its second part (Exod 16:16–36)
how God’s wise distribution of Manna has led Israel to the discovery of the
Sabbath. This focus on ritual is completely isolated within 15:22–18:27; its clos-
est parallels can be found beyond the unit, in the divine implementation of
the domestic Passover ritual (12:1–13) and Miriam’s first praise of God (15:19–
21). Thus the entire story of Exod 16 belongs to a much wider literary context,
which includes rituals that functions separately from the sanctuary.
The narrative about the battle against the Amalekites (Exod 17:8–16) is also
rather isolated from the stories of distress. Although it is connected to the
setting of the Massah-Meribah story (cf. Rephidim in vv. 1, 8), it follows a
different structure (Moses performs a magical rite in cooperation with other
leaders) and deals with a different form of distress, that of a military threat.5
With Exod 18 there is a superficial connection in that Jethro also represents a
stranger, but in this case he is not an enemy, like the Amelekites, but is a good
friend of Israel.6 The sudden attack of the Amalekites does, however, have a
material parallel with the surprising attack of the Egyptian chariot army, as
told in the story of the conflict at the Reed Sea (14:1–31). Of course, there are
also many differences. In Exod 14, Israel is saved from the military threat by
a strong divine intervention; in 17:8–16, God, Moses, and Israel cooperate to
bring about deliverance. But such a different presentation of the two battles
may be deliberate. Thus, when one begins the wilderness narratives at the
earliest possible place, where the motif of the wilderness is initially introduced
in Exod 13:17, a compelling structure emerges, in which two stories about Israel’s
salvation from a military threat (14:1–31; 17:8–16) frame two or three stories
about its salvation from a natural distress (15:22–25a; 16:1–15 [, 16–36]; 17:1–7).
The last chapter, Exod 18, has virtually nothing to do with the former wilder-
ness narratives. Jethro’s visit to Moses, his praise, and confession in its first
part (vv. 1–12) look back at the entire process of Israel’s liberation and men-
tions the “hardship” of the wanderings only incidentally (v. 8). The second part
of the chapter (vv. 13–27), where Jethro advised and relieved Moses from the
responsibilities of the daily judicial office in order to give him more time for
mediating and teaching the divine law, already points to the revelation of law
5 Exodus 17:8–16 appears to be so strange among the wilderness narratives that the recent
investigation of Christian Kupfer, Mit Israel auf dem Weg durch die Wüste: Eine leserorientierte
Exegese der Rebellionstexte in Exodus 15:22–17:7 and Numeri 11:1–20:13 (ots 61; Leiden: Brill,
2012), excludes it.
6 So already Schart, Mose, 200–201. Schart draws a parallel between Exod 17:12 and 18:18 because
Moses would be relieved from a difficult task in both cases; however, although the same
adjective kābed “heavy” is used in both verses, the meaning and the situation are too different
to be compelling.
wilderness material in exodus (exodus 15–18) 155
on Mount Sinai. Although the chapter is located in the wilderness (v. 5), it is
not included among the itinerary notes that connect all the other wilderness
material together like a chain (13:20; 15:22, 27; 16:1; 17:1; 19:1–2).
3 Literary Assignments
The uncertain limits and the inconsistent structure of the present form of Exod
15:22–18:27 point to a long formation of the wilderness material, which included
divergent editions. Nearly all inconsistencies mentioned above can be suffi-
ciently explained by way of a diachronic literary analysis. Source Theory has
already shown that those narratives, which belong close together, the Marah
story (15:22–25a), the Massah-Meribah story (17:1b–7*), and the Amalek story
(17:8–16*), are more or less part of the same non- and pre-priestly literary layer
that has traditionally been identified with the Jahwist.7 There also seems to be a
consensus that most of the Manna and Quail story in Exod 16 belongs primarily
to the priestly source (p), since there is strong evidence that a story of salvation
in the wilderness has been converted into a foundational myth for the Sab-
bath. Since Thomas Dozeman and others have shown that most of the itinerary
notes do not belong to p as Noth believed,8 but to those non-priestly narratives
that they introduce or conclude (so 13:20; 15:22, 27; 16aα; 17:1b; 19:2aα),9 the liter-
ary assignments become even less complicated. Only in 16:1aβb and 17:1a does
the priestly redactor add an excursion to the desert of Sin—explicitly located
“between Elim and Sinai”—in order to create a space in which he could insert
his Manna story into the non-priestly context. Originally, the wanderings led
Israel directly from Elim (16:1aα) to Rephidim (17:1b). This insight has impor-
tant consequences. First, the Manna-Sabbath story in Exod 16 is most likely a
7 See for many for example Noth, Exodus, 101–113, and Childs, Exodus, 266–312.
8 See Noth, Exodus, 101, 110–111; he was almost followed by Volkmar Fritz, Israel in der Wüste:
Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der Wüstenüberlieferung des Jahwisten (MThSt 7; Mar-
burg: Elwert, 1970), 8–10; George W. Coats, Rebellion in the Wilderness: The Murmuring Motif in
the Wilderness Traditions of the Old Testament (Nashville, tn: Abingdon, 1968), 47, 53, 83; and
Coats, “The Wilderness Itinerary,” cbq 34 (1972): 135–152, esp. 142–147, although he acknowl-
edges some difficulties.
9 See Thomas B. Dozeman, “The Priestly Wilderness Itineraries and the Composition of the
Pentateuch,” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (ed. Thomas
B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz; fat 78; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011),
257–288, esp. 260–273. A decisive insight in this direction was already made by Ludwig
Schmidt, “Die Priesterschrift in Exodus 16,” zaw 119 (2007): 483–498, esp. 484–486.
156 albertz
creation of P. Second, it is written for its present context.10 Third, if there had
been an older non-priestly variant of the Manna-Sabbath story, it would never
have been a part of the book of Exodus. Although the priestly author may have
used a non-priestly Vorlage of the Manna and Quail story for the first part of his
narrative (vv. 1–15),11 it can no longer be reconstructed as is evident from the
diverging results of former attempts.12 This insight corresponds nicely with the
research of Eberhard Ruprecht and Aaron Schart, who conclude that the verses
of the chapter which reflect non-priestly language (vv. 4–5, 28–29) belong to a
post-priestly layer of a Dtr. shape. Similar motifs also appear in the addition
to the Marah story (15:25b–26).13 These motifs can be assigned to the Malʾak
redaction identified by Erhard Blum,14 which are part of a late editing of the
wilderness material.
Following Blum, I think that the Massah-Meribah story (Exod 17:1b–7*) most
likely constitutes a literary unity; its problems of coherence seem to derive from
the fact that the author reworked a more positive Meribah story for depicting
the first revolt against Moses.15 Concerning Exod 18, however, we have to depart
from the Source Theory, which often assigned the chapter more or less to
the Elohist.16 Several more recent studies have shown that the chapter has
a compositional function of concluding the first half of the book of Exodus
dealing with Israel’s liberation from Egypt (Exod 1–17) and leads to the second
10 Pace Joel S. Baden, “The Original Place of the Priestly Manna Story in Exodus 16,” zaw 122
(2010): 491–504, who suggests the original place of the story somewhere else.
11 Cf. the non-priestly variant in Num 11:4–35, which presuppose, however, the priestly story
of Exod 16.
12 Cf. only the diverging results of Childs, Exodus, 275; Paul Maiberger, Das Manna: Eine liter-
arische, etymologische und naturkundliche Untersuchung (2 vols.; äat 6/1–2; Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 1983), 1:140; Propp, Exodus 1–18, 588; David Frankel, The Murmuring Stories
of the Priestly School: A Retrieval of Ancient Sacerdotal Lore (VTSup 89; Leiden: Brill, 2002),
73–90, 324–329; Dozeman, Exodus, 363.
13 Eberhard Ruprecht, “Stellung und Bedeutung der Erzählung vom Mannawunder (Ex 16)
im Aufbau der Priesterschrift,” zaw 86 (1974): 257–307, esp. 271–291; Schart, Mose, 132,
181–183, followed by Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (bzaw 189;
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 144–148, and Rainer Albertz, Exodus, Band i: Ex 1–18 (zbkat 2.1;
Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2012), 161–164.
14 See Blum, Studien, 365–378; for the reasons see Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 262.
15 See Blum, Studien, 148–152, and Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 284.
16 Cf. e.g. Noth, Exodus, 117 (“Sondergut von e”); Fritz, Israel, 13–14; Childs, Exodus, 321;
Propp, Exodus 1–18, 627. There was always the problem that Exod 18:3 cites 2:22, a verse
traditionally assigned to j, while 18:3–4 contradicts 2:22; 4:20, 24–26 with regard to the
number of Moses’ sons and Zipporah’s dismissal.
wilderness material in exodus (exodus 15–18) 157
part of the book dealing with the revelations on Mount Sinai (19–40).17 Since
the chapter is not integrated into the priestly itineraries (17:1a; 19:1, 2aβ), it
seems to be added at a post-priestly stage of text formation. There are many
reasons for assigning this chapter to the late Hexateuchal redaction, which
intended to provide Israel’s foundation story with a better structure in many
places (e.g. Gen 50:24–26; Exod 1:1b, 5b–6, 8; Josh 24); similar compositional
devices include the introduction to the wilderness period (Exod 13:17–19) and
Moses’ hymn (15:1–18), which likely derive from the same author.18
In my view, the first author, who composed the sequence of wilderness sto-
ries, was the redactor of the Exodus Composition (rEX). This author, conceptu-
alizing Israel’s past as a history of liberation, covenant, apostasy, and restoration
of the covenant (Exod 1:9–34:32*), seems to have worked in the later exilic
period (around 540bce).19 In creating his composition from older materials,
he connected the Plague-Exodus story (7:14–12:39*) to the wilderness by the
means of the itinerary notes 12:37 and 13:20; he also introduced reflection on
the divine guidance through the wilderness (13:21–22) and a version of the Reed
Sea story (14:5–30*).20 Thus, according to this version of the story, once the
Israelites are released from Egypt, they travel directly to the edge of the desert
(13:20), where they are confronted one last time by an attack of the Egyptian
power. According to rEX the events at the Reed Sea already took place in the
wilderness outside Egypt (14:11, 12). According to this version, the Reed Sea story
17 See Blum, Studien, 153–163; Eugen Carpenter, “Exodus 18: Its Structure, Style, Motifs,
and Function in the Book of Exodus,” in A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form,
and Content: Essays in Honor of George W. Coats (ed. Carpenter; JSOTSup 240; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 91–108; Volker Haarmann, jhwh-Verehrer der Völker:
Die Hinwendung von Nichtisraeliten zum Gott Israels in alttestamentlichen Überlieferungen
(atant 91; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2008), 59–99.
18 Cf. for instance the very special references to “the God of Moses’ father” in Exod 3:6a; 15:2;
18:4, see Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 24–25, 42–43, 73–75, 234–236, 299–301, 314; Albertz, “Das
Buch Numeri jenseits der Quellentheorie: Eine Redaktionsgeschichte von Num 20–24,”
zaw 123 (2011): 171–183, 336–347, esp. 340–344.
19 See Rainer Albertz, “The Late Exilic Book of Exodus (Exodus 1–34*): A Contribution to
the Pentateuchal Discussion,” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current
Research (ed. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz; fat 78;
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 243–256. For detailed reasons on the literary assignments,
see Albertz, Exodus 1–18.
20 Because of the relocation of the Reed Sea story by the priestly editor in Exod 14:1–4,
there is a locale gap between the non-priestly itinerary notes Exod 13:20 and 15:22. The
Hexateuchal redactor, however, later clarified in 13:18 and 15:4 that the Egyptian attack
took place at the Reed Sea.
158 albertz
21 Wherever the places Pi-hahirot, Migdol, and Baal-Zephon are to be located, to which the
Israelites should “turn back” (according to Exod 14:2), at least Migdol seems to have been
an Egyptian city (Jer 44:1; 46:14; Ezek 20:10; 30:6) during the 6th century bce.
22 See Dozeman, “Itineraries,” 263–265, who refers to Childs, Exodus, 222–223.
23 The priestly Manna and Quail story was further amplified by a later priestly editor (pb3)
in Exod 16:8, 31–34, and 35b–36, and reworked by the Malʾak redactor in vv. 4–5, 28–29; for
details see Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 262–264.
24 The d probably also inserted Exod 17:14 with reference to Deut 25:17–19 and Num 21:14; for
details see Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 23, 283–284.
wilderness material in exodus (exodus 15–18) 159
4 A Wilderness Tradition?
When the rEX composed Israel’s wanderings from Egypt to Mount Sinai, it
seems that he has taken up three local traditions that are tied to water locations
in the desert; these are the bitter or unhealthy water in Marah (Exod 15:23–25a),
the oasis Elim (15:27), and the water from the rock in Massah-Meribah (17:1bβ,
3a, 4a, 5–6*). The first two cannot be located; the rEX associated them with
the desert of Shur, possibly a region in the northern Sinai east of Egypt (cf.
Gen 16:7; 20:1; 25:18; 1Sam 15:7). The last one can be connected with the area
of the well-known place Kadesh in the northwestern Negeb, as the existence
of the name Meribat-Kadesh (Num 27:14; Deut 32:51; Ezek 47:19; 48:28) verifies;
in this area several wells are known. Massah, which means “test, temptation,”
25 The compositional marker of Exod 15:1–21 is so impressive that Helmut Utzschneider and
Wolfgang Oswald, Exodus 1–15 (iekat; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2013) allowed it to mark
the end of the first volume of their commentary. Therefore, possible connections between
Exod 13–18 are not yet reflected by these authors.
160 albertz
seems to be, however, rather a symbolic name created by the rEX in order to
emphasize his critical view of the event at that location.26 Whether each of
those locations was already connected with Israel’s past or only related to it by
the rEX is difficult to decide. In any case, there is no doubt that the rEX created
the first sequence of stopovers as part of Israel’s wanderings from Egypt to
Mount Sinai. Also, the story about the battle against the Amalekites (17:8–16*)
seems to have derived from a local tradition,27 though its location cannot be
determined.
Long ago, Martin Noth stated that the topic of “divine guidance in the
wilderness” belonged to the main basic themes of the Pentateuch, next to the
topics of “exodus from Egypt” and “immigration into the Promised Land.”28
This statement, however, has become dubious. On the one hand, none of the
wilderness stories of the Pentateuch seems to be known by the prophets of
the 8th and 7th centuries; allusions to them can only be found in post-exilic
passages (Ps 81:8; 95:8–9; 105:40; 106:14–15, 28–29). On the other hand, the
prophets Hosea (2:15, 16–17; 9:10; 13:4–5), Jeremiah (2:2, 6), and Ezekiel (20:7–13)
still reveal a very general knowledge of this period that does not include distinct
episodes.29 Also, the evaluation of the period differs; while Hosea (9:10; 13:4–5)
and Jeremiah (2:2) still draw a positive picture of the desert as a place of yhwh’s
and Israel’s first love, the Dtr. editors of Jeremiah (7:22–24; 11:3–4) and the
pupils of Ezekiel (20:7–18) already projected Israel’s apostasy to the time of the
exodus or even to the people’s stay in Egypt.30 The rEX, however, holds a middle
position when he describes how Israel’s relation to yhwh was burdened by the
hardship of wilderness, but not destroyed. According to him, Israel’s apostasy
26 See Deut 4:34; 7:19; 29:2; at best it could be a real place name in Deut 33:8, while Deut 6:16;
9:22 and Ps 95:8–9 already presuppose the present form of Exod 17:1–7.
27 Cf. the altar stone and the place name Rephidim, derived from the rare root rāpad
“support,” which seems to point to the magical rite said to be performed there; see also
Fritz, Israel, 55–63; Blum, Studien, 152–153.
28 See Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Kohlham-
mer, 1948), 62–63.
29 The only exception is the apostasy to Baal Peor in Hos 9:10 and Num 25:3 shortly before
the immigration into the Promised Land.
30 Thomas Römer, “Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk und die Wüstentraditionen der
Hebräischen Bibel,” in Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk (ed. Hermann-Josef Stipp;
öbs 39; Frankfurt: Peter Lang 2011), 55–88, esp. 65–72, has shown that the DtrH originally
shared the positive perspective on the period of Moses and Joshua (Josh 21:42–45), but
later included the negative view of Israel’s very early apostasy (Deut 9:7; 1Sam 8:8; 2Kgs
21:15). According to Römer, the allusions to Exod 17:1–7 in Deut 6:16; 9:22 belong to post-Dtr.
layers.
wilderness material in exodus (exodus 15–18) 161
(Exod 32) happened only after the original covenant had been established at
Mount Sinai in full harmony (19–24*). Thus the rEX seems to be the first, the one
who created the oldest part of wilderness tradition of the Pentateuch during the
late exilic period.31
The impression that none of the elaborated wilderness tradition existed
before the rEX is corroborated by the insight that the wilderness narratives
in the book of Numbers seem to belong to later editions than those of the
book of Exodus. The entire shape of the quail story in Num 11:4–35, especially
the motif that the people longed for the luxuries of Egyptian food instead of
the permanent Manna (vv. 4–5), obviously presupposes the priestly Manna
and quail story in Exod 16.32 This non-priestly variant was probably com-
posed by the late Dtr. Redactor, d, who is to be dated after first priestly edi-
tor (pb1).33 Similarly, it can be shown that the priestly variant of the water
miracle in Kadesh-Meribah (Num 20:1–13) presupposes the Massah-Meribah
story of Exod 17:1–7.34 It seems to come from a later priestly editor (pb3),
who is familiar with the composition of the d redactor.35 These observations
correspond with the suggestions of Thomas Römer that the entire book of
Numbers was composed later than the books of Genesis, Exodus, and Leviti-
cus, on the one hand, and Deuteronomy and Joshua, on the other hand, in
order to connect these two older centers.36 If this is true, all the wilderness
narratives of the book of Numbers (11:1–3; 11:4–35; 12; 13–14; 16–17; 20:1–13;
31 John Van Seters, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers (Louisville,
ky: Westminster / John Knox, 1994), 165–175 and Dozeman, Exodus, 353–355, plead for
a similar late origin. There is no evidence for a predetermined literary collection of
wilderness stories as Fritz still supposes (Israel, 107–113).
32 The idea of a permanent Manna supply during Israel’s wanderings is closely connected
with the priestly concept of the discovery of the Sabbath; cf. Exod 16:21–23, 35.
33 For this assignment see Albertz, “Numbers,” 336–338; for this later dating see Rainer
Albertz, “Ex 33,7–11, ein Schlüsseltext für die Rekonstruktion der Redaktionsgeschichte
des Pentateuch,” bn 149 (2011): 13–43, esp. 34–38.
34 Cf. the close parallels in Num 20:3a, 5aα, 8aα to Exod 17:2aα, 3bα, 5aβ. For the net references
to non-priestly and priestly texts, which are drawn from Num 20:1–13, see Blum, Studien,
271–278.
35 For this assignment see Albertz, “Numbers,” 338–340. In Num 20:12, the pb3 editor took up
the belief motif, which is typical for the late Dtr. redactor d; see Exod 4:31; 14:31; 19:9; Num
14:11.
36 See Thomas Römer, “Das Buch Numeri und das Ende des Jahwisten: Anfragen zur ‘Quel-
lenscheidung’ im vierten Buch des Pentateuch,” in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Kompo-
sition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (ed. J.C. Gertz, K. Schmid, and M. Witte;
bzaw 315; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2002), 215–231.
162 albertz
37 According to Römer, “Wüstenerzählungen,” 81, the DtrH does not seem to have known the
wilderness stories of the book of Numbers.
38 Only Num 11:1–3 and 21:4–9 deal with typical distresses of the wilderness, too. The conflicts,
which are depicted in Num 12; 13–14; 16–17, are not restricted to this specific environment.
39 According to my investigations the older Reed Sea story can probably be found in Exod
14:5a, 6–7, 9aα, 10bα, 13–14, 19b–20, 21aα2βb, 24–25, 27aα2βb, 30; it was revised by the rEX
in vv. 5b, 11–12. See Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 231–236.
40 The fact that Moses does not refer to the complaint in Exod 14:13–14, shows its secondary
wilderness material in exodus (exodus 15–18) 163
(vv. 13–14); further, yhwh defeated the Egyptian chariot army and saved them
without hesitation. The timid complaint of the forefathers at the Reed Sea,
however, was to remain as an important example for the exile generation.
The rEX burdened his audience with the information that Israel, who just
escaped the military threat, fell into a typical crisis of the wilderness—the dis-
tress of thirst (15:22–25a). From the Reed Sea Moses led the people into the
desert of Shur (v. 22) and thus—according to the rEX—he himself was respon-
sible that they found no water, even after three days of searching. The audience
is thus being taught that Israel’s way to freedom was risky from the beginning.
Neither Moses nor the forefathers were well prepared for the life in the wilder-
ness; nomads would have easily found places where water was present. After
three long days the Israelites found water in Marah at last, but it was not drink-
able because of its bitterness. What a terrible disappointment! Should one dare
to quench one’s thirst and risk dangerous diseases? In this disastrous situation,
the complaint of the people to Moses is formulated in a rather controlled man-
ner: “What are we to drink?” Although the rEX used the Hebrew verb lôn “to
murmur,” no kind of rebellion is meant (v. 24).41 On the contrary, it seems that
the Israelites, in spite of all their disappointment because of Moses’ misfor-
tune, still trust in his leadership and religious competence. They did not repeat
their cynical accusations uttered at the Reed Sea (14:11–12); they appeared to
have learned their lesson. Correspondingly, Moses accepted the legitimacy of
the people’s complaint. He did not hesitate to make his power of intercession
available to the Israelites. Moses prayed to God, and yhwh gave him the mag-
ical instruction for making the water drinkable (15:25a).42 Thus the crisis was
overcome by way of a trustful cooperation. On the basis of the Marah example,
the rEX intended to show his exilic audience that even a liberated Israel is not
exempt from human limits and distresses but has the right to complain and
will find yhwh ready to save his people.
When the composer of Exodus contrasted the Marah episode with a short
itinerary report that the Israelites came to the oasis of Elim furnished with
character; nevertheless, his reaction makes sense in the revised story. See Albertz, Exodus
1–18, 233–234.
41 Although Coats, Rebellion, 51–53, and Kiefer, Israel, 48–49, accepts the positive impact of
the complaint, they suppose an aggressive meaning of the Verb lôn itself, what is derived
from its use in the wilderness stories of the book of Numbers (Num 14:2, 27, 29, 36; 16:11;
17:6, 20). But these stories are later developments and should not taken as an interpretative
context for the early ones.
42 The syntactical break and the diverging topic show that Exod 15:25b–26 belongs to a later
addition. It can be attributed to the Malʾak redaction, see Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 262.
164 albertz
twelve wells and seventy palms (Exod 15:27), he wanted to demonstrate that the
history of the early Israelites did not only consist of crises, but also contained
phases of rest and abundant supply in between. Apart from his saving acts,
yhwh generously granted the Israelites a break from the distress and provided
them with the luxury of having water and fruits, as much as wanted. For the
stressed exilic generation, this rather simple statement would probably have
had a consoling impact.
According to the rEX it was nothing other than this experience of rest and
luxury that led the people to a revolt against Moses. When the Israelites wan-
dered from Elim to Rephidim (Exod 16:1aα; 17:1b), they again encountered a
place without any water. After the abundance of water supply they had just
enjoyed they were no longer ready to accept this repeated misfortune. They
thus started a litigation (rîb) against Moses and demand water from him in a
flagrant manner (17:2a).43 They thought they had a claim to a water supply and
that Moses would be obliged to provide it. Moses is alarmed and reacts to this
harsh demand (v. 2b): in his eyes, the Israelites had chosen the wrong addressee
for their litigation; moreover, their demanding attitude would put yhwh to test
(niśśâ). Would it be legitimate, however, to insist on a right to divine salvation?
The rEX intended to show his audience how quickly trust in God’s help could
be turned into a demanding attitude, and how this would turn the people’s pos-
itive relationship with the divine into the opposite.
Since Moses refused to support such an attitude, the people were drawn into
a new situation of distress related to thirst (Exod 17:3). This time, the murmur-
ing of the people against Moses becomes much more aggressive than in 15:24.
The Israelites accuse Moses that he had led them out of Egypt only for the
purpose of murdering them in the wilderness, including their innocent chil-
dren and animals. The tone of this accusation is even more aggressive than the
anxious complaint during the Egyptian attack (14:11–12); the people here are
even ready to stone Moses (17:4). Only in this dangerous situation, when the
liberation of Israel seemed to have failed and is turning into a bloody revolt,
does Moses pray to yhwh, asking what he should do “for this people” (v. 4).
On the one hand, this sounds like a positive petition;44 on the other hand, it
sounds a lot like a complaint, especially because the expression “for this peo-
43 Read the imperative singular tenâ with 4QPaleoExodm, some Hebrew manuscripts, the
Samaritanus, and the Septuagint. The plural of the Masoretic text is induced from Exod
16:3 and intends to include Aaron into the demand.
44 In nearly all the parallels the question serves as a positive inquiry (Gen 31:43; Exod 33:5;
1Sam 10:2; 2Sam 21:3; 2 Kgs 2:9; 4:2). Only Hos 6:5 shows a critical undertone. The wording
of the question is an indication that the rEX used and reworked a more positive Vorlage.
wilderness material in exodus (exodus 15–18) 165
ple” (lāʿām hazzæh) has a disparaging overtone. Clearly Moses was tired of
doing anything more for such a people! He distances himself from the peo-
ple. In his answer, yhwh does not convict the misbehavior of the people but
makes clear that he would only be ready to save Israel for the sake of Moses:
Moses should pass before the people, gather the elders, and go to a certain
rock where God would personally meet him and enable him to perform a spec-
tacular water miracle with his staff (vv. 5–6).45 In the view of the rEX, the
revolt was only pacified because Moses became a mediator of divine salva-
tion; the care of the people happened only in the background. This new role
of Moses would come to be of crucial importance for Israel’s future at the
end of the Exodus composition, after Israel would have broken the covenant
(34:10, 28–32).46 In his concluding remarks the rEX characterized Massah and
Meribah as locations of a first crisis of Israel’s relationship with the divine.
Through their demanding attitude the Israelites have questioned yhwh’s pres-
ence in their midst for the first time (17:7). In the story, yhwh seemed to
have passed the test and proved his presence. But every reader—including the
exilic audience—would now need to wrestle with this final open question of
whether God would be present with the people every where and at all times.
The rEX will show later in his composition that the divine presence in the
midst of the people would come to be lethally threated after Israel’s apostasy
(33:3, 5).47 Thus Exod 17:1–7* constitutes a central issue of the Exodus Compo-
sition.
When the rEX included the Amalek story in his composition (Exod 17:8, 9bα,
10–13, 15–16), he intended to give an initial answer to the above question about
God’s presence. yhwh did not prevent the sudden attack of the Amalekites
and thus proved his divine freedom. Israel’s reaction seen in this story, how-
ever, is surprising. In contrast to the Egyptian attack at the Reed See (14:11–
12), the people did not utter any complaint or accusation. Without hesitation
Moses springs into action to prepare all measures for Israel’s self-defense. He
commissions Joshua to organize an army, he is available for an accompanying
supernatural ritual in Aaron and Hur share (17:9). Thus all leaders and the peo-
ple cooperate in order that they might save themselves from the military threat.
45 The relative clause “with which you have struck the Nile” in Exod 17:5bα and the words
“at Horeb” at the end of v. 6 are intrusions of the d redactor; see Albertz, Exodus 1–18,
283.
46 See Rainer Albertz, “Moses as Mediator of Divine Salvation: The Late Exilic Book of Exodus
(Exod 1–34*),” in Enigmas and Images: Studies in Honor of Tryggve N.D. Mettinger (ed.
G. Eidevall and B. Scheuer; cb 58; Winona Lake, in: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 53–72.
47 See Albertz, “Moses as Mediator,” 67–68.
166 albertz
While Joshua and his troops were fighting against Amalek in the valley, Moses
supports the battle by performing a powerful ritual, above, on the hill (v. 10).
When Moses tires of stretching his arms and Israel thus finds itself in danger,
about to lose the battle, Aaron and Hur supports him from both sides, provid-
ing him with a seat. Thus the saving ritual could be performed successfully all
day and Amalek could be defeated (vv. 11–13). The significance of this scene
becomes clear if one compares it with opening story about the battle at the
Reed Sea. There, Israel and even Moses were entirely passive (14:14) with the
battle against the Egyptian chariot army fought by yhwh alone (vv. 24–25).
Here, Israel including all its leaders became active; they together fight for their
survival, while yhwh remains in the background. Not before the successful end
of the risky enterprise does Moses reveal his motivation: in naming the memo-
rial altar Moses confesses that he had put his trust in God when he exerted his
power in Israel’s defense (17:15).48 Thus yhwh has honored Moses’ and Israel’s
own efforts with his strong support. yhwh cooperates with the Israelites for
their salvation.
Surveying the entire composition of the earliest wilderness narratives (Exod
13:20–17:16*), one becomes aware that the rEX intended to show stations of
Israel’s growth as a people, Israel’s “growing up.” Starting as a passive object
of divine salvation at the Reed Sea, Israel, like a little child, became more
and more adult during the sequence of crises, complaining and struggling for
its rights. In the crisis of the Amalek attack, Israel becomes a real partner
of yhwh; though they complain they also take responsibility for their own
survival. Of course, the crises show that Israel remained dependent on God
after their liberation from slavery. And, the increasing self-confidence of Israel
also included the danger of monopolizing God for the people’s self interest. But
Israel reaches its maturity when it learns that one cannot claim God’s presence
in a demanding attitude from an inactive position. Rather, Israel should trust
in divine support during one’s own active engagement. Perhaps here we find
a valuable lesson from Israel’s wilderness wanderings—valid not only for an
exilic audience.
48 Again the reference to Moses’ staff in Exod 17:9bβ, which is already forgotten in vv. 10–11,
is an intrusion from the d redactor. He probably also added v. 14, which tells a second
lesson from the story next to v. 15. The meaning of v. 16 is dubious because of lexical
difficulties.
wilderness material in exodus (exodus 15–18) 167
Select Bibliography
Albertz, Rainer. “Das Buch Numeri jenseits der Quellentheorie: Eine Redaktions-
geschichte von Num 20–24.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 123
(2011): 171–183, 336–347.
. Exodus, Band i: Ex 1–18. Zürcher Bibelkommentar 2.1. Zürich: Theologischer
Verlag Zürich, 2012.
. “The Late Exilic Book of Exodus (Exodus 1–34*): A Contribution to the Pen-
tateuchal Discussion.” Pages 243–256 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives
on Current Research. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch
J. Schwartz. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.
Blum, Erhard. Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 189. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1990.
Childs, Brevard S. Exodus: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. London: scm Press,
1974.
Coats, George W. Rebellion in the Wilderness. The Murmuring Motif in the Wilderness
Traditions of the Old Testament. Nashville: Abingdon, 1968.
Dozeman, Thomas B. Commentary on Exodus. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
. “The Priestly Wilderness Itineraries and the Composition of the Pentateuch.”
Pages 257–288 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research.
Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz. Forschun-
gen zum Alten Testament 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.
Frankel, David. The Murmuring Stories of the Priestly School: A Retrieval of Ancient
Sacerdotal Lore. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 89. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Fritz, Volkmar. Israel in der Wüste: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der Wüsten-
überlieferung des Jahwisten. Marburger Theologische Studien 7. Marburg: Elwert,
1970.
Haarmann, Volker. jhwh-Verehrer der Völker. Die Hinwendung von Nichtisraeliten zum
Gott Israels in alttestamentlichen Überlieferungen. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des
Alten und Neuen Testaments 91. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2008.
Kupfer, Christian. Mit Israel auf dem Weg durch die Wüste: Eine leserorientierte Exegese
der Rebellionstexte in Exodus 15:22–17:7 und Numeri 11:1–20:13. Old Testament Studies
61. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Maiberger, Paul. Das Manna: Eine literarische, etymologische und naturkundliche Unter-
suchung. 2 vols. Ägypten und Altes Testament 6/1–2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1983.
Noth, Martin. Das zweite Buch Mose: Exodus. Altes Testament Deutsch 5. 4th edition.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968.
. Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch. 2d edition. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,
1948.
168 albertz
Oblath, Michael D. The Exodus Itinerary Sites: Their Location from the Perspective of the
Biblical Sources. Studies in Biblical Literature Series 55. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2004.
Roskop, Angela R. The Wilderness Itineraries: Genre, Geography, and the Growth of
the Torah. History, Archaeology, and the Culture of the Levant 3. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 2011.
Römer, Thomas. “Das Buch Numeri und das Ende des Jahwisten: Anfragen zur ‘Quel-
lenscheidung’ im vierten Buch des Pentateuch.” Pages 215–231 in Abschied vom
Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion. Edited by Jan
Christian Gerz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 315. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002.
. “Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk und die Wüstentraditionen der He-
bräischen Bibel.” Pages 55–88 in Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk. Edited by
Hermann-Josef Stipp. Österreichische biblische Studien 39. Frankfurt: Peter Lang,
2011.
Ruprecht, Eberhard. “Stellung und Bedeutung der Erzählung vom Mannawunder (Ex
16) im Aufbau der Priesterschrift.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
86 (1974): 269–307.
Schart, Aaron. Mose und Israel im Konflikt: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den
Wüstenerzählungen. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 98. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-
precht, 1990.
Van Seters, John. The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers. Louis-
ville: Westminster / John Knox, 1994.
Lawgiving at the Mountain of God (Exodus 19–24)
Wolfgang Oswald
The section of text under scrutiny in this essay is part of a larger literary complex
commonly named the “Sinai pericope.” In a strict sense this terminology is
based on the name of the desert in which Israel is sojourning. In Exod 19:1 the
people arrive in the “desert of Sinai” ( )מדבר סיניand they depart from it in Num
10:11–12. In this view the section Exod 19–24 is the first part of the Sinai pericope.
In a more familiar sense the term “Sinai pericope” is derived from the name of
the mountain in that desert: “Mount Sinai” ()הר סיני, a term which occurs for
the first time in Exod 19:11.
At first glance it seems reasonable to say the “Sinai pericope” relates the
sojourn of Israel at Mount Sinai. But two textual observations call this into
question. First, Exod 19:1–2 does not say that Israel arrives at Mount Sinai;
rather, it only mentions the desert of Sinai and an unnamed mountain. Second,
already in Exod 18 Israel is sojourning at what is here called the “Mountain
of God” (הר האלהים, Exod 18:5). This terminology is also used in Exod 3:1 and
24:13. If we take this setting as an anchor, Exod 19–24 is the second part of the
“Mountain-of-God pericope.”
There is another name for the mountain, “Horeb” (הר חורב, only in Exod
33:6), but this is beyond the scope of this study.1 Typically, the variant desig-
nations for the mountain are assigned to different literary traditions, sources,
or compositions, while at the same time it is assumed that these designations
refer to the same location. But the latter equation is by no means obvious—we
shall return to this below. For the moment it is sufficient to say that in spatial
terms both Exod 18 and 19–24 are situated at a mountain in a desert. The minor
difference is that in Exod 18 neither the desert nor the mountain bear the name
“Sinai”; the major difference is that in Exod 18 yhwh, the God of Israel, plays
no active role.
1 Usually, חורבis not a name but an appellative meaning “wasteland,” mainly used in dtr
literature; compare Cornelis Houtman, Exodus: Volume 1 (hcot; Kampen: Kok Publishing
House, 1993), 116–117.
The chain of events depicted and the range of themes addressed in the narrative
are quite extensive, resulting in more than one way of defining its subject
matter and structuring the plot. Instead of a paraphrase, which always tends to
select some items and to neglect others, a brief survey of the three most relevant
thematic aspects will provide the starting-point for further thoughts.2
– Spatial movements: Israel arrives in the desert (19:1–2a); Israel dwells at the
mountain (18, 19:2b); Israel and/or Moses ascend the mountain in different
degrees (19:3a, 17, 20, 24:9, 13, 15, 18) and descend again (19:14, 25); Israel
and/or Moses approach God (19:8, 20:21) and withdraw/return (19:7, 20:18,
24:3); God descends on the mountain (19:18, 20, 24:16); God dwells on the
mountain (19:3) and in a cloud (19:9, 20:21, 24:16) respectively.
– Encounter with God: God speaks to/with Moses (19:3b–6, 9, 10–13, 19b, 21–24,
20:22–23:33, 24:1–2, 12); God speaks without named addressee (20:1–17); God
commands preparations for the encounter with him (19:10–11); God appears
before the people in a theophany (19:16, 18–19a, 20:18, 24:16–17); God regu-
lates how near or far certain people are allowed to approach (19:12–13a, 13b,
21–24, 24:1–2); associates (18:12) or members (24:5) of Israel offer sacrifices;
seventy elders and other leaders eat and drink before God (24:9–11).
– Judiciary: Moses installs lay judges for ordinary cases while acting in a
prophet-like manner in difficult cases (18:13–26); God proclaims the Deca-
logue (20:1–17); God informs Moses about the law book (20:22–23:33), which
Moses proclaims to the people (24:3a, 7); Israel enacts the law book (24:3b);
God and the people conclude a treaty/covenant, first preliminarily (19:3–6)
then conclusively (24:4–8); Moses appoints Aaron and Hur as his deputies
(24:14); God announces more laws (24:12).
Almost all commentators strictly separate Exod 18 from Exod 19–24, so that
proposals concerning the overall theme and the structure regularly pertain
only to Exod 19–24. Joe Sprinkle, for example, proposes the following structure,
adding that “the emphasis is on the first and last units that deal with the
establishment of the covenant”:3
2 Compare the charts in Dominik Markl, Der Dekalog als Verfassung des Gottesvolkes: Bren-
npunkte einer Rechtshermeneutik des Pentateuch in Ex 19–24 und Dtn 5 (hbs 49; Freiburg:
Herder, 2007), 48–53.
3 Joe Sprinkle, ‘The Book of the Covenant’: A Literary Approach (JSOTSup 174; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1994), 27; cf. also Joe Sprinkle, “Law and Narrative in Exodus 19–24,” jets 47
(2004): 235–252, here 242.
lawgiving at the mountain of god (exodus 19–24) 171
Dominik Markl gives a graphical structure of Exod 19–31, one which cannot be
rendered here; in this model the Decalogue and the “Covenant Code speech”
are at center.4 Using the headline “Gottesoffenbarung und Bundesschluss,”
Christoph Dohmen provides the following outline:5
My own view starts from the observation that most of the space in these
chapters is occupied by the laws, under which, for the sake of brevity, we can
subsume the Decalogue and the Covenant Code, and by narratives pertaining
to these laws or to the judiciary in general. This is also at issue in Exod 18,
so that it is useful to take this chapter into consideration, too. The treaty
or covenant does not stand on its own but is connected to the law since
the treaty commits the Israelites to heed the voice of God (19:5, 24:7). The
preparation of the people looks toward the expected encounter with God,
but since God primarily communicates the laws, the preparations serve as
preliminaries to the law-giving. Some minor parts thematize the role of Moses
(19:9a, 19b), but again, since Moses does nothing apart from installing the
judiciary and mediating the law, these passages characterize Moses as the
mediator of the law. Last, the spatial movements have no self-purpose but
rather enable the Israelites or Moses to communicate with God or to render
it impossible. To sum up, there is no element in the narrative that has no
connection to the judiciary. The Israelites convene at the mountain in order to
install their judiciary, to enact their laws which were communicated by God,6
and to commit themselves to a treaty having the content to practice the laws.
In other words, Israel performs her constituent assembly.7 The structure may
thus be outlined as follows:
The overall structure is one thing; the sequence of actions is another. Two
observations in particular have long puzzled readers. First, Moses ascends
the mountain several times and descends from it again. Almost immediately
the number of movements is curious, but, what is more, the succession of
Moses’ ascents and descents (in vertical conception) or of his comings and
goings (in horizontal conception) is not always clear. In 19:8b Moses reports
the words of the people to God and he does it again in 19:9b without having
been with the people in the meantime. In Exod 24:13, 15, 18 the narrative has
Moses going up the mountain three times without coming down even once in
between.8
Second, the installation of the judiciary and the giving of the law is divided
into several segments. The two-level judiciary is installed before the ordi-
them. What is new about the laws is their status as divinely sanctioned and publicly accepted
basis of the political community.
7 Wolfgang Oswald, “Early Democracy in Ancient Judah: Considerations on Ex 18–24 with an
Outlook on Dtn 16–18,” cv 52 (2010): 121–135.
8 Listings of incoherences in Exod 19–24 are provided in Houtman, Exodus 2, 426–428; Baruch
J. Schwartz, “What Really Happened at Mount Sinai? Four Biblical Answers to one Question,”
BibRev 13 (1997): 20–30, 46, here 21–25; Wolfgang Oswald, Israel am Gottesberg: Eine Unter-
suchung zur Literargeschichte der vorderen Sinaiperikope Ex 19–24 und deren historischem Hin-
tergrund (obo 159; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 80–101; William H.C. Propp,
Exodus 19–40 (ab 2a; New York: Doubleday, 2006), 141–150.
lawgiving at the mountain of god (exodus 19–24) 173
nances for the tent shrine are given after the theophany. During the theo-
phany, the laws are given in two portions, first the Decalogue then the law
book.
A variety of explanations have been advanced for these peculiarities, both
synchronic and diachronic. To begin with the synchronic proposals, Houtman
advocates a narratological rationale:
Dohmen on the other hand does not propose a general solution but rather
explains each locus on its own terms and supplements his synchronic consider-
ations with diachronic hints. The double report of the people’s words (19,8b, 9b)
serves to introduce Moses’ role as mediator of the revelation.10 The disturbing
paragraph of 19:20–25 is considered to be a midrash to the precedent events.11
The unsatisfactory narratological embedding of the Decalogue means that the
Decalogue has no addressee in the narrative, only the readers may conceive it
“als eine Art Hintergrundinformation.”12
Still another synchronic solution has been proposed by Joe Sprinkle follow-
ing the lead of Gregory Chirichigno.13 In their view there is no disregard of logic.
The chapters instead display perfect coherence, in that the narrative flow is at
times intentionally discontinued only to regress to an earlier point in the nar-
rative and to resume again by the means of a literary device called “resumptive
repetition.”
The essence of this technique is that the narrator tells a story once, then
picks up the story again somewhere in the chronological sequence and
retells it, often expanding the story or telling it from a different point of
view.14
According to Sprinkle, verses 19:16–25 provide “the synopsis of the story” while
all the following sections “occur simultaneously with the actions”15 of 19:16–25.
He further contends that 19:16–19 and 20:18–21 describe the same circumstance.
Exodus 20:18–21 relate “how the people reacted when they first experienced
the preliminary signs of the theophany”16 in 19:16–19. But this assertion is not
convincing at all. In the first stage of the theophany the people show no fear
and advance onto the mountain. They are in close proximity and witness the
dialogue between God and Moses. Contrary to that, later the people are in awe
and withdraw from the mountain. This is not the same story from a different
point of view but a different story.
Sprinkle establishes the same kind of relation between 19:21–25 and 24:1–
3a:
The similarities are striking. In both accounts Moses is told to fetch Aaron
and bring him up the mountain. Both warn that the people should not be
allowed to draw near to God. In 19.22 and 24 the priests are to be told to
keep their distance, and in 24.1 two who would eventually become priests,
Nadab and Abihu, are not allowed to draw as near as Moses can, but must
remain at a distance.17
The difference between the two versions according to Sprinkle is that “Nadab,
Abihu and the seventy elders were to accompany Aaron.”18 Actually both
passages are mainly instructions as they say something about how the posi-
tioning at the mountain should be. In the case of 19:21–24 the instruction
is never carried out, since Moses and Aaron at no point in the narrative
ascend the mountain two by two. But the instruction clearly takes the
view of the Aaronides, because Aaron is treated as equal with Moses whereas
the other priests and the lay people are relegated. Completely different
from that, the instructions of 24:1–2 draw the line between Moses and
all the rest. Aaron is not on a par with Moses but must remain with the
j 19:9b–16aα, 18, 20–25, 19:10–16aα, 18, 20–23 19:2b, 10–11a, 12, 13a,
14–16aα1, 18, 20α
24:1–2, 9–11
Schwartz has the simplest solution; according to him Exod 19–24 can be com-
pletely divided into the three sources. For Graupner, on the other hand, only a
small percentage of the text can be assigned to one of the three sources while
large parts, including the Decalogue and the Covenant Code, are later addi-
tions. According to Propp, only the Decalogue is a redactional addition while
the Covenant Code belongs to e, as in Schwartz’s reconstruction. Moreover,
Propp notices similarities with deuteronomistic texts in some parts and marks
them as “e/d-like.”
The narrative portion of Exod 19–24, that is, 19:1–21:1 and 24:1–18, has 70
verses or 140 half verses. Of these, only 23 half verses are identically assigned
by the three authors—that is, 16 percent. This low rate makes clear that there
is no consensus among advocates of the Documentary Hypothesis as to which
part of the text belongs to which source.
One reason for these differences is that Schwartz and Propp hold that the
Elohistic source introduces the divine name “yhwh” in Exod 3:15, while for
Graupner this verse is not part of the Elohistic source. Hence, for Schwartz and
Propp the occurrence of the name “yhwh” is not decisive for source division
in Exod 19–24, whereas for Graupner it is. In the latter’s reconstruction of the
Elohistic source “Elohim” is always used to designate the deity.
The opinion of Schwartz and Propp is not without problems.24 When the
core argument of the theory is abandoned—that is, the different ways sources
will designate the deity—by what means can the original threads be recon-
structed? Propp frequently tries to collect evidence from supposed termino-
logical agreements.25 Whereas Schwartz says:
Proceeding in this manner, Schwartz has to admit that his Yahwist “is fragmen-
tary,”27 and the same is true for Propp’s reconstruction of the Yahwistic source.
Particularly questionable is the assignment of 24:1–2, 9–11 to the Yahwist. As
a matter of fact, in what Schwartz considers to be the Yahwist there are three
distinct concepts of positioning at the mountain: in 19:20–25 only Moses and
Aaron are allowed to draw near to God, but in 24:1–2 it is exclusively Moses,
whereas in 24:9–11 the seventy elders together with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu
are granted close proximity to God. The paraphrase “Only Moses continues on
alone and comes near the Lord (Exodus 24:1–2, 9–11)”28 does not do justice to
Exod 24:9–11 which says: “Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and sev-
enty of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the God of Israel …”
And what about the Elohist? Both commentators notice the numerous sim-
ilarities with deuteronomistic texts.29 Propp even goes so far as to ponder “that
24 The main problem lies outside of Exod 19–24: Exod 3 does not claim that the divine name
was unknown to Israel as is the case in Exod 6:3, only Moses did not know. For the narrative
as a whole, there is no caesurae in Exod 3 that would justify a change in the usage of the
designations for God. From this point of view Graupner’s analysis is more appropriate.
25 Propp, Exodus 19–40, 141–150.
26 Schwartz, “Mount Sinai,” 25–26.
27 Schwartz, “Mount Sinai,” 27.
28 Schwartz, “Mount Sinai,” 27.
29 Propp, Exodus 19–40, 142, 145; Schwartz, “Mount Sinai,” 29.
178 oswald
the Yahwist and Elohist drew upon a common d-like preaching tradition.”30
Yet, Propp dates the Yahwist to the tenth century and the Elohist to the eighth
century31 so that the assumed d-like tradition preceding the two sources must
be even earlier than these.
Since both Propp and Schwartz assign the bulk of the text to their respec-
tive Elohists, their reconstructions display non-interrupted narratorial threads.
However, the above mentioned deuteronomistic parts or influences require
further investigation. First, we should test to see if these portions can be iden-
tified as a distinct dtr layer. Second, texts which are considered to depend on
deuteronomistic traditions should better be dated to a later period of Israelite
history.
Thomas Dozeman takes a different approach to the Sinai pericope. Follow-
ing the lead of John Van Seters, he identifies only two literary layers in Exod
19–24: a basic strand, which he calls the Non-p history, and the p history as
a supplemental layer. To p Dozeman assigns 19:1, 5bβ–6a, 11b, 18, 20–25, 20:8–
11, 24:1–2, 6, 8, 9–11*, 15b–18a; everything else makes up the basic story.32 This
narrative is supposed to be pre-priestly and post-deuteronomistic, or in abso-
lute terms from “the late exilic period at the earliest.”33 This dating is meant
to explain the strong deuteronomistic flavor of some passages and is more in
accordance with the usual reconstruction of the history of Israel than with the
early dating of Propp.
30 Propp, Exodus 19–40, 729. He also sees the redactor je strongly influenced by dtr traditions.
31 Propp, Exodus 19–40, 730.
32 Thomas B. Dozeman, Exodus (ecc; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 425.
33 Dozeman, Exodus, 31.
lawgiving at the mountain of god (exodus 19–24) 179
alone? Of Moses and Aaron? Of the seventy elders plus accompanying lead-
ers? Or, we might ask the question in terms of a larger theme: Did the people
receive the rules of the society or parts of it directly from yhwh or was every-
thing mediated? There is a great deal at stake here: those who know about these
rules first-hand are in a privileged position—no earthly power is above them.
And those who are close to God are not dependent on mediums in order to
receive divine sanction.
In Exod 18–24 there is a plurality of divine-human relations. To give only
a brief impression: some parts of the text feature a close relation between
God and Moses while others include the people; still others connect God and
certain representatives of Israel. Some regulations are introduced without the
participation of God, some by God directly, some by mediation of Moses. In
some scenes God and the people are close together; in others they are distant
from each other. As far as God is concerned, in some parts he is said to be in
the heaven, in some he seems to be at the mountain, and in some he said to
descend to the mountain top.
Indeed, the different modes of perception and the different ways of posi-
tioning the figures do not occur arbitrarily. Rather, there are a few significant
combinations; there is a perception-position-linkage which exists only in a lim-
ited number of manifestations. Thus, the key to understand the complicated
structure of the Sinai pericope is to disentangle the confusing aggregation of
different ways of perception and positioning. For each unit (phrase, sentence,
verse) we have to ask: Who sees what? Who hears what? Who understands
what? Who stands where? Who moves from where to where?34
To begin with the most distinctive paragraph, in 19:20–25 we have the follow-
ing features: (1) The name of the deity is yhwh, (2) the name of the mountain
is Sinai, (3) yhwh is descending onto the mountain / the mountain top, (4)
the mountain is a prohibited zone, only Moses and Aaron may ascend, and (5)
yhwh and Moses speak to each other in private on the mountain. The privilege
of Aaron in particular suggests a priestly origin of this passage, as will become
evident in what follows.
Moses’ reply in 19:23 refers back to 19:11b–13a and, indeed, here we find the
same features: yhwh is said to descend onto the mountain named Sinai and
the people are prohibited to ascend the mountain. Additionally (6), a visual
theophany is announced (11b).
34 Detailed descriptions are provided in Oswald, Gottesberg, 66–79; Michael Konkel, “Was
hörte Israel am Sinai? Methodische Anmerkungen zur Kontextanalyse des Dekalogs,” in
Die Zehn Worte: Der Dekalog als Testfall der Pentateuchkritik (ed. Christian Frevel, Michael
Konkel, and Johannes Schnocks; qd 212; Freiburg: Herder, 2005), 11–42.
180 oswald
35 Synchronic studies (Dohmen, Sprinkle, Markl) regularly prefer to silence this problem.
36 Schwartz, “Mount Sinai,” 28; Propp, Exodus 19–24, 152.
37 On this also compare Dozeman, Exodus, 428–432.
38 Also note that the sequence 19:1(–2a) → 24:15b–18aα is not a flawless narrative thread as
often supposed. Neither the mountain nor the cloud nor the encampment in front of the
mountain are introduced.
39 Compare Antonius H.J. Gunneweg, “Das Gesetz und die Propheten: Eine Auslegung von
Ex 33,7–11; Num 11,4–12,8; Dtn 31,14 f.; 34,10,” zaw 102 (1990): 169–180; and, more recently,
Rainer Albertz, “Ex 33,7–11, ein Schlüsseltext für die Rekonstruktion der Redaktions-
geschichte des Pentateuch,” bn/nf 149 (2011): 13–43.
lawgiving at the mountain of god (exodus 19–24) 181
in the priestly ones, Moses is the dialogue partner of yhwh; however, unlike in
the priestly texts, the people are not in need of a mediator. This makes these
texts a counter-statement to the priestly concept.
Having identified the priestly and a post-priestly layer in Exod 19–24, almost
all the remaining passages belong to the basic literary strand and to its
first expansion that is part of the deuteronomistic composition in Exodus
to Deuteronomy. What these older literary layers have in common is that
the theophany is both visual and verbal. The people are allowed to draw
near to yhwh and they are able to understand what yhwh is speaking to
them, namely the Decalogue. In these parts, the mountain of God bears
no name, it is just the “Mountain of God” or “the mountain”; the deity is some-
times referred to as “yhwh” but also as “Elohim.” God does not descend onto
the mountain; rather, in the basic strand he is considered to be permanently
at the mountain, whereas in the deuteronomistic expansions God is located in
heaven.
The deuteronomistic insertions can be identified by their conceptual like-
ness with texts in Deuteronomy. The most prominent passages are the twin
paragraphs of 19:3b–8 and 24:4–8. They relate to each other as preliminary
and final accords.40 In 19:3b–8 Israel is promised to become a kingdom of
priests if they heed the voice of yhwh and keep the treaty; the correspond-
ing verses of 24:4–8 narrate the fulfillment: the people enter into the treaty and
are consequently consecrated as priests (cf. Lev 8:23–24).41 Here we find typical
deuteronomistic notions and expressions: ‘ עם סגולהproperty people’ (Exod 19:5
|| Deut 7:6, 14:2, 26:18), גוי קדושׁ/‘ עםholy people’ (Exod 19:6 || Deut 7:6, 14:2, 26:19)
and ‘ בריתcovenant/treaty’ (Exod 19:5, 24:7–8 || Deut 7:9, 26:16–19), the writing
of the law (Exod 24:4, 7 || Deut 31:9), the public reading of the law book (Exod
24:7 || Deut 31:10–13).
Other important deuteronomistic themes are the prohibition of cultic im-
ages and the conquest of the land. The first is to be found in 20:4 and 20:22b–23;
the latter is seen in 23:20–33. In the Decalogue, 20:4 with its singular forms
is an obvious insertion while the plural expressions in 20:3 are continued in
20:5. Moreover, it is difficult to understand why it is necessary to prohibit the
40 Compare Frank Polak, “The Covenant at Mount Sinai in the Light of Texts from Mari,”
in Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient
Near East, Qumran, and Post- Biblical Judaism (ed. Chaim Cohen, Avi Hurvitz, and Shalom
M. Paul; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 119–134.
41 Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (bzaw 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990),
51–52, 88–99.
182 oswald
worship of images when the very making of them is already prohibited.42 The
two dtr passages 20:22b–23 and 23:20–33 bracket the law book. By inserting
20:22b–23 the prohibition of idols becomes an integral part of the covenant
which in turn makes the fabrication and subsequent veneration of the “Golden
Calf” a “great sin” (32:30).
Further, the short passages of 19:13b and 24:13–14 may be classified as deuter-
onomistic. The permission to ascend the mountain in 19:13b does not comply
with the older narrative that only has the people advance to the foot of the
mountain (19:17) but accords with Deut 5:4. The section 24:13–14 is the onset of
the calf story which is a deuteronomistic composition. First, Moses stands up
together with Joshua, who is again with him when Moses returns to the camp
(32:17). Thus, the leader of the conquest is exculpated from the “great sin.” Sec-
ond, Moses installs two deputies who are in charge of the people during his
absence, Aaron and Hur. In this role Aaron is later approached by the people
(32:1) and he fails to fulfill his duty.
42 The literary history of the Decalogue is identical with that of the surrounding narrative
(pre-dtr, dtr, p). The redactional history of the Decalogue is lined out in Matthias Köckert,
Die Zehn Gebote (Munich: Beck, 2007), 40–44.
43 This conception of the literary history of Exod 18–24 was first proposed in Oswald, Gottes-
berg, 114–237, and later modified (by simplifying it) in Wolfgang Oswald, Staatstheorie im
Alten Israel: Der politische Diskurs im Pentateuch und in den Geschichtsbüchern des Alten
Testaments (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2009), 86–90.
44 Compare Helmut Utzschneider and Wolfgang Oswald, Exodus 1–15 (iekat; Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 2013), 117–120, 135–140.
lawgiving at the mountain of god (exodus 19–24) 183
from Exod 18 onwards Moses is again at the mountain, this time with the people
of Israel. The narrative progresses as follows:
19:16 On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, and
a heavy cloud on the mountain, and the sound of the horn was very strong.
And all the people who were in the camp trembled. 17 And Moses brought
the people out to meet God from the camp. And they took their stand
at the base of the mountain. 18bβ And the whole mountain trembled
violently, 19a and the sound of the horn grew louder and louder. 20:1
And God spoke all these words: “{Decalogue*}.” 20:18b And the people
perceived and trembled and they positioned themselves at a distance.
19 And they said to Moses: “You speak with us, and we will listen; but
do not let God speak with us, lest we die.” 21 And the people stood at a
distance, while Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was. 22a
And yhwh said to Moses: Thus you shall say to the Israelites: “{law book
commencing with 20:24–26}.” 24:3 Moses came and he told the people all
the words of yhwh and all the ordinances. And all the people answered
with one voice, and said: “All the words that yhwh has spoken we will do.”
This text might best be called a “Constitutional Narrative” for two reasons: First,
Israel is constituted as a body politic; second, Israel enacts its constitution. The
constitution knows of three offices: (1) the ordinary judges for cases in which
experience and fear of God on the side of the judge is purposive (18:25–26);
(2) the prophetic office whose occupant inquires of God in unprecedented
cases (18:19, 26). This “Mosaic office” reaches beyond the duties of a judge; the
holder has to instruct the people in a general way: “And you shall teach them
the statutes and the decisions, and make them know the way in which they
184 oswald
must walk and what they must do” (18:20). Finally, (3) there is the governor
who is to be revered (22:27b). The constitution regulates the public affairs of
the polity: communal cult (20:24–26, 23:13–19*), care of the dependent (21:2–11,
22:20–26, 23:9–12), and rules of conduct in public trials (23:1–8). The core of the
constitution is a collection of model case rulings handed down from the scribal
school (21:18–22:16; perhaps 21:12–17 and 22:17–19 may be included). The most
elementary rules of conduct, the Decalogue, are communicated directly to the
people.
Except from the collection of משׁפטים21:12–22:19 this narrative does not con-
tain any traditions. Traditionally, Israel and Judah were monarchies in which
jurisdiction was the prerogative of the king. In traditional monarchies it was
the king’s duty to build temples and altars and to ensure the celebration of the
communal festivals. Contrary to that, the Mountain-of-God narrative was in
her time a very modern draft for a society. Typologically, the form of govern-
ment adopted here is a citizen-state as is known from ancient Greece.45 In Exod
24:3 the laws are not imposed on Israel but rather the people are enacting their
laws at their own discretion. Also important, the Mountain-of-God narrative is
not a private text but rather a public document. It contains matters that no one
would collect for private purposes. Just as the law as part of the narrative is of
public concern, so is the narrative itself: it is a public document that seeks the
approval of the community.
Because of this public nature of the text it can not have been in use during
the time of the monarchy. Any king would have persecuted the public reading
of a text like this just as king Jehoiakim does in the story of Jer 36. Fortunately,
the narrative itself gives the crucial clue to its historical setting: the scene takes
place at the mountain of God on which there is nothing but a thorn bush (3:2).
The image of the mountain of God or any other cultic place covered by thorns
and thistles is well known; one need only compare Is 5:6, Mic 3:12 and Hos 10:8.
In these prophetic oracles the cultic place appears destroyed and devastated. In
Isa 5:6 and Mic 3:12 it is furthermore obvious that Mount Zion is at issue. Thus,
the thorn-covered mountain of God stands for nothing else but the destroyed
Temple Mount of Jerusalem.46 And the addressees of the narrative are the
surviving and remaining inhabitants of Judah after 587.
1. Treaty between yhwh and the people on the basis of the Decalogue and
the now so-called Covenant Code; the stipulations now include the prohi-
bition of cultic images. The dtr sections are: announcement of the treaty
(19:3b–8); permission to ascend the mountain (19:13b); Decalogue: prohi-
bition of idols (20:4) and the so-called grace formula (20:5b–6); Covenant
Code: prohibition of idols (20:22b–23), adjustments in the festival calendar
(23:15aα2βb, 17) and forward look to the conquest (23:20–33); the treaty cer-
emony (24:4–8); appointment of deputies to Moses (24:13–14); 40 days’ stay
of Moses (24:18aβb). The narrative in Exod 18–24 now includes 18:1–2a, 3–7,
13–27, 19:2b–8, 10–11a, 13b–17, 18bβ–19a, 20:1–7, 12–17, 18b, 19, 21, 20:22–23:33,
24:3–8, 13–14, 18aβb.
2. The people disobey the prohibition against cultic images (32:1–8); Moses
destroys the golden calf (32:15aα, 17–19abα, 20); discussion between Moses
and Aaron (32:21–25); Levites appointed as priests (32:26–29); Moses seeks,
and yhwh grants, atonement (32:30–34aα, 33:12–17).
3. Treaty between yhwh and the people on the basis of an anthology of central
deuteronomistic commandments (34:10–28a).48
It is important to view the dtr reworking of Exod 19–24 in the greater horizon
of the DtrH and to understand the political concerns of this redactional pro-
cess. It is basically the question of which law is in effect: the Covenant Code
or Deuteronomy? The concept of the treaty makes the law-giving more flexi-
ble, because it allows the law to be altered. Although in Exod 24:4–8 the law
associated with the treaty is the older Covenant Code, in 34:27–28a the sum-
mary of deuteronomistic laws 34:11–26 serves that function. It is the goal of the
deuteronomistic narrative in Exod 19–34 to establish that the Covenant Code
has become obsolete and another law is now in effect. All deuteronomistic
insertions in Exod 19–24 contribute to this aim.
48 For a detailed explanation of this tripartite composition see Wolfgang Oswald, “Correlat-
ing the Covenants in Exodus 24 and Exodus 34,” in Covenant in the Persian Period (ed.
Richard Bautch and Gary Knoppers; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, forthcoming).
lawgiving at the mountain of god (exodus 19–24) 187
literature introduces a long sequence of itineraries: Exod 16:1aβb, 17:1a, 19:1, Num
10:12, 20:1a, 20:22, 22:1, 26:3. Now the mountain appears to be located in a remote
place that can only be reached by a long journey. The itinerary list of Num 33
even enforces this impression. This is part of the overall priestly concept to
relocate each decisive event in the history of Israel abroad. Thus Jakob Wöhrle
writes with regard to Genesis and Exodus:
19:18 But Mount Sinai smoked, all of it, because yhwh had descended
on it in fire. And its smoke went up like the smoke of a kiln. And the
49 Jakob Wöhrle, Fremdlinge im eigenen Land: Zur Entstehung und Intention der priesterlichen
Passagen der Vätergeschichte (frlant 246; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012),
224.
188 oswald
whole mountain trembled violently, 19a and the sound of the horn grew
louder and louder. 20 And yhwh descended on Mount Sinai to the top of
the mountain. And yhwh called Moses to the top of the mountain. And
Moses ascended. {21–24} 25 And Moses descended to the people and he
said to them. 20:1 And God spoke all these words: “{Decalogue}.” 18 And
all the people were perceiving the thunder and the torches and the sound
of the horn, and the mountain smoking. And the people perceived and
trembled and positioned themselves at a distance.
would answer him in a voice.” The iterative verbs signal the general significance:
everything that yhwh communicated at the mountain was done that way.
The narrative in its final form runs as follows:
19:17 And Moses brought the people out to meet God from the camp.
And they took their stand at the base of the mountain. 18 But Mount
Sinai smoked, all of it, because yhwh had descended on it in fire. And
its smoke went up like the smoke of a kiln. And the whole mountain
trembled violently, 19 and the sound of the horn grew louder and louder.
Moses would speak, and God would answer him in a voice. 20 And yhwh
descended on Mount Sinai to the top of the mountain. And yhwh called
Moses to the top of the mountain. And Moses ascended. {21–24} 25 And
Moses descended to the people and he said to them. 20:1 And God spoke
all these words: “{Decalogue}.”
The information indicating that God and Moses are repeatedly engaged in the
act of communicating (19:19b) is inserted after the information that the people
advanced onto the foot of the mountain (19:17). Between these two pieces of
information on positioning no movement takes place. That means the people
are on the mountain and are able to witness the repeated conversation of Moses
and God. Of course, what follows in 19:20–25 does not continue in this line. The
text of the priestly composition is not removed, just like none of the earlier text
has been removed in the process of composition. Crucial are the distinctive
positions of 19:9a and 19:19b in the course of the narrative and their iterative
force that may lead the reader to interpret the whole scene in the way these
late authors wanted it to be read.
hand, the mention of these persons from the priestly chief family indicates that
the priestly composition stands in the background. Even more, the honor for
those who are despised in the Aaronide literature (Lev 10:1–7) shows that this
is an explicit contestation of the Aaronide view.
The group of seventy elders do not gather accidently; rather, this is a politi-
cal institution, something that becomes clear from the episode in Num 11:4–
35. Here, they are installed as a permanent body.52 The seventy are chosen
from the elders and from the officers (( )שׁטרים11:16). These two play an impor-
tant role in the deuteronomistic system of offices (officers: Deut 1:15, 16:18,
20:5–9, elders: Exod 3:16–20, 19:7, 24:14, Deut 5:23, 31:9 and passim). Since the
body installed in Num 11 presupposes these institutions, it represents a further
development in the system of offices in post-monarchic Judah. The episode
Exod 24:9–11 lends unsurpassable legitimation to the institution of the seventy
elders.
But this extraordinary appreciation did not remain unchallenged, because
it calls into question the unique nature of Moses. As is obvious, 24:1–2 and
24:9–11 are related to each other as command and execution. However, they
do not correspond exactly. While in 24:9–11 all of those who ascend are equally
positioned, 24:1–2 indicates a difference between Moses and the others. This
means that 24:1–2 follows the same line as the sections mentioned above
(iv.4) in that it stresses the unique nature of Moses. The best explanation for
the difference between 24:1–2 and 24:9–11 is that the command of 24:1–2 was
inserted after 24:9–11 in order to make the scene conform to the concept of the
uniqueness of Moses.
5 Summary
52 In Num 11:25 one has to read ְול ֹא ָיֻספוּas “and they did not stop” because the story evaluates
the elders positively.
lawgiving at the mountain of god (exodus 19–24) 191
Select Bibliography
Albertz, Rainer. Exodus 1–18. Zürcher Bibelkommentare Altes Testament 2.1. Zürich:
Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2012.
Blum, Erhard. Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 189. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990.
Dohmen, Christoph. Exodus 19–40. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Tes-
tament. Freiburg: Herder, 2004.
Dozeman, Thomas B. God on the Mountain: A Study of Redaction, Theology and Canon in
Exodus 19–24. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 37. Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1989.
. Exodus. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
Hamilton, Victor P. Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2011.
Houtman, Cornelis. Exodus. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. 4 volumes.
Kampen: Kok, 1993–1996.
192 oswald
Markl, Dominik. Der Dekalog als Verfassung des Gottesvolkes: Brennpunkte einer Recht-
shermeneutik des Pentateuch in Ex 19–24 und Dtn 5. Herders Biblische Studien 49.
Freiburg: Herder, 2007.
Oswald, Wolfgang. Israel am Gottesberg: Eine Untersuchung zur Literargeschichte der
vorderen Sinaiperikope Ex 19–24 und deren historischem Hintergrund. Orbis Biblicus
et Orientalis 159. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998.
. Staatstheorie im Alten Israel: Der politische Diskurs im Pentateuch und in den
Geschichtsbüchern des Alten Testaments. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2009.
Propp, William H.C. Exodus 19–40. Anchor Bible 2a. New York: Doubleday, 2006.
Schwartz, Baruch J. “What Really Happened at Mount Sinai? Four Biblical Answers to
One Question.” Bible Review 13 (1997): 20–30, 46.
Utzschneider, Helmut and Wolfgang Oswald. Exodus 1–15. Internationaler exegetischer
Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2013.
Decalogue
Christoph Dohmen
The Ten Commandments are, undoubtedly, among the best-known texts of the
Bible, although their prominence is due less to the knowledge of the text itself,
than to its significance as a universal divine law for all humanity.1 The fixing of
the number of the laws as ten also reinforces the foundational nature of the law
code. The answer of Jesus concerning the greatest of the commandments (Matt
22:37–39) indicates, however, that the number ten could be reduced further in
order to focus on the essential character of the laws. Even though the double
commandment to love God and neighbor does not derive its wording from the
Decalogue, but refers instead to Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18, the division into divine
and social commandments does relate back to the structure of the two tablets
of the Decalogue, with their separation between divine and social laws.
The common judgment of many people concerning the universal character
the Decalogue arises from the commandments in the second tablet of laws,
which deal with interpersonal relationships. The social laws on human rela-
tionships contrast the divine commandments in the first tablet where the focus
is on the unique relationship between the people of Israel and its God. The
divine and social laws, however, cannot be separated, since the social laws of
the second tablet are meant to be read and understood through the divinely ori-
ented laws of the first tablet. The close relationship between the two tablets for
an understanding of the entire Decalogue is established already in Exod 20:2.
After all, none of the commandments are found exclusively in the Decalogue.
On the contrary, parallels to each of the commandments can be found in the
Bible, forcing the conclusion that “the Decalogue [owes] its prominence less
to its contents than to its context.” Thus, the interpretation of the content of
the laws requires an understanding of the contextually transmitted meaning of
the Decalogue. Therefore, the interpretation of the individual laws of the Deca-
logue will be tied closely to the literary horizon of the book of Exodus. For this
reason, a brief sketch of the individual commandments will precede the anal-
ysis of the Decalogue within the literary horizon of the Book of Exodus, even
though this procedure will occasionally anticipate details of interpretation that
will be repeated at a later point in the study.
1 Compare Friedrich Wilhelm Graf, Moses Vermächtnis: Über göttliche und menschliche Gesetze
(München: C.H. Beck, 2006), 33–64.
Exod 20:2: I am yhwh, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of
the house of slavery.
2 Ursula Peter-Spörndli, Die Zehn Worte vom Sinai: Die Rezeption des Dekalogs in der rabbinis-
chen Literatur (Berlin: Pro Business, 2012), 23–26.
3 Martin Buber, Moses (3d ed.; Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider, 1966), 154f. The English states:
“The soul of the Decalogue, however, is to be found in the word ‘Thou’. Here nothing is either
stated or confessed; but orders are given to the one addressed, to the listener. In distinction
to all catechisms and compositions resembling catechisms, everything here has reference to
that specific hour in which the words were spoken and heard” (Martin Buber, Moses: The
Revelation and the Covenant [with an Introduction by Michael Fishbane; Atlantic Highlands:
Humanities Press International, 1988], 130).
decalogue 195
the very basis of the Decalogue: from this opening, the Decalogue does not
present itself as a universal law or code of human rights, but rather as a specific
law claimed by Israel—the very people of God—one that will guarantee and
maintain Israel’s “freedom.”
Exod 20:3: There shall not be any other gods for you in relation to my presence.
1) The abstract wording (especially through the general verb “ היהto be”) sug-
gests a longer development and reflection underlying the claim.
2) The formulation of the prohibition presupposes a polytheistic frame of ref-
erence, since it does not deny the existence of other gods in a monotheistic
sense. Rather, given the assumption of the existence of various gods, it there-
fore demands an exclusive relationship to the God who speaks here.
Exod 20:4–6: You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of
anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the
water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I am
yhwh, your God, a jealous God, examining the iniquity of parents upon their sons,
to the third and the fourth (generation) of those who hate me, but showing grace
to thousand (generations) of those who love me and keep my commandments.
The frequent controversy about images (of God and gods) in the ot testifies
to the existence of such images. The problem does not lie in the possible co-
existence of an image-free cult and the archaeologically documented artworks
196 dohmen
in Palestine, but rather in the question of the origin of the demand of anicon-
ism because it remains unique to this day. To answer the question of why and
for what reasons images are banned, one has to pay attention to the original
association between foreign gods and the prohibition of images in the ot. The
image prohibition cannot be resolved by the development toward monothe-
ism in Israel. Rather it becomes clear that the prohibition of images appears
as the practical expression of the theoretical demand of the sole veneration of
the God yhwh. Thus the prohibition of images could pursue the continuing
conflict between Israel’s religion and the gods of other religions, by address-
ing the visualization of religious ideas. This is also recognizable from the fact
that later texts within the Hebrew Bible only know of the specific prohibition
of images or of a more general prohibition of images, and relinquish a sepa-
rate prohibition of foreign gods (cf. Lev 19:4; 26:1; Deut 27:15). As a concrete
expression of the theoretical demand, the image prohibition makes clear the
material nature, or materiality, of the image and its physical forms. This is also
indicated by the terms used for the image prohibition that refer primarily to fig-
ures, or sculptures. In other words, the image prohibition is not concerned with
a particular image theory, but rather with the manifestation of divine might
and power associated with images in the Ancient Near East. This meaning of
image materiality can also be recognized in other Hebrew Bible texts, which
argue without mentioning the prohibition of images that stem from the sphere
of the so called Götterbildpolemik (cf. e.g. Isa 44:12–19; Jer 10:3–9; Bar 6:15–22;
Wis 13:13–19).
Exod 20:7: You shall not use the name of yhwh, your God in vain, for yhwh will
not leave him unpunished who takes his name in vain.
Formally, the point of view of the speaker changes with this verse. It should be
noted, however, that the name of God (yhwh) is the quasi-object of the pro-
hibition, and thus having yhwh God as subject could have led to a confusion.
In contrast to the three opening words of the Decalogue—אנכי יהוה אלהיך, “I
(am) yhwh, (am) your God”—the target of the formula “ שם יהוה אלהיךName
of yhwh(’s), your God” becomes evident. The explicit reference to the name
“yhwh” in v. 7 takes up the speaking “I” from v. 2.4 The prohibition against
abusing God’s name must be understood in its relation to the prohibition of for-
eign gods and images. This is in accord with insights of religious studies, which
4 Compare Benno Jacob, Das Buch Exodus (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1997), who, with regard to v. 2 and
v. 7, speaks of a relationship between text and commentator (565).
decalogue 197
suggest that there is a close relationship between image and name.5 If one rea-
son for the ot’s stipulation of an image-free cult lies in the fact that images
cannot provide the uniqueness picture unambiguity requested by monolatry
and monotheism—since every image is polyvalent—then the connection to
the name of God will quickly be recognized. The name alone can establish the
necessary unambiguity that is required. A cultic image and the name of God
complement each other in the sense that through use of the name a cultic
image becomes addressable. To know and to address the name of a god can
therefore serve similar magic-ritual practices as a corresponding handling of
cultic images.
This connection between image and name is also important for understand-
ing the prohibition in question because it distinguishes itself clearly from the
preceding prohibition of images. While cult images are prohibited in principle,
only a certain use (abuse) of the name of God is prohibited.
The prohibition against abusing the name does not aim to protect God,
inasmuch as he reveals himself through his name, but rather protects humans,
in the sense that it warns them against a frivolous or flippant way of dealing
with God. Consequently, the connection between the three first prohibitions
in the Decalogue is closer than it might appear at first sight.
Exod 20:8–11: Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. Six days you can labor
and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to yhwh, your God. You
shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave,
your livestock, and the alien resident within your gates. For in six days yhwh made
heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested on the seventh day.
Therefore yhwh blessed the seventh day and consecrated it.
1) The term “sabbath,” which originally referred to “new moon,” that is, to the
time when the moon is absent between the moon phases, but not to a
specific day of the week;
2) The rhythm of 6+1 that one finds in the Ancient Near East, for example in
the land lying fallow every seventh year.
Exod 20:12: Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long on
the soil that yhwh, your God, is giving you.
Verse 12 raises the question of where to place the commandment with respect
to the two tablets; it raises questions about the structure of the Decalogue. In
terms of its content, there are good reasons to add the commandment to honor
one’s parents to either the first or second tablet. However, it is not simply a
matter of choosing one tablet over the other but also related to this command-
ment’s close connection to the preceding one on Sabbath, one that shows the
parent commandment from a formal perspective. Only the sabbath and the
parent commandment are formulated positively (“remember” and “honor”).
The two commandments constitute a link between the two parts, because
decalogue 199
… das erste weist als ‚religiöses‘ auf die vorhergehenden zurück, das zweite
als ‚ethisches‘ auf die nachfolgenden voraus. Aber zwischen beiden be-
steht auch ein anderer als der bloß formale Zusammenhang. Beide – und
innerhalb des Ganzen nur diese beiden – handeln von der Zeit, von der
gegliederten Zeit, das erste von der geschlossenen Folge der Wochen im
Jahr, das zweite von der offenen Folge der Generationen in der Volks-
dauer.6
The veneration of ancestors and the provision for the elderly—those no longer
fit for work—may well have stood at the beginning of the development of
this commandment, however, the larger horizon of meaning, revealed through
the final statement of v. 12b, shows that the commandment in its present
form has Israel as people in view. A long life span is not what is promised to
the individual, but rather the addressee is confronted with his/her own fate
through the claim of the commandment. In this way those who are addressed
by the commandment are of preceding and succeeding generations.
The appeal to the promise of the land used here, through its qualification
that the land is given by God, enlarges the vision beyond that of individual and
his family in the sense that Israel as God’s people is being addressed. In doing so,
the commandment is firmly linked back to the beginning of the Decalogue with
its statement about the fundamental relationship between yhwh and Israel.
The three prohibitions of the Decalogue without direct object that concern
murder, adultery, and theft show obvious signs of sharing a common origin in
prophetic condemnation. The occurrence of the triad in Hos 4:2 and Jer 7:9
points to this. Such a context helps us to understand why the specifications
and differentiations that seem so important to us as modern readers, in rela-
tion to the differing circumstances of homicide (e.g. military service, capital
punishment, euthanasia, self-defense, abortion etc.), are not treated in their
own right here.
6 Buber, Moses, 157 (the English states “The first, a ‘religious’ one, refers back to what went
before: the second as “ethical” refers ahead to those that follow. Between the two of them,
however, there is a connection other than the purely formal one. The two of them, and only
these two among all of the Ten Commandments, deal with time, articulated time, the first with
the closed succession of weeks in the year, the second with the open succession of generations
in national duration” Buber, Moses, 132 [English ed.]).
200 dohmen
The three short prohibitions here start with the most basic, or foundational,
and their shape seeks—positively formulated—to protect property; here, in
the case of the murder prohibition, the “property” is that of life. Inasmuch
as the term “murder” ( )רצחused in Exod 20:13 qualifies the assault on life
as involving violence and culpability,7 it is evident that the precise meaning
of the prohibition is bound up with a social consensus or legal system. The
qualification of homicide through “guilt” and/or “violence” presupposes legal
boundaries with regard to what is permitted and not permitted, upon which the
community or society has to reach an agreement. Only a social consensus can
qualify different types of homicide so as to exclude the phenomenon of murder.
7 Compare Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, “Du sollst nicht töten!”: Das fünfte Dekaloggebot im Kontext
alttestamentlicher Ethik (Beiträge zur Friedensethik 26; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2003).
decalogue 201
Exod 20:16: You shall not testify against your neighbor as a lying witness!
After the preceding prohibitions attempted to protect (legal) property, the pro-
hibition of v. 16—together with the closing in v. 17—addresses a new domain,
which directly concerns interpersonal relations. This can already be demon-
strated by the keyword “neighbor” ( )רעthat occurs four times in vv. 16–17. The
terms that are further employed in v. 16 (“ ענהto testify/to answer”; “ עדwitness”)
cannot conceal their legal background.
In recognizing a legal procedural context, one might think that the prohi-
bition is directed against false witnessing or taking a false oath. However, one
should note that v. 16 is not about a “lying testimony” (Lügenzeugnis), but about
a “lying witness” (Lügenzeugen). In other words, it is about the person not the
matter. Thus it follows that the verse is not immediately concerned with the
contrast of truth versus a lie. Rather, the verse has as its focus people and their
relation to fellow human beings. From this arises the question: What happens
on account of the lying witness? Only one thing can be decisive for the general
formulation in question, namely the overall objective that the one who is iden-
tified as a lying witness brings about against his/her neighbor. Whatever the
specific action “the neighbor” will be reduced or impaired in his/her position
as a result. This person can be damaged in relation to his material possessions
and/or in his honor, or put at a disadvantage, so that it is possible that even the
“witness” himself can profit from the detriment of the other.
202 dohmen
Exod 20:17: You shall not covet your neighbor’s house! You shall not covet your
neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs
to your neighbor.
At a formal level, v. 17 refers to two prohibitions that differ only in their objects;
the negative verb “ חמדto covet” is identical in both sentences and serves, there-
fore, to hold both prohibitions together. In the preceding false witness prohi-
bition (v. 16) one can already notice a link to the closing Decalogue command-
ments of vv. 16–17 through its fourfold mention of the “neighbor.” A further
connection emerges from the semantic range of the verb “to covet” used here
in v. 17. Even though an examination of the verb’s usage8 in the Old Testament
shows that its meaning cannot be limited to attitude or (mere) desire, it cannot
be dismissed that its meaning lies somewhere between wanting and doing.
To continue this idea, we might add that although the verb can describe
the entire process “vom Ansehen über das Empfinden der Freude, ja Lust,
sowie das innere Verlangen bis hin zum Besitzenwollen und Besitzergreifen,”9
it cannot be denied that the focus is not on the final implementation—that is,
on the deed in its narrow sense—but above all on the issues that will eventually
lead to the deed. This means that the prohibition against coveting—as well as
the preceding prohibition about a lying witness—is about an attitude within
the sphere of interpersonal relationships. Therefore the prohibition clearly
distinguishes itself from that surrounding theft or adultery, in the sense that
it seeks to understand the intentions behind a wide range of deeds. Coveting in
itself is not the substance of the prohibition—even if Christian moral theology
has often declared (sexual) desire to be sin on the basis of Exod 20:17—but
all that happens with the intention of appropriating someone else’s “goods.”
In the first place, the various “legal” practices and possibilities of acquiring
someone else’s goods come into view. This can range from the act of exploiting
crisis situations (e.g. indebtedness), to taking advantage of another (e.g. as an
owner of a large estate), to the seizing of ownerless property, or to the taking
of women whose husbands are at war. One finds corresponding situations in
other prophetic or legal texts in the ot (cf. Mic 2:2; Exod 34:24).
From this background the basic intention of the prohibition against coveting
becomes clear: Fellow human beings may not and should not be robbed of their
livelihood through legal means or by schemes that the law does not cover.
2 Formal Inconsistency
1. In Exod 20:4 there is an “and” between “cult image” ( )פסלand “form” ()תמונה
—this differs from Deut 5:8.
2. In Exod 20:5, in contrast to Deut 5:9, there is no “and” in the generational list
between “sons” and the “third and fourth [generation].”
204 dohmen
3. In the case of the last word of Exod 20:6 ()מצותי, there is a first person suffix
(“my commandments”) while in Deut 5:10 the suffix is third person singular
(“his commandments”). There is, however, a Masoretic qere that supports
the first person form in Exod 20:6.
4. The varied formulation of the sabbath commandment in Exod 20:8–11 and
Deut 5:12–15 constitutes the greatest and most striking difference between
the two Decalogue versions. The opening imperative itself is even different.
In Exod 20:8 it states “remember” ()זכור, while in Deut 5:12 it says “keep”
()שמור. The additional stipulation in Deut 5:12, “as yhwh, your God com-
manded you” is absent in Exod 20 but does occur in the commandment to
honor one’s parents (see point 5 below).
5. In the commandment to honor one’s parents in Deut 5, there are two addi-
tional sentences that contrast with the Decalogue version of Exod 20. First,
there is the addition of “as yhwh, your God commanded you” (mentioned
above) and second, as a complement to the final statement, there is the
additional phrase “and that it may go well with you.” Only in Deut 5 do the
sabbath and the parent commandment contain an additional reference to
God’s commandment through the formula “as yhwh, your God commanded
you” (Deut 5:12, 16). Often this formula has been understood as a reference
to a previous commandment—namely, the corresponding Decalogue com-
mandment in Exod 20. However, a closer examination of this formula shows
that its goal is to emphasize its own particular arrangement. The reason why
a connection between the sabbath and commandment to honor one’s par-
ents is only found in Deut but not in Exod is due to the fact that each version
speaks to a different context.10
10 Compare Christoph Dohmen, Exodus 19–40 (2d ed.; hthkat 5; Freiburg: Herder, 2012),
99–100.
decalogue 205
6. In Exod 20:14, 15, 16, and 17 the prohibitive statements are asyndetically
arranged, while in Deut 5:18, 19, 20, and 21 the arrangement is syndetical
through he use of “and.”
7. Exod 20:16 speaks of a “lying witness” ( ;)עד שקרin contrast Deut 5:20 refers
to a “false witness” ()עד שוא.
8. In Exod 20:17 the verb “to covet” ( )חמדis used twice while Deut 5:21 uses two
separate verbs: first “to covet” ( )חמדand second “to desire” ()אוה. Moreover,
in both versions the objects are arranged in a different order. Exod 20 first
lists the house, then wife, then male and female slave, and then finally ox
and donkey and anything else; Deut 5, on the other hand, first lists the wife of
the neighbor, then the house, the field, male and female slave, ox and donkey
and then anything else.
The differences listed above have been discussed frequently and evaluated in
synoptic comparisons on the basis of literary-historical references.11 Indepen-
dent of the evaluation of the individual differences, it becomes evident that
these differences can only be explained in connection with the distinctive fea-
tures of the Decalogue tradition that have been mentioned. This can be seen
above all in the change between the syndeton and asyndeton. The course is
set early on through the first variation between the syndeton and asyndeton in
Exod 20:4 and Deut 5:8. In Exod 20:4 a sequence is formed with “and,” starting
from “cult image” ( )פסלand “any forms” ()כל תמונה, so that the plural reference
of Exod 20:5 “you shall not bow down to them” refers back to the cult image
and form of v. 4. In contrast to that, in Deut 5:8 there is an apposition cre-
ated through the asyndeton. Here “form” is the more likely explanation for “cult
image,” so that the plural reference from Deut 5:9 cannot refer solely to Deut
5:8 where only one object is in the singular. Hence the reference must include
the “gods” from Deut 5:7. Consequently, in Deut 5—where the long explana-
tory section of Deut 5:9–10 refers to the foreign gods prohibition and the image
prohibition—a formal unit is established that puts a combination of the for-
eign gods and image prohibition at the beginning of the whole section. This
combination has consequences for the numbering of the ten commandments,
11 Compare Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, “Der Stand der Dekalogforschung,” in Recht und Ethik im
Alten Testament (ed. Bernard M. Levinson and Eckard Otto; atm 13; Münster: Lit-Verlag,
2004), 57–65.
206 dohmen
The term “ten words” ( )עשרת הדבריםfound in from Exod 34:28; Deut 4:13; and
10:4 accounts for the designation “Decalogue” (lxx: δέκα λόγοι) even though in
many languages one speaks of the ten “commandments.” Since rabbinic times
the Decalogue in Hebrew is named through the corresponding feminine plural
form ()עשרת הדברות. As Sarna explains:
12 Nahum Sarna, The jps Torah Commentary: Exodus (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication
Society, 1991), 108.
decalogue 207
vv. 8 and 12, there is a significant surplus of issues in relation to the ten-word-
standard. These remain even if one takes into consideration that the formula-
tion of the prohibition in v. 10 belongs to v. 8 and that v. 5 is not an independent
prohibition, but a complement to v. 4, or vv. 3, 4. The connection between the
ten-word-standard—expressed through the term “ten words”—and the Deca-
logue text finds a direct connection only in the context of the parallel tradition
of Deut 5. There the association is clearly seen in Deut 4:12 f. and Deut 10:4. This
explicit connection provides clarification on what the term “ten words” in Exod
34:28 thus refers to.
In the history of reception and impact (Wirkungsgeschichte) of the Deca-
logue the different ways of numbering things have resulted in the fact that dif-
fering numerations of the ten commandments have emerged, both in terms of
Judaism and Christianity, and also among Christian churches. For instance, the
Roman-Catholic as well as Lutheran traditions follow the Decalogue number-
ing of Deuteronomy, while the Orthodox, Reformed, and Anglican traditions
orient themselves around what is found in the Book of Exodus. The Jewish
tradition, on the basis of the Talmud and the some of the unique features
found therein, has developed its own system of numeration, one that is located
somewhere between that of Exodus and Deuteronomy. This is because it under-
stands the opening statement, which Christians typically consider a preamble,
to be the first commandment (see above), one that relates to belief in the God
of Israel. The other differences between the two versions, above all the addi-
tions to the sabbath commandment in Deut 5:12 and those made to the com-
mandment to honor one’s parents in Deut 5:16 (see above), confirm that the
two Decalogue versions do not represent imprecise replication or copying, but
rather reveal that they were meaningfully inserted within the compositional
and contextual framework of the Pentateuch.
The situation with respect to the traditional two-tablet Decalogue motif is sim-
ilar. In the Book of Deuteronomy this motif is immediately connected with the
text of the Decalogue (cf. Deut 4:13, 5:22; 9:9, etc.) while in the Book of Exodus it
is not; in Exodus this happens only later, more precisely in Exod 24:12, and even
there it occurs without any direct reference to the Decalogue. These observa-
tions lead us to the most widely known problem of Decalogue interpretation,
namely, that of the phenomenon of the “double tradition” (Doppelüberliefe-
rung) of the Decalogue. The problem of having two traditions—Exod 20:2–17
and Deut 5:6–21—cannot be solved through an isolated juxtaposition of the
208 dohmen
two text versions; rather, the traditions have to be considered in their narrative
contexts within the Pentateuch.13
Already in Exod 19:8 God informs Moses of the special nature of the mediation
of the revelation. The narrative development of this mediation, however, begins
only with the plea of the people: “you speak to us, and we will listen; but
do not let God speak to us, so that we will not die” (Exod 20:19). The entire
problem of the impartation of the Decalogue is related to this request because it
appears out of place after the Decalogue text and because it does not fit with the
introduction in Exod 20:1. Moreover, the plea of the people appears to ignore
the preceding narrative context of Exod 19.
Already in the twelfth century, Nachmanides (RaMBaN) suggested that Exod
20:18 cannot be the people’s response to the giving of the Decalogue but rather
their reaction to the preceding theophany, reported in Exod 19:
The correct interpretation regarding this section of the Torah and the
[entire] order of events pertaining to the Revelation appears to me to
be as follows: And all the people perceived … And they said unto Moses—
all this happened before the Revelation. Now at first, [in Chapter 19],
Scripture mentioned in sequence all the words of g-d that were com-
manded to Moses regarding the setting of a boundary to Mount Sinai
and the admonition given to the people. This is followed [at the begin-
ning of Chapter 20] by the Ten Commandments, and now Scripture refers
back and mentions the words of the people to Moses, relating that from
the moment they had perceived the thunderings and the lightnings, they
moved backwards and stood afar off, further away from the boundary of
the mountain that Moses had set for them.14
By looking at the end of Exod 19, the problem becomes even clearer. In the
final verse of the chapter, Moses obeys God’s command to go down to the peo-
ple (Exod 19:24). The command contains the warning to ascend Mount Sinai.
The closing sentence “He said to them” ( )ויאמר אלהםcan be resolved anaphor-
ically or cataphorically: Either it contains an ellipsis: “He said it to them,” or it
is an introduction to a speech about subsequent matters that will then entail
a quotation. Both possibilities have consequences for one’s understanding of
the succeeding verse in Exod 20:1. In the case of a anaphorical understand-
ing of Exod 19:25, there will be an ending at this point that will be underlined
through the subsequent positioning of a new subject (God) in Exod 20:1. In
this case, however, the Decalogue text itself can no longer be understood as
God’s speech directed to the people because Exod 20:1 does not mention any
addressees. Nonetheless, the continuation we find at Exod 20:18, as well as the
dialogue between yhwh and Moses in Exod 19:21–24 (with its instruction to
the people that they are not allowed to climb the mountain), fit well with an
anaphorical reading. In contrast, a cataphorical understanding raises the ques-
tion of the subject of Exod 19:25b. Either the reader has to assume that there
is a change of subject from Moses to yhwh (or God) in the transition from
v. 25a to v. 25b (that is, Exod 19:25b is to be understood as the introduction to
the Decalogue) or Exod 19:25b is to be understood as anticipating the opening
of the Book of Covenant of Exod 20:22–23:33—skipping the Decalogue, includ-
ing the narrative continuation in Exod 20:18–21. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, in his
study of the Decalogue, has helpfully described the problems of the competing
introductions to the speeches of Exod 19:25b and Exod 20:1. He states:
V. 25a legt für V. 25b den Sprecher und Adressaten fest: Mose redet zum
Volk. Dagegen spricht in 20,1 Elohim zum nicht genannten Adressaten.
Wie sind Konkurrenz und Widerspruch der beiden Redeeinleitungen
aufzulösen? Textverlust nach V. 25 oder Einschätzungen wie ‚verunglück-
ter Versuch, einen Ausweg (aus) der erzählerischen Situation zu finden,
in die man durch V. 20 geraten war‘, bieten keine ernstzunehmenden
Lösungen. Auch die Verteilung auf zwei dtr Schichten bei gleichbleiben-
der Funktion, Einleitung zum Dekalog zu sein, scheitert am Unterschied
der Sprecher; ferner kommen beide Redeeinleitungen als Einleitung zum
Dekalog, der Jahwerede par exellence, in Bezug auf Theologie und For-
mulierung für eine dtr Hand nicht in Frage. Es bleibt nur die Möglichkeit,
mit einem überlegten redaktionellen Eingriff im vorliegenden Text zu
rechnen. Ein Redaktor—weder der Jehowist noch ein Deuteronomist—
hat die ihm in 19,25b vorgegebene Einleitung zu einer Moserede durch
den Einsatz in 20,1 umfunktioniert zu einer Einleitung für eine Rede Elo-
hims an das Volk. Strukturell betrachtet besteht seine neue Einleitung
nun aus drei Teilen: Der erste übernommene Teil V. 25b gibt den Adres-
saten an, wohingegen er den Sprecher noch im Dunkeln lässt. Der zweite
210 dohmen
Teil (‚und es sprach Elohim all diese Worte‘) offenbart den Sprecher und
nennt den Titel der Rede. Der dritte Teil, der erstarrte infinitivus construc-
tus von )לאמר( אמר, dient der unmittelbaren Überleitung zur direkten
Rede. In bezug auf die strukturellen Besonderheiten wie Dreiteiligkeit,
Nennung des Adressaten im ersten und danach das Subjekt im zweiten
Glied fällt eine bezeichnende Parallele auf, nämlich die redaktionell über-
arbeitete Bucheinleitung Lev 1,1, hinter der Weimar den Pentateuchredak-
tor vermutet. Die Frontstellung von אמרund der Numeruswechsel von
pluralen Adressaten in 19,25b (zur) Singularanrede des Dekalogs mußten
in Kauf genommen werden. Demnach kann man die Crux der Deka-
logeinleitungen genetisch erklären.15
15 Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, Der Dekalog: Seine späten Fassungen, die originale Komposition und
seine Vorstufen (obo 45; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 165–166.
16 Compare Thomas Hieke, Levitikus 1–15 (HThKAT 6.1; Freiburg: Herder, 2014), 156–158.
decalogue 211
explicitly combine their plea to Moses for mediation (Exod 20:19) with the
request that God not speak to them. The fear of dying mentioned there speaks
against a quantitative constraint in the sense that God should not say more
than he has said so far. The continuation of Exod 19:25 in 20:18 ff. goes against
the understanding that God directly communicated the Decalogue to the peo-
ple, as well as against the assumption that Moses passes the Decalogue on that
was spoken to him by God. In either case, the plea of the people in Exod 20:19
“you speak with us” would be utterly pointless. Besides, there is no prior infor-
mation given concerning a corresponding divine speech including instructions
to Moses. This is entirely different from the continuing narrative because in it
God listens to the people’s plea for mediation and commissions Moses in a long
speech (Exod 20:22–23:33) to pass the message on to the people accordingly.
Therefore the introduction to this speech ( ;כה תאמר אל בני ישראלExod 20:22)
takes into consideration the characteristics of the previous happenings. The
first thing that Moses is to tell the Israelites is the fact that God spoke to them.
Nonetheless, this does not happen by way of a restatement of things already
known, but rather by way of a general reference to what they have witnessed.
Just as here in Exod 20:22, so already Exod 20:18 talks about a “witnessing” on
the part of the people—quite literally they are said to see ()ראה. Here we return
to the idea of Nachmanides in which he suggests that the reaction of the people
is to the theophany, prior to the conveying of the Decalogue.
These observations leave no doubt that the text of the Decalogue in Exod
20:1–17 stands, in the truest sense of the word, outside of the narrative surround-
ing it. In terms of its context, the Decalogue is directed neither to the people,
nor to Moses; rather, its wording is aimed directly at the reader of the Book of
Exodus. The actors in the narrative—that is, Moses and the Israelites—witness
in the context of the theophany, with all its accompanying events, only the fact
of speaking, not the content of that speech. Maimonides already understood it
in this way, as he writes “… sie aber vernahmen diese gewaltige Stimme, konn-
ten aber keine Worte unterscheiden.”17 One can illustrate this idea—that the
fact of speaking is witnessed, not understandable content—through an image
of a foreign-language being spoken whereby one sees or hears that somebody is
speaking without understanding what is said. Another example might be that
of someone speaking behind closed doors in which the person outside the door
hears that someone is speaking but not what is spoken. The embedding of the
Decalogue within the narrative of Exod 20 is best understood in this way and
17 Maimonides, Führer der Unschlüssigen: Zweites und drittes Buch (vol. 2 of Führer der
Unschlüssigen; ed. Adolf Weiss; Hamburg: Meiner, 1972), 228.
212 dohmen
Only if one views the Decalogue in Exod 20 as information for the reader and not
as a speech directed to the people in the narrative, one can better understand
the long divine speech in Exod 20:22–23:33, a speech which is directed to Moses
due to the people’s request for mediation. That is to say that this speech of God
presents itself as mediated Decalogue (vermittelter Dekalog). Only after it was
put into writing by Moses (Exod 24:4) and after it became the foundation of the
covenant between God and Israel as a “ ספר הבריתbook of the covenant” (Exod
24:7–8) does the Decalogue reappear in the narrative. After the ratification
of the covenant by way of a confirmation ritual, God summons Moses to the
mountain. There Moses is to receive the stone tablets, which God himself
has written as the foundation of the people’s instruction (Exod 24:12). At this
point in the narrative it is not clear to Moses nor to the reader which text or
content is contained on the tablets written by God. Only when the Decalogue
is later identified as the tablets, a fact revealed among other things in Exod
34:28, can one see with hindsight that the text on the tablets contains the ten
commandments.
Before Moses receives the announced “pieces of God’s writing,” God informs
him by way of meticulous instructions how Israel is to build a sanctuary (Exod
25–31). After 40 days and nights on the mountain, God finally hands the prom-
ised tablets over to Moses, those God himself has written (Exod 31:18). The
tablets, however, will be shattered by Moses upon sight of the golden calf, which
the people made in his absence. This is before Israel—and the reader—comes
to know what God had written on them (Exod 32:19). Looking back from this
point of the narrative it becomes clear that the handing over of the Decalogue
did not happen in a ceremonious manner, but rather happens “on the margins”
so to speak, en passant. The tablets were handed over to Moses when he was
about to leave, and according to Exod 31:18 the tablets themselves appear to be
more important than the act of handing over, something that is understandable
in the light of what happens upon Moses’ return.
18 This is akin to the way the information is provided for the reader in (for example) Gen 22:1
or in the heavenly scene contained in Job 2.
decalogue 213
The shattering of the tablets that God had written (Exod 32:19) happens pre-
cisely “at the foot of the mountain” ()תחת ההר, the very place where Moses had
previously erected an altar for the ratification of the covenant (Exod 24:4). This
statement indicating the location the people’s golden calf offense is interpreted
to them as a “breach of covenant.” In the course of the narrative, the tablets
come into view only after Moses’ intercessory prayer, a prayer that became nec-
essary as a result of the golden calf. Following this, God instructs Moses that
he will write exactly the same words that he had written on the first tablets
on new tablets, tablets Moses is to produce (Exod 34:1, 4). However, before
this takes place further laws are issued that serve to renew the covenant, and
which Moses eventually has to put into writing (Exod 34:27). After Moses stays
another 40 days on the mountain, God writes the words anew. Through the clos-
ing reference in Exod 34:28 that characterizes the “words of the covenant” (דברי
)הבריתas the “ten words” ()עשרת הדברים, the unspecified subject of “ ויכתבhe
wrote” is determined (Exod 34:28b). On the basis of Exod 34:27 one could under-
stand “he wrote” in Exod 34:28b as the execution of Moses’ being commissioned
to put into writing the instructions for the covenant renewal of Exod 34:27a.
In this line of thinking, one understands Moses to be the writer of the ten
commandments in Exod 34:28. This, however, would go against the announce-
ment in Exod 34:1b whereby yhwh emphasizes that he himself would write
on the (new) tablets. Another solution is only possible if one sees in Exod
34—as one often does in exegesis as a result of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s
observations—a further Decalogue. This one, which would then also be writ-
ten by Moses on tablets, is often described as the “cultic one” as opposed to
the “ethical one” of Exod 20. n Contrary to this stands the determination of the
tablets through the article in Exod 34:28b ()על הלחת. That is to say, it refers back
to the tablets of Exod 34:1, 4. Since all references that speak about writing on the
tablets refer to God as the subject of the writing, one ought to understand Exod
34:28b as the fulfillment of the announcement in Exod 34:1: God himself writes
on the tablets again the same words that he had already previously written on
them. Although the reader cannot assert with complete certainty at this point
that these “ten words” are the same divine words already encountered in Exod
20:1–17, the close connection—which was formed in the preceding section
from Exod 20 to Exod 34 between the different instructions and the covenant—
points the reader in this direction. This is furthermore supported by the fact
that the first divine speech (Exod 20:22–23:33), which was put into writing by
Moses (Exod 24:7), presents itself to the reader (following Exod 20:18 ff.) as the
mediation of God’s words from Exod 20:1–17. The second divine speech that
was put into writing by Moses for the renewal of the covenant after the breach
(Exod 34:6–7.12–26) appears as a reiteration of the first. The initial uncertainty
214 dohmen
regarding the subject of the writing in Exod 34:28b stresses the aforementioned
assumption without offering the reader complete clarity on this point.
At least at this point in the narrative it becomes clear that a fundamental
difference exists between God’s word on the tablets and all the other com-
mandments and prohibitions that God conveys and Moses writes down. Moses
does not read to the people—this is perhaps different from how one would have
it—not even after his return from the encounter with God on the mountain
does he read the text of the tablets, which he has received from God. Instead he
“instructs” them all that “yhwh had spoken with him on Mount Sinai” (Exod
34:32). The Decalogue, however, definitely does not belong to what God has
spoken to Moses on the mountain. That is, the narrative does not know of any
dialogue between Moses and God on the mountain that included the Deca-
logue. The Decalogue is not found in any of the dialogues on the mountain,
neither in Exod 19 or 20:22ff., nor in Exod 25:1ff. or 32:31 ff. Therefore the formu-
lation of Exod 34:32 is to be related either to the building instructions for the
sanctuary (Exod 25–31) or to the word of God in Exod 34:10–26 that Moses is
(additionally) to write down, as commissioned by God (Exod 34:27). In contrast,
it appears that for the tablets the fact of putting them into writing is sufficient,
just as before in Exod 20 the fact of speaking (without understanding) had to suf-
fice for Moses and for the people. Further in the course of Israel’s Sinai narrative
one encounters God’s word written by God on the tablets only one more time
in relation to the completion of the ark of the covenant (Exod 37:1–9) which,
according to Exod 25:16, is to contain the “testimony” ()העדת. Later Moses puts
this testimony into the ark accordingly (Exod 40:20), whereby Exod 31:18 and
32:15 confirm that “the testimony” is a designation for the tablets written by
God.19
God’s word, which was “secured” in the ark accordingly, is only mentioned
again in Moses’ final speech that constitutes the Book of Deuteronomy. The
large parenesis of Deut 4 in which the thought of God’s revelation is developed
from the image prohibition, refers back to the Sinai events several times. The
opposition between word and form, and between that of hearing and seeing,
are important in order to remove the grounds for any image worship as a result
of the event of revelation. In appealing to the giving of the Decalogue, Deut 4,
in its context, also places importance on recording the distance between the
parties at the time of the communication. Even if the linguistic form differs, in
terms of substance (Sache) it is entirely congruent with Exod 20:18 ff. In Deut 4
it is emphasized that God has not spoken directly to the people, but rather from
“the midst of the fire” (cf. Deut 4:12.33.36). Just as the formulation “from heaven”
( )מן השמיםis used in Exod 20:22 and Deut 4:36, so the wording “from the midst
of the fire” ( )מתוך האשconstitutes an element of distance that points to a spe-
cial form of transmission. Fittingly, Deut 4:13 speaks about a “declaration of the
covenant” that aims at encouraging Israel to keep the ten words (לעשות עשרת
)הדבריםThis a clear allusion to the indirect connection of Exod 20:1–17 with
Exod 20:22–23:33 as a “covenant testimony” (Bundesurkunde). The understand-
ing that Israel at first has only experienced the fact of God speaking at Sinai is
reflected again in Deut 4:12.33 in differentiated form. There it is not about hear-
ing the actual words, but about hearing “the sound of the words” ( )קול הדבריםor
about “hearing the voice of God” ()קול אלהים מדבר. In Deut 1:34 it also states that
God hears “the voice of the words” ( )קול הדבריםof the people and his reaction
makes it evident that it is not about a dialogue or conversational exchange.
In Deut 5:1 Moses finally summons the people in order to instruct them to
keep the commandments and the laws before they enter the promised land.
He therefore focuses in his speech first on the special context of the Decalogue
communication. This is completely in line with Deut 4: God has spoken in a
unique way; nevertheless the immediacy that the expression “face to face” in
Deut 5:4 alludes to is broken in two ways, right away. On the one hand, this is
seen through the element of distance that is known from Deut 4, in as much
as this speech happens “from the midst of the fire.” On the other hand, the
distance is marked through the reference to Moses’ mediatory role between
God and people: “At that time I was standing between yhwh and you to declare
to you the words of yhwh; for you were afraid because of the fire and did not
go up the mountain.”
It is precisely through the connection to the situation of Exod 20:18–21 (see
above), which is established through Deut 5:5, that a unique interpretation of
the Sinai events comes about in order to understand the central statement of
revelation in relation to the Decalogue. In Exod 20:18 the people ask Moses to
mediate for them after or while God is speaking. This mediation takes place in
the following long divine speech (Exod 20:22–23:33) that is finally communi-
cated to the people through Moses in Exod 24:3, and made into the covenant
testimony. In contrast, Deut 5:5 gives the impression that Moses’ mediatory role
has already started before God spoke in Exod 20. From this perspective this
means, in concrete terms, that Moses’ mediatory role has started at the same
time as the speaking of God. Since nowhere in the entire narrative from Exod
216 dohmen
20 to Deut 5 does it say that Moses has passed the wording of the Decalogue
on to the people, the meaning of this “difference” between Deut 5 and the Sinai
narrative can easily be explained. Deut 5:5 points to the first, oral proclama-
tion of the Decalogue for the people. Following the wording of the Decalogue
of Deut 5:6–21, it is consistently and logically emphasized that God spoke these
words and “nothing else.” “These words yhwh spoke with a loud voice to your
whole assembly at the mountain, out of the fire, the cloud, and the thick dark-
ness, and he added no more. He wrote them on two stone tables, and gave them
to me” (Deut 5:22). The indication that God spoke these words and nothing
else ( )ולא יסףis only necessary if those who are now listening have not heard
this text previously. Otherwise, they would be able to make this judgment for
themselves; it would not need to be confirmed by Moses. This is further sup-
ported and confirmed by the subsequent note in Deut 5:22. There the indication
that God wrote these words on both stone tablets and handed them over to
Moses is not in any way anachronistic because the tablets were handed over
to Moses only after the next 40-day stay on the mountain. This is also presup-
posed in Deut 9–10. Rather, the indication is to be understood as a “formula of
concordance” (Übereinstimmungsformel), a formula that precisely states that
the words spoken by Moses here—the wording of the Decalogue—are entirely
consistent with the words written previously by God.
One could have expected at this point, when Moses looks back on the
situation at Sinai, that Moses would take the tablets that God has given to
him from the ark in order to read them out to the people. That this does not
happen can be explained by the fact that at the Sinai theophany the speaking of
God preceded the handing over of the written version, even though the people
had experienced at that time only the fact of this speaking. In memory of this
divine speech, Moses now proclaims the Decalogue. Just as Moses proclaims the
Decalogue, so—the narrative emphasizes—has God previously spoken these
words with a “loud” voice ()קול גדול. The proclamation of the Decalogue for
the people that takes place here is for Israel at the same time a “translation”
of what the previous generation perceived as a “mere speaking” (the fact of
speaking) at Sinai. The readers of Torah, by contrast, at last receive here a
final clarification about the fact that what they could already read in Exod 20,
namely this Decalogue, is also the text on the tablets.
The lasting significance of the Decalogue is ultimately founded in its divine
origin, which the Pentateuch narrative ties up with the act of God’s writing.
Real immediacy, and thus the ever new encounter is possible only in the writ-
ten word whilst in each speech act it is realized only once. If one examines the
framing verses that introduce and close the Decalogue in Exod 20 and Deut
5, one will see that the accounts are not crafted in parallel fashion. In Exod
decalogue 217
The readers of the Torah, those who have already been made privy to the word-
ing of the Decalogue in Exod 20:1–17 as an aid for understanding all further
commandments and instructions that follow between Exod 20:22 to Deut 5,
find themselves confronted with two not completely agreeing versions of the
Decalogue in reading Deut 5:6–21. Since readers could and had to concur with
the fact that even God himself formulates the same matter differently on differ-
ent occasions (compare for example the idol prohibition in Exod 20:3–4 with
Exod 20:23), they will not understand the difference between the two versions
to be a contradiction, but rather to be supplementary statements regarding the
same matter. The Bible frequently invites a complementary reading.
Already on the level of the Pentateuch text in question, the Decalogue
version of the Book of Deuteronomy, in comparison to the version in the Book
of Exodus, has a clear priority because it stands under the narrated authority
of Moses, who proclaims the Decalogue in Deut 5 to the people. The version
in Exod 20, on the other hand—designed as reader information—gains its
authority only by way of the narrator.
Certainly the motif of God putting the Decalogue into writing himself has
its lasting validity and among all the other instructions of the Torah this gives
it a distinctive position. Nevertheless, on the narrative level it is precisely the
written nature of the instruction that counts, coming to expression in the tablet
motif. It is exactly this written nature that forms the basis of the biblical under-
standing of revelation: The thought forms a bridge between the word of God
that is heard—but not understood—and the word of God that is mediated
through Moses’ proclamation that becomes the basis for all subsequent gen-
erations. The synchronic analysis of the Torah in relation to the Decalogue
218 dohmen
Select Bibliography
Ben-Chorin, Shalom. Die Tafeln des Bundes und das Zehnwort vom Sinai. 2d ed. Tübin-
gen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987.
Braulik, Georg. Die deuteronomischen Gesetze und der Dekalog: Studien zum Aufbau von
Deuteronomium 12–26. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 145. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches
Bibelwerk, 1991.
Crüsemann, Frank. Bewahrung der Freiheit: Das Thema des Dekalogs in sozialgeschicht-
licher Perspektive. München: Kaiser, 1983.
. Die Tora: Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes. Mün-
chen: Kaiser, 1992.
Focant, Camille, ed. La loi dans l’un et l’autre testament. Lectio Divina 168. Paris: Éd. Du
Cerf, 1997.
Frevel, Christian, ed. Die Zehn Worte: Der Dekalog als Testfall der Pentateuchkritik.
Questiones Disputatae 212. Freiburg: Herder, 2005.
Graf, Friedrich Wilhelm. Moses Vermächtnis: Über göttliche und menschliche Gesetze.
München: C.H. Beck, 2006.
Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar. Der Dekalog: Seine späten Fassungen, die originale Komposition
und seine Vorstufen. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 45. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1982.
20 With regard to a related synchronic reading of the entire Pentateuch, see Eckart Otto, Das
Gesetz des Mose (Darmstadt: wbg, 2007), 14–97.
decalogue 219
David P. Wright
Of the various problems that drive study of the Covenant Code (cc), questions
of the text’s origin, its development, and with this, its relationship to other legal
texts, both biblical and from elsewhere in the ancient Near East, have priority.
Two divergent hypotheses compete with one another. The prevailing hypoth-
esis is one of gradual redactional growth. The casuistic laws were created first,
out of Israelite practice and tradition and in stages. Later the apodictic laws
were added, also in stages. The Covenant Code was inserted into a narrative
context when or after the apodictic laws were added. The other hypothesis
claims that cc as a whole arose as a relatively unified composition from the
revision or recasting of sources, mainly the Laws of Hammurabi (lh). The
fullest formulation of this theory claims that cc was created as part of a larger
narrative that, at least, recounted oppression in Egypt, the exodus, and the rev-
elation of law at the mountain in the wilderness. This essay outlines these two
hypotheses with emphasis on evidence for the source theory and offers some
additional evidence for this view.1
1 Preliminaries
Some basic data need to be set out before proceeding. The Covenant Code, in
its broadest definition, covers Exod 20:23–23:19 (bhs versification). The label
“Covenant Code” (based on ספר הבריתin Exod 24:7) may still be used for the text
if it is realized that the text is not a code in the in the sense of a comprehensive
corpus of positive or normative law.
The Covenant Code consists of a patterned combination of genres. Sections
of apodictic law, with the form “do X” or “don’t do Y” (20:23–26; 22:20–23:19),
surround a body of casuistic laws, with the form “if … then …” (21:1–22:19).
Some laws with a participial formulation that sets up the case (“one who does
1 For a summary of approaches, see David P. Wright, Inventing God’s Law: How the Covenant
Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2009), 16–24; Wright, “Methods of Studying Ancient Law: The Hebrew Bible in its Near Eastern
Context,” Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Law (forthcoming).
X …”) appear within the casuistic section, in 21:12–17 and 22:17–19. The first
group relates to the immediate context of capital crimes. The second group is
a miscellany, tacked on to the end of the casuistic laws.
The organization of the casuistic laws is thematically intelligible, though it is
not immediately clear why the collection begins with the topic of debt-slavery
(21:2–11). The next group of laws (21:12–32) cohere in the theme of homicide
and injury, and several have the penalty “he shall be put to death” ( מות יומתor
)יומת. The last block of the casuistic laws (21:33–22:14) deals with theft and loss
of property. Several of these have the requirement “he shall pay” ( שלם ישלםor
)ישלם. The seduction of a maiden in 22:15–16 has been connected with the
preceding topic of property, but it may be a footnote connected to the textually
more distant sale of a daughter into slavery in 21:7–11.
The rationale behind the organization of the apodictic laws is not clear
when they are studied by themselves. While the initial apodictic laws deal
with one topic, the cult (20:23–26), the final apodictic laws have the perplexing
sequence of laws about the poor (22:20–26), cursing (22:27), offerings and
holiness (22:28–30), justice (23:1–3, 6–8), lost animals (23:5–6), the immigrant
(23:9), the seventh year and day (23:10–12), not mentioning other gods (23:13),
and festivals and sacrifices (23:14–19).
An appendix accompanies cc in Exod 23:20–33. This describes the deity’s
bringing the Israelites to the land, the blessings that will attend them, and
the defeat and expulsion of the non-Israelite inhabitants from the land. The
present text portrays this as part of the same divine revelation in which cc was
delivered.
2 Redactional Analyses
2 See, for example, Eckart Otto, Wandel der Rechtsbegründungen in der Gesellschaftsgeschichte
des antiken Israel: Eine Rechtsgeschichte des ‘Bundesbuches’ Ex xx 22–xxiii 13 (sb 3; Lei-
den: Brill, 1988); Otto, “Town and Rural Countryside in Ancient Israelite Law: Reception
and Redaction in Cuneiform and Israelite Law,” jsot 57 (1993): 3–22; Bernard S. Jackson,
Wisdom-Laws: A Study of the Mishpatim of Exodus 21:1–22:16 (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2006); and Ludger Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Das Bundesbuch (bzaw 188; Berlin: de Gruyter,
1990).
origin, development, and context of the covenant code 223
Schönberger see only minimal non-Israelite influence and put this at the begin-
ning stages. This leaves unexplained why the text as a whole is similar to Near
Eastern law texts.
Ralf Rothenbusch has dealt more thoroughly and systematically with the
similarities of cc to Near Eastern law.3 For him, cc’s casuistic laws (i.e., 21:2–
11, 18–22:16) were written in a relatively short span of time in the second half
of the eighth century. Similarities with Near Eastern law are due to the main-
tenance of oral (not written) traditions from the second millennium mediated
to Israel through the Phoenicians. The difficulty for his analysis is that a the-
ory of oral traditions lacks the power to explain the close similarities of cc to
lh. But his analysis points to another tension with other types of redactional
approaches, especially those of Otto and Jackson. If cc’s laws come from inher-
ited non-Israelite tradition, then they may not directly or fully reflect actual
Israelite practice.
As noted, virtually all redactional models view the apodictic laws as sec-
ondary. Schwienhorst-Schönberger, for example, describes these as coming
from a “gottesrechtliche Redaktion.” This transformed the rather secular casuis-
tic collection into a divine revelation. In his view, this redaction occurred before
cc was incorporated into its narrative context. Many other analyses coordinate
the addition of the apodictic laws with cc’s incorporation into its narrative
context and attribute this to Deuteronomistic redactional activity. Ostensible
evidence of this is the presence of themes of interest to Deuteronomy and the
Deuteronomistic school in the apodictic laws, such as laws on the immigrant
and poor. Moreover, cc’s appendix in Exod 23:20–33 and elements of the nar-
rative frame of the revelation and covenant ceremony on the mountain (e.g.,
Exod 19:3–8; 24:3–8) have a Deuteronomistic character.4 Some of this material,
however, may be pre-Deuteronomic. For example, most agree that the altar and
festival laws in cc’s apodictic laws are sources for Deuteronomy.5 The scene of
revelation at the mountain with the revelation of the Decalogue and cc was
also taken up by Deut 5. It is reasonable to think that other apodictic laws in
cc and the surrounding narrative predate Deuteronomy’s basic laws.
3 Source Dependence
The hypothesis that cc used lh as its primary literary source arises from
recognizing a thicker web of correspondences, mainly in the casuistic laws,
but also in the apodictic laws, and now even in the appendix to cc.6 Critiques
generally focus on differences.7 But there are many close correspondences
that allow for postulating influence in other places where the similarities are
less precise. Moreover, perspectives from the recent study of inner-biblical
exegesis and the hermeneutical innovation that comes with this demonstrate
that differences may arise from textual revision.8 Differences, when compelling
explanations for them can be marshaled, can actually turn out to be evidence
for dependence.
The essay here reviews the evidence for cc’s dependence mainly on lh and
to a lesser extent on auxiliary sources in the casuistic laws, apodictic laws, and
the appendix. It shows in particular how a source theory makes sense of textual
6 For a detailed presentation of this hypothesis for the casuistic and apodictic laws, see Wright,
Inventing. Those who follow and discuss a source hypothesis for the casuistic laws include
Bernard M. Levinson, “The Right Chorale”: Studies in Biblical Law and Interpretation (fat 54;
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 276–330; David M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible:
A New Reconstruction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 470–472. Levinson dates this
to the Neo-Assyrian period while Carr would put it a century or more earlier. A problem
with attributing only the casuistic laws to source influence is that there is then no ideologi-
cal contextualization for the casuistic laws, including the notion of divine authorship. This
chief hermeneutical innovation of cc is located in the apodictic laws. Further one is left
without explanation why the theological emphases in the outer sections versus the casuis-
tic laws in cc and lh just happen to correspond. In a recent review (Bibliotheca Orientalis 70
[2013]: 309–331), William Morrow, who approaches these matters with healthy skepticism, is
nonetheless willing to see a literary connection between Exod 21:18–32 and lh. But if this be
admitted, then it forms a basis for hypothesizing the dependence of other parts of cc on lh.
See the discussion below.
7 For example, Bruce Wells, “The Covenant Code and Near Eastern Legal Traditions: A Response
to David P. Wright,” Maarav 13 (2006): 85–118.
8 The work of Bernard Levinson epitomizes inner-biblical exegesis as applied to biblical law. See
his Deuteronomy and his Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2008).
origin, development, and context of the covenant code 225
example in detail, the laws on miscarriage, talion, and slave injury in Exod
21:22–27, illustrates the explanatory power of this hypothesis.9
22 When men struggle and they knock a pregnant woman and her fetus
comes out but there is no calamity, he shall be fined as the husband of the
woman exacts from him and he shall pay בפללים.
23 If there is calamity, you shall give (ונתתה, i.e., pay) life for life, 24 eye
for eye, tooth for tooth, arm for arm, leg for leg, 25 burn for burn, injury for
injury, wound for wound.
26 If a man strikes the eye of his male slave or the eye of his female slave
and destroys it, he shall send him away free for his eye.
27 And if he knocks out the tooth of his male slave or the tooth of his
female slave, he shall send him away free for his tooth.
These laws have an unusual, indeed, awkward formulation. The talion law
(vv. 23b–25) is the punishment clause of the second of two miscarriage laws
(vv. 22–23), not an independent legal statement. This apodosis is also headed
by a second person verb, “you shall give.” This is out of place in a context
of casuistic law, where a third person verb is expected. The talion law, too,
is a list (vv. 23b–25), and a long list at that. Another complexity is in the
slave injury laws that follow (vv. 26–27). These continue the topic of talion,
as indicated by the phrases “for his eye” and “for his tooth,” yet these laws
are formulated as independent casuistic laws in contrast to the preceding
talion list. One expects subcases dealing with social gradations, as in the slave
injury laws, to be attached to independent casuistic laws on the same topic.
Undeniably, the conceptual flow of the whole passage does make sense. The
talion penalty does double duty: it provides the punishment for a case of
assault on a pregnant woman and at the same time states a general law that
applies to all cases of death and injury. But its formulation is nonetheless
peculiar. Another problem is in the initial miscarriage law. It describes two
men fighting and knocking the woman but prescribes that one man pay the
fine.
Redactional analyses solve the problems by postulating layers of textual
growth. Most posit an original simple miscarriage law with two parts. Some
claim that these originally dealt with the fetus being born alive versus being
9 For detail see Wright, Inventing, 154–191; Wright, “Miscarriage, Talion, and Slave Injury in the
Covenant Code and Hammurabi’s Laws,” in Gazing on the Deep: Ancient Near Eastern and
Other Studies in Honor of Tzvi Abusch (ed. Jeffrey Stackert, Barbara Nevling Porter, and David
P. Wright; Bethesda: cdl Press, 2010), 539–564.
228 wright
born dead. Others argue that the laws originally dealt, as they read now, with
the death of the fetus versus that of the woman. Certain complexities in these
original miscarriage laws appear to be secondary, including the inconsistency
of two men knocking but one paying and the tag-clause “he shall pay ”בפללים
in v. 22 (it is not clear what בפלליםmeans). The penalty clause for the second
miscarriage law (v. 23b) would have originally been brief and might have pre-
scribed a different remedy. At some point this was modified, including chang-
ing the verb to the second person. The “life for life” phrase, perhaps an addition,
attracted the rest of the talion list. This list may have been added in stages: first
the hard tissue injuries of v. 24 and later the soft tissue injuries of v. 25 (see n. 10).
Only when or after the talion injuries of v. 24 were added were the slave injury
laws of vv. 26–27 added, because they deal with similar injuries and use talion
terminology.
A solution along these lines is reasonable in terms of standard critical anal-
ysis within biblical studies until the series of laws is compared to lh. Read
against lh, the passage appears to be a unitary composition that creatively
reworked laws and motifs from lh to operate in cc’s larger system of laws.
The foundation for cc’s law is the pair of laws on aggravated miscarriage in
the case of a free woman in lh 209–210:
22 When men struggle and they knock a 209 If a man strikes a daughter of a man
pregnant woman and her fetus comes (mārat awīlim) and he causes her to
out but there is no calamity, he shall be miscarry her fetus, he shall weigh out ten
fined as the husband of the woman shekels of silver for her fetus.
exacts from him and he shall pay בפללים.
23 If there is calamity, you shall pay life 210If that woman dies, they shall kill his
for life, … daughter.
Both collections have a pair of laws, the first of which deals with miscarriage
and the second where the woman dies. The main difference is in the penalty
of the second law. Hammurabi’s legislation requires that the daughter of the
assailant be put to death because the victim was a “daughter of a man.” Instead
of this, cc features its talion law.
The Covenant Code’s talion law presumably replaces the problematic re-
quirement of vicarious punishment in lh. That cc was averse to this penalty
is seen in its very next laws on the goring ox. The Covenant Code’s laws match
origin, development, and context of the covenant code 229
the three basic cases in Hammurabi’s ox law and constitute broader evidence
of cc’s dependence on lh (21:28–32; lh 250–252):
28If an ox gores a man or woman and he 250If an ox gores a man (awīlum) while
dies, the ox shall be stoned, its flesh shall passing through the street and kills
not be eaten, and the owner of the ox is (him), that case has no claim.
not liable.
29If an ox is an habitual gorer, from 251If a man’s ox is an habitual gorer, and
previous experience, and its owner has his district has informed him that it is
been warned, but he did not restrain it, an habitual gorer, but he did not file
and it kills a man or woman, the ox shall its horns and did not control his ox,
be stoned and its owner shall be put to and that ox gores a son of a man (mār
death. awīlim), he shall pay one-half mina (=
30If ransom is laid upon him, he shall thirty shekels) of silver.
pay the redemption price for his life,
according to whatever is laid upon him.
31Or (if) it gores a son or daughter, it
shall be done to him according to this
law.
32If the ox gores a male slave or a female 252If it is the slave of an awīlum he (the
slave, he shall pay thirty shekels of silver ox owner) shall pay one-third mina (=
to his (the slave’s) master and the ox twenty shekels) of silver.
shall be stoned.
The Covenant Code qualifies its second law in v. 31, stating that the case of a
child is to be handled like the foregoing case, that of an adult. This qualification
rejects vicarious punishment, where an ox owner’s child might be put to death.
This appears to respond to the specific wording of lh 251 in which the victim
is termed “a son of a man” (mār awīlim), as opposed to just “a man” (awīlum)
in lh 250. A mār awīlim is the male equivalent of the victim in the miscarriage
law, a “daughter of a man” (mārat awīlim).
To craft its replacement apodosis in the second miscarriage law cc turned
to Hammurabi’s talion laws (lh 196–201) just a few paragraphs before the
miscarriage laws.
230 wright
23b … you shall give (= pay) 196If an awīlum blinds the eye of a member of the
life for life, awīlum class, they shall blind his eye.
24eye for eye, 197If he breaks the bone of an awīlum, they shall break
tooth for tooth, his bone.
arm for arm, 198If he blinds the eye of a commoner or breaks the bone
leg for leg, of a commoner, he shall weigh out one mina (sixty
25burn for burn, shekels) of silver.
injury for injury, 199If he blinds the eye of an awīlum’s slave or breaks the
wound for wound. bone of an awīlum’s slave, he shall weigh out half of his
value.
200If an awīlum knocks out the tooth of an awīlum of the
same rank, they shall knock out his tooth.
201If he knocks out the tooth of a commoner, he shall
weigh out one third mina (twenty shekels) of silver.
Hammurabi’s talion laws are a series of fully formed casuistic laws and deal with
several body parts (an eye, bone, and tooth) and with persons of various social
statuses (free persons, commoners, and slaves). The Covenant Code boiled
these down into a list to fit the syntax of the apodosis in the second miscarriage
law. It kept the “eye” and “tooth” from lh and bifurcated the broken bone into
an “arm” and “leg.”
The Covenant Code made its talion law do double duty, as noted earlier,
as a punishment for the death of the pregnant woman and as a general law
for all cases of homicide and injury. It marked it as a general law by writing
a long list of injuries, overkill if referring only to a case of miscarriage. It also
marked it by using the second person verb “you shall give.” This broadened the
audience of application beyond the two men involved in the assault against
the pregnant woman, which metonymically brings into consideration cases
of assault beyond miscarriage. The general application of the talion law is
also evident in relationship of the laws on slave injury (vv. 26–27). These
depend conceptually on the preceding talion law but have nothing to do with
miscarriage. They thus indicate that the talion law in part deals with cases other
than miscarriage.
A reason for writing the talion law as a general law was to fill in a gap left
in the homicide laws in Exod 21:12–14 (cited below). These prescribe that one
who intentionally kills another is to be executed, but say nothing about any
origin, development, and context of the covenant code 231
Verses 18–19 clearly parallel lh 206, with the common motifs of fighting, injury,
and responsibility for recuperation. Verses 20–21 parallel lh 208 in dealing with
the homicide of someone of a lower class. The Covenant Code’s “sociology”
did not include a commoner. It therefore substituted a slave for Hammurabi’s
commoner, as it also does in its law about knocking out a slave’s tooth (21:27;
lh 201; see below). Logically we would expect a case of homicide of a free per-
son to come between vv. 18–19 and 20–21, as lh 207 comes between lh 206
and 208. The subcondition “and he does not die” in v. 18 begs for a compan-
ion law that conversely states the condition “and he does die,” especially before
the case of homicide of a slave in v. 20. The Covenant Code has this law, but
moved it to the head of its various cases on assault and capital crimes (21:12–
14). This relocation freed cc to formulate its homicide law on the basis of a
native participial source, to be consistent with the form of other capital cases
(21:15–17). But it maintained the concern about intentionality from lh 206–
208.
The Laws of Hammurabi 206–208 appear to have influenced another ele-
ment of cc’s miscarriage and talion law. Hammurabi’s talion laws did not
include soft tissue traumas: the burn, injury, and wound of 21:25. However, these
are the types of injuries that can be included under the term simmu “wound,
origin, development, and context of the covenant code 233
affliction” in lh 206. To flesh out its talion list, cc apparently trifurcated Ham-
murabi’s simmu into the trio of soft tissue injuries, similar to the bifurcation of
Hammurabi’s broken bone into an arm and leg, and put these at the end of its
talion list otherwise based on Hammurabi’s talion law.10
Finally, cc’s slave injury law in 21:26–27 also drew on Hammurabi’s talion
laws in lh 196–201:
The Covenant Code’s full casuistic formulation here in part reflects derivation
from lh. These laws are also formulated this way because they could not be
attached contextually to the talion list. Nonetheless cc’s laws follow the talion
law as part of a series of socially graded laws on the same topic, imitating the
10 Deuteronomy 19:21 and Lev 24:17–21 cite and apply cc’s talion law but they lack Exod 21:25.
Deuteronomy’s verse appears to be an abbreviated lemmatic citation to provide grounds
for the punishment in false witness. Leviticus 24 is interested in permanent blemishes
similar to severe and permanent disqualifying priestly blemishes in Lev 21 (both chapters
describe their conditions as a )מום.
234 wright
pattern in Hammurabi’s talion laws. The Covenant Code has taken two cases
from lh with different monetary penalties, substituted a slave in place of a
commoner in the tooth law, and has given them the same penalty: the release
of the slave. This new penalty is a function of another significant modification
in cc: changing the assailant from an outside party to the owner of the slave.
This is part of a broader hermeneutical transformation in cc, which cannot be
examined here, where cc conflates debt-slaves and chattel-slaves, phenomeno-
logically distinct in lh. The responsibility of the slave holder here echoes the
responsibility of a creditor for the death of a debt-slave as found in lh 115–116.
This analysis shows that every law or significant legal motif in cc’s miscar-
riage, talion, and slave injury laws has a correlate in Hammurabi’s legislation.
It is difficult to imagine that cc’s law ended up with precisely the same motifs
found in lh and in a relatively narrow stretch of text (lh 196–210) by complete
chance. This analysis throws redactional solutions into serious question. The
irregularities or inconsistencies in cc’s formulation come from the creative pro-
cess of blending laws and motifs from different places in its source.
Similar analyses can be provided for several other subunits of cc’s casuis-
tic laws, including the laws on debt-slavery and seduction (21:2–11; 22:15–16),
homicide and injury (21:12–14, 18–19, 20–21, partly discussed above), the gor-
ing ox (21:28–32, 35–36), animal theft (21:37–22:3), deposit (22:6–7), animal loss
(22:9–12), and animal rental (22:13–14). Some of these cases are more complex
in that they involve use of auxiliary sources, as described earlier. But they all
point to the fact that cc has used sources, primarily lh.
about the poor (22:20–26 // 23:9–12), speaking about sovereigns (22:27 // 23:13),
and the cult (22:28–30 // 23:14–19). The chiastic core contains laws mainly about
the pursuit of justice.
The themes of the parallel strings in the final apodictic laws follow the
sequence of themes in Hammurabi’s exhortatory block, as summarized in
Table 2. Topics include the poor, speaking about sovereigns, and cultic matters,
including pilgrimage to the cult place. The chiastic passage on justice in Exod
23:1–8 continues the thematic sequence of string I based on the exhortatory
block and echoes the counsel to a future king to sustain Hammurabi’s model of
justice. The future king section of the exhortatory block also happens to exhibit
a chiastic structure.11 The Covenant Code’s initial apodictic laws also follow the
thematic outline of the exhortatory block, though emphasizing a different set
of themes (see Table 2): cult symbol (an aniconic altar versus images), the recall
of the sovereign’s name, and the coming of the gods and their blessing. The
three thematically similar passages in cc all share the topical node of speaking
about sovereigns. Each of these passages also includes two laws that exemplify
or provide specification for the introductory legal topic.
Some of the closer correlations between cc and the exhortatory block in-
clude an implicit or explicit command not to oppress a trio of individuals
that includes the widow and orphan. This interest in the poor, influenced by
its primacy in lh, explains why cc’s casuistic laws begin with debt-slavery
(21:2–11). The Covenant Code’s initial apodictic laws also describe the recall
yhwh’s name using the same terminology and motifs for the recall of Ham-
murabi’s name: the Semitic verb zkr and noun šm with first person suffix, and
the recall occurs in a cult place. The Covenant Code uses the same language
for an inverse law, not to recall names of other gods in 23:13. The major creative
transformation that makes cc’s correlations intelligible is their replacement of
Hammurabi with yhwh. yhwh’s name rather than Hammurabi’s is recalled
in the cult place. yhwh’s altar takes the place of Hammurabi’s image. yhwh
also assumes the first person of self-presentation used for Hammurabi. The
Covenant Code’s broad driving interest in these transformations is to represent
its deity, rather than a human king, as the author of the law.
The Covenant Code’s focus on the exhortatory block of the epilogue explains
why apodictic law, instead of an equivalent of the prologue’s and epilogue’s
royal praise, appear in its outer portions. Apodictic law is akin to the admoni-
11 The essence of this structure was identified by Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, Inu Anum ṣīrum:
Literary Structures in the Non-Juridical Sections of Codex Hammurabi (Philadelphia: Uni-
versity Museum, 1994), 38–39.
236 wright
table 2 Thematic correlations between the epilogue’s exhortatory block and cc’s apodictic
laws
String i of Final
Exhortatory Block of Apodictic Laws & String ii of Final
lh Epilogue Initial Apodictic Laws Chiastic Core Apodictic Laws
(cols. 47:59–49:17) (Exod 20:23–26) (Exod 22:20–23:8) (Exod 23:9–19)
Hammurabi’s name Recall ( )זכרof yhwh’s God and chieftain (= Names ( )שםof other
(“my name” šumī) name (“my name”; king) not to be cursed. gods not to be recalled
recalled (zakāru) in )שמיin cult place. (22:27) ()זכר. (23:13)
the Esagil temple. (20:24bα)
(47:93–48:2)
String i of Final
Exhortatory Block of Apodictic Laws & String ii of Final
lh Epilogue Initial Apodictic Laws Chiastic Core Apodictic Laws
(cols. 47:59–49:17) (Exod 20:23–26) (Exod 22:20–23:8) (Exod 23:9–19)
tions and exhortations of the exhortatory block. The Covenant Code employed
this genre to expand its legislative scope to deal with topics not normally
covered in casuistic law (ethical obligations and the cult).
The different theological pictures in cc’s casuistic versus apodictic laws
are also explained by reliance on lh. In Hammurabi’s casuistic laws deities
appear in the limited contexts of judicial processes or descriptions of acciden-
tal causality. In contrast, the prologue and epilogue put the gods on full display.
The Covenant Code follows this pattern with unreserved theological descrip-
tion for its outer apodictic sections. Hence, the difference in emphases in the
two genres of cc is not from the addition of the apodictic laws, which recontex-
tualized the casuistic laws. It is part of the original composition of cc following
the pattern of lh.
The unusual placement of the introduction to the casuistic laws in 21:1, often
taken as a sign that the preceding apodictic laws are secondary, also follows the
template of lh. The prologue has a similar transitional introduction at the end
of the prologue just before the casuistic laws. The wording of 21:1 also echoes
the language found in the transitional introduction at the very beginning of the
epilogue.
238 wright
13 See cad m/2 10b (1.a.1’), 11b (1.c.2’); p 507 (1.a.2’; 1.b); s 32 (1.c). Peter Machinist, “Assyria and
Its Image in the First Isaiah,” jaos 103 (1983): 719–737 (at 727) discusses these nouns in the
context of first Isaiah.
14 On the notion yhwh’s avatar, see Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World
of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 38–57. If the connection
with the royal inscriptions is valid, it is tempting to connect צרעהwith royal ṣiriḫtu
“anger” that appears in some inscriptions (see cad Ṣ, 207) including the Assurbanipal text
referenced in n. 16, below.
15 For this divine escort or vanguard motif, see Victor Hurowitz and Joan Goodnick Westen-
holz, “lka 63: A Heroic Poem in Celebration of Tiglath-Pileser i’s Murṣu-Qumanu Cam-
paign,” jaos 42 (1990): 1–49, here 30–34. To whatever extent the passage was indebted to
royal inscriptions, the passage also echoes native Israelite motifs about the deity being in
the vanguard (in e: Exod 32:1, 23, 34; Num 20:16; Deut 31:8; in j: Gen 24:7, 40; Exod 13:21–22;
14:19; 33:2; Num 10:33–35; outside jep: Deut 1:30–33; 20:1, 4; 23:15; Josh 3:6; 6:7; 10:10; Judg
4:14; Isa 52:12; 58:8; Mal 3:1), yhwh as a divine warrior (Exod 14:14, 25; 15:1–18; 17:16; Deut
1:30; 3:22; Josh 10:1–11, 14, 42; Judg 5:4, 20; 1 Sam 7:10–13; 17:47; 25:28; Ps 144:1; Prov 21:31; 2Chr
32:8), and aid being provided by a divine messenger (Gen 16:7–11; 21:17; 32:2; 48:16; Num
240 wright
conquered comparable to the list in 23:28. A less regular but salient feature in
royal inscriptions is the description of the destruction of enemy gods and cult
installations, comparable to 23:24 (32–33).16
The apparent influence of royal inscriptions, accessed by the inscriptional
genre of lh and specifically the advice to a future king and curses in the
epilogue, indicates that cc’s interest in the epilogue was thoroughgoing. It
helps explains why the final apodictic laws echo the exhortatory block with
a complex structure and over against the shorter initial apodictic laws. The
epilogue, more than the prologue, was oriented to the future. This aligned with
interests in theme of the future conquest of the land.
A difficulty in this analysis is that many view part or all of Exod 23:20–33
as a Deuteronomistic addition.17 The comparative analysis here, however, may
22:22–35; Josh 5:13–15; 10:10; Judg 5:23; 1 Sam 29:9; 2Sam 24:16–17 [1Chr 21:15–16]; 1Kings
19:5–8, 35 [1Chr 32:21]; 2 Kings 19:35 [Isa 37:36]; Isa 63:9).
16 The following inscriptions feature a number of the motifs under discussion. Primary
motifs are coded as follows: g: going before; s: going at the side; t: puluḫtu or melammu
(or synonyms) that overpowers the enemy ([f] marks first person reference to king);
d: destruction of gods or cultic fixtures; fp: future prince and curses section: Tukulti-
Ninurta i rima i a.0.78.1 (g: ii 10; t: iv 7; d: iii 28, 42–43; cf. v 6–vi 1; fp: iv 62–vi 1), a.0.78.5
(g: 50–53; d: cf. 94–126; fp: 84–126), a.0.78.23 (g: 58–59; d: cf. 125–146; fp: 119–146); Adad-
Nirari ii rima 2 a.0.99.2 (g: 97; fp: 131–133), Aššur-Naṣirpal ii rima 2 a.0.101.17 (g: ii 90; t: i
80; iv 92–93 [f]; cf. iii 104–105; d: cf. v 24–103; fp: v 24–103, very extensive); Shalmaneser iii
rima 3 a.0.102.2 (g: i 44; ii 70, 96; t: i 22–23, 30; ii 74; cf. ii 68, 76, 79; d: cf. ii 80; fp: lacking, but
found in other of his inscriptions); Sargon ii Letter to Assur = Walter Mayer, Assyrien und
Urartu i: Der Achte Feldzug Sargon ii. im Jahr 714 v. Chr. (aoat 395.1; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag,
2013) (g: 14; s: 417; t: 69 [f], cf. 420; d: cf. 367–368, 405, 408–409; fp lacking); Sargon ii
Cypress Stela arab ii 100–103 §§ 179–189 (g: § 181 [restored]; fp: §189); Sennacherib Bavian
Inscription h3, Daniel David Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib (Chicago: University of
Chicago, 1924), 78–85 = Eckart Frahm, Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften (AfO Beiheft
26; Wien: Institute für Orientalistik der Universität Wien, 1997), 151–154 text t 122 (t: 41; d:
48 [gods smashed, d of šeberu, cf. cad Š/2 249 at 3.c]; fp: 57–60), Esarhaddon rinap 4.1
(s: i 74–75; cf. i 47; t: i 72; iv 37; cf. ii 36–39; iii 36; vi 28; d: cf. ii 20–26; iii 3–16; vi 44–46;
fp: vi 65–74, but no curses, but found in other of his inscriptions); 4.98 (s: obv. 9; t: cf.
obv. 21; d: cf. obv. 34–rev. 7; fp: rev. 53–57); Assurbanipal, Decagon (Rassam) Cylinder = vr
plates 1–10; M. Streck, Assurbanipal (part 2; Leipzig: Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1916);
arab 2.290–323 (cited by §) (636bce; g: § 794 [iv 49], 807 [v 100]; s: §771 [i 84–85], 803
[v 29], 805 [v 71], 829 [ix 87–88]; t: 771 [i 84–85] [f], 775 [ii 20–21], 800 [iv 119–120] [f], 816
[vii 53–54, 75–76]; cf. 829 [ix 79–81]; d: § 808 [v 119–123; gods smashed], 810 [vi 27, 62–64];
fp: §838–839 [x 108–120]).
17 See Wright, Inventing, 499 n. 83. See also p. 503 n. 93 citing Levinson’s view that Exod
23:20–33 is a curse section as in the epilogue.
origin, development, and context of the covenant code 241
18 See Sommer, Bodies, 210–212; Joel S. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing
the Documentary Hypothesis (aybrl; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), 28, 110, 118,
119.
19 Exodus 23:15 cites 13:6, but 13:1–16 may not be part of cc’s narrative (for a recent analysis
of 13:1–16, see Shimon Gesundheit, Three Times A Year: Studies on Festival Legislation in the
Pentateuch [fat 82; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012], 167–222).
20 See Eckart Otto, “Political Theology in Judah and Assyria: The Beginning of the Hebrew
Bible as Literature,” seå 65 (2000): 59–76.
242 wright
The model often called upon to explain the fewer observed similarities
between cc and Near Eastern texts in previous research is a one of mostly
oral traditions from the second millennium Syria-Canaan (see Rothenbusch,
above). The close and intricate correlations with lh indicate that this theory
does not have sufficient explanatory power; a theory of literary dependence is
necessary. The recent discovery of fragments of a Middle Bronze Akkadian law
collection from Hazor may suggest that cc was based on legal texts inherited
from second-millennium Syria-Canaan.21 But these fragments do not have
correlations in content with lh or cc. A theory along this line would have to
argue that these fragments suggest rather that the text of lh with its prologue
and epilogue was extant in the west in the mid-second millennium. This theory
would have to go further and argue that this text was translated into a west
Semitic language before the disappearance of Akkadian scribal schools from
the urban collapse in the west that occurred shortly after 1200 bce, and that
this was the version that Israelite scribes inherited in the first millennium to
compose cc.
A more compelling model is placing the use of lh sometime in the Neo-
Assyrian period, between 740–640bce.22 This period attests the second largest
number of manuscripts of lh next to the Old Babylonian period when lh was
created. A major consideration is cc’s relationship to Deuteronomy and the
Deuteronom(ist)ic scribal school. Deuteronomy’s basic laws likely arose in the
middle to second half of the seventh century bce. Because Deuteronomy uses
cc for some of these laws, cc was already in existence by this time. But cc has
a number of affinities with the Deuteronom(ist)ic school that indicate that its
composition was not more than a generation or two before Deuteronomy. Like
cc, Deuteronomy recasts parts of a Mesopotamian royal-legal text, the Vassal
Treaties of Esarhaddon (vte; 672bce), as law revealed by yhwh.23 A recent
copy of vte was found at ancient Syria at Tell-Tayinat (now se Turkey), which
shows that the text was known in the west.24 This copy was placed on display in
21 Wayne Horowitz, Takayoshi Oshima, and Filip Vukosavoviċ, “Hazor 18: Fragments of a
Cuneiform Law Collection from Hazor,” iej 62 (2012): 158–176.
22 For a Neo-Assyrian context, see Wright, Inventing, 91–120. See also the broad review of
Neo-Assyrian influence on Israel and the Bible in Mark S. Smith, God In Translation: Deities
in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World (fat 57; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008;
repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 149–163.
23 See recently, Bernard M. Levinson and Jeffrey Stackert, “Between the Covenant Code and
Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty: Deuteronomy 13 and the Composition of Deuteronomy,”
jaj 3 (2012): 123–140
24 Jacob Lauinger, “Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty at Tell Tayinat: Text and Commentary,”
origin, development, and context of the covenant code 243
the temple at Tell-Tayinat, and it has been argued that a copy was similarly put
on display in the Jerusalem temple. In short, the strategy of cc’s and Deuteron-
omy’s authors in transforming texts of the hegemonic power to serve as divine
law reasonably belong to the same ideological climate.25
In addition, as indicated at various points in this essay, parts of cc’s laws and
certainly its appendix have features that some scholars view as Deuteronomis-
tic. Given the relative unity in the composition of the cc work, most of these
various features should probably be considered proto-Deuteronomic. They
point to cc’s proximity to the larger Deuteronom(ist)ic school.
Other considerations may allow dating the cc work specifically between
700–640 and hence in a Judean context. If the story of Moses’ birth is part of cc’s
narrative and depends on the Sargon of Akkad story (which correlates with the
reign of Sargon ii), cc cannot be much earlier than 700bce. Too, royal inscrip-
tions with the motifs of cc’s appendix flourish in the period of the Sargonids
(Neo-Assyrian rulers after Sargon ii, starting in 709bce). This roughly corre-
lates with the appearance of motifs from royal inscriptions in the text of first
Isaiah.26 It seems, too, that royal inscriptions about military conquest would be
of particular interest after the fall of northern Israel. Pushing cc’s composition
as late as the time of Assurbanipal (668–631bce) is evidentially attractive (his
library contained multiple copies of lh and motifs in his Decagon Cylinder has
a number of correspondences with the appendix), but this may put cc too close
to Deuteronomy.
Select Bibliography
Suzanne Boorer
1 Dtr is used here and throughout to refer loosely to any text in Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic
style.
2 Rolf Rendtorff, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (bzaw 147; Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1977). The texts he identified are: Gen 50:24; Exod 13:5,11; 32:13; 33:1; Num 11:12; 14:23;
32:11.
3 Deut 9–10* here and throughout refers basically to the description of the events in relation to
the mountain in Deut 9:9–21, 25–29; 10:1–5,10–11; see the later discussion.
4 The context of Exod 33:1 will be limited to Exod 32:1–33:3 rather than Exod 32–34. This is
on the grounds, as will be argued, that it can at least be said that Exod 33:1–3 represents an
expansion of Exod 32:34, without venturing into the very complex debates surrounding the
wider context that includes the rest of Exod 33 and 34.
5 The other land oath texts in Exodus, Exod 13:5,11, will be touched on—especially in the survey
of the land oath texts as a group. However, a full discussion of these texts lies outside the scope
of this article.
The land oath texts as a group have been used in identifying redactional levels
within the Pentateuch especially in European circles.
Rendtorff (1977) postulated that the land oath texts in Gen 50:24; Exod 13:5,11;
32:13; 33:1; Num 11:12; 14:23; 32:11 represent the first linking of independent tra-
dition complexes (primeval history, patriarchs, exodus, wilderness, and Sinai)
within Genesis–Numbers. The land oath texts consist of similar formulations,
which are inserted at key points to link the independent traditions together, giv-
ing the Pentateuch its basic sequential form. Rendtorff labels these land oath
texts as Dtr but does not define the exact relationship between these Dtr texts
and those in Deuteronomy–Kings, preferring to speak of a Deuteronomistic
school or Deuteronomic-Deuteronomistic circles that were responsible for
the shaping of Genesis–Numbers into its sequential form, the composition of
Deuteronomy, and the formation of the text up to Kings.6
Dieter Skweres (1979), in examining Deuteronomy’s use of literary sources in
the Tetrateuch, refers to the land oath texts in the Pentateuch (Gen 50:24; Exod
13:5,11; 33:1; Num 11:12; 14:23; 32:11; Deut 34:4) as “frühdt” (early dt), that is earlier
than texts in Deuteronomy that refer back to them.7
Erhard Blum (1984, 1990), in his earlier work, identifies the land oath texts,
especially Exod 32:13; 33:1, with the D redaction in Genesis, which he describes
as a Dtr redaction layer in the Tetrateuch that is dependent on Deuteronomy.8
In his later work, the land oath texts, with their reference to the wider Pen-
tateuchal horizon, are seen as part of his KD (D Komposition): these include
Exod 32:13 within Exod 32:7–14 and Exod 33:1 within Exod 33, but also Gen 50:24;
Exod 13:5,11 within Exod 13:3–16; Num 11:12. Indeed, they figure prominently in
his arguments for the existence and coherence of KD, which he perceives as
extending from Gen 12 through Exodus and Numbers and as later than, and
presupposing, the Deuteronomistic History.9
Thomas Römer (1990) argues that the oath of the land texts that refer to
the three patriarchs by name (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel), that is Gen
50:24; Exod 32:13; 33:1; Num 32:11; Deut 34:4,10 constitute a post-P and post-Dtr
redaction that he calls the “Endredaktion” of the Pentateuch.11 These texts take
over from the Dtr tradition the idea of an oath, and from P the reference to
the patriarchs as the main motive for yhwh’s activity. The oath of the land to
the three patriarchs is how he identifies this “Endredaction” or Pentateuchal
redaction, and Exod 32:13 and 33:1b, which he sees as later supplements to
their respective Dtr contexts (Exod 32:11–12 and 33:1a, 2–312), play a significant
role in his argument. All these land oath texts were deliberately inserted at
strategic points within the span of Pentateuchal traditions. The main theme of
this Pentateuchal redaction is therefore the oath of the land to Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob, with the content of these land oath texts spanning the breadth of
the Pentateuch in that they look back to the patriarchs of Genesis and forward
to the goal of the land.13 However, Exod 13:5, 11, and Num 11:12; 14:16, 23, that
refer to the “fathers” only, that is, according to Römer, the Exodus generation
or their forefathers in Egypt, not the patriarchs of Genesis, belong to a different
redaction level, a Dtr redaction of Exodus and Numbers (Dtr2). This redaction
is later than, and presupposes, the Deuteronomistic History,14 but is earlier than
the final Pentateuchal redaction.
At a similar time (1992), I argued that the land oath texts in Exodus and Num-
bers represented different levels of redaction, with Exod 32:13 (and probably its
closely related text in Exod 33:1) as earlier than Num 14:23a, which in turn is
earlier than Num 32:11.15 This was established on the basis of comparing these
texts in their contexts with parallel texts in Deuteronomy. This comparison led
Diskussion (ed. Jan Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte; bzaw 315; Berlin:
de Gruyter, 2002), 119–156.
10 Gen 22:15–18; 24:7; 26:3 f.; and Lev 26:40–45 are also included as part of this redaction, as
are the patriarchal supplements (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) in Deut 1:8; 6:10; 9:5; 29:12;
30:20.
11 Thomas Römer, Israel’s Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und
in der deuteronomistischen Tradition (obo 99; Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1990),
54–55, 554–566.
12 Although Römer (ibid., 564) thinks it conceivable that all of Exod 33:1–3 is post-Dtr.
13 The identification of the fathers with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not found thereafter in
Joshua–Kings; this redaction therefore is restricted to the Pentateuch.
14 Since, for example, Exod 13:3–16 contains some Priestly terminology.
15 Suzanne Boorer, The Promise of the Land as Oath: A Key to the Formation of the Pentateuch
(Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992).
248 boorer
to the conclusion that Exod 13:5, 11;16 Exod 32:13; 33:1 and Num 14:23a are, at their
different levels, all pre-Dtr, but Num 32:11 is post-Dtr.
Yet another view vying for attention in the 1990s was that of John Van
Seters, for whom the land oath texts in Genesis–Numbers are an integral
part of his post-Dtr J that presupposes, is literarily dependent on, and supple-
ments the Deuteronomistic History.17 This J was written all in one piece and
within it the land oath texts are all on the one level with the rest of J. The J
land oath/promises continue the trend, seen in the later levels of redaction in
Deuteronomy, away from a conditional land promise to the “fathers,” that is, the
exodus generation, to the unconditional land oath/promise to the patriarchs.
These land oath texts include Exod 32:13; 33:1 and also Exod 13:5, 11.18
Jan Gertz (2000, 2001) attributes Exod 13:5, 11 (indeed Exod 13:3–16) and
Exod 32:13 and 33:1b to a post-P (and therefore also post-non-P, since non-P is
earlier than P) “Endredaktion,” that combined P and non-P.19 In Exod 13:3–16
this Endredaction seeks to reconcile Deuteronomic language and ideas with
Priestly legislation. Exodus 32:13 and 33:1b are very late (post-Dtr and post-P)
additions to their contexts: Exod 32:13 picks up its wording from Deut 9:27,
the very late text of Gen 22:15–18, and Priestly language; and Exod 33:1b is a
resumption of Exod 32:13.
16 Within this approach it was not possible to determine the exact relative level of Exod 13:5,
11 to the other land oath texts, except to say that these verses are pre-Dtr, and possibly
pre-Deuteronomic.
17 John Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Ori-
gins of Biblical Historiography (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983); “The So-Called
Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch,” in Congress Volume: Leuven (ed. John
A. Emerton; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 58–77; Van Seters, The Life of Moses (Louisville: West-
minster / John Knox, 1994); and Van Seters, “Is there Evidence of a Dtr Redaction in the
Sinai Pericope (Exodus 19–24, 32–34)?” in Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon
of Pan-Deuteronomism (ed. Linda Schearing and Steven Mckenzie; JSOTSup 268; Sheffield
Academic Press, 1999), 160–170.
18 Although Exod 13:5,11 do not name the patriarchs, Van Seters argues for them as belonging
to his J on the grounds that Exod 13:5 has a similar combination of elements describing the
land as Exod 33:1–3, and Exod 13:11 refers to the land sworn at two different times, one to
the patriarchs and one to the exodus generation. See his “The So-Called Deuteronomistic
Redaction of the Pentateuch.”
19 Jan Christian Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung: Untersuchungen zur
Endredaktion des Pentateuch (Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 2000); Gertz, “Beob-
achtungen zu Komposition und Redaktion in Exodus 32–34,” in Gottes Volk am Sinai:
Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10 (ed. Matthius Köckert and Erhard Blum; Güter-
sloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 2001), 88–106.
the promise of the land as oath in exodus 32:1–33:3 249
Konrad Schmid (2007, 2010), drawing on Römer, maintains that the land oath
texts to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel in Gen 50:24; Exod 32:13; 33:1; Lev
26:42; Num 32:11; Deut 34:4 belong to a post-Priestly Pentateuchal redaction
that presupposes the combination of P and Dtr elements.20 These land oath
texts belong together in both content and language: they combine Dtr and
Priestly perspectives, such as the Dtr tradition of an oath, and the Priestly view
of the patriarchs as the main motive for yhwh’s activity, as already observed
by Römer; and their intent, in looking back to the patriarchs and forward to
the goal of the land, is to connect significant events in the Moses story back
to the ancestors of Genesis.21 Moreover, that they belong to a Pentateuchal
redaction is shown in that, the placing of them reflects the five-fold division
of the Pentateuch, and, as formulated to refer to the three patriarchs, they do
not continue into Joshua and beyond. Exodus 13:5, 11 (and Num 14:16) which
refer only to the “fathers” do not refer back to Genesis and are not identified
as part of this Pentateuchal redaction layer: their relative redaction level is left
open, allowing for the possibility perhaps of classifying them as pre-Dtr.22
From this survey it can be seen that recently the weight of opinion in
relation to the group of land oath texts to all three patriarchs, that include
Exod 32:13; 33:1 as well as Num 32:11, is that they belong to the same redaction
level that is relatively late. Blum and Van Seters see these texts (as well as
Exod 13:5, 11) as belonging to a post-Dtr (but pre-P) level of composition. But
it is the view of Römer, Gertz, and Schmid in particular—who see the land
oath texts that name Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen 50:24; Exod 32:13; 33:1;
Num 32:11) as belonging to, or even significant in constituting, a post-P and
post-Dtr Pentateuchal redaction—that is beginning to take centre stage. The
arguments underpinning this position rely heavily on observations concerning
the linguistic formulations of these passages, with an underlying assumption
that such similar formulations as found in these land oath texts to the three
patriarchs represent the same redaction level. However, similar formulations
can be copied and represent different levels, and so it is important in relation
to each of these texts to compare them in their contexts with parallel texts
such as those in Deuteronomy.23 Since our focus is on the land oath texts in
Exod 32:1–33:1–3 only, the question of whether this group of land oath texts to
the patriarchs as a whole belongs to the one redaction level or not cannot be
resolved here. However, a re-examination of Exod 32:13 and 33:1 in the context
of Exod 32:1–33:3 and its relationship with the parallel text in Deut 9–10* will
test whether Exod 32:13 and 33:1 can at least be said to be post-Dtr or not,24 and
will provide some insight into the function of these land oath texts within their
immediate context in Exod 32:1–33:3.
2 The Relative Level(s) of Exodus 32:13 and 33:1 within the Context of
Exodus 32:1–33:3
The place of Exod 32:13 and 33:1 within the composition of Exod 32:1–33:3 has
been much debated. We will first consider the place of Exod 32:13 within Exodus
32, after which the relationship of Exod 33:1 within 33:1–3 in relation to Exodus
32 will be considered.
However, some scholars maintain that Exod 32:13 is a later insertion into
vv. 10–12, 14.26 Arguments for this include: v. 13 seems to comprise a mixture of
expressions that occur individually elsewhere and in different sources/layers
(e.g. Gen 22:15–18; 26:4 [swearing by self, descendants as stars]; Gen 17:4 [;]עולם
1Kings 18:36 [“Israel”]); and if v. 13 is removed the coherence of vv. 11–12, 14 is
not affected, with the threat of yhwh in v. 10 of his burning anger that will
consume Israel reflected chiastically in Moses’ speech in v. 12ab (consume,
anger), and v. 14 corresponding closely with v. 12c with regard to the motif
of yhwh changing his mind concerning the disaster he intended against the
people.27
The argument for the secondary nature of Exod 32:13 in terms of the combi-
nation of expressions it contains is somewhat persuasive, but considerations of
context support more strongly the view that v. 13 is an integral part of vv. 7–14.
The language in Exod 32:13 is closest to Gen 24:7; 22:16–17; 26:3–4, but the rela-
tive levels of these texts is uncertain, and the other verses in Exod 32:7–14, like
v. 13, show affinities with Dtr language, but also differences.28 When the context,
especially of vv. 10–13, 14 is taken into account, the reason for the combination
of the promises of descendants and the land for these descendants “forever”
( )עולםis clear, as is the reference to “Israel” (cf. the standard “Jacob”). Whilst
vv. 11–12 correspond closely with v. 10a (yhwh’s anger and threat to consume)
and v. 14 corresponds closely with v. 12c (change of mind concerning the disas-
ter), without v. 13 there is nothing corresponding to v. 10b concerning yhwh’s
Deuteronomy 9–10,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James Kugel
[ed. Hindy Najman and Judith H. Newman; Leiden: Brill, 2004], 45–93, esp. 49–71), Thomas
B. Dozeman (“The Composition of Ex 32 within the context of the Enneateuch,” in Auf dem
Weg zur Endgestalt von Genesis bis ii Regum [ed. Martin Beck and Ulrich Schorn; Berlin:
de Gruyter, 2006], 175–189; Exodus [ecc; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009], 696–700), and
Yuon Ho Chung (The Sin of the Golden Calf: The Rise of the Bible’s Negative Attitude Towards
the Golden Calf [New York: t&t Clark, 2010], 36–46, 206) see v. 13 not only as an integral
part of vv. 7–14, but of Exod 32 in general, the whole of which they see as on the one level
(although Chung sees vv. 26–29 as a later addition): their views will be taken up later.
26 For example, J. Vermeylen, “L’Affaire du veau d’or (Ex 32–34). Une clé pour la ‘question
deuteronomiste’?” zaw 97 (1985): 1–23; Römer, Israel’s Vater, 563; Gertz, “Beobachtungen
zu Komposition,” 96, 101; and Norbert Lohfink, “Deuteronomium 9,1–10,11 und Exodus
32–34,” in Köckert and Blum, Gottes Volk am Sinai, 41–87, esp. 68. Whilst Römer and Gertz
see Exod 32:13 as belonging to their “Endredaktion,” Lohfink leaves it open as to whether
it is pre- or post-P.
27 See for example, Gertz, “Beobachtungen zu Komposition,” 96, 101; Lohfink, “Deuteronom-
ium 9,1–10,11 und Exodus 32–34,” 68.
28 See Boorer, The Promise of the Land as Oath, 210–214.
252 boorer
Deut 9:7–10:11 and is part of a late post-P Dtr redaction that combined the
Pentateuch (including P and Ps) and the Deuteronomistic History to form
Genesis–2Kings.33 Vincent Sénéchal’s basic narrative comprises Exod 32:1–6,
15aα, 19–24, 30–34aα, 34b, with the expansion in vv. 7–8, 10–14, the former
being pre-Deut 9* and the latter post-Deut 9*.34 Michael Konkel identifies a
pre-exilic, pre-Dtr narrative in Exod 32:1–4a, 5b–6c, 15b, 19a–c*d, 20, 30, 31abc,
32–34bd, with vv. 7–14 added post-P.35
There are, however, some scholars that have recently argued for seeing Exod
32:7–14 as an integral part of Exod 32, either in part or in its entirety. Van
Seters, for example, sees Exod 32:7–14 as part of his post-Deuteronomistic
History J that is responsible for most of Exod 32.36 He maintains that the
tensions within the text are part of J’s paratactic style, that is in composing
Exod 32 J, for example, drew on 1Kings 12:26–33 (see Exod 32:1–6) and on Deut
9:12–14, 26–29 (see Exod 32:7–14) and created de novo Exod 30:30–34 in order to
develop Moses’ role as intercessor in a way that goes beyond Deut 9–10. Thomas
Dozeman makes a similar move, arguing for Exod 32 as comprising one literary
level that incorporates distinctive themes from both 1 Kings 12:26–33 and Deut
9–10*. Exod 32 develops the motif of corporate guilt in the form of the king
in 1Kings 12:26–33 and Moses’ corporate intercession in Deut 9–10* in terms of
individual responsibility for sin as seen for example in Moses’ inability to atone
corporately for the nation in Exod 32:30–34: Moses’ first intercession wards off
destruction of the whole nation, but his second intercession qualifies Moses’
intercessory role in relation to individual guilt.37
Whilst there is some merit in these attempts to see Exod 32:7–14 on the same
literary level as the rest of Exod 32, I do not think that the unevenness, such as
the Dtr colored language of Exod 32:7–14 that stands out from its context, the
way in which vv. 7–14 anticipate Moses’ knowledge of the calf, and therefore
robs the narrative of dramatic effect regarding Moses’ discovery of it (vv. 19–20),
and the doublet of two different intercessions in vv. 7–14 and vv. 30–34, as well
as seemingly multiple punishments (at least vv. 26–29, 34, 3538), can be quite
so easily reconciled.39
Although there are differences in specific detail, it can be said that there is a
certain degree of consensus amongst those who recently have maintained that
Exod 32:7–14 is an expansion of a basic narrative, as outlined above, with regard
to what constitutes a basic narrative. For example, Gertz, Schmitt, Sénéchal,
and Konkel all see this earlier level as comprising basically Exod 32:1–6, 15aα,
19–24, 30–34. This represents a coherent account in which Aaron and the
people make the golden calf and carry out festive activities; Moses upon coming
down from the mountain discovers the calf and the dancing; in anger Moses
breaks the tablets and destroys the calf; Moses then calls Aaron to account; and
on the next day Moses intercedes for the people, confessing the people’s sin to
yhwh, putting himself on the line in solidarity with the people and asking for
forgiveness for them, a request that is not granted by yhwh who will at some
point punish those who have sinned—but with the indication that there is a
future for the people as a whole, given in the command to Moses to lead the
people forward. That the intercession of Moses in Exod 32:30–34 was part of
the narrative prior to the inclusion of the Mosaic intercession in Exod 32:7–14
individually (Exod 32:34–35), and that neither Exod 32:20 nor Exod 32:26–29 represent
punishments—the former signifies elimination of the calf and the latter not the slaughter
of the guilty but an action that brings anarchists to order (see v. 25). Chung (The Sin of the
Golden Calf, 30–46) attributes Exod 32:1–25, 30–35 to E, primarily on the grounds of what
he sees as the features of E and the way in which these verses are coherent with passages
outside Exod 32 that he identifies as E.
38 Whether or not v. 20 represents a punishment or not is debated: if linked with a water
ordeal such as found in Num 5 this suggests punishment (and the consequences of
drinking the water is often linked with the plague of v. 35), but it could just describe the
total elimination of the calf.
39 For example, the link Dozeman (“The Composition of Ex 32,” 186–187) makes between v. 20
and vv. 25–29 regarding individual punishment (vv. 25–29) for those discerned as guilty in
v. 20 is stretching it, since the text in vv. 25–29 does not explicitly state that those killed
are the guilty; and the explanation of Hayes (“Golden Calf Stories,” 60) that vv. 26–29 is an
action that brings anarchists to order fails to take into account the switch in motif in these
verses in contrast to their context with regard to the justification of the Levites.
the promise of the land as oath in exodus 32:1–33:3 255
is supported by the observation that vv. 30–34 fit better into the narrative
progression of the text than do vv. 7–14: Moses’ intercession in vv. 30–34, which
deals with the long term consequences of the incident of the golden calf is
aptly placed after the description of the more immediate consequences and the
disposal of the calf in vv. 19–20, whereas vv. 7–14 pre-empts Moses’ discovery in
v. 19.40
At the same time, given a basic narrative that includes Exod 32:30–34, the
rationale for the addition of Exod 32:7–14 becomes clear, for vv. 7–14 would
seem to constitute a comment on, and correction of, vv. 30–34.41 Exod 32:7–14
can be seen to clean up theologically, and clarify the possible implications
of, Exod 32:30–34 in two respects. First, in vv. 30–34, Moses tells yhwh that
the people have sinned in making the golden calf. It is perhaps implicit here
that yhwh did not know this until Moses informed him. It can be imagined,
then, that vv. 7–14 were added to address this, making quite clear that yhwh
knew this and was the one to inform Moses of this in a yhwh speech (vv. 7–8)
rather than the other way round, therefore cleaning up vv. 30–34 theologically.
As such, vv. 7–14 would have to precede Moses’ discovery of the situation in
vv. 19–20. Second, it could be implied from vv. 30–34, given that it seems that all
the people seemed to have been involved in the sinful act (vv. 1–6), that Moses,
who is the only one who has not sinned, will be the only one left standing,
the only one not subject to retribution, to being blotted out. Verses 7–14 pick
up on this issue with yhwh’s suggestion of destroying all the people and
making of Moses a nation instead (v. 10). Moses’ intercession in vv. 11–13 and
yhwh’s response to this in v. 14 then counter the idea of the replacement of
the people with a Moses nation, thus making quite clear that this people Israel,
the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, not a Moses nation, will continue
into the future. Verses 7–14 in this way comment on vv. 30–34, elevating yhwh’s
knowledge and clarifying who yhwh’s nation will be that Moses is to continue
to lead into the future.
40 It is possible that Exod 32:21–24 has been added into the narrative at a later time since it
seems somewhat out of place after the destruction of the calf, and no consequences for
Aaron are spelled out. However, these verses are connected closely with Exod 32:1–6, and
not with Exod 32:7–14 and therefore it is probable that these verses were already part of
the text before vv. 7–14 were added. For a more detailed justification for the inclusion of
Exod 32:21–24 and Exod 32:30–34, with its unique wording, within the early narrative prior
to Exod 32:7–14, see Boorer, The Promise of the Land as Oath, 244–251 (although there I also
incorporated into the basic narrative v. 35, which is not included here).
41 That is, rather than vv. 30–34 being a development in thought of vv. 7–14 as Dozeman (“The
Composition of Ex 32”) maintains.
256 boorer
42 The other verses in Exod 32, namely, vv. 15aβ–16, vv. 17–18, 25–29 are yet other additions.
Verses 15aβ–16, the description of the tablets, contains Priestly language (e.g. “tablets of
the testimony” )לחת העדתand probably represent a late expansion. Verses 17–18 which
bring in the figure of Joshua are also probably late. And vv. 25–29, which bring a different
issue into the context, concerned with Priestly/Levitical groups, is also a later addition.
When these additions were made lies outside the scope of this article which is concerned
primarily with Exod 32:13; 33:1 and therefore is limited to an exploration of Exod 32:7–14
and 33:1–3 as they relate to the earlier basic narrative.
43 Römer, Israel’s Vater, 564, although he thinks it conceivable that all of Exod 33:1–3 is
post-Dtr.
44 Gertz, “Beobachtungen zu Komposition und Redaktion in Exodus 32–34,” 102.
45 Cf. Lohfink (“Deuteronomium 9,1–10,11 und Exodus 32–34,” 68 fn. 79) who, although seeing
Exod 32:13 as an insertion into its context in Exod 32:11–12,14, sees Exod 33:1 as coming from
a different hand than Exod 32:13 because of the difference in formulation.
46 Aurelius, Der Fürbitter Israels, 102.
47 Boorer, The Promise of the Land as Oath, 266–271.
48 Schmitt, “Die Erzahlung vom Goldenen Kalb,” 246–247.
the promise of the land as oath in exodus 32:1–33:3 257
Konkel sees Exod 33:1–6 as depending on Exod 32:7–14, and, like the latter, is
post-P.49
Among those who prefer to read Exod 32 as a literary unity, Van Seters sees
Exod 33:1–3, along with Exod 32:1–15aα, 17–24, 30–34 as part of his J which is
post-Deuteronomistic History;50 Hayes maintains Exod 32:1–33:6 is a narrative
unity;51 and Dozeman puts Exod 33:1 (and the rest of Exod 33) on the same
literary level as Exod 32 as a whole, that is, as post-Deut 9–10* and post–1Kings
12:26–32.52
In all these views it is acknowledged that Exod 33:1 (or at least v. 1b) is closely
related to Exod 32:13, whether in terms of being part of the same level, or Exod
33:1 as presupposing Exod 32:13. Clearly Exod 33:1 is closely related to Exod
32:7–14. They both begin with an introduction to a yhwh speech (Exod 32:7;
33:1), followed by a command—to “go down” ( )לך רדin 32:7, and to “go up”
( )לך עלהin 33:1. In both this is followed by a reference to the exodus formula,
your/the people “whom you brought up out or the land of Egypt” (אשׁר העלית
;מארץ מצריםExod 32:7; 33:1). And both passages refer to the oath of yhwh
to Abraham, Isaac and Israel/Jacob concerning the promise of land to their
descendants (Exod 32:13; 33:1).53
Moreover, just as Exod 32:7–14 with its Dtr colored language expands and
comments on the basic narrative, especially Exod 32:30–34, so too Exod 33:1–3,
whose language also has affinities with Dtr,54 expands the basic narrative,
specifically Exod 32:34a. The command by yhwh to Moses in Exod 32:34aα to
“lead the people” ( )לך נחהto “where I have spoken to you” ()אל אשר דברתי לך
is expanded in detail in Exod 33:1—“go up” ()לך עלה, you and “the people” now
described in terms of the exodus formula (“whom you brought up out of the
land of Egypt”) to “the land that I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob saying
‘to your descendants I will give it’” (אל הארץ אשר נשבעת לאברהם ליצחק וליעקב
)לאמר לזרעך אתננה.55 And the promise that yhwh’s angel “will go before you”
in Exod 32:34aβ is taken up in Exod 33:2 (“I will send my angel before you”)
49 Konkel, “Exodus 32–34 and the Quest for an Enneateuch,” 180. Baden ( j, e, and the Redac-
tion of the Pentateuch, 131) offers an idiosyncratic view in which Exod 33:1–3 is part of his J
which was independent from his E to which Exod 32:7–13 belongs.
50 Van Seters, The Life of Moses, 333–338.
51 Hayes, “Golden Calf Stories,” 51, 62.
52 Dozeman, Exodus, 719–721.
53 Boorer, The Promise of the Land as Oath, 269–270.
54 See Boorer, The Promise of the Land as Oath, 221–223.
55 And again in a fragment in Exod 33:3a: “Go up to a land flowing with milk and honey.”
258 boorer
and expanded in terms of the nations in Exod 33:2b, and expanded yet again in
terms of replacing yhwh himself on the journey in Exod 32:3b.56
It would seem that Exod 33:1(–3) as an expansion of Exod 32:34a is sequen-
tial to, or builds on, Exod 32:7–14 which is itself an expansion and clarifying
comment on Exod 32:30–34. Exod 32:7–14 establishes the continuance of the
nation Israel as the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Israel in contrast to
their replacement with a Moses nation, and Exod 33:1(–3) goes on from there
to the next logical step, the command to go up to the land promised by oath
to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob now that the continuance of the nation has been
established and the future is clear. The oath of the land to Abraham, Isaac and
Israel, used by Moses in Exod 32:13 as one of the arguments to persuade yhwh
concerning the future and identity of the nation Israel, becomes in Exod 33:1 a
reassertion of that land oath by yhwh himself concerning Israel’s future.57
Therefore Exod 33:1 is closely associated with Exod 32:13 within Exod 32:7–14,
and could be either on the same redaction level, or, since Exod 33:1 logically
presupposes Exod 32:7–14, a slightly later extension of it.
We have established the relative level(s) of the land oath texts in Exod
32:13 as an integral element of Exod 32:7–14 and Exod 33:1(–3) in relation to
an earlier narrative in Exod 32, but what might be the relative level of Exod
32:7–14 and 33:1(–3) in relation to perceived redaction levels outside of Exod
32? An important text in relation to this question is Deut 9–10*58 which forms
a parallel with Exod 32; 33:1,59 with Deut 9:12–14, 26–29 in particular closely
paralleling Exod 32:7–14, and Deut 10:11 paralleling Exod 33:1. Examination of
the relationship between these texts will allow us to make some tentative
conclusions regarding whether Exod 32:7–14; 33:1, as expansions of a basic
narrative in Exod 32, can be said to be pre-Deut 9–10* or post-Deut 9–10*, and
therefore pre-Dtr or post-Dtr.60
56 Boorer, The Promise of the Land as Oath, 266–268. There are a number of areas of uneven-
ness and tension within Exod 33:1–3 that suggests that it was not composed all of a piece
(see my discussion of this on pp. 223–227). However, it is enough to establish here that the
motifs within Exod 33:1–3, and in particular Exod 33:1, represent an expansion of the basic
narrative of Exod 32.
57 Boorer, The Promise of the Land as Oath, 270.
58 The exact verses within Deut 9–10 that I am referring to, which will be justified shortly,
are: Deut 9:9–21, 25–29; 10:1–5, 10–11.
59 And some elements in Exod 34 but discussion of this lies outside the focus of this article.
60 The level of Deut 9–10* in relation to other Dtr texts in Deuteronomy and Joshua–Kings
is itself a complex question which cannot be addressed in the confines of this article.
Another related issue is the relationship of the basic narrative of Exod 32 to 1Kings
the promise of the land as oath in exodus 32:1–33:3 259
Current opinion is fairly evenly divided between those who argue that Exod 32
and 33:1, either in terms of the basic narrative and its expansion in Exod 32:7–14
or Exod 32:1–33:3 as a whole, pre-date Deut 9–10*,61 and those who argue that
Deut 9–10* predates Exod 32:1–33:3, or at least Exod 32:7–14.62 If the former is
the case, then Exod 32:7–14 and Exod 33:1(–3), and therefore Exod 32:13 and
33:1, can be described as pre-Dtr;63 if the latter is the case, Exod 32:7–14 and
Exod 33:1–3, and therefore Exod 32:13 and 33:1, can be described as post-Dtr.
Deciding the relative levels of parallel texts is a complex issue and one that is
not easily solved: is the process here one of elaboration or summarizing? Since
this issue with regard to Exod 32 and 33:1 and the parallel in Deut 9–10* has been
written on extensively, I will confine myself to outlining the arguments that tip
the balance for me in the direction of Deut 9–10* as being a later rewriting of
Exod 32*64;33:1, that is, its basic narrative and the expansion of this in Exod
32:7–14 and 33:1(–3).65
Complex debates surround possible levels of redaction within Deut 9–10.
Since we are exploring this text only in so far as it forms a parallel with Exod
32*; 33:1 which is our primary concern, and since the issue of relative levels
of text in Deut 9–10 in relation to other Dtr texts lies outside the scope of our
investigation, I will confine the discussion of Deut 9–10 to Deut 9:9–21, 25–29;
10:1–5, 10–11—that is, to those verses that are concerned with Moses’ testimony
of the events in relation to the mountain, which are the verses that form a
parallel with Exod 32*; 33:1.66
Before discussing the relationship of Deut 9:9–21, 25–29; 10:1–5, 10–11 with
Exod 32*; 33:1, it will be helpful to outline the structure of Deut 9:9–21, 25–29;
10:1–5, 10–11 in order to understand the rationale of its presentation. As Lohfink
has helpfully pointed out, rather than presenting a chronological narrative
sequence, Deut 9:9–21, 25–29; 10:1–5, 10–11 is structured primarily through the
repetition of “forty days and forty nights” (in 9:9,11,18,25; 10:10), each of which
introduces a theological unit. He therefore divides the text into: (1) Deut 9:9–10,
the conclusion of the covenant; (2) Deut 9:11–17, the breaking of the covenant;
(3) Deut 9:18–21,67 the steps for reparation; (4) Deut 9:25–10:5, the renewal of
the covenant; (5) Deut 10:10–11, the consequences of the covenant renewal (the
command to go up to the land).68 These sections overlap in places, but in so
64 Exod 32* denotes the basic narrative in Exod 32 (vv. 1–6, 15aα, 19–24, 30–34) and its
expansion in Exod 32:7–14.
65 Deut 9–10*, especially in Deut 10:1–5 parallels elements in Exod 34 as well, but this lies
outside the focus of this article.
66 This is, for the most part, in line with Lohfink, “Deuteronomium 9,1–10,11 und Exodus
32–34,” 54 (although Lohfink sees Deut 9:20 as a later addition; see p. 68). This excludes
in particular the exhortatory material in Deut 9:1–7 and v. 8 which connects vv. 1–7 with
vv. 9ff., and Deut 9:22–24 and Deut 10:6–9 that refer to events outside that at the mountain.
Deut 9:20 concerning Aaron and Deut 9:27a are often seen as later additions, but I see no
reason to exclude them for the purposes of our task of comparing this Dtr text (loosely
defined) with Exod 32; 33:1.
67 Although Lohfink excludes v. 20 as secondary.
68 Norbert Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot: Eine Untersuchung literarischen Einleitungsfragen zu
Dtn 5–11 (Rome: Pontifical Institute, 1963), 212–216; and see more recently, Lohfink,
the promise of the land as oath in exodus 32:1–33:3 261
doing, move the thought along. For example, it is probable that the intercession
in section 4 in Deut 9:26–29 unfolds the content of the intercession in section 3
in Deut 9:18–19, but is in a different section because it serves a different purpose:
in Deut 9:18–19 the focus is on warding off yhwh’s anger that threatened to
destroy the people (v. 19) so as to take steps to destroy the sinful thing that had
given rise to this anger (v. 21), whereas Deut 9:26–29, although also uttered in
the face of yhwh’s intention to destroy them (v. 25), also forms the backdrop
and motivation for the renewal of the covenant in Deut 10:1–5. Deut 10:10–11
picks up on yhwh’s intention to destroy alluded to in the preceding sections
(9:14 in section 2, 9:19,20 in section 3, 9:25 in section 4) and resolves the issue
in v. 10 (“yhwh was unwilling to destroy you”), and unfolds the next step as a
consequence of this and the covenant renewal, that is for Moses to lead the
people into the land that yhwh promised by oath to their ancestors.
What, then, is the relationship of Deut 9:9–21, 25–29; 10:1–5, 10–11, as shaped
in this way, with Exod 32*; 33:1? The arguments that persuade me to favor the
view that Deut 9:9–21, 25–29; 10:1–5, 10–11, is later than, and dependent on, Exod
32*; 33:1 are as follows.
First, Deut 9:28 conflates motifs from Exod 32:12 and Num 14:16. Deut 9:28 has
incorporated the motif of yhwh not being able to bring them into the promised
land found in Num 14:16 into the argument concerning the interpretation of
the Egyptians that parallels Exod 32:12.69 Moreover, Deut 9:27 has brought the
recognition of the people’s sin into this same Moses speech in Deut 9:26–29 that
parallels most closely Exod 32:11–13, from a different place in Exod 32*, that is
Moses’ intercession in Exod 32:31.70
Second, a blind motif occurs in Deut 9:27a.71 Deut 9:27a presupposes knowl-
edge of the parallel text in Exod 32:13 but gives the reference to the patriarchs a
new function in a new context, not as in Exod 32:13 to counter yhwh’s threat to
destroy them and substitute a Moses nation for them in terms of the promises
“Deuteronomium 9,1–10,11 und Exodus 32–34,” 51–52, where the same sections are outlined
with slightly different headings.
69 Boorer, The Promise of the Land as Oath, 316, 321; Lohfink, “Deuteronomium 9,1–10,11 und
Exodus 32–34,” 57, 63.
70 Lohfink, “Deuteronomium 9,1–10,11 und Exodus 32–34,” 57, 80.
71 A blind motif is an element in a text that assumes knowledge of an earlier tradition,
recalls it in summary fashion, and goes on to use this assumed knowledge in the service
of the particular argument of which it is apart; and it does not make sense in its context
apart from the assumed knowledge to which it refers. See Boorer, The Promise of the Land
as Oath, 305, and John Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1975), 163, 183.
262 boorer
made to the patriarchs, but in the context of Deut 9:25–28 to argue against
yhwh’s intention to destroy the people by asking yhwh to focus on his (loyal)
servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (who by implication are in favor), in con-
trast to taking heed of the wickedness of the present generation.72
Third, Deut 9:14 combines elements found in different places and levels
within Exod 32*. yhwh’s declaration of his intention to destroy in Deut 9:14
parallels closely Exod 32:10 (part of the expansion of the basic narrative in Exod
32:7–14) and in Deut 9:14 this is combined with the use of the verb “( מחהblot
out”), which is found in Exod 32:32, 33 (basic narrative).
Fourth, Deut 9:21 juxtaposes the motif of the destruction of the calf equiv-
alent to Exod 32:20 with the denotation of the calf as חטא, a word used in a
different context in Exod 32*, namely in Exod 32:21,30–34.73
Fifth, Deut 9:20 is a blind motif that assumes knowledge of the narrative
elements concerning Aaron in Exod 32:1–6, 21–24. It functions to answer ques-
tions raised by Exod 32:21–24 but are left unanswered. In Exod 32:21–24 Aaron
is called to account by Moses but there is no resolution; what happens to Aaron
is not addressed. Deut 9:20 clarifies and resolves what is left hanging in Exod
32:21–24: by implication, Aaron is not destroyed as a result of yhwh’s anger,
just as the people are not—because of the intercession of Moses.74
Sixth, taking into account the way in which Deut 9–10* is structured in terms
of a series of at times overlapping theological units introduced by the repetition
of “forty days and forty nights,” the sequence presented in Deut 9–10* is more
logical and consistent than in Exod 32*; 33:1 (and 34*).75 In Exod 32* yhwh has
been persuaded by Moses to reverse his intention to destroy the people (Exod
32:7–14) prior to Moses’ destruction of the calf (Exod 32:20) and the unfolding
of the consequences for the people, the guilty, in Exod 32:30–34. Moreover,
taking the wider context that encompasses elements of Exod 34 concerning
the renewal of the covenant that is paralleled by Deut 10:1–5 into account, in
Exod 33:1 Moses is commanded to go with the people to the promised land
before the covenant in renewed. In contrast, in Deut 9–10* the reversal of
yhwh’s intention to destroy the people occurs at the conclusion (Deut 10:10).
It is that towards which the whole movement of the text leads, in stages: (1)
Moses, after hearing yhwh’s threat to destroy the people, confirms with his
own eyes what yhwh had told him about the people’s sin and breaks the
72 Boorer, The Promise of the Land as Oath, 316, 320; and see Hayes, “Golden Calf Stories,” 77;
Chung, The Sin of the Golden Calf, 41.
73 See also the use of חטאהin Deut 9:18, 27; Boorer, The Promise of the Land as Oath, 321.
74 Boorer, The Promise of the Land as Oath, 312, 320; Hayes, “Golden Calf Stories,” 81.
75 Boorer, The Promise of the Land as Oath, 321.
the promise of the land as oath in exodus 32:1–33:3 263
tablets publicly (9:11–17); (2) he then takes steps to ward off yhwh’s anger
through intercession and destroying the calf (9:18–21); (3) the content of the
intercession is expounded as the words that specifically persuaded yhwh to
renew the covenant (9:21–29; 10:1–5); and (4) this is capped off by the summary
statement that yhwh was unwilling to destroy them. Finally, it is only after
the people have been fully restored, with the tablets renewed (10:1–5) and
yhwh’s intention to destroy reversed, that Moses is then commanded to lead
the people to the promised land (10:11). It would appear, then, that Deut 9–10*
has rearranged and placed in more logical order the equivalent elements in
Exod 32*; 33:1 (and 34*).
All these arguments support the conclusion that Deut 9–10* is later than,
and literarily dependent on, Exod 32*; 33:1.
If Exod 32*:33:1—that is, the basic narrative of Exod 32 and its later additions
in Exod 32;7–14; 33:1(–3)—are, as argued here, prior to Deut 9–10*, this is
at least suggestive that Exod 32:13 and 33:1 are not as late as maintained by
those who see them as post-Dtr and/or post-P or Pentateuchal redaction or
“Endredaktion.”76
4 Conclusions
The conclusions that we have reached with regard to the land oath texts in Exod
32:13 and 33:1 are, then, as follows.
Exodus 32:13 is an integral element of Exod 32:7–14, which is an expansion
of an earlier narrative contained in Exod 32 comprising Exod 32:1–6,15aα,19–24,
30–34. Exod 32:7–14 comments on Exod 32:30–34, elevating yhwh’s knowledge
over that of Moses, rather than the other way around as implied in Exod 32:31.
This also clarifies that it is the nation descended from Abraham, Isaac, and
Israel that Moses is to lead into the future and not a Moses nation—something
implied in Exod 32:30–34 in that those who are guilty, which would seem to be
all the people except Moses, will be punished. Exod 33:1(–3) also expands the
basic narrative of Exod 32, in particular Exod 32:34a, and, besides having much
in common with Exod 32:7–14, is logically sequential to it: now that the future
of the nation Israel, the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, has been
established through Moses reminding yhwh of his land oath to them forever,
76 As held, for example, in their various ways, by Römer, Gertz, Schmid, Schmitt, Sénéchal,
Konkel, Van Seters, Blenkinsopp, and Dozeman. This is suggestive only since in order to
reach a firmer conclusion it would be necessary to investigate the relationship between
Deut 9–10* to other Dtr texts and to the Priestly material.
264 boorer
in Exod 32:7–14, yhwh himself reasserts the land oath to the descendants of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and commands them to move into this future.
Exodus 32:7–14 and 33:1 as expansions of the basic narrative in Exod 32 can
tentatively be seen as pre-Dtr, in so far as it would seem that Deut 9–10* is
literarily dependent on Exod 32; 33:1 at least at the level(s) of Exod 32:7–14
and 33:1. Although the relative level of Deut 9–10* in relation to other Dtr texts
(and P) is uncertain and has not been explored here, the analysis here implies
perhaps that Exod 32:13 and 33:1 are not as late as maintained by those who see
them as post-Dtr and/or post-P or Pentateuchal redaction or Endredaktion.77
No conclusions can be reached here with regard to the land oath texts as a
group, since the other land oath texts would need to be explored in their own
contexts in relation to parallel Dtr texts. This lies outside our specific focus on
Exod 32:13 and 33:1 within Exod 32:1–33:3.
In terms of interpretation, it can be said, however, that the content of the
land oath texts in Exod 32:13 and 33:1—in looking back to the partriarchs and
forward to the goal of the land78—mirror the broad sequence of the content
of the Tetrateuch/Pentateuch79 and interpret the basic story of the golden calf
situated as it is in Exod 32 in terms of this wider trajectory. Thus, Exod 32:13, with
its wider perspective of the oath of the land to the patriarchs and as an integral
element of Exod 32:7–14, is, along with v. 12, the reason for the continuance of
the nation Israel as the descendants of the patriarchs over against the threat
of their annihilation and their replacement by a Moses nation (v. 10). And
Exod 33:1 takes up and reinforces that aspect of Exod 32:13 concerned with the
promise of the land, repeating in a speech of yhwh himself that yhwh has
promised it by oath to them, the descendants of the patriarchs, and they are
now to proceed to it. In this way the future of the nation descended from the
patriarchs is asserted in the context of the negative consequences of the sin of
the golden calf by the Exodus generation (Exod 32:30–34). It is therefore this
wider perspective, encompassing a trajectory reaching back to the patriarchs
and forward to the sworn goal of the land as encapsulated in the expansions to
the basic narrative concerning the golden calf and its negative consequences, in
Exod 32:13 within Exod 32:7–14 and Exod 33:1, that provides hope and a positive
future for the nation Israel as yhwh’s people—even in the face of their sin
against yhwh.
Select Bibliography
Aurelius, Erik. Der Fürbitter Israels: Eine Studie zum Mosebild im Alten Testament. Coni-
ectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series 27. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell, 1988.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “Deuteronomic Contribution to the Narrative in Genesis–Num-
bers.” Pages 84–115 in Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuter-
onomism. Edited by Linda Schearing and Steven McKenzie. Journal for the Study
of the Old Testament Supplement Series 268. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1999.
Blum, Erhard. Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 189. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990.
Boorer, Suzanne. The Promise of the Land as Oath: A Key to the Formation of the Penta-
teuch. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992.
Chung, Yuon Ho. The Sin of the Golden Calf: The Rise of the Bible’s Negative Attitude
Towards the Golden Calf. New York: t&t Clark, 2010.
Dozeman, Thomas B. “The Composition of Ex 32 within the context of the Enneateuch.”
Pages 175–189 in Auf dem Weg zur Endgestalt von Genesis bis ii Regum. Edited by
Martin Beck and Ulrich Schorn. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006.
. Exodus. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
Gertz, Jan Christian. “Beobachtungen zu Komposition und Redaktion in Exodus 32–34.”
Pages 88–106 in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10.
Edited by Matthius Köckert and Erhard Blum. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus,
2001.
Hayes, Christine. “Golden Calf Stories: The Relationship of Exodus 32 and Deuteronomy
9–10.” Pages 45–93 in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James
Kugel. Edited by Hindy Najman and Judith H. Newman. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Konkel, Michael, “Exodus 32–34 and the Quest for an Enneateuch.” Pages 169–184 in
Pentateuch, Hexateuch, Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through
Kings. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Thomas Römer, and Konrad Schmid. Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2011.
Lohfink, Norbert. “Deuteronomium 9,1–10,11 und Exodus 32–34.” Pages 41–87 in Gottes
Volkam Sinai Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10. Edited by Matthius Köckert
and Erhard Blum. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 2001.
Römer, Thomas. Israel’s Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium
und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 99. Göttingen:
Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1990.
Schmid, Konrad. Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Origins in the Hebrew Bible. Trans-
lated by James D. Nogalski. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010.
Schmitt, H.-C. “Die Erzahlung vom Goldenen Kalb Ex. 32 und das Deuteronomistische
Geschichtswerk.” Pages 235–250 in Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in
266 boorer
the Ancient World and in the Bible. Edited by Steven Mckenzie and Thomas Römer.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000.
Sénéchal, Vincent. Rétribution et intercession dans le Déuteronome. Berlin: de Gruyter,
2009.
Van Seters, John. The Life of Moses. Louisville: Westminster / John Knox, 1994.
. “The So-Called Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch.” Pages 58–77 in
Congress Volume: Leuven. Edited by John A. Emerton. Leiden: Brill, 1991.
Tabernacle1
Helmut Utzschneider
…
The time we spend in reconstructing the Tabernacle is sacred time;
The image held in our minds is sacred space.
william h.c. propp2
∵
1 The Text
The Hebrew lexemes ַהִמְּשָׁכּןand אֶהל מוֵֹעד ֹ are typically translated with “taber-
nacle” and “tent of meeting” (Luther: “die Wohnung” or “Stiftshütte”). In Exod
25–31 and 35–40—“priestly” texts in the broader sense3—these terms describe
a sanctuary whose center should be formed by a tent-like structure, accommo-
date sacred furnishings, and be surrounded by a court-like enclosure with an
altar. In this sanctuary yhwh wishes to “tabernacle” among the Israelites (Exod
25:8; 29:45–46; 40:35; cf. 24:16; Lev 16:16) and to lead and accompany them on
their way through the desert into the promised land (Exod 40:36–38; Num 9:15–
23; 10:11 among many).
The tabernacle-texts are introduced by a spectacular theophany (Exod
24:15–18), during which Moses climbed the mountain of God. In a forty-day
visit on the mountain Moses received God’s instructions for the production of
the “tabernacle” and the sacred furnishings of the sanctuary, in order to convey
them to the Israelites (Exod 25–31). The speeches with the instructions form
the first part of the sanctuary texts. The second part, Exod 35–40, then broadly
explains the wording of the instructions, how the Israelites carry out the divine
directive, how the sanctuary is made (Exod 35–39), how Moses sets it up (Exod
40), and finally how yhwh tabernacles within it (Exod 40:35).
1 I wish to thank Ken Brown, Göttingen, for his careful translation and various valuable sugges-
tions to this essay.
2 William H.C. Propp, Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
(ab 2a; New York: Doubleday, 2006), 722.
3 On this cf. below, section 9, “Explanatory Models for the Origin of the Sanctuary Texts.”
ועשׂית שׁלחן עצי שׁטים25:23 23 weqatal-x 23 You shall make a table of acacia
wood.
אמתים ארכוnominal clause Two cubits is its length.
ואמה רחבוnominal clause One cubit is its width.
ואמה וחצי קמתוnominal clause One and a half cubits is its height.
וצפית אתו זהב טהור24 24 weqatal-x 24 You shall overlay it with pure gold.
ועשׂית לו זר זהב סביבweqatal-x You shall make for it a golden edging
all around.
ועשׂית לו מסגרת טפח סביב25 25 weqatal-x 25 You shall make for it a golden trim
of one hand-breadth.
ועשית זר־זהב למסגרתו סביבweqatal-x You shall make a golden edging for its
trim all around.
ועשית לו ארבע טבעת זהב26 26 weqatal-x 26 You shall make four golden rings
ונתתּ את־הטבעתweqatal-x You shall set them
על ארבע הפאת אשׁר לארבע רגליו on the four sides of its four feet.
לעמת המסגרת תהיין הטבעת27 27 x-yiqtol 27 Close by the trim shall the rings be
לבתים לבדים לשׂאת את־השׁלחן as mounts for poles, so that one can
carry the table …
The verbs in weqatal formations are mostly action verbs, which describe
the manufacture as such ( )עשׂהor specific manufacturing processes (e.g. צפה,
“overlay”). The nominal clauses are coordinated with the weqatal clauses and
mostly recount measurements. The sentences that are in the form we-x-yiqtol
express statements of function or particular characteristics of the pieces to
be manufactured. They are also only sparsely used (cf. Exod 25:27 as well as,
e.g., 25:21b, 22 for the ark). This kind of description is tailored to the state-
ments of the instruction texts to convey a how-to guide to those who should
produce or furnish the sanctuary. The prevailing “you” (sg.) in the speeches is
formally directed at Moses, but in this case the Israelites are certainly addressed
(Exod 25:2, 8; cf. Exod 35:1, the “whole community of the Israelites,” כל עדת בני־
)ישׂראל.
In the tradition of the mt the instruction speeches are distinguished from
the fulfillment narratives in the sequence in which the elements of the sanc-
tuary appear. The tradition of the lxx is also distinguished from that of the
mt in respect to the sequence of elements in the fulfillment narrative. Most
importantly, however, the lxx is considerably shorter in this section than the
mt:7
7 The question of how these variants came to be is a difficult text-historical problem and
remains under discussion. Broadly speaking, two explanatory models currently stand against
one another. The first assumes that the shorter variant of the lxx-tradition goes back to
a shorter Hebrew Vorlage, which reflects a prior stage of the received Hebrew text. Cf.
Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Septuagintal Translation Techniques—A Solution to the Problem of the
Tabernacle Account,” in On the Trail of Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays (Kampen: Kok
Pharos, 1993), 116–130. The other explanatory model reckons with a second Greek translator or
author for the fulfillment section. Cf. John W. Wevers, “The Building of the Tabernacle,” jnsl
19 (1993): 123–131; Martha L. Wade, Consistency of Translation Techniques in the Tabernacle
Accounts of Exodus in the Old Greek (sblscs 49; Atlanta: sbl, 2003), 243–244.
270
mt/lxx mt lxx
35:1–3 Gathering of the Israelites
Sabbath Observance
(1st Speech)
25:1–9(8) Contribution for the 35:4–19 Moses Announces the
Sanctuary Contribution
20–29 The Israelites Bring the
Contribution
35:30–36,7 Moses Commissions the
Craftsmen
mt lxx
25:10 (9)–22 (21) Ark 36:8–38 Tabernacle 36:8–37 Priestly Clothing
23–30 Table 37:1–9 Ark 37:1–21 Tabernacle and Courtyard
31(30)–40 Lampstand 10–16 Table 38:1–8 Ark
26:1–37 Tabernacle 17–24 Lampstand 9–12 Table
27:1–8 Copper Altar 25–28 Incense Altar 13–17 Lampstand
9–19 Courtyard 29 Anointing Oil, Aromatics 18–22 Metal Portions of the Tent
20–23 Lamp Oil 23–26 Copper Altar
28 Priestly Clothing 38:1–7 Copper Altar 27 Basin
29:1–35 Priestly Consecration 8 Basin 39:1–13 Accounting
utzschneider
Instruction speeches Fulfillment narrative
tabernacle
36–42a Tamid Offering 9–20 Courtyard 14–23 Moses Receives the Construction
Materials
21–30 Accounting
30:1–10 Incense Altar 39:1–31 Priestly Clothing
Over and above these core texts in the book of Exodus, the Sinai sanctuary is
linked with the motifs and the narrative sequence of the books of Exodus, espe-
cially Exod 32, Leviticus, especially Lev 8–9 (priestly consecration, sacrifices),
Numbers, especially Num 1–4 (the camp and order of Levites), and Joshua,
especially Josh 18:1; 19:51 (the “tent of meeting” in Shilo). There are also inter-
textual relations to the ark text in Deut 10 and the construction reports of the
Solomonic Temple (1Kgs 6–8; 2Chr 2–7). We can, however, only go into these
texts in so far as they are indispensible for the understanding of the Tabernacle
texts.
8 The “tabernacle” appears in the plans and reconstructions of the Bible dictionaries and
commentaries primarily as an architectural object. Cf. Archibald R.S. Kennedy, “Taber-
nacle,” in A Dictionary of the Bible: Dealing with Its Language, Literature, and Contents,
Including the Biblical Theology (ed. James Hastings. 6th ed.; Edinburgh: t&t Clark, 1909),
4:653–668.
9 Mark K. George, Israel’s Tabernacle as Social Space (Atlanta: sbl, 2009). In his monograph
George follows the spatial theory of the French philosopher Henri Lefebvre.
10 Gary A. Anderson, “Towards a Theology of the Tabernacle and Its Furniture,” in Text,
Thought, and Practice in Qumran and Early Christianity (ed. Ruth A. Clements and Daniel
R. Schwartz; stdj 84; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 161–194.
11 The comparison with a dramatic play is drawn by Michael B. Hundley, “Before yhwh at
the Entrance of the Tent of Meeting: A Study of Spatial and Conceptual Geography in the
Priestly Texts,” zaw 123 (2011): 15–26, 17.
tabernacle 273
extra-textual evidence for it cannot be assumed. The sanctuary and its spaces
exist first and foremost in the imagination of the reader.12 The “concept of
space” in this wider sense is therefore worthy of our particular attention. There-
by it will be seen that in these texts at least three such spatial concepts are
raised (cf. on this esp. sections iv, v, and vii below), which can be seen in a
complementary relation to one another.
In the first speech, which is by far the most extensive, God’s instructions are
issued for the construction of the sanctuary and its sacred furnishings (Exod
25:1–27:21), and for the vestments of the priests (Exod 28) for their investiture
and consecration as well as for daily cult (Exod 29). In what follows we will
first outline the instructions for the construction of the tabernacle and then
reconstruct the spatial concept they convey.
12 Firmly emphasized by Franziska Bark, Ein Heiligtum im Kopf der Leser: Literaturanalytis-
che Betrachtungen zu Ex 25–40 (sbs 218; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009):
“Das Wüstenheiligtum gibt es nur als Beschreibung [bzw. deren lesendem Nachvollzug]
der Handlungsabfolge seiner Herstellung und seiner späteren Realisierung” (51). Through
this, each “imaginative Lektüre” and “Visualisierung” of the spatial concept is said to be
undermined (51). As correct as it is that the tabernacle texts primarily describe construc-
tion actions, Bark’s claim overshoots its goal, namely that from it no visual concept of
space can be imagined.
13 Cf. the detailed breakdown by Benno Jacob, Das Buch Exodus (ed. Shlomo Mayer, Joachim
Hahn, and Almuth Jürgensen; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1997 [written in 1935–1943]), 864.
14 Cf. on this at length: Claudia Bender, Die Sprache des Textilen: Untersuchungen zu Kleidung
und Textilien im Alten Testament (bwant 177; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008), 56–61.
274 utzschneider
35:25) and prepared with various weaving techniques (on this cf. below
regarding Exod 26). Further raw textile materials are Egyptian, threaded
linen ()שׁשׁ משׁזר, and wool made from goat hair. Additionally, there are two
types of skins ()ערת: red-colored ram skin and “tachash skin.”15
– Acacia wood ()עצי שׁטים. This wood is regarded as being particularly hardy;
the lxx uses for this the expression ξύλα ἄσηπτα, “non-rotting wood.”
– Lamp and anointing oil as well as incense material.
– Precious stones, used for the vestment of the high priest (Exod 28:9–10,
17–18).16
It will be seen that these materials, especially the valuable metals and textiles,
represent decisive indicators of the text’s concept of space.
Exodus 25:8 identifies the goal of the contribution: The Israelites should
construct a sanctuary in which God “will tabernacle among them” (Exod 25:8;
29:45–46; 40:35; cf. 24:16; Lev 16:16). To this end, God shows Moses a “plan of the
tabernacle” (תבנית המשׁכן, Exod 25:9), a plan to which the Israelites must con-
form their construction (Exod 25:40; cf. 26:30; 27:8). Essentially, in this “head-
ing” the plot of the tabernacle texts from Exod 25–31; 35–40 is sketched out.
It also includes a supporting genre element from ancient Near Eastern temple
construction texts: A divine messenger, Moses, receives the divine commission
for selected builders to collect materials for the construction.17 Against other
biblical and ancient Near Eastern construction narratives, it stands out that
the people are addressed as the recipients of the divine commission and as
builders, rather than the king—whether the Davidic (2 Sam 7:13; 1 Kgs 5:15–6:38;
Hag 2:4–9) or the Persian king (Ezra 1; 6:1–5).
15 The precise conception that stands behind this term has not been conclusively explained.
Possibilities include the skin of a particular animal, for example the crocodile or badger
(so Luther, who translated the consonantal text תחשׁwith the German word “Dachs”), or
a particular color (so the lxx, which translates using ὑακίνθινος). Recently “beaded skins”
has been suggested (Propp, Exodus 19–40, 374–375).
16 On the identification of the stones, cf. Wolfgang Zwickel, “Die Edelsteine im Brustschild
des Hohenpriesters und beim himmlischen Jerusalem,” in Edelsteine in der Bibel (ed.
Wolfgang Zwickel; Mainz: von Zabern, 2002), 50–70.
17 Cf. Victor A. Hurowitz, “The Priestly Account of Building the Tabernacle,” jaos 105 (1985):
21–30, 29.
tabernacle 275
()ארון, two cubits long and one and a half cubits wide and high.18 The ark is
to be overlaid with pure gold ( )זהב טהורand is intended to store the “ʿedut”
(עדות, Exod 25:10–16). “Over” ( )עלthe ark an object is to be placed, called the
“kapporet” (ַכֹּפּ ֶרת, Exod 25:17–22). In length and width the kapporet corresponds
to the ark; the height is not given. It should likewise be made of pure gold (זהב
;)טהורon its topside two cherubim of embossed work should be formed.
The show bread table ( )שׁלחןshould also be made of acacia wood and, togeth-
er with its “dishes and pitchers” (Exod 25:23–30), be overlaid with gold or made
of pure gold. It should be two cubits long, one cubit wide, and one and a half
cubits high (ca. 90 ×45×68cm). It is thus somewhat smaller than the ark and
altogether a diminutive piece. Like the ark the table should also be provided
with rings to mount carrying-poles for later transport.
The lampstand (מנרה, Exod 25:31–40) should—like the kapporet—be an
embossed work of pure gold. It consists of a central lampstand ( )קנהfrom
which three sets of two arms ( )קניםextend, tiered one above the other. On the
central stand and on its arms it is decorated with forms of almond blossoms
()משׁקדים, buds, and petals ()כפתר ופרח. Above, on the stand and its six arms,
the several lamps should sit and “be lit on its [that is, probably, the lamps]
front.” (Exod 25:37). The text mentions no size for the lamps, only the material
weight: a talent of pure gold (ca. 34kg) should be available for them and for the
accompanying equipment (Exod 25:38).
So far the equipment in the interior of the sanctuary is described; it should
be made according to the plan that Moses saw on the mountain (Exod 25:40).
18 Here the “ordinary” cubit is assumed, in contrast to the “royal” cubit. The former is
specified with 44–45 cm (we take 45 cm as a basis for our calculations), the latter with
52cm. Cf. Götz Schmitt, “Maße,” brl, 2:204–206.
19 Outside of the Exodus texts the expression יריעתis found mostly in parallel to אהל, “tent”
(cf. Isa 54:2; Jer 4:20; 10:20; Hab 3:7).
276 utzschneider
20 Not given is the thickness of the boards; this has led to divergent ideas regarding their form.
Many think of them as massive columns of 1.5 × 1 cubits wide and deep, others as small
boards of four fingers deep, yet others of scaffolding-like frames. Cf. Michael M. Homan, To
Your Tents, O Israel: The Terminology, Function, Form and Symbolism of Tents in the Hebrew
Bible and the Ancient Near East (chane 12; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 137–141. The essential
criterion is the transport weight of the total 48 pieces, which according to Num 7:8 can
be moved by a double team of cattle.
21 Others: “laterals.”
tabernacle 277
strengthening boards are fastened.22 We accept that the first board on either
side is set double and so strengthens the rear wall. The length of the rear wall
is thus 6×1.5 cubits (ca. 4m).
In the interior the building should be divided into two rooms by a curtain
“paroket” ()ָפר ֶֹכת: “the most holy place” with the ark, and “the holy place” with
the other sacred equipment (Exod 26:31–36). This curtain should be formed of
the same blended fabric with worked-in cherubim as the innermost covering
(Exod 26:1–6). It should be fastened to four wooden, gold-plated columns
with silver feet, and stand at the place where the two arrangements of the
lowest covering are connected (Exod 26:3), and “separate” the two rooms of the
tabernacle (Exod 26:33).
The entire eastern narrow side of the building should form the entrance,
which can be closed with a further curtain (ָמָסְך, Exod 26:36–37). It consists
of mixed-fabric—like the inner covering and the inner curtain (—)פרכתbut
without in-woven cherubim. It is described as ( מעשׂה רקםcf. above on Exod
26:1), therefore perhaps a work of lower quality. This curtain is also, like the
inner, fastened on four gold-overlaid columns, which stand on copper (not
silver) feet.
26 Wilhelm Gesenius, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testa-
ment. (ed. Herbert Donner and Rudolf Meyer; 18th ed.; Berlin: Springer, 2007) (= GesL18),
407.
27 Propp, Exodus 19–40, 426.
28 The manufacturing instructions for the golden lampstand are perhaps also diachronically
a supplement. Contrast Jacob, Das Buch Exodus, 889–891; Carol Meyers, “Realms of Sanc-
tity: The Case of the ‘Misplaced’ Incense Altar in the Tabernacle Texts of Exodus,” in Texts,
Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran (ed. Michael V. Fox et al.; Winona
Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 33–46.
29 Thomas B. Dozeman, Commentary on Exodus (ecc; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 660.
30 Martin Noth, Das zweite Buch Mose: Exodus (atd 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1959), 191.
31 Propp, Exodus 19–40, 357. The second statement is missing in the lxx and SamP.
tabernacle 279
On the basis of the present findings an initial conclusion regarding the taberna-
cle’s concept of space should now be drawn out. Architecturally the idea can be
perfectly aligned with the usual reconstructions,32 even if some details remain
unexplained and the symmetry of the positions of the ark and altar are not cov-
ered by the wording of the instructions. This last uncertainty regarding the floor
plan and visual appearance of the sanctuary can also express an intended pre-
rogative for Moses. Moses alone has insight into the “plan” of the tabernacle;
he alone will also establish it (Exod 40). So the Israelites (and with them the
readers)—despite their intended involvement—are denied final insight into
the form of the sanctuary.
Expressed positively, the construction texts are more interested in the social
and symbolic quality of the sanctuary than in its architectural completeness
and coherence. Its materials and components are donated by the Israelites, but
it is itself conceived in heaven by God himself and finally realized by Moses,
his representative (Exod 40). The sanctuary comes about therefore in coop-
eration between God as initiator and client, and human beings as helpers.
Such a constellation is familiar in ancient Israel and its environment, though
the human role is generally played by kings.33 Also, as already mentioned in
connection with Exod 25:1–9, in the Hebrew Bible kings from Solomon and Jer-
oboam, through Josiah and Cyrus, up to Antiochus iv and Herod are concerned
with the construction and support of temples, and are most often divinely com-
missioned. That in the priestly texts the people participate materially in the
construction of the Sinai sanctuary makes this in a certain sense atypical.
In biblical context the idea of a collapsible and portable sanctuary is also
unique, which the tabernacle’s tent-form and the transport devices on its
equipment express. The order of Levites in Num 4, in which the dismantling of
the sanctuary by the Aaronide priests (Num 4:1–16) and the loading of the indi-
vidual parts on the shoulders of the Levites (Num 4:17–33) are described, takes
up this spatial idea and draws it out. From Sinai on the sanctuary accompa-
nies the Israelites on the stations of their wandering, until its track as portable
divine dwelling ends in Shilo. In other words, the tabernacle’s concept of space
is aimed at the (desert) wandering.34 In this, the spatial concept of the Sinai
sanctuary is distinguished significantly from the concepts of other biblical
sanctuaries. The latter are bound to fixed, God-chosen or mythical places (מקום,
cf. Gen 28:11, 16; Deut 12:5), above all with the divine mountain of Zion, which
is identified with the seat of the gods in the north, “Zaphon” (Ps 48:3). This con-
cept is also represented in the book of Exodus. The Song of Moses implies the
expectation that God will plant the Israelites at the end of their wandering on
the “mountain of his inheritance,” the “place of his throne” (Exod 15:17). The
idea that God will accompany them until then in a portable sanctuary lies far
from the thought of the Song of Moses.
Now to the spatial idea of the sanctuary system in the narrower sense: in
general one can say that the tabernacle is developed from its inner center
outward. This is true first of the sequence of the sacred construction elements
(compare the overview in section I above). The ark (Exod 25:10–22) comes
to stand in the interior, the table and lampstand in the outer room of the
tabernacle, to which (according to Exod 30:1–10) a golden (incense) altar is also
added. Then follows the tabernacle itself (Exod 26), the copper (burnt offering)
altar in front of the tabernacle (Exod 27:1–8), and finally the enclosure, the court
(Exod 27:9–19).
This orientation from inside to outside is mirrored not only in the rough
outline of the arrangement of structures and sacred furniture, but also in the
arrangement of the materials used. The innermost room is formed by the cover-
ing made of valuable, colored linen-wool blended fabric with worked-in cheru-
bim, and called ( מעשׂה חשׁבperhaps “artistic weaver’s work”). Over this lies the
simpler covering made of dark goat wool, and finally the two coverings made
of ram- and tachash-leather. Next is the framework made of gold-plated acacia
wood boards, over which the coverings are imagined to be thrown or stretched.
The curtain ()פרכת, which separates ( )בדלthe innermost room of the taber-
nacle from the outer, is executed in the same artistic weaver’s work as the
inner covering, while the curtain ( )מסךon the east-facing entrance of the taber-
nacle is indeed made of blended fabric, but it is designed as a simpler “col-
ored weaver’s work” ()מעשׂה רקם, that is, without the worked-in cherubim. The
demarcation outward that occurs through this entrance curtain is also sig-
naled by the copper feet of the otherwise gold-plated wood posts, on which
it hangs.
Apart from this the materials of the tabernacle and its sacred furnishings
are to a great extent homogenous: the fixed components are either made of
pure gold or acacia wood overlaid with pure gold, and stand on silver footings,
while the interior blended fabrics are valuable weaver’s works and “hallmarks of
holiness.”35 With their style the tabernacle therefore forms a cohesive sphere: It
is “holy.” Internally however, the outer, east-facing room of the “holy place” and
the inner, western-orientated “most holy place” (Exod 26:34) are differentiated.
This gradation is also visible in the dimensions and furnishings of the two
rooms. The inner room, the most holy, is imagined as a cube of perhaps 10 × 10
cubits.36 The coverings and walls of this cube are surrounded by cherubim
woven into the innermost covering and the curtain, even if these are perhaps
not visible behind the gold-plated walls of the framework of boards. The larger
room of the holy place, however, is approximately twice as long as the most
holy place, and therefore stands in a relation of 1:2 with it.37 Furthermore, the
35 On this cf. Menachem Haran, “The Priestly Image of the Tabernacle,” huca 36 (1965):
191–226, 202, who points out that “according to the conception embodied in the Bible any
heterogeneous mixture is taken as a hallmark of holiness.”
36 This can be deduced from the statement that the inner curtain hangs over the whole
framework at the back of the tabernacle by 10 cubits. The junction between the two
arrangements, on which the separating curtain is to be attached (Exod 26:33), then lies
10 cubits away from the rear wall. Cf. Homan, Tents, 181–184. Exact dimensions are not
possible, because as seen above, there are uncertainties in the arrangement of the “boards”
and their depth. The “debir,” the wooden shrine of the Solomonic temple, is also described
as a cube (1Kgs 6:20), which corresponds to the most holy place of the tabernacle.
37 The length and width of the building stand in a relation of 3:1. That is, in its basic structure
the tabernacle corresponds to a longhouse-temple, with a main room in the front and a
separated inner “cella,” in which among iconic cults the pictorial representation of the
god has its dwelling. Historical models could also be mentioned for the specific style of a
tent surrounded by a rectangular court, especially the tent of Ramses ii, which was in the
282 utzschneider
curtain at the entrance lacks cherubim and stands on copper feet. The outer
curtain and its columns therefore form a kind of transition to the sphere of the
altar and the court or its enclosure, in which the materials copper and simple
linen dominate.
The altar is entirely made of copper-overlaid wood. The enclosure of the
court is made of pure linen hangings. The material of their load-bearing posts is
not named, but is probably imagined to be wood. In any case the silver connec-
tors between the posts bring out something of the holiness of the tabernacle.
All fittings which touch the ground are, however, made of copper. In short, the
materials used clearly show that the holiness of the sphere of the altar and court
is reduced compared to the sphere of the tabernacle.
Seen from the entrance to the court into the interior of the tabernacle,
spheres of gradually increasing holiness arise, corresponding to zones of re-
stricted ritual access.38 Outside of the court and around it lies the camp of
the twelve tribes in four groups of three (Num 2). With the courtyard the true
sphere of holiness begins, in which the normal Israelites have access under par-
ticular circumstances,39 and in which the daily sacrificial cult should be carried
out by the priests (תמיד, Exod 29:38–42a). In the sphere of the outer room of the
tabernacle only the Aaronide priests have access, perhaps for the daily renewal
of the lamp oil (Exod 27:21), while access to the inner room of the tabernacle
is famously reserved for Aaron and his descendents as high priests, and indeed
only once a year on Yom Kippur (Lev 16:2). Only at that moment should he set
foot in the holy realm inside the paroket ()אל־הקדשׁ מבית לפרכת, before the kap-
poret, in order there “to effect atonement (kipper) for himself, his family, and all
the assembly of Israel” (Lev 16:17). This temporal, spatial and personal limita-
tion is in force so that Aaron will not die, “because I will appear in a cloud over
the kapporet” (Lev 16:2). With this it is clear where the orientation toward the
inner room in the manufacturing instructions has its basis. Spheres of holiness
are determined by proximity to or distance from this room as the place of God’s
presence.40
middle of the war camp of Qadesh. Cf. the study of Homan, Tents, 89–128, and esp. 111–116,
“Rameses’s Military Camp and the Tabernacle,” and plates 47–49.
38 Cf. on this see Haran, “Priestly Image,” 216–226 on “The Gradated Taboo”; George, Taber-
nacle, 105–112 on “Holiness,” and 125–135 on “Conceptual Space and Social Classification.”
Further, see Frank Gorman Jr., The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the Priestly
Theology (JSOTSupp 91; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990).
39 In the further progression of the tabernacle texts this sphere is called פתח אהל מועד,
“entrance of the tent of meeting.” Cf. Michael B. Hundley, “Entrance,” 26. Cf. also already
Utzschneider, Heiligtum, 125–127.
40 Holiness as such is not the criterion: “Proximity to the deity, therefore, appears to be a more
tabernacle 283
In a sense the source of this holiness lies in the innermost room of the taber-
nacle; it is represented by the sacred architecture of the ark and kapporet. The
Hebrew expression for the ark, ארון, suggests the idea of a “container,”41 in which
the ʿedut should find accommodation (Exod 25:16). Where this originated, how-
ever, and what meaning its placement in the ark has, are not expressly stated.
Although ʿedut is often translated with “testimony” (“Zeugnis”), in our view the
translation with “law” or “laws” is preferable here from the context.42 It is a mat-
ter of laws that God proclaimed on Sinai. The provision in Exod 25:16, to lay the
ʿedut in the ark, scarcely allows another idea than that of a “tangible,” material,
written document.43 Whether it refers to the stone tablets of the Decalogue
(Exod 34:28; cf. Deut 10:4), other or further law books,44 or another form of
“covenant document,” must and can remain open. It may also be considered
whether the ʿedut in the ark is understand as a “building inscription.”45 By the
ark and the ʿedut within it, God is represented in his written law, in whatsoever
“version” this is thought to be.
One element that is no less debatable in its description, its form and its
functions is the kapporet on (על, Exod 25:21) the ark (but not as its “lid”46). For
the noun kapporet a derivation from the Piel form of the verbal root kpr seems
important explanation for the distinctions between spaces and objects in the tabernacle
than holiness.” George, Tabernacle, 111.
41 There are three references in which the cultic ark is not meant by this term. In Gen 50:26
a coffin or sarcophagus (Ges l18, 96) for the embalmed body of Joseph is described in this
way; in 2Kgs 12:10–11 // 2 Chr 24:8, 10 it is a collection box.
42 On this cf. the summary and bibliography in GesL18, 925–926. The meaning “testimony,”
in the sense of testimony of or for something, is rare (Sir 34:20, 23). It is conceivably from
the verbal root עוד2, which admittedly also means “solemnly swear,” “caution” or “exhort”
(GesL18, 930–931). Nevertheless, the meanings “law, admonition” and “testimony” are not
excluded, when one understands ʿedut as attestation of God’s will, which he made known
on Sinai.
43 If one wishes to understand the ʿedut to be of such a size that it could not be laid in
the ark, one must dismiss Exod 25:16 on literary-critical grounds. So Susanne Owczarek,
Die Vorstellung vom Wohnen Gottes inmitten seines Volkes in der Priesterschrift: Zur Heilig-
tumstheologie der priesterschriftlichen Grundschrift (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1998),
62–63;160. But the ark then still remains as an empty box.
44 On this cf. Bernd Janowski, Sühne als Heilsgeschehen: Traditions- und religionsgeschicht-
liche Studien zur Priesterschriftlichen Sühnetheologie (wmant 55; 2nd ed.; Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchner, 2000), 292–293; Utzschneider, Heiligtum, 110–117; contrast, on the
basis of its particular literary-critical assumptions, Owzcarek, Wohnen Gottes, 170–171.
45 George, Tabernacle, 169.
46 Janowski, Sühne, 274.
284 utzschneider
plausible. In the priestly literature this verbal root almost exclusively signifies
the cultic atonement generally carried out by priests.47 As already addressed
above, this atonement is carried out by the high priests for the priesthood and
the people on the kapporet (Lev 16:14–15, 17), which is therefore best understood
as “atonement place” or “Sühnemal” (“monument of atonement”).48
A further trace of the meaning of the kapporet comes from the two kerubim,
which stand on it facing one another (Exod 25:20). They can be associated
with the divine epithet, the “cherubim-enthroned,” which is expressly linked
to the ark in 1Sam 4:4 and 2Sam 6:2 (cf. also 2Kgs 19:15; Isa 37:16; Ps 80:2; 99:1).
One can also think of the huge golden cherubim in the Solomonic temple,
which—though set in parallel—are placed there on both sides of the ark (1 Kgs
6:23–28) and cover it with one wing each. Or one can point to Ezek 9:3 or 10:4,
where the glory of yhwh “went up from the cherub.” Behind this possibly stand
ideas of a type of throne widespread in Syria,49 one in which the cherubim
flanked in parallel arrangement as figuratively formed arm rests. From this one
can derive the interpretation of the kapporet as divine throne.50 Admittedly
the shaping of the kapporet stands against this, in that its cherubim are not
arranged parallel, but stand across from one another. This even allows one
to conjecture that this arrangement of the cherubim is not only not linked
to a throne-concept, but that this concept should actually be “undermined.”51
Nevertheless, the cherubim as escorts of God also point to the fact that God is
present in the most holy place of the tabernacle, even if not, as on Zion, as the
enthroned king.52
The last two verses of the building instructions from Exod 25 no longer
differentiate the ark and kapporet; rather, they interpret the ark with the ʿedut
and kapporet as one place. This one place is meant when it says in Exod 25:22, “I
will meet you there and speak with you from the kapporet between the kerubim
on the ark of the law.” We decipher this “mental image” in such a way that the
presence of God can be thought to be realized in his word and through his law.
This presence can be borne by human beings only in a state of atonement.
The priesthood first enters into view in the tabernacle story through the priest’s
liturgical clothing (Exod 28).54 In style and many content-related motifs, Exod
28 is similar and related to the instructions for the construction of the taber-
nacle. It is directed through Moses to the Israelites, though its fulfillment is
limited to the “skillful” ()חכמי־לב, that is, those whom God has gifted accord-
ingly (Exod 28:3); this points forward to the section on the commission of the
craftsmen (Exod 31:1–6). Most of the space is taken up by the instruction for the
(high-priestly55) vestment of Aaron (Exod 28:2–39).56 According to Exod 28:2, 4
Aaron’s “holy clothing” ( )בגדי־קדשׁincludes the “choshen” (חֶשׁן
ֹ ), a kind of breast
pocket, the “ephod” ( אפדor )אפוד, the “robe” ()מעיל, the undergarment ()כתנת,
the turban ()מצנפת, and the “sash” ()אבנט.
The ephod is here imagined as a kind of apron,57 which is fastened over
the shoulders with suspenders and around the hips with tied bands. It is to
be made in artistic weaver’s work of the same colorful linen-blended fabric
(Exod 28:6) as the inner covering or the paroket of the tabernacle. On the two
suspenders of the ephod two precious stones with the names of the twelve
tribes are fixed at shoulder height. The two stones are named “stones of the
memory of the Israelites,” which Aaron should wear before yhwh “for memory”
or “as a reminder” (namely, God’s memory of Israel; Exod 28:9–12, see below).
The choshen is also described as the “choshen of justice” or “choshen of
judgment” (חשׁן משׁפט, Exod 28:15, 29–30). It is, like the ephod, made in artistic
weaver’s work of linen-blended fabric, which is folded into a kind of pocket. On
the other hand, this should be set on its front with four rows of three precious
stones each, into which the names of the tribes should be engraved (Exod 28:21).
This breast pocket should be firmly connected to the suspenders of the ephod
in such a way that Aaron “bears (the names) on his heart” when he enters “the
holy place … as a reminder before yhwh” (Exod 28:29). Additionally, the pocket
should hold two objects, named ʾurim and thummim (see below).
55 The term הכהן הגדולis not used of Aaron personally. It first appears in Lev 21:10.
56 Otherwise the liturgical clothing of Aaron is described two further times. Directly after the
description of the pieces of the vestment in Exod 28:39 follows a description of Aaron’s
clothing, which broadly corresponds to that of his sons or the ordinary priests. In Lev 16:4,
23–24 the clothing that Aaron or the high priest should wear on Yom Kippur is described,
which comes very close to the simpler clothing of the ordinary priests. On this cf. the
detailed discussion in Bender, Sprache des Textilen, 220–227, 248–252.
57 On the ephod in other contexts and with other meanings and forms, cf. Helmut Utzschnei-
der, “Ephod,” rgg4 2:1351–1352; and with detailed discussion, Bender, Sprache des Textilen,
211–220. According to Bender (218) one should distinguish between the “ephod bad,” a
symbol of God’s presence (1 Sam 14:3,18), and the “ephod” (without the addition of “bad”),
which was said to be a priestly instrument for the issuance of oracles and a “Kennzeichen
der Priesterwürde” (236).
tabernacle 287
The robe, which is also called “the robe of the ephod,” is to be made of
violet-purple colored wool, though only as ordinary weaver’s work (Exod 28:32);
its lower seam is provided with golden bells and “pomegranates,” which are
made of the blended fabric already known from the tabernacle. Violet-purple
colored wool is also the base material of the turban (Exod 28:37), on which a
golden diadem (ציץ, lit. “flower” or “bloom”) is located.
Just by the colors and materials of his vestment, Aaron and all further priests
who wear these garments fit in the sacred spaces of the tabernacle exactly; in
fact he appears almost as a part of it. At the same time the choshen and ephod
are the most important elements of the vestment, followed by the turban with
its golden diadem and the robe. Differently than with the sacred equipment of
the tabernacle, the function of the high priest in the tabernacle is repeatedly
and clearly identified. Not only the two stones on the shoulder-pieces of the
ephod, but also the stones with the names of the twelve tribes on the front of
the choshen constitute the priest as Israel’s representative in the holy place (cf.
Exod 28:29).
A further important keyword that illuminates Aaron’s function in the sanc-
tuary and at the same time makes clear how he represents the Israelites before
God, is זכרן, which can be translated with “memory” and/or “remembrance”
The lexeme appears in connection with the two stones on the ephod (Exod
28:12–13) and the twelve stones on the choshen (Exod 28:29; cf. 39:7). With it
the remembrance of a particular event can be meant, just as, for instance, in
Exod 12:14 the “pashach of the generations” is understood as a remembrance of
the sparing of the Israelites on the night of the Exodus (Exod 12:11–13). זכרןcan
also be connected with an outward sign, for instance the “sign on the hand and
reminder between the eyes” (Exod 13:9).58 The bearer thus brings to expression
his belonging to the deity and at the same time calls it to mind; that very thing
also occurs with the inscribed stones on the ephod and choshen. If one relates
the זכרן-stones to the role of the people as donors of construction material for
the sanctuary (see above Exod 25:1–7), so can one understand them as a kind
of foundation inscription, by which the Israelites are presented and brought to
mind before God as donors to the sanctuary.59
58 On this cf. Helmut Utzschneider and Wolfgang Oswald, Exodus 1–15 (iekat; Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 2013), 278.
59 On this cf. Utzschneider, Heiligtum, 168–171, with further material; see also Othmar Keel,
“Die Brusttasche des Hohenpriesters als Element priesterschriftlicher Theologie,” in Das
Manna fällt auch heute noch (ed. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Ludger Schwienhorst-Schön-
berger; hbs 44; Freiburg: Herder, 2004), 379–391 esp. 386; and Christoph Dohmen, Exodus
19–40 (htkat; Freiburg: Herder 2004), 268.
288 utzschneider
The two objects named “ʾurim” and “thummim” need not be manufactured;
their existence is assumed. They are also mentioned outside the Sinai sanctuary
texts, and these references involve oracular instruments.60 With their inclusion
in Aaron’s vestment these objects acquire a further meaning. In Exod 28:30 they
are pointedly linked with “the justice of the children of Israel” ()משׁפט בני־ישׂראל:
with the “breast pocket of justice” and ʾurim and thummim, Aaron “bears” this
justice “on his heart.” In this connection, Othmar Keel alerts us to the motif of
the “offering of the maʾat,” “which in the Egyptian cult represents that which is
appropriate to the world order.”61 In fact, משׁפטcan, like צדקה, also mean “ ‘the
correct, appropriate’ (Exod 26:30; 1Kgs 18:28; Isa 28:25–26), the ‘order’ (Gen
40:13; 1Kgs 5:8 …).”62 Consequently, Aaron with his pectoral not only represents
the Israelites, he also brings “the integrity of the Israelites before God.”63 In
this respect the choshen can be understood as the counterpart to the ʿedut, the
divine laws in the ark.64 In the ʿedut God’s will for justice and order comes to
expression; the breast-piece of the high priest brings the will of the people to
expression, to correspond to this divine order.
Finally, the function of the golden diadem on Aaron’s forehead (Exod 28:36–
38) should be investigated. It concerns the consecration and offerings of the
Israelites and should “take away the transgressions of their holy offerings” and
when it “is continually on Aaron’s forehead,” it obtains for them (always) the
“favor of yhwh.” The diadem is therefore something like an instrument that
should avert the displeasure of God, and like the ʾurim and thummim this
has a counterpart in the tabernacle: the kapporet, therefore the “Sühnemal”
with which God has institutionalized his readiness to forgive in the sanctu-
ary.
The liturgical clothing of the sons of Aaron, that is, the ordinary priests,
includes the coat (—)כתנתwhich in Aaron’s vestment describes the under-
clothes beneath the robe (—)מעילa turban, ( )מצנפתand the priestly sash ()אבנט.
They are made of simple linen ()שׁשׁ, and like the entrance curtain of the taber-
nacle (Exod 26:36), or of the courtyard (Exod 27:16), they are simple weaver’s
work ()מעשׂה רקם. With this the normal boundaries of the priestly service in
the sanctuary are also marked out.
All told, it has been seen that the vestments of Aaron and the high priests
are closely, indeed exactly, coordinated with the spatial concept of the taber-
60 Num 27:21; 1Sam 28:6. Cf. also Houtman, Exodus 3, 496; Keel, “Brusttasche,” 382.
61 Keel, “Brusttasche,” 383.
62 Gerhard Liedke, “ שׁפטspt richten,” THAT 2:1005.
63 Keel, “Brusttasche,” 384.
64 Jacob, Das Buch Exodus, 909.
tabernacle 289
nacle. This is true not only of the materials and style, but also of the symbolic-
theological dimensions of the space. The vestment of the high priest identi-
fies him as representative of the Israelites. When the high priest enters the
spaces of the tabernacle, a meeting between God and the people occurs (Exod
25:22, see above). The correspondences between the ark with its ʿedut and
the kapporet on the one hand, and the ephod, choshen and diadem on the
vestment of the high priest on the other hand, also lend this meeting a sub-
stantial meaning. With the inscriptions on the precious stones the Israelites
are brought to mind vis-à-vis yhwh as donors to his tabernacle. The ʾurim
and thummim that the high priest wears on his heart as representative of the
Israelites correspond to God’s will for justice and order laid down in the ark. The
diadem on Aaron’s forehead responds to the divine “Sühnemahl”—the kap-
poret.
But this momentous concept of space thus far stands like a mute set stage,
and the future protagonists and actors are only present through their costumes.
The space waits to be filled with concrete people. As curious as this seems,
such an idea is important in my view because it allows one to relate the
sanctuary and priesthood to one another as institutions—independent of the
people currently acting in them. The clothing of the priesthood represents the
office, even while its “enlivenment” through concrete people is indispensible.
This “enlivenment” of the sacred space will be the focus of what follows. It
expands on the human protagonists (that is, the priests), on the cult as its
true fulfillment, and finally also on the divine protagonist himself—whose
“indwelling” fills the sanctuary with his lively presence.
In Exod 29, yhwh first gives instructions for the investiture and consecration of
the priests Aaron and his sons.65 With the investiture, the Aaronides, especially
Aaron himself, take over the institutional role that was sketched out in the con-
cepts of the space and the office of the sanctuary. The “consecration” implies
the investiture and includes further ceremonies: The future priests should be
washed, anointed, and have their “hands filled.” The high point of the ceremony
should be the sacrifice of a bull and two rams (Exod 29:1–28). The ceremony
with the filling of the hands and further sacrifices “for atonement” should last
seven days and also extends to the altar (Exod 28:29–37). The overarching term
for this is “make holy” (Piel קדשׁ, Exod 29:1, 33, 44; 40:13). To a certain extent
the priests are adapted to the holiness of the sanctuary. But even the sanctu-
ary itself will require an initial adaptation to the sphere of holiness; therefore
atonement must also be made for the altar in a seven-day ceremony. Like the
priests, the altar should also be anointed (Exod 29:36–37). With this the way
will finally be open for the Israelites’ daily offering (Exod 29:38–46).
The sanctuary and its priesthood are now conceived as fundamentally com-
plete and ready for the daily cult. With this the presuppositions have been
fulfilled for yhwh himself to “move in” to his tabernacle. He will himself “make
holy” the “tent of meeting,” the altar and the priests, and will now meet the
Israelites there and “tabernacle in their midst” (Exod 29:45–46; cf. 25:8). This
will not only happen on the stage and in the props of the sanctuary, but directly
through “his glory” ()כבוד.
(1Kgs 7:23–39). It is worth noting that the basin is, based on its materials,
well-integrated into the sanctuary’s concept of space.
The fourth speech (Exod 30:22–33) turns first to Moses personally with an
order to prepare anointing oil with which he should anoint and consecrate the
sanctuary and priests. The speech already assumes the incense altar and basin
of the expanded spatial concept. In the fifth speech God demands that Moses
prepare incense materials (Exod 30:34–38). Both speeches include clauses con-
cerning abuse.
The sixth speech (Exod 31:1–11) is not truly an instruction in vv. 1–6a. Rather,
yhwh announces to Moses that he has called two craftsmen, the Judean Beza-
lel and the Danite Ohaliab, in order to draft “plans” ( )מחשׁבתto carry out the
work with the gold, silver, and copper materials, the (precious) stones, and the
woodwork.67 He has gifted them for this with “wisdom and insight and knowl-
edge in every kind of work (( ”)מלאכהExod 31:3). The construction report for the
Solomonic Temple also describes the coppersmith Hiram in this way in 1 Kgs
7:14. Moses should hand the work over to these craftsmen (Exod 31:6), which
is once again listed together (Exod 31:7–11): the tent of meeting, the ark for the
ʿedut, the kapporet, the table and its equipment, the pure lampstand and all its
equipment, the incense altar, the burnt offering altar with all its equipment, the
water basin and its stand, the service clothing and the holy clothing for Aaron
and his sons, the anointing oil, and the incense material. A look at the overview
at the beginning of our account shows that this list broadly corresponds to the
sequence of the fulfillment narrative. The craftsmen themselves also belong in
this fulfillment narrative (Exod 35:30–36:7).
The keyword “work” ( )מלאכהlinks the preceding sixth speech with the
seventh and final speech (Exod 31:12–17), which applies the ban on work on
the Sabbath to the work on the tent of meeting, and claims for it validation for
all generations as a “berit ʿolam.” This speech’s motifs are also taken up again in
the fulfillment narrative, and indeed directly at the beginning in Exod 35:1–3, so
that the Sabbath theme forms a chiastic frame for the instruction speeches and
the fulfillment narrative. It is theologically significant that with this the theme
of sacred space is linked with sacred time; it also builds a bridge to the priestly
creation texts.68
67 On this cf. Angelika Berlejung, “Der Handwerker als Theologe: Zur Mentalitäts- und
Traditionsgeschichte eines altorientalischen und alttestamentlichen Berufsstandes,” vt
47 (1996): 145–168.
68 On this cf. the recent work of Daniel C. Timmer, Creation, Tabernacle, and Sabbath: The
Sabbath Frame of Exodus 31:12–17; 35:1–3 in Exegetical and Theological Perspective
(frlant 227; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009). The theme of temple and cre-
292 utzschneider
All in all, not only are a number of motifs added to the main theme of the
sanctuary in the second through seventh speeches of the instruction portion,
but beginning already with the instructions for the production of the incense
altar at the end of the first speech, a new or at least modified concept of space
is depicted here, as well as in the fulfillment narratives.
The concept of space of the instruction speeches is oriented from inside out-
ward: perspective and movement originate from the meeting that occurs at the
ark with the ʿedut and the kapporet. Viewers (and readers) pass the boundary
of the paroket, reach the outer room with table and lampstand, pass through
the outer curtain, reach the copper altar in the area named פתח אהלup to the
entrance of the court, and from there move out into the camp of the Israelites.
In the fulfillment narrative the perspective is reversed: it goes out from the
Israelites, who appear here for the first time as the collective of the “whole com-
munity of the Israelites” (כל־עדת בני ישׂראל, Exod 35:1, 4), and is directed toward
the “tent of meeting.” Until Moses establishes the sanctuary and yhwh fills it
with his holiness (Exod 40), this community becomes the true subject of the
events.69
This is apparent already in the very detailed recapitulation of the demand
for a contribution (Exod 35:4–19; cf. 25:1–7), and especially in the account of
how the Israelites bring this contribution (Exod 35:20–29). After Moses has
called the community to do this, they return at once with their gifts. Every
member of the community, men and women, bring their golden jewelry, the
valuable colored threads, and the fine linen, silver, copper and wood. The
women who are skilled at this art (lit.: “who lift their heart with wisdom”) bring
the spun thread (Exod 35:26); the rulers contribute the precious stones. The
whole community, כל־אישׁ ואשׁה, was on their feet and indeed volunteering,
“because their heart urged them” (אשׁר נדב לבם אתם, Exod 36:29). The craftsmen
are affiliated with the community through their particular knowledge and
ation in the priestly literature is addressed more broadly by Bernd Janowski, “Tempel und
Schöpfung: Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte der Priesterschriftlichen Heiligtumskonzep-
tion,” in Gottes Gegenwart in Israel: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments (ed. Bernd
Janowski; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner, 1993), 214–246; and Utzschneider, Heiligtum,
52–54.
69 Cf. Utzschneider, Heiligtum, 160–167.
tabernacle 293
ability (Exod 35:30–36:4; cf. 31:1–11). The influx of gifts does not break off, so
that the abundance must be restricted (Exod 36:4–7).
Unlike the sequence of the instruction speeches (Exod 25–26), the taberna-
cle is constructed before the inner furniture of the tabernacle and the court-
yard. The edifice of the tabernacle will rise 10 cubits (ca. 4.5 m, Exod 36:8–38)
and therefore tower over the precinct of the “Tent of Meeting.” It will be the first
to be seen by Israelites, when one moves from the camp to the tent of meet-
ing, whereas the sacred furniture inside the tabernacle will never be seen by
the Israelites. So the change of sequence is in line with the overall direction of
movement from the outer to the inner sphere in the narrative and its concept
of space. A section is inserted in which it is reported how Moses allowed an
account to be kept of the weight of the processed metal (Exod 38:21–31). Only
then is the priestly clothing mentioned (Exod 39:1–32).
Piece by piece the production of the components is described, without
theological commentary, in largely verbatim and syntactical “mirroring” of the
instruction texts, as a comparison of the two texts on the production of the
show bread table shows:
In their work on the construction of the sanctuary the Israelites and the crafts-
men whom God commissioned (in Exod 37:10 Bezalel is subject) demonstrate
themselves to be unconditionally bound to the divine order (משׁפט, Exod 26:30),
which Moses has mediated to them in the instruction speeches on the basis
of the heavenly model (תבנית, Exod 25:9, 40). Accordingly, in the report of the
establishment of the sanctuary by Moses (Exod 40:16–33) it is as if every part of
the sanctuary is now imprinted with the formula “as yhwh had commanded”
294 utzschneider
(כאשׁר צוה יהוה, Exod 40:19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 32). The same can be said for
the priestly vestment in the fulfillment report in Lev 8.70 Basically, what was
mapped out in the correspondence between the ark with the ʿedut and the high
priest’s breast-piece with ʾurim and thummim now occurs in the construction
of the sanctuary. The members of the “community of the Israelites” act accord-
ing to the divine order and are thus participants in a spirit-filled event.71 They
take up a royal role comparable to Solomon’s.72
With regard to the sanctuary texts, recent scholarship of this type is broadly
united in the view that the section concerning the incense altar (Exod 30:1–10),
those sections referred to above as “supplemental speeches” (Exod 30:11–31:17),
as well as the fulfillment narrative (Exod 35–40), belong to the supplements—
perhaps with the exception of some rudimentary remarks by which pG also
noted the construction of the sanctuary. For the cohesiveness of these supple-
mental texts the corresponding order of the sections of the sanctuary is pointed
out; a certain tendency toward assimilating the construction report with that
of the Solomonic temple (basin, craftsmen) is also usually identified.
Concerning the assignment of the remaining core text, Exod 25:1–29:46,
opinions differ widely from one another. A tendency to reduce the share of
pG, a tendency that began already in the 1970s, has intensified.74 Thomas Pola
should especially be mentioned. He assigns to pG only Exod 25:1, 8a, 9; 29:45–46
in the instruction speeches, and 40:16, 17a, 33b in the fulfillment narrative;
with this he declares pG complete. The central motif in the closing phase of
pG is said to be the secret of the tabnit of the tabernacle and the equipment
“as the ideal, heavenly archetype”75 given to Moses. The Sinai sanctuary is
equated with Zion and marked as the goal of the conquest.76 In Pola’s view the
detailed descriptions of construction are simply disruptive.77 A contribution to
the interpretation of the existing texts and their no less “mysterious” concepts
of space is in our view not possible and probably also not intended by such a
pG, reduced to a theologically highly abstract core.
It seems, however, that this view is not generally accepted; other recent
work takes further extensive pieces into consideration for pG (e.g. Eckart Otto,
Susanne Owczarek, and Chistophe Nihan). According to Eckart Otto, the issue
at stake in Exod 25–29*, the high point and conclusion of pG, is not “an exilic,
ideal conception of the true cult … (Pola), but rather tangibly and realistically a
legitimation of the task of the Aaronide priests in a sanctuary etiology projected
back onto Sinai.”78 According to Susanne Owczarek, portions of Exod 25–29* as
well as Exod 39:32b, 43 and Exod 40:17, 37 are assigned to pG.79 pG “outlines … the
image of a cult which could also be realized in the exile, because the sanctuary
concept of the priestly Grundschrift has loosened the cultic place from its
mooring in Jerusalem through the portability of the sanctuary …. The priestly
sanctuary presents an interim solution, a stop gap, which should replace the
Temple in exile.”80 According to Christophe Nihan the sanctuary texts have in
the context of the priestly narrative from Genesis to Exodus and Leviticus the
primary intention to constitute Israel as a “priestly nation,” “a cultic community
devoted to Yahweh’s service.”81
80 Owczarek, Wohnen Gottes, 321. Original German reads: “… entwirft” pG “das Bild eines
Kultes, welcher auch im Exil zu verwirklichen ist, denn das Heiligtumskonzept der pries-
terschriftlichen Grundschrift hat den Kultort durch die Transportfähigkeit des Heiligtums
von seiner Verankerung in Jerusalem gelöst … Das Priesterschriftliche Heiligtum stellt eine
Interimslösung dar, ein Provisorium, das den Tempel im Exil ersetzen soll.”
81 Nihan, Priestly Torah, 68.
82 Yeheskel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile
(trans. Moshe Greenberg; New York: Schoken Books, 1972).
83 Menachem Haran, “Behind the Scenes of History: Determining the Date of the Priestly
Source,” jbl 100 (1981): 325, cf. 321–333. Cf. Haran, Temples, 140ff.
84 Haran, “Scenes,” 331.
85 Haran, “Scenes,” 324–325.
86 Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Min-
neapolis: Fortress, 1995; repr., Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007). With broad agreement,
this model is taken up by Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (ab 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991),
13ff. and Baruch J. Schwartz, “Introduction: The Strata of Priestly Writings and the Revised
tabernacle 297
a document underlies the priestly texts in their currently existing form, which
he names “Priestly Torah” (pt). Similarly to the pG of the Documentary Hypoth-
esis, this document’s portion of the text forms a literary whole that stretches
from Gen 1 up through the book of Numbers.87 pt is then said to be reworked,
indeed reformed, by a layer that Knohl names the “Holiness School Corpus”
(hs), one which was linked with non-priestly traditions.88 Knohl describes the
relation between the two corpora as follows: “pt concentrates on its own inner
world and has little interest in what takes places outside the Temple and the
cult, whereas hs is concerned with the broader life and problems of the Israelite
congregation.”89 The Sinai sanctuary of pt is the ideal, highest esoteric place
of a God thought of as strictly non-anthropomorphic (in this respect there
is a certain similarity to Pola’s pG-sanctuary) with an exclusive holiness. The
people have no access to the sanctuary, in which prayer and singing should
never occur (therefore: “Sanctuary of Silence”).90 Only hs provides the peo-
ple, indeed the human world overall, access to the sanctuary, allows sacrifices,
feasts and festivals, and brings the sanctuary into connection with the ethi-
cal interests of the Torah.91 In a certain sense this description corresponds to
the two spatial concepts that we have worked out in our presentation: on the
one hand, pt corresponds to the spatial concept of Exod 25:10–29:46*, which is
conceptualized from the interior of the sanctuary and the meeting between
priest and God. On the other hand, hs corresponds to the spatial concept
of the supplemental speeches in Exod 30–31* and the fulfillment narrative,
which stresses the viewpoint of the Israelites and emphasizes their role.92 In
keeping with the synchronic perspective of our account, however, we have
emphasized less the difference than the complementary nature of these con-
cepts.
On the dating of these texts Knohl goes further back than Haran. On his view
the activity of the “Holiness School” begins in the Hezekiah-Ahaz period93 (in
Relative Dating of p and h,” in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and
Future Directions (ed. Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden; atant 95; Zürich: Theologischer
Verlag, 2009), 1–12, esp. 4–5.
87 Knohl, Sanctuary, 104–105.
88 Cf. Knohl, Sanctuary, 6.
89 Knohl, Sanctuary, 203.
90 Cf. Knohl, Sanctuary, 148–150
91 Cf. Knohl, Sanctuary, 180–189: “Inclusive Sacredness.”
92 The allocation of pt and hs portions by Knohl broadly corresponds to the classic alloca-
tion of p/ps; cf. Knohl, Sanctuary, 104–105.
93 Knohl, Sanctuary, 209.
298 utzschneider
which Haran located the origin of p). It stands in lively contention with the
historical changes that Israel and Judah experienced from outside in the two
following centuries, and with which they must cope internally. But hs also
expanded in the exilic and post-exilic periods, at which time it achieved the
“gigantic task of editing the Pentateuch.”94 pt must accordingly have arisen
earlier. Now pt has “no direct relation to historical reality, but it would seem
that those scholars who claim that pt’s model of the Tabernacle reflects a
certain influence of the Solomonic Temple are correct.”95 This opens a period
between the construction of this temple and the end of the 8th century for the
origin of pt.
to be counted.98 The present author has also attempted to apply this model
especially in his 1988 Munich habilitation dissertation on the Sinai sanctuary
texts, and developed a “text hypothesis” that reckons with three layers: the “ark-
tabernacle text,” the “people-sanctuary text,” and the “Ohel-Moed texts.”99 At
that time I assumed that it was a matter of continuous succession of redac-
tors of an existing Deuteronomistic Grundlage by priestly tradents. Today the
two first “layers” can also be understood as sources in the sense of Cross’s
“Tabernacle-Texts.” The Ohel-Moed text, which can be identified by the expres-
sion )פתח( אהל מועדand strongly emphasizes the priestly-cultic aspect of the
sanctuary, constitutes the redactional layer of the priestly tradents.
Taken as a whole, this necessarily brief overview shows that the files con-
cerning the question of the origin of the priestly sanctuary texts are still in no
way closed. Therefore it is also important to keep reading these texts “synchro-
nically”—that is, without an assumption about any one model of origins. We
have attempted to do this in the preceding sections.
Select Bibliography
Bender, Claudia. Die Sprache des Textilen: Untersuchungen zu Kleidung und Textilien im
Alten Testament. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 177.
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008.
Cortese, Enzo. “The Priestly Tent (Ex 25–31.35–40): Literary Criticis and the Theology
of p Today.” Liber annuus Studii biblici franciscani 48 (1998): 9–30.
Cross, Frank M. “The Priestly Tabernacle in the Light of Recent Research.” Pages 169–180
in Temples and High Places in Biblical Times. Edited by Avraham Biran. Jerusalem:
Hebrew Union College, 1981.
Dohmen, Christoph. Exodus 19–40. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Tes-
tament. Freiburg: Herder, 2004.
Dozeman, Thomas B. Commentary on Exodus. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
George, Mark K. Israel’s Tabernacle as social Space. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Litera-
ture, 2009.
Haran, Menachem. “Behind the Scenes of History: Determining the Date of the Priestly
Source.” Journal of Biblical Literature 100 (1981): 321–333.
98 Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (bzaw 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990),
esp. 301–312.
99 Utzschneider, Heiligtum, 236–258. For critique cf. Otto, “Forschungen,” 28–36.
300 utzschneider
∵
Exodus in the Dead Sea Scrolls
Sidnie White Crawford
The book of Exodus is a very important text among the Dead Sea Scrolls,
especially in the collection found in the eleven caves in the vicinity of Khirbet
Qumran (“the Qumran collection”). Because of the variety of texts and the
fragmentary nature of the manuscripts, each text (or group of texts) will be
treated individually. At the end of this essay, I will draw some conclusions
concerning the status and use of Exodus in the Qumran collection.
1 Exodus Manuscripts
1 D. Barthélemy, “Exode,” in Qumran Cave i (ed. D. Barthélemy and J.T. Milik; djd 1; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1955), 50–51; M. Baillet, “Exode (i),” in Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumran (ed. M. Bail-
let, J.T. Milik, R. de Vaux; djd 3; Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 49–52; M. Baillet, “Exode (ii),” in Les
‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumran (ed. M. Baillet, J.T. Milik, and R. de Vaux; djd 3; Oxford: Claren-
don, 1962), 52–55; M. Baillet, “Exode (iii),” in Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumran (ed. M. Baillet,
J.T. Milik, and R. de Vaux; djd 3; Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 56; James R. Davila, “4QGen–Exoda,”
in Qumran Cave 4, vii, Genesis to Numbers (ed. Eugene Ulrich et al.; djd 12; Oxford: Clarendon,
1994), 7–30; Patrick W. Skehan, Eugene Ulrich, and Judith E. Sanderson, “4QpaleoGenesis–
Exodusl,” in Qumran Cave 4, iv, Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts (djd 9; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1992), 17–50; Patrick W. Skehan, Eugene Ulrich, and Judith E. Sanderson, “4Qpa-
leoExodusm,” in Qumran Cave 4, iv, Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts (djd 9;
Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), 53–132; Frank Moore Cross, “4QExodb,” “4QExod–Levf,” in Qumran
Cave 4, vii, Genesis to Numbers (ed. Eugene Ulrich et al.; djd 12; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 79–
96, 133–144; and Judith E. Sanderson, “4QExodc–e,” “4QExodg–k,” in Qumran Cave 4, vii, Genesis
to Numbers (ed. Eugene Ulrich et al.; djd 12; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 97–132, 145–152. Also,
a small fragment of Exodus, frgDSS 161 (Exod 23:8–10), has recently been acquired by South-
western Baptist Theological Seminary; it is not yet published.
2 Brian Webster, “Chronological Index of the Texts from the Judaean Desert,” in The Texts from
the Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series
(djd 39; ed. Emanuel Tov; Oxford: Clarendon, 2002), 351–446 (378, 434).
2 Rewritten Scriptures
3 J.T. Milik, “Genèse, Exode, Nombres,” in Les Grottes de Murabbaʾat (ed. P. Benoit, J.T. Milik,
R. de Vaux; djd 2; Oxford: Clarendon, 1961), 77–78.
4 See Judith E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExodm and the Samaritan
Tradition (hss 30; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986). For the importance of 4QpaleoExodm in
revealing the history of the text of Exodus, see Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the
Origins of the Bible (sdssrl; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).
5 Magnar Kartveit, The Origin of the Samaritans (VTSup 128; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 259–312.
6 John M. Allegro, “Biblical Paraphrase: Genesis, Exodus,” in Qumrân Cave 4, i (4q158–4q186)
(djd 5; Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 1–6; see also John Strugnell, “Notes en marge du volume v
des ‘Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan’,” RevQ 7 (1970): 163–276.
7 Emanuel Tov and Sidnie White, “Reworked Pentateuch,” in Qumran Cave 4, viii, Parabiblical
Texts, Part i (ed. Harold Attridge et al.; djd 13; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 187–352.
8 For more in-depth discussions, see George J. Brooke, “4q158: Reworked Pentateucha or Re-
worked Pentateuch a?” dsd 8 (2001): 219–241; Sidnie White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture
in Second Temple Times (sdssrl; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008); Michael H. Segal,
“4QReworked Pentateuch or 4QPentateuch?” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After Their
Discovery (ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam; Jerusalem:
Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 391–399; and Molly M. Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture:
exodus in the dead sea scrolls 307
Pentateuch, albeit with a hyperexpanded text, while 4q158, 4q366 and 4q367
are collections of Pentateuchal passages, sometimes reworked for exegetical
purposes. 4q158 and 4q365 rework passages from Exodus most extensively, and
so will be treated at length.
2.1.1 4q158
4q158 consists of fifteen fragments, most of which represent passages from
Exodus, with interpolations from Genesis and Deuteronomy. The order of the
passages from Exodus on the fragments proceeds according to the order found
in the received text.9 Some fragments (5, 10–12) contain no substantive changes
from the received text of Exodus, while other fragments show evidence of
extensive reworking for exegetical purposes. The latter fragments will be dis-
cussed below. Because of its fragmentary nature, it is impossible to determine
the original extent and purpose of 4q158, except to say that one of its purposes
must have been the exegesis through reworking of selected Exodus passages.10
Fragments 1–2 present Gen 32:25–32 (with an expansion) followed by Exod
4:27–28.11 Lines 3–13 contain Gen 32:25–32, the story of Jacob wrestling with the
angel at Penuel. Exodus 4:27–28, Aaron’s meeting with Moses at Sinai, follows
in the next line (lines 14–15). The reason for the juxtaposition of these two
passages is not entirely clear. The best suggestion is that the passage in Exodus
immediately preceding Exod 4:27 narrates the story of God’s attack on Moses
at night on the road to Egypt (Exod 4:24–26), so that the two passages (Exod
4:24–26 followed by Gen 32:25–32) portray important figures in a dangerous
physical encounter with a night demon/divine being.12 This suggestion would
mean that Gen 32:25–32 was interpolated between Exod 4:26 and 27. However,
since there are no remains of Exod 4:24–26 preserved on the fragments, the
connection remains uncertain.
In the canonical versions, Exod 4:28 states that Moses told Aaron everything
that had happened to him in Midian, but no actual speech of Moses to Aaron
Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts (stdj 95; Leiden:
Brill, 2011).
9 Michael H. Segal, “Biblical Exegesis in 4q158: Techniques and Genre,” Textus 19 (1998):
45–62 (here 53 n. 23).
10 Segal, “Biblical Exegesis,” 61.
11 For a discussion of the Genesis passage, see Sidnie White Crawford, “Genesis in the Dead
Sea Scrolls,” in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (ed. Craig
A. Evans, Joel N. Lohr, and David L. Peterson; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 353–375 (355).
12 Strugnell, “Notes en marge,” 169; Segal, “Biblical Exegesis,” 48; Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten
Scripture, 54–56.
308 white crawford
is recorded in any version of Exodus. The scribe of 4q158 repairs this gap by
introducing material in lines 16–19 that portrays Moses actually speaking to
Aaron:
16. The Lord [has spoken] to me, saying, ‘When you have brought the [peo-
ple?] out[
17. to go as slaves, and consider, they number thir[ty (or three)13
18. the Lord, God …
Here we see Moses recounting his revelation from God at the burning bush,
and relaying further information to Aaron concerning the future exodus.
Fragment 4 combines material from three passages in Exodus, Exod 3:12,
24:4–6 and 6:3, as well as Gen 17:7. The main context is the sealing of the
covenant at Mount Sinai, Exod 24:3–8, of which vv. 4–6 appear in this fragment.
The scribe has altered the text in the following ways:
– Line 3 (Exod 24:4) adds the word למספר, “to the number of.”
– Line 4 (Exod 24:5) The phrase ויעלו עלתin the received text is changed to ויעל
את העולה על המזב]ח, thereby making Moses the one making the sacrifice on
the altar that he built.
Lines 1–2 do not contain the verses preceding Exod 24:4; rather they contain
introductory material partly drawn from Exod 3:12b. Line 2 reads, העם ממצרים
תעבד]ון, “(when you bring forth) the people from Egypt, they will ser[ve …”.
Exod 3:12 portrays God promising Moses that after he brings the Israelites out of
Egypt, they will worship God on Mount Sinai. Line 1, צוה לכה, “commanded you,”
probably introduces God commanding Moses concerning what should happen
when the Israelites reach Sinai. In lines 3–5, Exod 24:4–6, Moses is seen carrying
out the sacrifice that God promised would take place in 3:12.
Like lines 1–2, lines 6–8 contain paraphrased material drawn from elsewhere
in the Pentateuch:
13 Strugnell, “Notes en marge,” 169–170, reconstructs “thirty”; Segal, “Biblical Exegesis,” 52,
reconstructs “three.”
exodus in the dead sea scrolls 309
These lines recall the covenant promise to Abraham in Gen 17:7: “I will establish
my covenant between me and you, and your descendants after you throughout
their generations, as an everlasting covenant, to be your God, and your descen-
dants after you.” It is with those very descendants that the covenant at Sinai
is being established. The lines also echo Exod 6:7: “And I will take you as my
people, and I will be your God, and you will know that I am yhwh your God,
who brought you from the burdens of Egypt.” That promise is fulfilled in the
covenant ceremony in Exod 24. Thus 4q158 explicates the main passage, Exod
24:4–6, with material taken from elsewhere in the Pentateuch, drawing on the
common theme of the covenant.14
Fragments 6–8 present an interesting example of the layers of exegesis
that can sometimes be discerned in a reworked text. The fragments contain
a portion of the Decalogue (frg. 7; Exod 20:12, 16, 17), surrounded by Exod
20:19b–21 with interpolations from Deuteronomy (frg. 6), and Exod 20:22–26
with interpolations from Deuteronomy (frgs. 7–8). The order of the fragments is
certain.15 Although this exact configuration of the verses from Exod 20 is unique
to 4q158, the path by which this configuration was reached can be teased out.
The base text for frgs. 6–8 is the Samaritan Pentateuch version of Exod 20,
minus the new tenth commandment concerning an altar on Mt. Gerizim.16 This
version of Exod 20 contains passages interpolated from Deuteronomy, yielding
the following text: Exod 20:1–19a, Deut 5:24–27, Exod 20:19b–21, Deut 5:38–39,
Deut 18:18–22, Deut 5:30–31, Exod 20:22–26. 4q158 seems to have inherited
that version, but rearranged the passages, as far as can be discerned from the
extant material, as follows: Exod 20:1–6, 18–19a (not preserved), Deut 5:[24]–27,
Exod 20:19b–21, Deut 5:28–29, Deut 18:18–22, Exod 20:[7]–17, Deut 5:30–31, Exod
20:22–26.17 Thus the first two commandments are narrated as spoken directly
by God to the people, followed by the people’s request that they should no
longer hear the voice of God. This is followed by passages from Deuteronomy
promising a prophet, and then that very prophet, Moses, narrates the rest of
the Decalogue. The passage then continues with the people being dismissed,
14 Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture, 51, notes that this is the only mention of the promises
to the patriarchs in any version of the Exodus Sinai narrative.
15 Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture, 64. See the helpful chart in Segal, “Biblical Exegesis,”
56.
16 This was first recognized by Strugnell, “Notes en marge,” 172. 4QpaleoExodm also contains
this version of Exod 20, indicating that it is not uniquely Samaritan but a common
Palestinian textual tradition. Skehan, Ulrich, and Sanderson, “4QpaleoExodm,” 101–103.
17 This reconstruction follows the excellent analysis of Segal, “Biblical Exegesis,” 56–58.
310 white crawford
and Moses remaining on Sinai to receive further instructions from God. Thus
the scribe of 4q158 felt free to reorder his base text for exegetical purposes.
Fragment 7 also contains a unique example of the type of harmonization
known as “command and fulfillment.”18 This occurs in the interpolated verse,
Deut 5:30, in which God commands Moses to tell the people to return to their
tents. However, in the received text (in any version) there is no mention of the
people fulfilling that command. The scribe of 4q158 has supplied the fulfillment
in line 5: וישובו העם איש לאהליו, “and the people returned, each man to his tent.”
This demonstrates yet another exegetical move in these fragments; the scribe
has not only reordered his received text, but added material to fill in a perceived
gap in the text.
Fragment 14 does not contain a recognizable text from Exodus as we know
it, but does contain vocabulary and themes found in Exod 6 and 15, including
three mentions of Egypt (lines 4, 5 and 6) and the phrase לבב יםin line 7 (cf. Exod
15:18). The fragment may represent additional material, an exegetical reworking
that predicts the events of the Exodus, belonging somewhere in the vicinity of
Exod 6.19
2.1.2 4q365
4q365 contains thirty-eight identified fragments, twelve of which contain por-
tions of Exodus. While 4q365 mostly follows the received text of Exodus with
minor variants, in two instances it contains unique expansion that indicate
exegetical activity on the part of the scribe or his Vorlage.
Fragment 5 preserves Exod 14:10 plus an addition. After line 1, which contains
v. 10, line 2 continues with ]אלפים סוס ושש מאות ]רכ[ב, “two thousand (or
“thousands?”) horses and six hundred [char]iots[,” indicating the strength of
the Egyptian force pursuing the fleeing Israelites. The number of chariots is
taken from Exod 14:7, while the number of horses is unclear. This is a small
exegetical addition, probably for purposes of clarification.
Fragments 6a, col. ii and 6c contain a major addition, unknown in any
other version of Exodus. The addition follows Exod 15:20–21 (“And Miriam the
prophet, the sister of Aaron, took her tambourine in her hand and all the
women went out after her with tambourines and with dancing. And Miriam
sang to them: ‘Sing to yhwh, for he has triumphed gloriously; horse and rider
he has thrown into the sea.’”). The received text contains only one line from
Miriam’s Song; the addition in 4q365 supplies the rest of the song, which reads,
Although the song is very fragmentary, vocabulary recalling the Song of the Sea
in Exodus 15:1–21 is recognizable: the term גאותin lines 2 and 7 appears in 15:1
and 7, and the phrase במים אדירים, “in the mighty waters,” line 5, is found in 15:10.
The composer of the song clearly wished to draw a parallel between Miriam’s
Song and Moses’.
Victory songs sung by women are found throughout the scriptural corpus,
in the mouths of Deborah (Judges 5:2–31), Judith (Jdt 16:1–7), Hannah (1 Sam
2:1–10), and Mary (Luke 1:46–55). Also, other women are portrayed as playing
instruments and dancing to celebrate military victories, e.g. Jephthah’s daugh-
ter (Judg 11:34).21 Therefore it is not surprising that at some point during the
textual transmission of Exodus a scribe expanded Miriam’s song in 15:22 to a
full composition. This song, however, did not continue to be passed on in the
textual tradition of Exodus.22
20 “Praised” is the suggestion of Hanna Tervanotko, Denying Her Voice: The Figure of Miriam
in Ancient Jewish Literature (Finland: Bookwell Oy, 2013), 143.
21 Tervanotko, Denying Her Voice, 145–148; Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 48–49; George
J. Brooke, “Power to the Powerless: A Long-Lost Song of Miriam,” bar 20 (1994): 62–65.
22 Tervanotko, Denying Her Voice, 148–150, argues that the targums to Exodus may have
known this Song of Miriam.
23 Émile Puech, “4QRouleau du Temple,” in Qumrân Grotte 4, xviii, Textes Hébreux (4q521–
4q528, 4q576–4q579) (djd 25; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 85–114; Yigael Yadin, The Temple
Scroll (3 vols. and supplement; rev. Eng. ed.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983);
Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude, “11QTem-
pleb,” and “11QTemplec?,” in Qumran Cave 11, ii, 11q2–18, 11q20–31 (djd 23; Oxford: Clarendon,
1998), 357–410; 411–414.
312 white crawford
a sepher torâh (Book of the Law), and an example of Rewritten Scripture, all of
which are partially accurate; taken together they capture the true nature of the
Temple Scroll.24 As a pseudepigraphon, the Temple Scroll places its narrative
in the mouth of God, speaking in the first person to Moses on Mount Sinai. As
a sepher torâh, it functions as divine law, giving commandments concerning
the construction of a massive temple complex, the conduct of festivals, purity
laws, laws relating to the king, and laws concerning life in the land surround-
ing that vast temple. As Rewritten Scripture, it reuses material from the books
of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy (in their canonical order) to
present a new composition, related to the Pentateuch but separate from it.25
The oldest copy of the Temple Scroll, 4q524, dates paleographically to the
mid-second century bce.26 Therefore, the book itself must have been com-
posed sometime prior to that. There is general agreement that the Temple
Scroll was redacted together from sources; possible fragments of one of these
sources, 4q365a, have been recovered from Cave 4.27
The Temple Scroll reuses the book of Exodus to set the scene for the entire
scroll. Although col. 1 is lost, col. 2 contains the end of the introduction, using
Exod 34 as its base text. Exod 34:1–2 depicts God commanding Moses to ascend
Mount Sinai a second time, to replace the tablets of the Law that were lost in
the golden calf episode. Thus the setting of the Temple Scroll is covenantal,
and its laws are meant to be binding on the Israelites just like the laws of the
Pentateuch.
Column 2, line 1 opens with Exod 34:10:
24 Sidnie White Crawford, The Temple Scroll and Related Texts (cqs 2; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2000), 17.
25 Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 86.
26 Puech, “Rouleau du Temple,” 87.
27 For discussions of the sources of the Temple Scroll, see Andrew Wilson and Lawrence
M. Wills, “Literary Sources of the Temple Scroll,” htr 75 (1982): 275–288; Michael O. Wise,
A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11 (saoc 49; Chicago: Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago, 1990); Crawford, Temple Scroll, 22–24. For 4q365a,
see S. White, “4QTemple?” in Qumran Cave 4, viii, Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (ed. Harold
Attridge et al.; djd 13; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 319–334, and Sidnie White Crawford,
“4QTemple? (4q365a) Revisited,” in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related
Literature (ed. Jeremy Penner, Ken M. Penner, and Cecilia Wassen; stdj 98; Leiden: Brill,
2011), 87–96.
exodus in the dead sea scrolls 313
Lines 2–7 continue through v. 13, with modifications; lines 7–11 contain an
addition concerning idol worship:
Lines 12–15 continue through v. 16, where the column breaks off. Thus the open-
ing of the Temple Scroll emphasizes the authority of the scroll as direct revela-
tion by God to Moses on Mount Sinai, particularly underlining the importance
of avoiding the worship of other gods, which led to the Israelites’ downfall in
the golden calf incident. This is a major theme in Jewish literature of the Hel-
lenistic period.
Columns 3–12 and 30–44 contain the instructions for the building of the tem-
ple and its courts. The composer relied on descriptions of Solomon’s temple
(1Kgs 6; 2Chron 3–4) and Ezekiel’s temple (Ezek 40–48), as well as the descrip-
tion of the tabernacle in the wilderness found in Exod 25–30. Column 3 begins
with the description of the furnishings of the Debir, the Holy of Holies. Phrases
from Exod 25, the instructions for the furnishings of the tabernacle, are found
throughout:
10. the altar] of the fragrant incense and the tabl[e (Exod 25:23)
11. ] shall not depart from the temple, [its pl]ates [
12. ]and its bowls shall be of pure gold, and the censer[s (Exod 25:29)
13. to b]ring with them fire inwards. And the lampstand and a[ll (Exod 25:31)
Exodus 25:31–40 is the base text for col. 9, the instructions for the lampstand:
2. [ ] and [ ] flowers
3. [ ] from its two sides,
4. [ ] Three (?)
5. [ ] and flower …
8. [ ] three
9. [ ] the branch
10. [ ] three
11. [ ] and its snuffers, all (shall weigh) two talents
12. [ ] all its lamps [shall] give light [ ] And you shall put
13. [ ] And the priests, the sons of [ ] shall set
Thus the composer/redactor of the Temple Scroll has reused and reworked
the text of Exodus in a similar manner to the scribe of 4q158, for exegetical
purposes. However, here the result is a new composition, entirely distinct from
Exodus.
3 Parabiblical Texts
28 For a discussion of the Aramaic Levi Document, see Crawford, “Genesis in the Dead Sea
Scrolls,” 370–371.
exodus in the dead sea scrolls 315
concerned with the rightful lineage of the high priesthood (from Levi through
Qahat and Amram to Aaron) and its purity and holiness.
29 Émile Puech, “Testament de Qahat,” in Qumrân Grotte 4, xxii, Textes Araméens, Première
Partie, 4q529–549 (djd 31; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 257–282.
30 J.T. Milik, “4QVisions de ‘Amram et une citation d’Origène,” rb 79 (1972): 77–92.
31 Henryk Drawnel, “The Literary Form and Didactic Content of the Admonitions (Testament)
of Qahat,” in From 4qmmt to Resurrection: Mélanges qumraniens en hommage à Émile
Puech (ed. Florentino García Martínez, Annette Steudel, and Eibert Tigchelaar; stdj 61;
Leiden: Brill, 2006), 55–74 (here 72).
32 Drawnel, “The Literary Form,” 70.
316 white crawford
his father’s sister.33 The composition known as the Visions of Amram was found
in seven copies from Cave 4, Qumran (4q543–549), although the identity of
4q548–549 as copies of the same composition has been questioned. Its lan-
guage is Aramaic. The oldest copies, 4q543, 544, and 547, date paleographically
to the second half of the second century bce, and it was composed some time
before that.34
Unusually for a Qumran text, the title of the work, “A Copy of the Book
of the Words of the Visions of Amram,” is preserved on two manuscripts,
4q543 (frg. 1, line 1) and 545 (frg. 1, col. i, line 1). The work has the setting
of a Testament, taking place at Amram’s deathbed: “It contains everythi[ng]
that[ he told his ]son[s and everything that he commanded] them on the day
[he] died, in the 136th year, that is the year of his death …” (4q545, frg. 1,
col. i, lines 2–3 // 4q543, frg. 1, lines 2–3). However, the teaching preserved is
mainly eschatological rather than didactic; Amram recounts a vision in which
he encounters two angelic beings quarreling over him. One of the beings is dark:
“And behold,] I lifted my eyes and saw one of [them whose appearance was
molting (?) like a serpent and] all [his] clo[thing was multi-]colored and very
dark …” (4q543, frgs. 5–9, lines 4–5 // 4q544, frg. 1, lines 12–13 // 4q547, frgs.
1–2, col. iii, lines 12–13). This angel is named Melki-Resha (“ ;מלכי רשעruler of
wickedness”; 4q544, frg. 2, line 13). The second being is light: “and I saw another
and he was pleasant] in his appearance, and his face was laughing [and he was
covered with a garment] …” (4q543, frgs. 5–9, lines 6–8 // 4q544, frg. 1, line 14).
Milik posited that this angel was Melki-Tsedeq, “ruler of righteousness.” These
angelic beings, who rule over the human race, give Amram the choice of which
one will rule over him (4q543, frgs. 5–9, lines 2–3 // 4q547, frg. 1–2, col. iii,
lines 11–12). Amram’s choice is not preserved, but must have been the angel
of light.
The Visions of Amram preserve information concerning Amram’s family,
especially the women, Jochebed and Miriam, through whom the theme of the
importance of endogamy is emphasized.35 Amram and Jochebed are monoga-
mous, in spite of a forty-one year separation (4q544, frg. 1, lines 6–8 // 4q547,
frgs. 1–2, col. iii, lines 5–8). Amram marries his daughter Miriam to his brother
Uzziel (4q543, frg. 1, lines 5–6 // 4q545, frg. 1, col. i, lines 5–6 // 4q546, frg. 1,
33 This marriage violates the prohibition against aunt-nephew marriage found in Lev 18:12–
13, 20:19. The Visions of Amram appears to pass over this difficulty in silence.
34 Émile Puech, “Visions de ‘Amram,” in Qumrân Grotte 4, xxii, Textes Araméens, Première
Partie, 4q529–549 (djd 31; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 283–406.
35 Tervanotko, Denying Her Voice, 118–139.
exodus in the dead sea scrolls 317
lines 3–4).36 Both Moses and Aaron, Amram’s sons, are mentioned by name.
Aaron’s role as high priest is highlighted, in keeping with the theme of the holi-
ness of the priesthood found in the trilogy:
And also concerning A[aron and the (high) priesthood I] will tell you
the secret of his work: he is a holy priest [to God Most High, for] his
descendants will be holy to him for all generations of e[ternity. And Friend
of God,] seventh among the men of [his] favor [he will] be called and it
will be said [‘chosen of God who] will be chosen as a priest forever’ [.
4q545, frg. 4, lines 15–19
Thus the themes of eschatology, endogamy, and the holiness of the priesthood
which were introduced in the Aramaic Levi Document and the Testament of
Qahat are also present in the Visions of Amram.
1. ]and not [
2. the [t]wo mid[wives and they threw]
36 This is a case of uncle-niece marriage, which is not prohibited by the Torah, but is
prohibited in Temple Scroll 66:15–17, 4QHalakhah a, and the Damascus Document (cd 5,
7b–11a). See Tervanotko, Denying Her Voice, 124–125.
37 Webster, “Chronological Index,” 351–446.
38 Torleif Elgvin and Emanuel Tov, “Paraphrase of Genesis and Exodus,” in Qumran Cave 4,
viii, Parabiblical Texts, Part i (ed. Harold Attridge et al.; djd 13; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995),
417–442.
318 white crawford
The fragment is rich in allusions to the first ten chapters of Exodus. Line 2
mentions the two midwives of Exod 1:15–21. The casting of the male babies into
the Nile occurs in Exod 1:22. Line 4 probably mentioned the burning bush of
Exod 3:2–4. Lines 6–7, which mention Pharaoh, the plagues, and the hardening
( )ו[יחזקof Pharaoh’s heart, paraphrase material found in Exod 7–11. The plagues
themselves are listed in lines 7–12. The first five, blood, frogs, lice, gnats, and the
cattle pestilence, occur in the same order in Exod 7–9. The sixth plague, boils,
is absent in 4q422. Plagues 7–10, darkness, hail, locusts, and the death of the
firstborn, have a slightly different order from Exodus.
raoh, and Egypt, as well as possibly Aaron, Miriam and the Red Sea, clearly
paraphrasing in some way the events narrated in Exod 7–15.
(the exception is 1q22). The text is a “pastiche from various parts and levels
of the Pentateuch,”43 including portions of Exodus. 4q376, 1q29 and 4q408
make reference to the stones of the ephod described in Exod 28:9–12. In the
Apocryphon these stones have an oracular power: “The left-hand stone which
is on his left hand side shall shine forth to the eyes of all the assembly until the
priest finishes speaking” (4q376, frg. 1, col. ii, lines 1–2). 1q29 also mentions a
“right-hand stone” (frg. 2, line 2). Josephus knows of this supernatural power
contained in the ephod stones as well:
Well, of those stones which, as I said before, the high priest wore upon
his shoulders—they were sardonyx, and I deem it superfluous to indicate
the nature of jewels familiar to all—it came about, whenever God assisted
at the sacred ceremonies, that the one that was buckled on the right
shoulder began to shine, a light glancing from it, visible to the most
distant, of which the stone had before betrayed no trace.
Ant. 3.214–215
5 Conclusions
Exodus’ importance in the Qumran collection lies first in its scriptural status.
The preservation of eighteen manuscripts indicates that it was copied and
studied extensively. Further, the recovery of 4QExod-Levf and 4QpaleoExodm
from Qumran Cave 4 has shed enormous light on the history of the text of
Exodus in the Second Temple period.
Exodus also served as a key exegetical text in the documents of the Qumran
collection. The narrative portions of Exodus in particular were used extensively,
with special emphasis on the figure of Moses, the events leading up to the
exodus from Egypt, the exodus itself, and the revelation and covenant at Mount
Sinai (Exod 1–20, 34). These chapters contain the paradigm narratives for the
identity of the Jewish people, and thus it is not surprising that they appear over
and over in works using Exodus from the Qumran collection.
Select Bibliography
Brooke, George J. “4q158: Reworked Pentateucha or Reworked Pentateuch a?” Dead Sea
Discoveries 8 (2001): 219–241.
. “Power to the Powerless: A Long-Lost Song of Miriam.” Biblical Archaeology
Review 20 (1994): 62–65.
Crawford, Sidnie White. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. Studies in the Dead
Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
. The Temple Scroll and Related Texts. Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 2.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
Drawnel, Henryk. “The Literary Form and Didactic Content of the Admonitions (Testa-
ment) of Qahat.” Pages 55–74 in From 4qmmt to Resurrection: Mélanges qumraniens
en hommage à Émile Puech. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 61. Edited by
Florentino García Martínez, Annette Steudel, and Eibert Tigchelaar. Leiden: Brill,
2006.
Sanderson, Judith E., An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExodm and the Samaritan
Tradition. Harvard Semitic Studies 30. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986.
Schiffman, Lawrence H. The Courtyards of the House of the Lord: Studies on the Temple
Scroll. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 75. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Segal, Michael H. “4QReworked Pentateuch or 4QPentateuch?” Pages 391–399 in The
Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After Their Discovery. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman,
Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000.
. “Biblical Exegesis in 4q158: Techniques and Genre.” Textus 19 (1998): 45–62.
Tervanotko, Hanna. Denying Her Voice: The Figure of Miriam in Ancient Jewish Literature.
Finland: Bookwell Oy, 2013.
Wise, Michael O. A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11. Studies
in Ancient Oriental Civilization 49. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago, 1990.
Zahn, Molly M. Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QRe-
worked Pentateuch Manuscripts. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 95. Lei-
den: Brill, 2011.
Textual and Translation Issues in Greek Exodus
Leonard J. Greenspoon
Sometime in the third or fourth decade of the third century bce, somewhere in
or around Alexandria, Egypt, one or more individuals working closely together
prepared the first translation of the Hebrew text of the book of Exodus. This
translation ultimately became known as the Septuagint (or lxx) version of
Exodus; as such, it exercised tremendous influence upon the thinking and
practice of Greek-speaking Jews and later of Christians.
I take it as a given that the translator or translators of the book of Exodus
were active during the reign of Ptolemy ii Philadelphus. In this respect, the
narrative contained in the Letter of Aristeas is correct.1
In two other areas, the Letter fails, in my view, the test of historical veracity.
In the first instance, the Letter is incomplete. Although there is no reason
to doubt its contention that the Egyptian monarch played a pivotal role in
the translation (not only of Exodus, but also of the other four books of the
Pentateuch), there is also—in my reconstruction of the events surrounding
the origins of the Septuagint—ample room for the role of the emerging Jewish
community of Alexandria. That each entity, the Egyptian ruler and the Jewish
community, had its own distinct reasons for the translation in no way precludes
their collaboration on this project.
In the second instance, the Letter collapses, for whatever reason, the process
of translating through its insistence that one committee, working as a whole
and in sub-groups, is responsible for the Greek version of the entire Pentateuch
through a carefully planned and royally supported seventy-two day retreat on
the island of Pharos. Modern research, while amassing considerable evidence
to demonstrate that the five books of the Greek Pentateuch do indeed share
a number of traits, nonetheless has uncovered sufficient distinctive character-
istics of each book to assign it to a different translator (or close-knit group of
translators).2
1 Hereafter Letter. For the most recent translation of the Letter, see R.J.H. Shutt, “Letter of
Aristeas, A New Translation and Introduction,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed.
James H. Charlesworth: Garden City: Doubleday, 1985), 2:7–34.
2 For my views on this issue, see Leonard J. Greenspoon, “Aristeas, Letter of,” nidb 1:260–261.
For the most part, this essay deals with the Ten Commandments as rendered
in the Septuagint. After providing an English translation of the lxx (from nets)
of Exod 20:1–17 and the Hebrew (from njps) of Exod 20:1–14, I will raise ten
questions relating to this version. Briefly stated, the questions are as follows:
1. How does this lxx rendering of the Ten Commandments compare with
the translation of the rest of the book of Exodus?
2. How does this lxx rendering of the Ten Commandments compare with
the mt (Masoretic or traditional Hebrew) of these verses?
3. How does this rendering of the Ten Commandments compare with the
mt and the lxx of Deut 5:6–21, which contains a similar (but not identi-
cal) account of the commandments and their contents?
4. Can we determine the relative chronology of lxx Exod 20 in comparison
with the Greek translation of the other books of the Pentateuch?
5. What can we say about the Hebrew Vorlage that the lxx translator of
Exod 20 had before him (or before them)? How do our perceptions in
this regard aid us in sharpening our understanding of how the Greek
translator worked in this chapter?
6. What role have the Ten Commandments played in “Jewish” tradition?
7. What role have the Ten Commandments played in “Christian” tradition?
8. What evidence does the lxx version of Exod 20 present about the order-
ing of the commandments?
9. What evidence does the lxx version of Exod 20 present about the mean-
ing of the verb “to covet”?
10. Does the lxx version of Exod 20 provide evidence to support the special
sanctity or importance of the Ten Commandments?
For a recent overview of scholarship on the Letter of Aristeas, see Benjamin G. Wright iii,
“Translation as Scripture: The Septuagint in Aristeas and Philo,” in Septuagint Research: Issues
and Challenges in the Study of the Jewish Greek Scriptures (ed. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glen
Wooden; sblscs 53; Atlanta: sbl, 2006), 47–61.
324 greenspoon
The nets (New English Translation of the Septuagint) is paired here with the
njps or Tanakh, the mostly widely used English-language version for Jews,
which closely follows the mt. As will become clear, comparisons between
the two are more accurate for quantitative differences (that is, those that
involve a difference in length) than for qualitative differences (where, generally
speaking, the difference is not in length by in the signification of a given word
or phrase). Differing approaches to the task of translating into English will
sometimes obscure and at other times artificially “create” divergences between
the ancient texts.
3 Larry Perkins, “The Book of Exodus: English Translation, with Introduction,” in A New English
Translation of the Septuagint (ed. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright; New York: Oxford
University Press, 2007), 43–81.
textual and translation issues in greek exodus 325
20:10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the lord your God: you shall not
do any work—you, your son or daughter, your male or female slave, or
your cattle, or the stranger who is within your settlements.
20:11 For in six days the lord made heaven and earth and sea, and all that is
in them, and He rested on the seventh day; therefore the lord blessed
the sabbath day and hallowed it.
20:12 Honor your father and your mother, that you may long endure on the
land that the lord your God is assigning to you.
20:13 You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
20:14 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house: you shall not covet your
neighbor’s wife, or his male or female slave, or his ox or his ass, or
anything that is your neighbor’s.
There are many ways in which translators, scribes, or other tradents could
signal to readers or listeners that the Ten Commandments are, or at least
ought to be perceived as, unique. Thus, in the reading tradition here (and in
Deuteronomy), there are special marks of cantillation and a tradition that the
reader complete the entire text of the commandments in one breath. For those
in the congregation, there is also a tradition: to rise when hearing these words.
(I will return to this material later in this chapter.)
Thus, it is not beyond the realm of historical or theological possibility that
a translator might mark this section as special through the use of distinct
terminology or patterns of grammar. In the case of lxx Exod 20, this does not
in fact happen. In most all respects, it follows patterns set by the translator of
chapters that precede and follow this one.
In his nets contribution on Exodus, Perkins precedes his rendering with a
fine assessment of contemporary scholarship on this book. Among his insights
are several that are directly relevant to our question:
4 Perkins, “Exodus.”.
5 For my views on these issues, see most recently Leonard J. Greenspoon, “The Septuagint,”
nidb 5:170–177.
textual and translation issues in greek exodus 329
This is, I hasten to add, good reason for caution, but not for despair. In what
immediately follows, I am looking primarily at “what” the differences are. Below
I will deal specifically with the reasons, or the “whys.”
Most of the quantitative differences between Exodus in the Greek and in
the Hebrew were covered in the previous section, where we observed several
lxx expansions. To reiterate a point made in that section, the fact that I call
these words or phrases “expansions” attests to my belief that these additions
were made by the lxx translator himself. Or, to put it another way, this “extra”
material did not appear in the Greek translator’s Hebrew Vorlage.
The qualitative difference in the divine subject at Exod 20:1—“God” in lxx,
“the Lord” in mt—was also already noted in the previous section. The begin-
ning of v. 2 in the mt reads: “I the lord am your God who brought you out of
…,” while the lxx has “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of ….” What
appears to be a similar development occurs in v. 5: mt, “for I the lord your God
am an impassioned [jealous] God”; lxx, “for I am the Lord your God, a jealous
god.”
Later in Exod 20:5, the object of the participle (“visiting” or “repaying”) is
singular in the mt (“guilt”), but plural in the lxx (“sins”). In the continuation
of the verse, the mt has two phrases in apposition—“upon the children, upon
the third and … the fourth generations of those who reject me.” The lxx is
differently phrased: “upon children up to the third and fourth generations to
those who hate me.”
Exodus 20:6 lxx lacks any specific representation for the word “generation”:
mt, “to the thousandth generation,” lxx, “unto thousands.” lxx v. 7 is most
likely an interpretative rendering of a Hebrew Vorlage identical to the (conso-
nants of) mt. For σαββατων in v. 8, Perkins translates “[the day] of the Sabbaths,”
which might suggest, I suppose, that the lxx translator found or read a plural
form in his Vorlage where the mt is singular. However, as is clear from v. 10, the
lxx translator understood this transliteration as a singular. With this in mind, I
would prefer to render the lxx into English as “[the day] of the Sabbath,” in full
conformity with its presumed Hebrew Vorlage, which here would equal the mt.
lxx Exod 20:10 begins, “but on the seventh day,” where mt has “But the
seventh day.” Later in the same verse there is the apparent addition of a prepo-
sitional phrase in the lxx: “you shall not do in it any labor”; compare mt, “you
shall not do any work.” (This is the only lxx addition that I did not mention
above.) At the end of this verse, the mt reads literally “the stranger who is within
your gates.” At this point the lxx reads “the guest who resides among you.” As
in other examples, this one also allows for the possibility of a free rendering of
a Hebrew Vorlage identical to the mt or a (more) literal rendering of a different
Hebrew Vorlage.
330 greenspoon
Although an extended comparison between Exod 20 and Deut 5 (in both the
Hebrew and the Greek) is beyond the scope of this paper, I would be remiss if
I failed to point out some of the salient features that distinguish each of these
accounts of the Ten Commandments, with an emphasis on those that appear
to have some connection with lxx Exod 20 or stand in notable contrast to it.
At Exod 20:1–2 the two Greek texts (as well as the mt = presumed Vorlage)
are identical. At v. 3, lxx Exodus understands Hebrew phrase על פניas “besides
me” (πλην εμου). lxx Deuteronomy renders the same expression as “before me”
(προ προσωπου μου).
textual and translation issues in greek exodus 331
By contrast, at v. 4 lxx Exodus and lxx Deuteronomy share the rare trans-
lation of פסלby ειδωλον (“idol” [although Deuteronomy in nets glosses this as
“carved object”]).6 In v. 5 lxx Exodus and lxx Deuteronomy also share a dis-
tinctive feature: “for I am the Lord your God, a jealous god,” where the mt in
both places reads “for I the Lord your God am an impassioned [jealous] God.”
In what I earlier termed a parallel development, both Greek texts have identi-
cal wording at v. 2 as well: “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of”;
mt: “I the lord am your God who brought you out of …”
Later in Exod 20:5, both lxx translators use a participial form of the verb
αποδιδωμι to represent the Hebrew פקד. As John Wevers points out, this Greek
verb is characteristically used in the commercial sense of “paying back.”7 The
object of this participle in Hebrew is ( עוןsingular, “iniquity”); in both Greek pas-
sages, the rendering is the plural αμαρτιας (“sins”). One final note in this verse:
while lxx Exodus has “upon children up to the third and fourth generation to
those who hate me” (as we observed above), lxx Deuteronomy is a more literal
reflection of the Hebrew, with επι τεκνα επι τριτκην και τεταρτας γενεας. In these
features, as well as in all others, the lxx Exodus and lxx Deuteronomy read the
same for vv. 4 and 5.
As noted earlier, Exod 20:6 is the only passage where lxx Exodus adopts
προσταγμα as the rendering of מצוה. lxx Deuteronomy also uniquely uses this
equation in its translation of the Ten Commandments. In fact, lxx Exodus
and lxx Deuteronomy have identical texts in v. 6 and also in v. 7, where each
displays the same understanding of the commandment not “to take the name
of the Lord your God in vain.” Where they overlap, the Greek texts of vv. 8
and 9 are also identical. lxx Deuteronomy (v. 12) has one more clause (“as
the Lord your God commanded you”) than does Exodus. At this point, lxx
Deuteronomy conforms to a Hebrew text (like the mt) that is longer than the
Exodus verse.
Throughout most of v. 10 lxx Exodus and lxx Deuteronomy are the same.
This includes the Greek representation of “in it,” which is found neither in mt of
Exodus or of Deuteronomy, and the phrase “your ox and your draft animals”—
which is an expansion in lxx Exodus over against its presumed Hebrew Vorlage
(here = mt), but an accurate representation by lxx Deuteronomy of its pre-
sumed Hebrew Vorlage (here also = mt). As we argued before, the rather free
6 For more on the significance of this equivalence, see W. Barnes Tatum, “The lxx Version of
the Second Commandment (Ex. 20, 3–6 = Deut. 5,7–10): A Polemic Against Idols, Not Images,”
jsj 17 (1986): 177–195.
7 John William Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (sblscs 30; Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1990), 309.
332 greenspoon
rendering of lxx Exodus at the end of this verse need not presuppose a Vorlage
at variance with mt. The translator of lxx Deuteronomy, faced with the same
Hebrew, took a decidedly more literal approach: ο εντος των πυλων σου.
No comparison can be made between the following verse (11 in Exodus, 15 in
Deuteronomy) in the two Greek books, presenting as they do different reasons
for observance of the Sabbath or seventh day.
The first part of the next verse (12 in Exodus, 16 in Deuteronomy) exhibits
identical wording in the two Greek books, except that lxx Deuteronomy fea-
tures an additional clause, “as the Lord your God commanded you.” As was
the case with this same clause four verses earlier, here again the longer text of
lxx Deuteronomy conforms to its presumed Hebrew Vorlage (here = mt). As
we observed earlier, lxx Exodus shows a clause-length expansion (vis-à-vis its
Hebrew Vorlage) later in this verse: “so that it may be well with you”; the same
wording is found in lxx Deuteronomy, where, however, it is not an expansion,
but rather a literal translation of the mt (here = the presumed Hebrew Vor-
lage of the lxx). lxx Deuteronomy does not have the additional “good” before
“land” that lxx Exodus displays, but does have the same non-literal rendering
(“that you may be long-lived”) of יאכון ימיךas lxx Exodus.
In lxx Exodus the next three commandments are prohibitions in this order:
you shall not commit adultery, steal, murder. For lxx Deuteronomy the order
of these commandments is apparently commit adultery, murder, steal (in his
English-language nets translation of Deuteronomy, Melvin Peters allows for
some uncertainty as to the original ordering of these first two, which might
be reversed).8 If this is so, then lxx Exodus and lxx Deuteronomy disagree
both with each other and with the mt (murder, commit adultery, steal). On the
other hand, the wording of the next commandment, relating to false testimony,
is identical in the two Greek texts.
As is well known, the mt for the last verse of the Ten Commandments differs
in Exodus and Deuteronomy: in Exodus, the prohibition against “coveting your
neighbor’s wife” comes between “your neighbor’s house” and “his male or
female slave.” In mt Deuteronomy, the verse begins: “You shall not covet your
neighbor’s wife. You shall not crave your neighbor’s house, or his field, or his
male or female slave.” Thus, there is the transposition of the first two items in
mt Deuteronomy (vis-à-vis mt Exodus). And there is the addition of the item
“his field.”
8 Melvin K.H. Peters, “Deuteronomion: The Book of Deuteronomy: English Translation, with
Introduction,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint (ed. Albert Pietersma and
Benjamin G. Wright; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 141–173
textual and translation issues in greek exodus 333
lxx Exodus appears to be translating a Hebrew Vorlage that has the same
order, wife-house, as both mt and lxx Deuteronomy. Interestingly, while the
mt of Deuteronomy has two distinct verbs (rendered by njps as “covet” and
“crave,” respectively), the lxx of Deuteronomy uses the same verb in both
instances (“covet”); this verb (επιθυμεω) is also found twice in lxx Exodus.
lxx Exodus is apparently also reflecting a Vorlage with “his field,” found in
mt Deuteronomy and in lxx Deuteronomy (with the same wording, τον αγρον
αυτου). lxx Exodus and lxx Deuteronomy also share the additional phrase “any
animal of his” (against the mt of both Exodus and Deuteronomy), and both
fail to provide any explicit representation of “all” (before “… belongs to your
neighbor”). In short, the wording of this verse is identical in lxx Exodus and
lxx Deuteronomy, in spite of their being substantive differences in the received
Hebrew texts.
Throughout this section I have pointed out a number of features that lxx
Exodus and lxx Deuteronomy have in common. Can we point to the proba-
ble dependence of one translator on the other, and is it possible to use this
dependence, if demonstrated, along with other evidence so as to arrive at a rel-
ative chronology for the production of the lxx Pentateuch? We approach these
questions in the next section.
Before I do so, I should add that, to the extent we can chart such matters, the
translation of the Five Books of Moses in their canonical order (Genesis first,
Deuteronomy last) accords with what is the usual or typical way in which Jew-
ish translators of the Bible approach their task. Given the paucity of evidence,
it would, nonetheless, be imprudent to trace the origins of this practice to the
Old Greek translators themselves.
Many of the examples cited in the previous section are relevant here, as well.
There does not, in any case, seem to be much reason to repeat all of these
citations here; only in selected instances do I cite the same passages I have cited
above.
The representation of פסלby ειδωλον, shared by Exod 20 and Deut 5, is found
elsewhere in the lxx only once (at Isa 30:22). We also had occasion to observe
that in the next verse both lxx translators use a participial form of the verb
αποδιδωμι to represent the Hebrew פקד. In addition to placing this expression
in the world of commerce, Wevers also states that in using this equation, lxx
Deuteronomy is “probably based on [Greek] Exod.”10 It is Wevers’ judgment
that the same dependence is found in the only other use of this equation
in the lxx, at Numbers 14:18. The continuation of Num 14:18 in the Greek,
Wevers observes, also follows lxx Exodus, but not mechanically: there is no
equivalent for “generations,” since the word does not appear in its Hebrew
Vorlage (presumably = mt).
As mentioned in the previous section, the rendering of מצוהby προσταγμα
is found only in Exod 20 and Deut 5.11 In all other respects, as well, this and
the following verse are identical in lxx Exodus and lxx Deuteronomy. Wevers
has no doubt as to the reason for this identical wording: “Deut took over
Exod’s rendering of [these] verse[s] entirely.”12 In the continuation, at least
for the next verse and a half, the two Greek texts are also identical. Here
Wevers’ observations—“the text in Deut is exactly the same as that of Exod”
and “Deut has exactly the same text”—are noncommittal as to the reasons for
this identical wording.13 However, it would in no way strain his argument to
suggest that the same process, lxx Deuteronomy’s dependence on lxx Exodus,
is operative here as elsewhere in this passage.
Thus far, the examples put forward by Wevers relate to dependence on lxx
Exodus on the part of Greek translators of later books of the Pentateuch. At
Exod 20:11, as argued by Wevers, lxx Exodus is demonstrably dependent on the
wording of lxx Gen 2, which (it logically follows) is earlier than lxx Exodus:
“The second clause ‘and he rested the seventh day’ is except for the omission of
εν before τη ημερα an exact copy from Gen 2:2” and “In the conclusion … Exod’s
test is … (except for the divine name) identical with that of Gen 2:3, and shows
Exod’s acquaintance with Greek Gen.”14
The net effect of Wevers’ argument is not only a chronological one, for
it is certainly possible for a later translator or editor to be entirely unaware
of an earlier text, no matter how relevant or closely related it seems to be.
Therefore, along with Wevers, we are led to posit the existence of groups
of translators working independently, but in ideological as well as physical
proximity. Even if we are not able to envision the exact circumstances that
supported such demonstrable dependence, along with numerous verifiable
examples of independence, there is no reason to doubt that just this situation
did in fact exist in the third or fourth decades of the third century bce in
Alexandria. In my view, this is fully compatible with a project jointly sponsored
by the royal bureaucracy and the leading institutions of the Jewish community.
For the most part, we have been working with the supposition that the Greek
translator of Exod 20 made use of a Hebrew Vorlage that was, for all intents
and purposes, identical to the consonants of the received or Masoretic Text.
Differences between the lxx and mt, whether quantitative or qualitative,
are thus judged to be the result of conscious decisions made by the Greek
translator. In this sense, the translator did not feel irrevocably bound by his
Vorlage, which he could modify on the basis of other (and earlier) Greek
renderings of the “Bible” (in this case, restricted to lxx Genesis and lxx Exod
1–19), other sections of the Hebrew text (he presumably had access to the entire
“Bible” in Hebrew, although this cannot be proven), or whatever exegetical or
explanatory changes he felt desirable or necessary to communicate fully or
clearly with his intended audience.
However, in at least two places where lxx and mt differ quantitatively,
Wevers posits that the lxx translator was indeed following his Hebrew Vorlage,
which in these instances was longer than the mt. The first involves the phrase
εν αυτη at v. 10; the second, at v. 12, includes the words Perkins translates, “so
that it may be well with you.” As Wevers observes, in both cases the second
century bce Nash Papyrus exhibits the same Hebrew text.15 Moreover, the
“additional” clause in v. 12 is found in both the lxx and mt of Deut 5.
Apparent differences between the mt and the lxx can also arise from the
Greek translator’s misreading of the Hebrew, a process facilitated by the fact
that several pairs of Hebrew letters—for example, דand רor בand —כcan
be easily confused graphically. Or it could be that the lxx interpreted (that is,
implicitly vocalized) consonants in a manner different from the way Masoretes
did some thousand years later. In the section of Exod 20 that we have been
analyzing, neither of these phenomena appears to have occurred.
We are, therefore, left with the task of discerning some pattern in how the
lxx translator handled his Vorlage, of asserting that there must have been some
pattern (but one that we can’t easily extract on the basis of available data),
or alternatively that the translator did not work with a preconceived notion
but rather reacted somewhat haphazardly or at best on a case-by-case basis.
Although in general (that is, not only with reference to this specific passage)
this third explanation enjoys a decided preference on the part of many lxx
scholars, I have never found it compelling. Instead, my working hypothesis is
that we can discover and articulate, at least in its broad contours, the approach
taken by an lxx translator to his Vorlage.
As noted above, in our passage (and perhaps others as well) it is tempting
to imagine that the Greek translator had access to the work of others (earlier
or contemporary) involved in the Greek translation of the Pentateuch and to
the Hebrew text of (minimally) the Pentateuch then in use in his community. I
will offer further observations along these lines in the last three sections of this
chapter.
Beyond the Septuagint, there are relatively few writings from the fourth cen-
tury bce to the second century ce that provide us with data concerning how
the Ten Commandments were transmitted and understood by Jews during this
period. But the picture we are able to discern is fascinating. As documented by
some of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the first-century ce historian Josephus, many
Jews were familiar with the Commandments in the order in which they appear
in the received text (mt). But, as observed above and analyzed more fully below,
another ordering was known by the Alexandrian Jewish translators of the Greek
Pentateuch; this is also the order in which the first-century ce Alexandrian
philosopher Philo knew the commandments.16 Whether this reflects a cultural,
political, or social context peculiar to Alexandria or the larger Diaspora or in
fact is a matter of textual transmission unrelated to external circumstances,
these are issues we’ll consider in a later section of this paper.
Rabbinic sources document the fact that the Ten Commandments did play
an important role in the liturgy of Jews at least at some times and in cer-
tain locales. In full or abbreviated form, the Ten Commandments apparently
formed part of the daily ritual of Jewish prayer. Thus, they were recited just
before, and introductory to, the Shema. This seems to be the context for the
appearance of the Ten Commandments in the Nash Papyrus, according to most
of its interpreters.
The circumstances under which this practice was abolished are uncertain.
Nonetheless, it seems likely that the prohibition was connected with the con-
tention by some group that only the Ten Commandments were inspired by
God. Eliminating, or at least reducing, their appearance in daily services would
have been one way to counter this belief, which was certainly dangerous to
the view that all scripture was Holy Writ and that the rabbis were the duly
appointed interpreters thereof.17
The relatively elevated status of the Ten Commandments also comes to the
fore in another, still widely observed liturgical practice: the entire congregation
rises when the Ten Commandments are read from the Torah; this happens
three times a year (i.e., on Shavuot as well as when Exod 20 and Deut 5 are part
of the weekly Torah reading). Although this has been the practice in all of the
synagogues I have attended, I know that it is not universally observed—and for
the same reading the daily reading of the Ten Commandments was abolished;
that is, so as not to give credence to the idea that these commandments are
inherently more important or sacred than any other biblical laws.
Historically, with relatively few exceptions, Jews have counted Exod 20:2
(and the corresponding verse in Deut 5)—“I am the Lord Your God …”—as the
first commandment, even though it does not technically “command” anything.
The second commandment incorporates verses 3–6. Most of the oldest Hebrew
Since Jesus, his disciples, and the authors of most of the New Testament were
Jewish, it would not be inappropriate to include this material in the previous
section. However, since the New Testament became canonical only for what
was later called Christianity, its discussion here makes better sense in this
context.
In his response to the rich young man, Jesus enumerates the “command-
ments” in this order, as found in Mark 10 (probably the earliest of the synoptic
Gospels): murder, adultery, stealing, bearing false witness, and honoring your
parents. In addition, he inserts another command, against defrauding, after
18 For a discussion of this traditional material, see the introductory sections of Avrohom
Chaim Feuer, Aseret Hadibros/The Ten Commandments (Brooklyn: Mesorah, 1981).
textual and translation issues in greek exodus 339
bearing false witness. The Gospel of Matthew, in ch. 19, follows the same order
(without the injunction against fraud), but adds, perhaps as summation, “You
shall love your neighbor as yourself.” A different order appears in Luke 18, where
the prohibition against adultery heads the list and the commandment against
murder is second. Some of the commandments also figure prominently in the
antitheses of Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount, as related in Matt 5.
It is generally accepted that, in recording Jesus’ teachings, the Gospel writers
felt free to change details of wording and ordering so as to conform to the
overall emphases of their narratives. In this context, then, it is clear that the
particulars of the Ten Commandments were not, as it were, “etched in stone.”
Elsewhere in the New Testament and in the writings of early Christian
leaders, we also find variations in ordering and wording. There is little if any
specific mention of the first commandments, about graven images and idola-
try. On the other hand, teachers and preachers felt free to incorporate other
moral injunctions (against pederasty and abortion, for example) that were
especially relevant for their communities. Such modification of the original
biblical commands can perhaps be viewed as mirroring the fluidity found
already in the Hebrew Bible itself and the elasticity evident among contem-
porary Jews.19
It was also during this period that the term “Decalogue,” coming from the
Greek meaning “ten words,” was first applied to the commandments. This was
the achievement of Clement of Alexandria around the year 200 ce.
Almost all Christians share with Jews the number “ten” for the command-
ments and the view that the original listing of these commands spilled over
onto two tablets. But there are significant differences in the details.
Early in the fifth century, Augustine combined Exod 20:2–6 into the first
commandment; in the Jewish tradition, as noted above, these verses comprise
two separate commands. Earlier we mentioned that in Deuteronomy “coveting”
the wife of another was separated out from the desire one felt for the things
a neighbor possessed. Augustine interpreted these two instances as separate
commands and carried his interpretation over to Exodus as well. In this way,
Roman Catholics, along with most Lutherans and Anglicans, maintain the
number “ten.” For these Christians, the first three commandments relate to
proper belief and practice with respect to God, while the remaining seven
define the relationship God has enjoined among humans.
19 For an authoritative overview of these and related issues, see David Flusser, “The Ten
Commandments and the New Testament,” in The Ten Commandments in History and
Tradition (ed. Ben-Zion Segal and Gershon Levi; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1996), 219–246.
340 greenspoon
As observed several times earlier in this chapter, the ordering of the command-
ments, or at least the second half of the commandments, differs. As we have
also had occasion to observe, the wording of the commandments—sometimes
20 The context for some of the developments mentioned in this and previous paragraphs
is laid out in Patrick D. Miller, The Ten Commandments: Interpretation: Resources for the
Use of Scripture in the Church (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009). See also relevant
discussions in Jeffrey P. Greenman and Timothy Larsen, eds., The Decalogue through the
Centuries from the Hebrew Scriptures to Benedict xvi (Louisville: Westminster John Knox,
2012).
textual and translation issues in greek exodus 341
support from other sources. It is not that tradents and translators were unaware
of the social, cultural, and religious forces at work during their own period or
were unwilling to introduce such forces into their work. Quite the contrary. It
is demonstrable that such developments did take place.
Nonetheless, there is little, if any evidence that Jewish women in Alexandria
were encouraged to assume more public or higher status positions than, for
example, the women depicted in the Hebrew book of Genesis. In fact, examples
of the opposite trend—namely, the circumscription of women’s already limited
roles—have been adduced from careful analysis of Greek Genesis.21
Since, for many, the Greek Bible came to supplant the Hebrew original or at
least provide authoritative guidance on how to interpret the Hebrew, deliberate
changes, such as those that would enhance or enlarge the roles of women,
would not be undertaken thoughtlessly or precipitously. And Philo’s text can
hardly be adduced as an independent source for such changes, since his Bible
was to all intents and purposes (a form of) the lxx. It may in fact be from such
texts that Philo drew his views on women.
Moreover, as was noted in a previous section, while some Jewish interpreters
did interpret the order of the commandments such that moving a command
higher up the list would indeed accord it more significance, there were other
Jewish interpreters who argued exactly the opposite. Additionally, it is not
possible to determine whether this “changed” order was an innovation on
the part of the lxx translators or reflected what they found in their Hebrew
Vorlage. Although my inclination, based on lxx practice elsewhere in the
Torah, is to argue that the Greek translators rendered the commandments in
the order in which they found them in their Vorlage, this is far from a fact
or even an argument I would forcefully defend. And, in any case, it leaves
unanswered the query as to when and under what circumstances the ordering
of the commandments was changed.
If the discussion in this section appears to be inconclusive, this is for good
reason. In some respects, it is. But, for the purposes of this chapter, I do, with
due tentativeness, conclude that the change in the order of commandments
from the mt to the lxx is not the result of conscious textual intervention on the
part of the lxx translators of Exodus or Deuteronomy. This ordering accurately
reflects the contents of their Hebrew Vorlage.
21 Susan A. Brayford, Genesis (scs; Leiden: Brill, 2007). For an opposing view, see Stefan
Schorch, “Hellenizing Women in the Biblical Tradition: The Case of lxx Genesis,” bioscs
41 (2008): 3–16.
textual and translation issues in greek exodus 343
With regard to the status of the wife as no longer (vis-à-vis the mt of Exod 20)
an “object” of covetousness, I am inclined to attribute this to the lxx translator
of Exodus himself; that is, this was not wording he found in his Hebrew Vorlage.
At least at this point, he wished to establish textual agreement between Exod
20 and Deut 5. Whatever his motivation, I do not think it prudent to locate it
in a conscious desire to improve the status of women in Alexandrian Jewish
society of his day.
But this translator could not avoid another issue related to “desire.” This
arose when he was confronted with a rare Hebrew verb that is almost univer-
sally rendered in English as “to covet.”
For English speakers, the verb “to covet” is inextricably bound up with the
tenth commandment (or the ninth and tenth in the Roman Catholic tradi-
tion). “Coveting” thy neighbor’s wife, as well as non-human possessions and
household items, is strictly prohibited. Although the English word “to covet”
did not originate in the language of Bible translation nor is it restricted to it,
nonetheless this context provides by far the best-known context for under-
standing it.
Based on considerations of etymology and widely accepted usage, “to covet”
means ‘to desire (someone or something) obsessively, wrongfully, and/or with-
out due regard for the rights/feelings of others.’ It is an emotion, a strong emo-
tion, an emotion to be avoided or recanted—certainly not one to be acted
upon.
Does this meaning capture the signification of the Hebrew verb, from the
root ?חמדAnd what role does the lxx play in answering such a query? It is to
this that we now turn.
Given the context of this article, it is useful to begin our response with the
lxx. In doing so, we observe that the lxx translator of Exodus, as well as the
translator of Deuteronomy, had an understanding of the Hebrew verb identical
to that embodied in the English “to covet.” The same Greek verb is used twice
in Exod 20 and twice in Deut 5: ἐπιθυμήω. In all contexts, this verb carries the
meaning “to crave” or “to long for.”22 In and of itself, this meaning is neutral,
22 For other instances, see s.v. in T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint
(Leuven: Peeters, 2010), and Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie, Greek-English
Lexicon of the Septuagint (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2008).
344 greenspoon
and in that sense it is different from the English “to covet,” which consistently
carries a negative connotation.
But these two verbs, one Greek and the other English, overlap at a very
important semantic point: they both speak of a feeling without regard to any
ensuing action as a result of the feeling. In this view, which Philo expands to
encompass numerous instances of the need for self-restraint, obsessing over
someone or something is the object of these prohibitions. We are then, in this
instance and perhaps in others as well, in the realm of controlling thoughts and
not (only) deeds.
Because the lxx translators understood the Hebrew root in this way, the
Greek translator of Deuteronomy did not bother to vary his representation of
the verb “to desire” when it appears there just after “to covet.” In this regard, it
is difficult to discern whether the author of Deut 5 in the Hebrew intended to
reinforce the meaning of “to covet” as “to desire” or to modify it.
Outside of the lxx and Philo, other early Jewish exegesis favored the alterna-
tive understanding of ;חמדnamely, that it necessarily involves taking concrete
actions as a consequence of a compelling desire. In other words, actions, not
simply thoughts, are expressly prohibited.
The Mekhilta de Rabbi Israel asks and answers just the question we are
considering here: “Perhaps the Commandment forbids coveting in words [or, as
we have been expressing it, in thoughts]? Not so. … Just as [in the case of Deut
7:25] one is culpable only on committing an act, so too in the present instance
[that is, the Ten Commandments].” Likewise, in another early midrashic work,
the Mekhilta de Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai: “Craving [is] a separate offense, and
coveting [is] a separate offense …. Craving is in the heart … while coveting is
an actual deed.” By the time of Maimonides, the standard halakhic ruling was
that coveting involves action. Thus it was that Maimonides listed it among the
divinely revealed prohibitions.
It is interesting to observe that the interpretation of חמדoffered by the
Septuagint, and expanded by Philo, became standard among medieval Jewish
commentators and later authorities. Among them are Ibn Ezra, Sforno, Samuel
David Luzzatto (Shadal), Benno Jacobs, and Moshe Greenberg. Some of these
individuals, especially the later ones, would have known that in rejecting the
position of the Mekhilta as codified by Maimonides, they were accepting the
view championed by lxx translators and, in their wake, Philo. But no doubt
others labored in ignorance of that fact that some Jews had interpreted this
concept in exactly the same way more than a thousand years earlier.
It is paradoxical that among Christian theologians, most prominently Prot-
estant thinkers, the Hebrew term has come to be interpreted in the way that
the classic Jewish sources, the Mekhilta and Maimonides among them, pro-
textual and translation issues in greek exodus 345
pounded: the guilt of “coveting” does not require any action, only thoughts.
While this “reversal”—Christian commentators holding to the earliest halakhic
interpretation, while Jewish authorities reject it—may indeed be paradoxical,
it is not beyond historical and theological (if not lexicographical) explana-
tion.23
In seeking such an explanation, we must move beyond the first few centuries
of the common or Christian era to the time, in the fourth century and thereafter,
when Judaism and Christianity as religions set themselves in opposition to each
other. Just as certain of Jesus’s statements in Matt 5 (the first part of the Sermon
on the Mount) were understood as the “antitheses,” whereby Jesus sought to
strip away the legalistic accretions of the (Pharisaic) Judaism of his time, so
later Christian interpreters sought to find “spiritual” interpretations in other
areas where Jews supposedly made external and hypocritical judgments on the
basis of action. As with adultery (Matt 5:27–28: “You have heard that it was said,
‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a
woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart”), so the
“activity” associated with coveting was centered in the mind or the heart. This
development within Christianity did not require any direct acquaintance with
Jewish sources.
In reaction to this type of argument, Jewish thinkers could have used the
language in the Ten Commandments to assert that the God of Judaism was as
concerned as Christianity’s deity with intentions and thoughts. There was, it
would be argued, nothing superficial or hypocritical about the practices of Jews
as God’s Chosen People.
As with any theological or historical reconstruction, the development I
have postulated here is necessarily speculative, for which (as I wrote in the
introduction of this chapter) I will not apologize. Can we find firmer ground on
which to establish the meaning of חמדthat the author(s) of the Torah intended
to convey to their readers? I do not think so.
As I view the evidence, there remains uncertainty. The lxx translators as
well as those into English removed this uncertainty in favor of certainty. As
it turns out, these are competing and mutually exclusive certainties. In my
23 Extensive discussion of these developments can be found, among other places, in Alexan-
der Rofé, “The Tenth Commandment in the Light of Four Deuteronomic Laws,” in The Ten
Commandments in History and Tradition (ed. Ben-Zion Segal and Gershon Levi; Jerusalem:
Magnes, 1996), 45–65; Jacob Neusner, How Judaism Reads the Torah, i: How Judaism Reads
the Ten Commandments (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1993); and Roger Brooks, The Spirit of the
Ten Commandments: Shattering the Myth of Rabbinic Legalism (San Francisco: Harper &
Row, 1990).
346 greenspoon
Most of the material presented thus far in this article tends to mitigate against
the contention that the translator of Greek Exodus treated the Ten Command-
ments in ch. 20 as somehow different from or more important than any other
passage in this biblical book. Thus, for example, we saw clear connections in
grammar, style, and vocabulary between this passage and others in the lxx ver-
sion of Exodus. Features unique to Exod 20 are obviously not found elsewhere,
but the pattern of this uniqueness does closely mirror similar phenomena in
other chapters.
The translator of Exod 20 appears to have handled his Hebrew Vorlage as he
did elsewhere. Basing himself on a Hebrew text very similar to the consonants
of the mt, he produced a generally, but not slavishly literal rendering that took
into account at least some of the expectations of his Greek-reading audience,
most of whom, unlike himself, were not bilingual. This translator, so it seems,
had direct access to the Greek version of Genesis, which would by this account
be a bit older than his translation. Not unexpectedly, he on occasion made
use of this earlier rendering when parallel material showed up in his Hebrew
Vorlage.
All of this is, in my view, true. But it is not the entire story. And this is for
at least two reasons. First of all, this translator was undoubtedly aware that
the Ten Commandments also appeared in Deuteronomy and that there were
differences, some small, some of greater import, between the two listings. It is
likely that he made a conscious effort to harmonize these two chapters in the
last verse of his rendering of the commandments in Exod 20. In this instance,
he adopted the order and contents of Deut 5, even though I am quite sure he
had before him a Hebrew like that of mt Exod 20.
In my view, he followed this procedure where he did because he was thus
able to introduce what was from his perspective the more satisfactory wording
of Deut 5 without losing any of the content of Exod 20. This also explains
textual and translation issues in greek exodus 347
why he did not follow the same procedure earlier in the listing, where Exodus
and Deuteronomy (in both the Hebrew and the Greek) provide very different
etiologies for the observance of the Sabbath as a day of rest. There was no
way to harmonize these without either leaving out something or producing an
unwieldy string of words.
The second unusual (if not unique) feature of Exod 20 has to do, in my view,
with its role in liturgy. As we observed earlier, there is a Talmudic tradition
that speaks of the abolition of the process of the liturgical reading of the Ten
Commandments prior to the recitation of the Shema.
I would suggest that the translator of lxx Exodus was familiar with the
liturgical use of the Ten Commandments. Ephraim Urbach sees in the addition
at lxx Deut 6:3 (“These are the statutes and laws which the Lord commanded
the Israelites in the wilderness when they went out of Egypt”), which appears
just after the Ten Commandments and just before the Shema, a connection
between reciting the Decalogue and reading the Shema. Tellingly, it is his
contention “that the extra sentence got into the Septuagint under the influence
of the liturgy and not the other way around.”24
It was H. St. John Thackeray who, in the first decades of the twentieth cen-
tury, elaborated a theory of Septuagintal origins that highlighted the forma-
tive context of liturgy in the creation of the Greek text. Admittedly, we know
very little, if anything, about how Jews worshipped in the third century bce in
Alexandria (e.g., location of worship, language of worship, or order of worship),
and Thackeray’s theory in this regard has few supporters these days.25
Nonetheless, it would seem imprudent to posit a complete disjunction be-
tween those involved in preparing liturgy and those who took upon themselves
the task of translating Sacred Writ. A very close connection certainly did exist
in many later Jewish communities.
Certainty is this matter is not possible. But there is a likelihood that the
translator of Greek Exodus was familiar with a liturgy (in Hebrew and/or in
Greek) that included the regular (probably daily) recitation of the Ten Com-
mandments. If that is indeed the case, then it is not far-fetched to suggest that
this liturgical context had some influence on the translated Greek text.
In my view, none of this would have necessitated any change in the overall
approach the translator took to Exod 20 in comparison with other chapters in
the book. But at specific points and in discernible ways, the influence of Deut
5 and the liturgical use of the Ten Commandments can be detected.
I seriously doubt that the translator stood when he wrote out his version
of Exod 20. Nor it is likely that he used special ink or special parchment. But
for him and his community, the Ten Commandments, while (simply) a part of
Scripture, were nonetheless endowed with a special “sanctity” (for want of a
better term). In this, the translator and his community were not unlike later
readers of the Torah/Pentateuch who also struggled with a concept of “special”
in a context of divinely inspired.
Select Bibliography
Brooks, Roger. The Spirit of the Ten Commandments: Shattering the Myth of Rabbinic
Legalism. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990.
Greenman, Jeffrey P., and Timothy Larsen, eds. The Decalogue through the Centuries
from the Hebrew Scriptures to Benedict xvi. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2012.
Lust, Johan, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie, Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint.
Peabody: Hendrickson, 2008.
Miller, Patrick D. The Ten Commandments: Interpretation: Resources for the Use of Scrip-
ture in the Church. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009.
Mikva, Rachel S., ed. Broken Tablets: Restoring the Ten Commandments and Ourselves.
Woodstock: Jewish Lights, 1999.
Muraoka, T. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Leuven: Peeters, 2010.
Neusner, Jacob. How Judaism Reads the Torah, i: How Judaism Reads the Ten Command-
ments. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1993.
Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright, eds. A New English Translation of the
Septuagint. New York: Oxford, 2007.
Segal, Ben-Zion, and Gershon Levi, eds. The Ten Commandments in History and Tradi-
tion. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1996.
Wevers, John William. Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus. Society of Biblical Literature
Septuagint and Cognate Studies 30. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990.
Exodus in Syriac
Jerome A. Lund
Three translations of the Book of Exodus into Syriac are known: the Peshitta,1
the translation of Paul of Tella termed by present-day scholars the Syrohexa-
pla,2 and the translation of Jacob of Edessa.3 The Peshitta translates a Hebrew
text that is situated in the proto-Masoretic textual stream. By contrast, Paul
of Tella rendered the Greek text into Syriac to give Syrian church leaders and
scholars a means of approaching the Greek for comparative purposes. He incor-
porated hexaplaric annotations into the text and marginal notes, so that his
translation constitutes a valuable witness not only to the Old Greek translation,
but also to the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachos, and Theodotion. Jacob of
Edessa utilized the Peshitta as his base text, while incorporating elements of the
Greek Bible both through direct translation and from the Syrohexapla.4 From
his study of Isaiah, Andreas Juckel has suggested that Jacob of Edessa sought
“to adjust the Peshitta to the Greek as much as necessary, and to adopt the
1 Marinus D. Koster prepared the book of Exodus for the Leiden scientific edition of the
Peshitta, The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshitta Version—Part i, 1. Preface,
Genesis—Exodus (Leiden: Brill, 1977). The earliest attestation of the term “Peshitta” (;ܐ
“simple,” “straightforward”) comes from the ninth century theologian Moshe bar Kepha. The
term was used to distinguish the earlier translations of the Bible from the seventh century
translations (Sebastian P. Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition [gh 7; rev. ed.; Piscataway;
Gorgias, 2006], 23; for alternative views see Piet B. Dirksen, “The Old Testament Peshitta,” in
Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and
Early Christianity [ed. Martin Jan Mulder; crint 2/1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988], 255–256).
2 Two mss of the Syrohexapla to Exodus are extant: British Library Add 14429, dating from 697
according to William Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum, acquired
since the year 1838, Part i, entry xlix (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1870; repr.,
Piscataway: Gorgias, 2002), and published by Paul de Lagarde in his Bibliothecae Syriacae
(Göttingen: Dietrich Lueder Horstmann, 1892), and a Midyat ms published by Arthur Vööbus
in his The Pentateuch in the Version of the Syro-Hexapla: A Facsimile Edition of a Midyat ms
Discovered 1964 (csco 369, Subsidia 45; Leuven: Peeters, 1975). Whereas the British Museum
ms is complete, the Midyat ms lacks texts on folios 42 and 51, that is, Exod 22:29b–23:26a and
29:41–30:18a.
3 ms Bibliothèque Nationale syr. 26, Paris, contains Jacob of Edessa’s translation of the Book of
Exodus.
4 Alison Salvesen, “Jacob of Edessa’s version of Exodus 1 and 28,” Hugoye 8.1 (2005) [http://
bethmardutho.org/index.php/hugoye/volume-index.html], §18.
where he renders “ ܘ ܕand he in fact drew [water] for us” (Greek:
και ηντλησεν ημιν “and he drew [water] for us”; Hebrew: “ וגם־דלה דלה לנוand he
in fact also drew [water] for us”; Peshitta: “ ܘܐܦ ܕand he in fact
also drew [water] for us”). But in Exod 21:15, Paul of Tella follows the Greek,
rendering Ος τυπτει πατερα αυτου η μητερα αυτου θανατω θανατουσθω “Let him
who strikes his father or his mother be put to death with death” as ̇ܗ̇ܘ ܕ
“ ܕ ܐ̇ܘ ܬܐ ܬLet the one who strikes his father or
his mother die by death,” in contrast to the Peshitta ܕ ܗܝ ܘ
“Let the one who strikes his father or his mother be in fact
killed” (= the Hebrew: )ומכה אביו ואמו מות יומת.
In his edition of the Septuagint, Origen used diacritical signs to indicate
additions in the Old Greek text, not found in the Hebrew, and places where
revisers of the Greek Bible differed from the Old Greek. Paul of Tella preserved
these.11 In Exod 4:14 Paul of Tella’s translation reads as follows: ܿܿܥ ܐ ܕ
“ ܼܗܘ ܋܌܂I know that he will indeed speak for you,” where the word
“for you” is set off by signs indicating that it appears in the Greek (επισταμαι
οτι λαλων λαλησει αυτος σοι), but not in the Hebrew ( = ידעתי כי דבר ידבר הואthe
Peshitta )ܥ ܐ ܕ ܗܘ. In Exod 18:21, Paul of Tella reads ܐ
“ ̈ ܕܿ ܍ ܼܿܬܐ܂righteous men who hate haughtiness” for the Old
Greek, but indicates in the margin that the translations of Aquila, Symmachos,
and Theodotion read “ ܬܐavarice” instead of “ ܬܐhaughtiness.”
The learned Jacob of Edessa produced his translation at the monastery of
Tel Adda, west of Aleppo, using both the version found among the Greeks and
the version found among the Syrians, finishing his version of Exodus before
704. The Book of Exodus has one known text witness, ms b.n. syr 26, dated
1015 ge (703/4).12 Jacob used the Peshitta as his base text, while using both a
text of the Greek Bible directly, as he was fluent in Greek, and the translation
of Paul of Tella. Exodus 1:11 exemplifies this, where Jacob’s version reads as
follows: .ܘܐ ܘܢ ̈ ̈ ݂̈ ܕܘܢ ܘܢ ܐܢ ݁̈ܐ
ܘܡ ܘ ܘܘܢ. ܘ݂ ̈ܐ ̈ܐ ܢ.ܘ݂ܢ ܘܢ
݁“ ݁ܗܝ ܕܐAnd they appointed evil ruling managers over them,
to subgugate and humiliate them with works and treat them badly. And they
built fortified cities for Pharaoh, Pithom, Raamses, and On, which is Beth
Shemesh.” The Peshitta reads ܕܘܢ ܐܢ.̈ ̈ ܘ ܘܢ
ܘܡ ܘ. ܘ݁ ܗܘܘ ̈ ܢ.“ ܗܘܢAnd
11 Since the two text witnesses of the Syrohexapla (see n. 2 above) differ from each other in
the signs used, my representation is a hybrid of the two text witnesses.
12 Juckel, “Approximation of the ‘Traditions’ in Jacob of Edessa’s Revision of Isaiah,” 227.
352 lund
they placed over them evil rulers, to subgugate them with their subjugation,
and they were building store-cities for Pharoah, Pithom and Raamses,” while
the Syrohexapla reads: ܐ ܕܢ ܐܢ.̈ܐ ܿ ܘܐ ܘܢ ̈ ܕ
ܼ
ܘܘܡ ܘ ܘܘܢ ܿܗܝ. ܘܼ ̈ܐ ̈ܐ ܢ.̈ܐ ܿ
ܿ
“ ܐ ܐAnd they appointed managers of works for them that they
might humiliate them with works, and they built fortified cities for Pharoah,
even Pithom and Raamses and On, which is Heliopolis.” In Jacob’s translation,
the verbs ܐand ܢ, the noun ̈, the phrase ̈ܐ ܿ , the noun
phrase ̈ܐ ̈ܐ, and the phrase ܿ ܘܘܢ ܿܗܝ ܕܐderive from the
Syrohexapla. The prepositional phrase ܘܢ, the noun phrase ܼ̈ ̈,
the verb ܘܢ, come from the Peshitta. Jacob translated ܘܼܢ ܘܢand
directly from a Greek text (ἵνα κακώσωσιν and ἡλίου πόλις respectively),
which translations differ from those of the Syrohexapla.
This essay will treat the Peshitta version of Exodus since it is a primary
version of the Hebrew text. Issues discussed will include the Syriac text of
the Peshitta, techniques of translation utilized by the Peshitta, Palestinian
Jewish influence on the Peshitta, Hebrew variants indicated by the Peshitta,
and interpretations of the Hebrew offered by the Peshitta.
Giving voice to the consensus view, Sebastian Brock divides the text history
of the Peshitta into three periods: 1) the oldest text, which lies closest to the
Hebrew preserved by the mt; 2) the middle stage represented by mss from the
sixth to eighth centuries, in which scribes made slight improvements “in the
interest of good Syriac idiom”; and 3) the Received Text witnessed from the
ninth century on, during which time further improvements were made.13
While the general editors of the Leiden scientific edition of the Old Testa-
ment Peshitta chose ms 7a1 as its base text due to the fact that it contains the
whole of the Old Testament, Marinus Koster, the editor of Leiden Exodus, has
argued convincingly in his comprehensive monograph that ms 5b1 often pre-
serves the more primitive text in Exodus.14 This is demonstrated by the fact that
ms 5b1 often stands closer to the Hebrew than does ms 7a1. An excellent illustra-
tion of this phenomenon appears in Exod 4:27–31, which reads as follows: “And
the Lord said to Aaron, ‘Go towards Moses (7a1 + your brother) into the wilder-
ness.’ And he went and met him on the mountain of the Lord (Hebrew: God;
7a1 + on Horeb), and he kissed him. Then Moses told Aaron all the words of the
Lord who had sent him, and all the signs, which he had commanded him (7a1
+ to do). Then Moses and Aaron went and gathered together all the elders of
the children of Israel. And Aaron spoke (7a1 + to them) all the words, which the
lord had spoken to Moses, and did the signs before the people. So the people
believed. And when they heard that the Lord had remembered the children of
Israel, and that he had seen their servitude, then they (7a1 + expressed subject:
the people) kneeled and worshipped (7a1 + before the Lord).” In these verses,
the text preserved in ms 7a1 makes 6 additions to the more primitive text pre-
served in ms 5b1, all clarifying the meaning, with none of the additions found
in the Hebrew. Thus, when one uses the Leiden scietific edition for Exodus, one
needs to pay attention to the divergent readings of ms 5b1 found in the second
apparatus.
Certain citations of the Syriac in bhs are false because they reflect the
developed text of the Peshitta as per ms 7a1, not the primitive text as per ms 5b1.
In Exod 1:20, ms 7a1 reads a plus that give the reason why God dealt well with
the midwives who protected the Hebrew male babies: .ܘܐܒ ܐܐ ̈ܐ
“ ܕ ܗSo God dealt well with the midwives because they
did this thing” versus “ וייטב אלהים למילדתSo God dealt well with the midwives.”
This plus is absent in ms 5b1 = the Hebrew. In Exod 4:7 and 24, ms 7a1 adds the
expressed subject, reading ݂“ ܘܐand the Lord said to him” and ܘܗ݂ܘܐ
“and Moses was” respectively, versus 5b1 and mt reading ݂“ ܘܐand
he said to him” ( )ויאמרand “ ܘܗ݂ܘܐand he was” ()ויהי. In Exod 5:3, the word “the
Lord” is added in the developed Syriac text of the 7th century as attested by
ms 7a1 ( ܼ“ ܐܐ ܕ ܐܬThe Lord, the God of the Hebrews,
has appeared unto us”) versus ms 5b1 ( ܼ“ ܐܐ ܕ ܐܬThe God
of the Hebrews has appeared unto us”) = mt (“ אלהי העברים נקרא עלינוThe God
of the Hebrews has encountered us”). In Exod 14:15, the text to which ms 7a1
witnesses reads the following plus of a sentence at the head of the verse: ܘ݁ܨ
“ ܡAnd Moses prayed before the Lord.” This plus is absent from
both ms 5b1 and the mt. In Exod 14:20, ms 7a1 reads a plus “the whole
night” ( “ ܘܗܘܬ ܘand it was cloudy and dark the whole
night”) vis-à-vis ms 5b1 (“ ܘܗܘܬ ܘand it was cloudy and dark”) =
the Hebrew (“ ויהי הענן והחשךand it was cloudy and dark”). In Exod 29:25, ms 7a1
reads “ ܘܬܿ ܕܐ ܐand burn the breast from the ram
on the altar for a burnt offering,” adding an expressed direct object, in contrast
354 lund
to ms 5b1 “ ܘܬܿ ܐand burn (it) on the altar for a burnt offering”
= mt “ והקטרת המזבחה על העלהand burn (it) on the altar for a burnt offering.” In
Exod 33:14, ms 7a1 adds both an expressed subject and an indirect object after
the initial verb, reading ܼ“ ܘܐThen the Lord said to Moses,” in
contrast to ms 5b1 ܼ“ ܘܐThen he said” = mt “ ויאמרThen he said.” Rather than
attesting to Hebrew variants, these readings of ms 7a1 attest to inner Syriac text
developments. Consequently, they should not be listed as Hebrew variants as
in the apparatus of bhs.
Weitzman has raised the issue of biblical citations by early Syriac fathers as
attesting readings not found in the extant biblical manuscripts.15 Such evidence
was not incorporated into the Leiden scientific edition due to its problematic
nature.16 For Exodus, he offers three readings,17 the most convincing of which
is found in Exod 18:12. In Exod 18:12, Aphrem cites the text as ̈ܘ ܪܘܢ ܕ
“Now Jethro took sacrifices for the Lord,” reading the verb instead of
the verb ܒas attested by the extant biblical manuscripts. Comparison with
the reading of the extant biblical manuscripts, namely ܘܿܒ ܪܘܢ ܗܝ
̈“ ܕ ̈ܐ ̈ ܘܕNow Jethro the father-in-law of Moses
offered burnt offerings and sacrifices to the Lord,” makes it clear that Aphrem
compressed his citation, accommodating it to his discussion. The Hebrew mt
reads: “ ויקח יתרו חתן משׁה עלה וזבחים לאלהיםNow Jethro the father-in-law of
Moses took a burnt offering and sacrifices for God.” Aphrem focuses on the verb
“took,” stating that the sacrifices were offered either by Moses or by others. This
reading, to wit ܘ, has credibility.
The translator of Peshitta Exodus rendered his Hebrew source text into good
Syriac, seeking clarity in the rendering of Hebrew lexemes and conforming
verbal forms and syntagms to Syriac grammatical rules.
The Hebrew singular “ אףnose” (dual ַאַפּ ִים: “nostrils, face”) can mean “anger,”
but its Syriac cognate ̈ܐgenerally means “face,” never “anger.” Peshitta Exo-
dus consequently uses “ ܪܘܐwrath” (Exod 4:14; 22:23; 32:10–1218) and ܐ
“anger” (Exod 11:8) to render Hebrew אףwhen its meaning is “anger.” It renders
the collocation חרה אף, which appears twice in Exodus in reference to Moses,
once by the single word (“ ܐܬhe) became provoked” (ethpeel of ;ܪExod
32:19) and once by the collocation “ ܐܬ ܪܘܗhis anger became inflamed”
(Exod 32:22).19 When אףin the plural means “nostrils,” Peshitta Exodus renders
it by ̈ܐ,20 though it could have used ܐas in Num 11:20.21
Hebrew אלהים, properly a plural, is ambiguous in meaning. It can refer to
the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in which case the Peshitta of Exodus
generally renders it in the singular as ܐܐ,22 or it can refer to the gods of the
nations, in which case the Peshitta of Exodus often renders it in the plural as
̈ܐܐ.23 Whether or not syame existed as a sign in the mid-second century, it
is reasonable to assume that it’s presence in mss of the fifth century and later
accurately reflects the reading tradition of the mid-second century, the time of
its original translation.24 Five times, the Peshitta of Exodus renders the word as
“judge” or “judges.”25
Hebrew has a number of verbs that fall into the semantic domain of prayer.
In Exodus, these include: “ עתרto entreat,” rendered by “ ܨto pray,”26 “ זעקto
18 p Exodus renders the collocation חרון אפךin Exod 32:12 as ܐ ܕܪܘܟ.
19 Exod 32:22 reads “ ܪܘܗ ܕܝlet not the anger of my master be inflamed”
(Aaron speaking to Moses).
20 ܐ ܐܬ ̈ = וברוח אפיך נערמו מים ̈ “ ܘ ܕby the breath of your nostrils the
waters gathered” (Exod 15:8).
21 “ ܕܩ ܢ = עד אשׁר יצא מאפכםuntil it [meat] comes out of your nostrils.”
22 121 times: Exod 1:17, 20–21; 2:22–24; etc. Twice Peshitta Exodus formally adds ܐܐas over
against the mt when referring to the God of Israel (Exod 3:12; 20:11). Then, too, once it
renders Hebrew אלהיםas in the one occurrence of the collocation מלאך האלהיםin
Exodus (Exod 14:19). The collocation מלאך יהוהis found only once in the book of Exodus
as well, where the Peshitta renders ( ܕExod 3:2).
23 13 times: Exod 18:11; 20:3; 23:24, 33; 32:1, 23, 31; 34:15–17. 5 times Peshitta Exodus renders the
Hebrew אלהיםas ܕ̈ܐwhen referring to the gods of the nations (Exod 12:12; 22:19; 23:13,
32; 34:15 first occurrence).
24 According to George A. Kiraz (A Grammar of the Syriac Language, Volume 1: Syriac Orthog-
raphy [Piscataway: Gorgias, 2012], § 225), the earliest attestation of syame dates to 411.
25 “Judge” (Exod 22:27); “judges” (Exod 21:6; 22:7, 8—twice).
26 8 times: Exod 8:4, 5, 24, 25, 26; 9:28; 10:17–18.
356 lund
cry out,” translated by “ ܨto pray,”27 and “ צעקto cry out,” rendered by “to
cry out” when the crying out is to a human being,28 but “ ܨto pray” when
the crying out is to God.29 The noun “ ܨܬܐprayer” appears once in Exodus,
where it renders Hebrew “ צעקהcry” (Exod 22:22).30 Generally, the Hebrew verb
“ צבאto wage war, to serve” is not placed in this category. However, in reference
to women serving in the tabernacle, Peshitta Exodus renders the verb צבאby
ܨ, making it clear what the service of the women was, namely a service of
̈
prayer. The text of Exod 38:8 reads as follows: ܕ̈ ܕܐܬ ܪ ܕ
“ ܙof the women who were coming to pray at the entrance of the tent of
meeting” ()הצבאת אשׁר צבאו פתח אהל מועד. The rendering of the Peshitta is
precisely the same rendering as that of Targum Onqelos, namely נשׁיא דאתין
לצלאה בתרע משׁכן זמנא. The same translation tradition that entered Targum
Onqelos also entered the Peshitta. This does not mean that Targum Onqelos
was the direct source of the Peshitta, but rather that the same translation
tradition influenced both versions.31
Syriac shares the root nḥm with Hebrew. The semantic domain of this root
in Syriac, however, does not overlap 100% with that of Hebrew. While Hebrew
נחםcan mean “to regret, to be sorry, to comfort,”32 Syriac means “to console”
and “to resurrect the dead,” but not “to regret, to be sorry.”33 Consequently,
Peshitta Exodus renders the Hebrew root נחםby other roots, namely by “ ܕto
fear” and “ ܪto contemplate,” since the three times the verb appears in Exodus,
the root conveys the meaning of “to regret.” In Exod 13:17, Peshitta Exodus
renders “ פן ינחם העם בראתם מלחמהlest the people relent when they see war”
as “ ܕ ܢ ܕܘlest the people fear when they see war.”
In Exod 32:12, Peshitta Exodus renders “ והנחם על הרעה לעמךand relent of the
evil against your people” as “ ܐܬܪ ܗ ܕand contemplate over
the evil of your people.” And in Exod 32:14, Peshitta Exodus renders וינחם יהוה
“ על הרעה אשׁר דבר לעשׂות לעמוand the Lord repented of the evil that he said he
would do to his people” as “ ܘܐܬܪ ܐ ܕܐand
the Lord contemplated over the evil that he said he would do to his people.”
While Syriac has the adverb “tomorrow,” the equivalent of Hebrew
“ מחרtomorrow,” it does not have a noun corresponding to the Hebrew noun
“ מחרתmorrow.” Thus, while Peshitta Exodus consistently renders the adverb
מחרas eleven times,34 it renders the Hebrew noun מחרתin the phrase
“ ממחרתon the morrow” by circumlocution, either as “ ܕܪܗon the day
after it” (Exod 9:6; 32:6, 30) or as “ ܪon after a day” (Exod 18:13).
As translation equivalents of Hebrew “ כהןpriest,” Peshitta Exodus consis-
tently distinguishes between a non-Israelite priest for which it uses ܐ
(Exod 2:16; 3:1; 18:1) and an Israelite priest for which it uses (Exod 19:6,
22, 24; 29:30; 31:10; 35:19; 38:21; 39:41).
With regard to the renderings of Hebrew “ כסףsilver,” Koster raises the ques-
tion of which manuscript tradition preserves the more primitive text in Exo-
dus, ms 7a1, the base text of the Leiden scientific edition, or ms 5b1.35 Now,
5b1 renders כסףas thirty-seven times and as three times, with
no apparent conditioning, except that in the three occurrences of the
word means “silver” as a type of metal, not “silver” as a type of payment (Exod
11:2;36 12:35; 36:36). By contrast, 7a1 renders כסףas ten times37 and as
thirty times.38 Koster astutely observes that 7a1 consistently distin-
guishes between כסףas a means of payment, for which it uses , and כסףas
a type of metal, for which it uses . In his opinion, this phenomenon in 7a1
reflects a development within the Syriac text, already detected in the 3 cases of
in 5b1. Although Arie van der Kooij, in disagreement with Koster, views
the differentiation between the usages in 7a1 as original,39 Koster has it right in
this instance. ms 7a1 reflects a stage in the text history where minor “improve-
ments” are evident. Differentiation in meaning fits this profile.
When Hebrew עלmeans “with,” Peshitta Exodus renders it as “with” or
alters the syntax slightly, accommodating it to its context. So, Peshitta Exod 12:8
34 Exod 8:6, 19, 25; 9:5, 18; 10:4; 13:14; 16:23; 17:9; 19:10; 32:5
35 M.D. Koster, The Peshitta of Exodus: The Development of its Text in the Course of Fifteen
Centuries (ssn 19; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1977), 70–72.
36 Weitzman, The Syriac Version, 289, suggests that Aphrem’s Bible read instead of
in Exod 11:2.
37 Exod 12:44; 21:11, 21, 32, 34, 35; 22:6, 16, 24; 30:16.
38 Exod 3:22; 11:2; 12:35; 20:23; 25:3; 26:19, 21, 25, 32: 27:10, 11, 17; 31:4; 35:5, 24, 32; 36:24, 26, 30,
36; 38:10, 11, 12, 17—thrice, 19—twice, 25, 27.
39 Arie van der Kooij, “On the Significance of ms 5b1 for the Peshitta Genesis,” in The
Peshitta: Its Early Text and History. Papers Read at the Peshitta Symposium held at Leiden
30–31 August 1985 (ed. P.B. Dirksen and M.J. Mulder; mpil 4; Leiden: Brill, 1988) 183–199,
esp. 192–193 and 197.
358 lund
reads “ ܘܐ ܪܐthey will eat the unleavened bread with bit-
ter herbs” for Hebrew “ ומצות על מררים יאכלהוand they will eat it, unleavened
bread with bitter herbs.”40 Moreover, in Exod 35:22, Peshitta Exodus renders
Hebrew “ האנשׁים על הנשׁיםthe men with the women” as ̈ “ ܐthe men
with the women ….”41 But in Exod 12:9 Peshitta Exodus reads ܘܪ ܘܗܝ
“ ܘeven its head and its shanks and its inwards” for Hebrew ראשׁו על כרעיו
“ ועל קרבוits head with its shanks and its inwards,”42 making all three items of
equal syntactical rank.
Where Hebrew “ יםsea” in the singular connotes “west” in geographic orienta-
tion—the sea being the Mediterranean Sea, which lies west of Israel—Peshitta
Exodus renders it as “west”43 and not as “sea.”44
Not only does the Peshitta of Exodus seek clarity in the rendering of Hebrew
lexemes, but it also does so in rendering Hebrew verbal forms. Its renderings
of the Hebrew infinitive absolute and the Hebrew perfect used as a present
tense conform to the rules of Syriac grammar, leading to modifications in
transforming the Hebrew source text into Syriac.
40 Tg. Neofiti: “ פטירין }עם מרירין{ עם מרורין ייכלון יתיהthey will eat it, unleavened bread with
bitter herbs.”
41 Peshitta Exodus reads the Hebrew variant … ַו ָיִּביאוּ, that is, the hiphil conjugation instead of
the qal. Tg. Neofiti renders: “ ואתון גוברייא סמיך לנשׁיאand the men came next to the women’.”
42 Tg. Neofiti: “ ראשׁ עם רגלוי ועם בני גווהhead with its legs and its inwards.”
43 7×: Exod 10:19; 26:22, 27; 27:12; 37:27, 32; 38:12.
44 32×: Exod 10:19; 13:18; 14:2 (2×), 9, 16 (2×), 21 (3×), 22, 23, 26, 27 (3×), 28, 29, 30; 15:1, 4 (2×), 8,
10, 19 (3×), 21, 22; 20:11 (rendered as plural), 31 (2×).
exodus in syriac 359
45 So too in Exod 3:7, 16; 4:14; 5:23; 8:24; 13:19 (twice); 15:26; 17:14; 18:18; 19:5, 13 (twice); 21:12, 15,
16, 17 (verse omitted by scribal error in ms 7a1), 20, 22, 28; 22:2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 22 (third
time); 23:4, 5, 22, 24 (twice); 31:14, 15; 34:7.
46 So Exod 8:11, where Peshitta Exodus renders “ וירא פרעה כי היתה הרוחה והכבד את לבוand
Pharoah saw that there was respite and so he hardened his heart” as ܘܐ ܢ ܕܗܘܬ
ܘ.“ ܪܘܐand Pharoah saw that there was respite and so he hardened his heart.”
The Syriac finite form renders the Hebrew infinitive absolute הכבד.
47 Syriac ܗ ܒ ܗ.“ ܕܪ ܕܐwhen he (the sojourner) has circumcised
every male; then let him approach to perform it [the Passover]” renders המול לו כל זכר ואז
“ יקרב לעשׂתוlet every male be circumcised for him; then let him approach to perform it
[the Passover].” The finite form ܪrenders the Hebrew infinitive absolute המול.
48 In Exod 13:3 “ ܐܬܕܘ ܗremember this day” renders “ זכור את היום הזהremember
this day.” in Exod 20:8 “ ܐܬܕܘ ܕܐremember the Sabbath day” translates זכור
“ את יום השבתremember the Sabbath day.” In both cases, the Syriac plural imperative
ܐܬܕܘrenders the Hebrew infinitive absolute זכור.
49 Peshitta Exodus renders “ ושחקת ממנה הדקand you shall beat some of it very fine” as ܘܩ
“ ܘܐܕܩand pound some of it and pulverize (it)” (Exod 30:36), והמלאכה היתה דים לכל
“ המלאכה לעשות אתה והותרand the stuff was sufficient for all the work to make it and more”
as “ ܘ̇ܐ ܗܘܐ ̇ܐ ܗ ܘܐܘܬܪܘand the stuff was enough for all
the work to make it and there was surplus” (Exod 36:7), and ונטה לו מחוץ למחנה הרחק מן
“ המחנהand he (Moses) pitched it (the tent) outside the camp, far from the camp” and
ܐܪ ܐ.“ ܘ ܐand he (Moses) pitched it (the tent)
outside the camp. He distanced it from the camp” (Exod 33:7).
50 Peshitta Exodus renders “ וישב העם לאכל ושתוand the people sat down to eat and to drink”
as “ ܘ ܘܐand the people sat down to eat and to drink” (Exod 32:6).
360 lund
When the Hebrew perfect is used as a present tense,51 Peshitta Exodus renders
it by the combination of a participle and independent personal pronoun. For
example, Peshitta Exodus renders the Hebrew perfect “ אהבתיI love” by ܪ
“ ܐI love” in Exod 21:5: ̈“ ܪ ܐ ܝ ܘܬܝ ܘI love my master,
my wife, and my children” translates “ אהבתי את אדני את אשתי ואת בניI love
my master, my wife, and my children.” Moreover, Peshitta Exodus renders the
Hebrew perfect ידעתby the participle and independent personal pronoun ݁ܥ
“ ܐyou know” in Exod 32:22: “ ܐ ݁ܥ ܐ ܗ ܕ ܗܘYou
know this people that it is evil” expresses “ אתה ידעת את העם כי ברע הואYou know
the people that it is set on evil.”52 Further, Peshitta Exodus renders the Hebrew
perfect “ מאנתםdo you refuse” as “ ܨ݁ ܐܘܢare you not willing” in Exod
16:28: ̈“ ܝ ܨ݁ ܐܘܢ ̈ ܘHow long are you
not willing to keep my commandments and my laws?” represents עד אנה מאנתם
“ לשׁמר מצותי ותורתיHow long do you refuse to keep my commandments and my
laws?” Then, too, the formulaic expression “thus says the Lord” belongs here.
Peshitta Exodus renders the Hebrew perfect ָאַמרconsistently with the active
participle ݁( ܐnote the diacritic) ten times in Exodus.53 While the Hebrew
perfect can express present tense in a main clause, the Syriac perfect cannot
do so. Thus, the translator of Peshitta Exodus used the functional equivalent in
Syriac, namely the active participle with the personal pronoun, to render these
formulations.
To sum up, Peshitta Exodus renders the Hebrew verbal forms of the infinitive
absolute and the perfect with present meaning into good Syriac, substituting
valid Syriac constructions where Syriac grammar diverges from Hebrew gram-
mar.
54 Theodor Nöldeke, Compendious Syriac Grammar (trans. James A. Crichton; London: Wil-
liams & Norgate, 1904), § 328B.
362 lund
שׁקלas ̈ ܘܐ ܘܐ ܘ ܘ, both meaning “1,175 sheqels”
(Exod 38:25).
Then, too, Peshitta Exodus twice renders the Hebrew expression היה לו, that
is, the perfect tense of the verb היהfollowed by lamed + the attached third
masculine singular suffix, meaning “to happen to someone,” into good Syriac
as ܗܘܝ, that is, the perfect of the verb ܗܘܐ+ the attached third masculine
singular suffix.55 In Exod 32:1, 23 ܗܘܝrenders לא ידענו מה היה
לו, both meaning “We don’t know what happened to him.”
To summarize, Peshitta Exodus renders Hebrew syntagms into good Syr-
iac, making adjustments where necessary, as exemplified by its translation of
the tripartite noun phrase that includes both an adjective and demonstrative
pronoun, the negation of the nominal sentence referring to present time, the
compound cardinal number greater than one hundred modifying a noun, and
the expression “to happen to someone.”
At times the Peshitta and one of the Targums agree in the rendering of the
Hebrew. Sebastian Brock56 has astutely suggested that Palestinian Jewish trans-
lation circles influenced the Peshitta, the same circles from which the Targums
arose. So, instead of the Targums serving as sources of the Peshitta directly, exe-
gesis found in them at times entered the Peshitta from traditions that were
promulgated in Palestine.
In Exod 4:16, the Peshitta renders the Hebrew in concert with the Targums.
The Peshitta renders the Hebrew “ הוא יהיה לך לפהhe [Aaron] shall be for you
[Moses] as a mouth” as “ ܘܗܘ ܘܐ ܪand he [Aaron] shall be for
you [Moses] an interpreter,” using a cognate lexeme to those found in Targum
Onqelos ( )הוא יהי לך למתורגמןand in Targum Neofiti ()הוא יהווי לך לתורגמן. By
contrast, the Old Greek and Vulgate retain “mouth,” rendering στόμα and os
respectively.
In Exod 21:19, which records the case law involving two men that are fighting
each other and the one injures the other so that he is laid up, the Peshitta
renders the Hebrew רק שבתו יתן ורפא ירפאas ܕ ܘܐ ܐ
55 For the form “ ܗܘܝit happened to him,” see also 2Sam 18:29. For the analagous form
“ ܗܘit happened to me,” see 2 Sam 16:10, Job 6:2 and 30:13, and for the analagous form
“ ܗܘܬܢit happened to you,” see Judg 20:12 and Isa 50:11.
56 See Sebastian P. Brock, “Jewish Traditions in Syriac Sources,” jjs 30 (1979): 212–232; and
Brock, “A Palestinian Targum Feature in Syriac,” jjs 46 (1995): 271–282.
exodus in syriac 363
“ ܠonly he shall compensate/pay his lost work time and the cost of the
doctor.” Targum Onqelos translates in the same vane: לחוד בוטלניה יתין ואגר אסיא
“ ישליםonly he shall compensate for his lost work time and shall pay the cost of
the doctor.” Targum Neofiti agrees: “ לחוד אגר בטלוניה יתן ואגר אסיא דמאסי יתיהonly
he shall compensate the cost of his lost work time and shall pay the cost of
the doctor who treated him.” The lxx reads similarly: πλὴν τῆς ἀργίας αὐτοῦ
ἀποτίσει καὶ τὰ ἰατρεῖα “nevertheless he shall compensate his lost work time and
the medical bill.” The Vulgate reads: tamen ut operas eius et inpensas in medicos
restituat “however he should restore his loss work time and the expenses for
the physician.”
In Exod 30:12 the Peshitta shares exegesis with Targum Onqelos. The Peshitta
renders “ כי תשא את ראש בני ישראל לפקדיהםwhen you lift up the head of the
children of Israel according to their musterings” as ܬ ܕ
“ ܐܐ ܘܢwhen you receive the calculation of the children of Israel
according to their numbers,” where Targum Onqelos renders ארי תקביל ית חושבן
“ בני ישראל למניניהוןwhen you receive the calculation of the children of Israel
according to their numbers.”
The Peshitta of Exodus follows the Hebrew text of the mt to a great extent,
exhibiting only minor variations. The following four categories account for
most of the variant Hebrew readings: pluses, minuses, differences in vocaliza-
tion, and differences in words.
The pluses in the earliest recoverable text of the Peshitta may witness to
variant Hebrew readings, although any given reading could have been gen-
erated within the Syriac tradition instead, though undocumented. Typically,
the pluses clarify the meaning of the text. Peshitta Exodus has the formal
plus of an indirect object in the following verses: “ ܘܐ ܘܢand he said
to them” (Hebrew: “ ויאמרand he said”; Exod 8:21); “ ܘܐ ܢand
Moses said to Pharaoh” (Hebrew: “ ויאמר משהand Moses said”; Exod 8:25); ܘܐ
“ ܘܢand Moses said to them” (Hebrew: “ ויאמר משהand Moses said”;
Exod 16:8, 25—ms 5b1). Sometimes Peshitta Exodus adds the expressed sub-
ject: “ ܘܐ ܘܢand Moses said to them” (Hebrew: “ ויאמר אלהםand he
said to them”; Exod 16:23—note ms 5b1); “ ܘܐ ܢ ܘܗܪܘܢand
Pharaoh said to Moses and to Aaron” (Hebrew: “ ויקרא למשה ולאהרןand he said
to Moses and to Aaron”; Exod 12:31). In Exod 32:18 Peshitta Exodus adds both
the indirect object and the expressed subject: “ ܐand Moses said
to him” (Hebrew: )ויאמר.
364 lund
The longest plus in Peshitta Exodus appears in Exod 2:22, where the mt reads
“and she bore a son, and he called his name Gershom, because he said ‘I have
been a stranger in a foreign land’.” The Peshitta adds: ܘܬ ܬܘܒ ܐ ܕܬܪ
ܘ. ܕܐܐ ܕܐܝ ܪܝ. ܘܐ ܐܪ.
“ ܕܢand further she bore a second son to Moses, and he called his name
Eliezer, because ‘the God of my fathers was my help and he saved me from
the sword of Pharoah’.” Comparison with Exod 18:3–4 reveals that Zipporah
bore Moses two sons, Gershom and Eliezer. If one believes that the shorter mt
reading in Exod 2:22 is older, then the source of this plus is Exod 18:4 (ושם האחד
ܕܐܐ = אליעזר כי אלהי אבי בעזרי ויצלני מחרב פרעה.ܘ ܕܐ ܐܪ
ܘ ܕܢ.)ܕܐܝ ܪܝ.
Additions of words of other syntactic function can also elucidate the mean-
ing of the text. In Exod 2:11, the plus “of the children of Israel” makes it clear that
the reference to brothers is wider than close family: ܘܼܐ ܐ ܪ
̈ܐܗܝ ̈ ܐ. “ ܿ ܐand he saw an Egyptian man
striking a Hebrew man, (one) of his brothers, (one) of the children of Israel”
versus “ וירא איש מצרי מכה איש עברי מאחיוand he saw an Egyptian man striking
a Hebrew man, (one) of his brothers.”
Formal minuses in Peshitta Exodus are infrequent. In Exod 8:5 Peshitta Exo-
dus does not have the final phrase “ רק ביאר תשארנהthey shall remain only in
the river” found in the Hebrew mt, though it does appear in v. 7. In Exod 8:17,
Peshitta Exodus lacks “ ובעבדיךand upon your servants” in the unit הנני משליח
“ בך ובעבדיך ובעמך ובבתיך את הערבbehold I will send a swarm upon you and
upon your servants and upon your people and upon your houses.” Three times
Peshitta Exodus reads “from Egypt” where the Hebrew reads “from the land of
Egypt” (Exod 16:6, 32; 33:1). In Exod 34:23 Peshitta Exodus reads “the Lord”
once, where one might expect it to appear twice in light of the Hebrew האדן
“ יהוהthe Lord, the Lord.” This is probably a case in which the translator abbre-
viated his source text due the perceived redundancy.
In some instances the vocalization of the Hebrew consonants differ accord-
ing to the Peshitta from that recorded in the mt. In Exod 32:5, the Peshitta reads
“ ַו ִיּ ָרא אהרןand Aaron feared” ( )ܘܕ݂ ܐܗܪܘܢinstead of “ ַו ַיּ ְרא אהרןand Aaron saw.”
In both Exod 35:21–22, the Peshitta, in agreement with the Samaritan Hebrew,
the Old Greek, and the Vulgate, reads the hiphil “ ַו ָיִּביאוּand they brought” instead
of the qal “ ַו ָיּבֹאוּand they came” of the mt.
Occasionally the Peshitta reads a different Hebrew word than that found in
the mt. In Exod 13:8, the Peshitta reads “ ݂ ܐܐGod did for me,” that
is, עשה אלהים לי, (ms 5b1–ms 7a1 reads “my God did for me”) instead of עשה
“ יהוה ליthe Lord did for me.” In Exod 17:16, the Peshitta apparently read כי יד
“ על כסאfor a hand on a throne” ( )ܗܐ ܐܐ ܪas in the Samaritan
exodus in syriac 365
As the first translation of the complete Hebrew Bible to another Semitic lan-
guage, the Old Testament Peshitta constitutes a valuable source of exegesis.
The following are a sampling of interesting exegesis culled from the Book of
Exodus.
In Exod 1:16 the phrase “ וראיתן על האבניםand you look upon the stones” is
unclear. The Peshitta clarifies the text by rendering “ ܗܘ ܕlook
when they [the Hebrew women] kneel.” By contrast, the Old Greek reads καὶ
ὦσιν πρὸς τῷ τίκτειν “and they are at birthing stage,” while the Vulgate renders
et partus tempus advenerit “and the time of birth has arrived.” The Targums
translates “the stones” as “birthstool(s)” ()מתברא.
In Exod 6:20 Amran is said to marry Jochebed, who is described in the
Hebrew as דדתו. The Peshitta exegetes דדתוas “ ܬ ܕܕܗthe daughter of his
uncle,” that is, Amran’s first cousin. The Old Greek and Targum Neofiti agree,
rendering θυγατέρα τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ and ברת אחוי דאבויrespec-
tively, both meaning “the daughter of the brother of his father.” Jerome suc-
cinctly translates patruelem suam “his cousin.” By contrast, Targum Onqelos
interprets the Hebrew as meaning “ אחת אבוהיthe sister of his father,”58 that
is, his aunt, while the Fragment Targum p and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan use
“ חביבתיהhis beloved.”59
In Exod 9:31 the phrase “ כי השערה אביבfor the barley was ”אביבcalls for
exegesis, where the barley was destroyed because it was אביב. The Peshitta
renders this phrase as ̈ “ ܕܐbecause the barley struck stalk,”
meaning either that the barley plants produced stalks or that they produced
57 Weitzman, The Syriac Version, 289, argues, unconvincingly to me, that the reading of
Aphrem, namely “ ܗܐ ܐܐ ܕ ܪfor the hand of Yah is on the throne,” reflects
a more primitive text than that contained in the extant biblical mss, alleging that ܕwas
rearranged by the translator to come after ܐܐinstead of after ܪ. It could reflect
early exegesis that entered the biblical tradition or an interpretive insertion by Aphrem
himself.
58 The interpretation of Targum Onqelos seems incongruent with Lev 18:12 and 20:19, which
texts prohibit marriage to an aunt.
59 The margin of Targum Neofiti reads חביבתא.
366 lund
roots.60 In Exod 10:13 the Peshitta renders “ רוח קדיםan east wind” as ܪܘ
“ ܕa scorching wind.” In Exod 16:23, the Peshitta renders ואת כל העדף הניחו
“ לכם למשמרת עד הבקרand all that remains lay aside for keeping until morning”
according to the context as “ ܘܡ ܕ݂݁ܪ ܘ ܢ ܐ ݁ܐand whatever
remains [of the manna] keep cold until the morning.” In Exod 19:12 the Peshitta
offers a unique rendering of the Hebrew “ והגבלת את העם סביבand you shall
limit the people all around” as “ ܘܐܪ ܕܘܬܐand cast a testimony
among the people.” The translator apparently had a problem with “people” as
the direct object of the verb גבלsince in v. 23 he renders “ הגבל את ההרset
bounds for the mountain” as “ ܬܝ ܪܐset bounds for the mountain.”
In Exod 20:10, the Peshitta renders “ אשר בשעריךwhich is in your gates” as
“ ܕwhich is in your cities” on the basis of the context and in agreement
with the Targums.
The translator of Peshitta Exodus handled the phrase בין הערביםin a number
of ways, rendering it by “at sunset” (Exod 12:6; 16:12), ܢ
“ ܪat evening” (Exod 29:39, 41), and ̈ “between the suns” (Exod
30:8), that is, at twilight.61 The context seems to determine the choice: the
Passsover was eaten at sunset; there were two regular offerings, one in the
morning and one in the evening; when Aaron would kindle the lamp at twilight,
he would burn incense on the altar of incense, as he would do every morning
(Exod 30:7).
In Exod 21:6, 22:7–8, 27, the Peshitta interprets the Hebrew ֱאֹלִהיםto mean
“judge” or “judges.” This interpretation understands that the judge represents
God on earth. In all these cases, Targum Onqelos and Targum Neofiti share the
same exegesis as reflected in the Peshitta.
In Exod 28:30, Peshitta Exodus renders ונתת אל חשן המשפט את האורים ואת
התמיםas “ ܘ ܕܕ ܐ ܘput on the breastplate of
clear and perfect judgment.” The translator used etymology to link the Urim to
light ( )אורand the Thummim to perfection ()תמם. The fact that Leviticus and
Numbers both offer alternative interpretations points to different translators of
these books. Leviticus 8:8 renders וישם עליו את החשן ויתן אל החשן את האורים ואת
התמיםas “ ܘܒ ܐ ܘܐand he put knowledge and truth
on the breastplate,” while Num 27:21 renders ושאל לו במשפט האורים לפני יהוהas
“ ܘܘܐ ܠ ܕܐ ܡand he [Eleazar] shall ask for him
[Joshua] the law of the asking before the Lord.” These interpretations are based
60 Michael Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and
Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (Piscataway: Gorgias, 2009), 738, meaning
11.a.
61 Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon, 142.
exodus in syriac 367
on the function of the Urim and Thummim, to wit, to discern the will of God,
not on their etymologies. Deuteronomy 33:8 comes closer to the translation of
Exodus, when it renders תמיך ואוריך לאיש חסידךas ܘܗܪܟ ܐ
“Your perfection and your light belong to the pious man,” also based on
the etymology of light and perfection.
In Exod 40:17 Peshitta Exodus indicates that the tabernacle was erected on
Sunday, rendering “ באחד לחדשon the first of the month” as “on the
first (day) in the week.”62
6 Conclusion
Select Bibliography
Borbone, P.G., J. Cook, K.D. Jenner, and D.M. Walter, in collaboration with J.A. Lund and
M.P. Weitzman. The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshitta Version—Part v,
Concordance i: The Pentateuch. Brill: Leiden, 1997.
Brock, Sebastian P. The Bible in the Syriac Tradition. Gorgias Handbooks 7. Rev. ed.
Piscataway: Gorgias, 2006.
. An Introduction to Syriac Studies. Gorgias Handbooks 4. Piscataway: Gorgias,
2006.
. “A Palestinian Targum Feature in Syriac.” Journal of Jewish Studies 46 (1995):
271–282.
. “Jewish Traditions in Syriac Sources.” Journal of Jewish Studies 30 (1979): 212–
232.
62 See Weitzman, The Syriac Version, 150; Maori, The Peshitta Version, 159.
368 lund
Brock, Sebastian P., Aaron M. Butts, George A. Kiraz, and Lucas Van Rompay, eds.
Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage. Piscataway: Gorgias, 2011.
Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon. Online: http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/.
Dirksen, P.B. “The Peshitta and Textual Criticism of the ot.” Vetus Testamentum 42
(1992): 376–390.
Jansma, Taeke, and Marinus D. Koester, eds. The Old Testament in Syriac According to
the Peshitta Version—Part i, 1. Preface, Genesis—Exodus. Leiden: Brill, 1977.
Joosten, Jan. “Greek and Latin Words in the Peshitta Pentateuch: First Soundings.”
Pages 37–47 in Symposium Syriacum vii. Edited by René Lavenant, S.J. Orientalia
Christiana Analecta 256. Roma: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1998.
. The Syriac Language of the Peshitta and Old Syriac Versions of Matthew: Syn-
tactic Structure, Inner-Syriac Developments and Translation Technique. Studies in
Semitic Languages and Linguistics 22. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
. “The Use of Some Particles in the Old Testament Peshitta.” Textus 14 (1988):
175–183.
Juckel, Andreas. “Approximation of the ‘Traditions’ in Jacob of Edessa’s Revision of Isa-
iah.” Pages 227–281 in Malphono w-Rabo d-Malphone, Studies in Honor of Sebastian
P. Brock. Edited by George A. Kiraz. Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies 3. Piscataway:
Gorgias, 2008.
Kiraz, George A. A Grammar of the Syriac Language, Volume 1: Syriac Orthography.
Piscataway: Gorgias, 2012.
Koster, Marinus D. The Peshitta of Exodus: The Development of its Text in the Course of
Fifteen Centuries. Studia semitica neerlandica 19. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1977.
. “Which Came First: The Chicken of the Egg? The Development of the Text of
the Peshitta of Genesis and Exodus in Light of Recent Studies.” Pages 99–126 in The
Peshitta: Its Early Text and History. Papers Read at the Peshitta Symposium held at Lei-
den 30–31 August 1985. Edited by Piet B. Dirksen and Martin Jan Mulder. Monographs
of the Peshitta Institute, Leiden 4. Leiden: Brill, 1988.
Lagarde, Paul de. “Exodus.” Pages 50–99 in Bibliothecae Syriace. Göttingen: Horstmann,
1892.
Lund, Jerome A. “Genesis in Syriac.” Pages 537–560 in The Book of Genesis: Composition,
Reception, and Interpretation. Edited by Craig A. Evans, Joel N. Lohr, and David
L. Petersen. Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament Literature. Leiden: Brill,
2012.
Maori, Yeshayahu. “Methodological Criteria for Distinguishing Between Variant Vor-
lage and Exegesis in the Peshitta Pentateuch.” Pages 103–120 in The Peshitta as a
Translation: Papers Read at the ii Peshitta Symposium Held at Leiden 19–21 August
1993. Edited by Piet B. Dirksen and Arie van der Kooij. Monographs of the Peshitta
Institute, Leiden 8. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
. “The Relationship between the Peshitta Pentateuch and the Pentateuchal
exodus in syriac 369
Targums.” Pages 57–73 in Targum Studies, Volume Two: Targum and Peshitta. Edited
by Paul V.M. Flesher. South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 165. Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1998.
. The Peshitta Version of the Pentateuch and Early Jewish Exegesis (תרגום הפשיטתא
)לתורה והפרשנות היהודית הקדומה. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1995.
Owens, Robert J. The Genesis and Exodus Citations of Aphrahat the Persian Sage. Mono-
graphs of the Peshitta Institute, Leiden 3. Leiden: Brill, 1984.
Salvesen, Alison. “Jacob of Edessa’s version of Exodus 1 and 28.”Hugoye 8.1 (2005) [http://
bethmardutho.org/index.php/hugoye/volume-index.html].
Sokoloff, Michael. A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion,
and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum. Piscataway: Gorgias, 2009.
Tonneau, R.M., ed. Sancti Ephraem Syri in Genesim et in Exodum Commentarii. 2 vols.
Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium 152–153. Scriptores Syri 71–72. Lou-
vain: Durbecq, 1955.
Vööbus, Arthur. The Pentateuch in the Version of the Syro-Hexapla: A Facsimile Edition
of a Midyat ms Discovered 1964. Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium 369.
Subsidia 45. Leuven: Peeters, 1975.
Weitzman, Michael P. The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction. Univer-
sity of Cambridge Oriental Publications 56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1999.
The Vetus Latina and the
Vulgate of the Book of Exodus
David L. Everson
The Vetus Latina or the Old Latin (hereafter ol) refers to the Latin versions
of the Bible that were translated from the Greek but do not correspond to
Jerome’s Vulgate.1 The earliest evidence of the ol appears in the Passion of
the Scillitan Martyrs where we read of Speratus, who possessed “the books of
and letters of Paul, a just man” (Libri et epistulae Pauli, viri iusti).2 A short time
later, Tertullian identifies Latin as the exclusive language of the church in North
Africa. During the third century, Cyprian includes lengthy citations of a Latin
Bible.3
Already in late-antiquity, the ol was known for its textual diversity. Jerome
complains that there are as many forms (exemplaria) of the biblical text as
there are copies.4 Similarly, Augustine writes, “Those who have translated the
scriptures from the Hebrew language into Greek can be numbered, but the
Latin translators are in no way numerable. For in the early days of the faith,
when a Greek book fell into someone’s hand and he believed himself to have
some ability in both languages, he dared to translate.”5 However, as Rudolf
1 The Greek origin of the ol may be proven by observing Greek neologisms, loan words,
septuagintal syntax, and the preservation of Greek errors.
2 The Latin of this text appears in J.A. Robinson, ed., The Passion of S. Perpetua (ts 1.2; Cam-
bridge: University Press, 1891; repr., Piscataway: Gorgias, 2004), 114. See also anf 9:280–282.
3 Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein, “The Latin Translations,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and
Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. Martin Jan
Mulder; crint 2.1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988), 299–338, 299.
4 Pref. to Four Gospels, “For if our faith should be applied to the Latin texts, they should tell
us which ones; for there are nearly as many (forms) as there are copies” (Si enim latinis
exemplaribus fides est adhibenda, respondeant quibus; tot sunt paene quot codices). All of the
biblical prefaces have been taken from Biblia Sacra: Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem (ed. Robert
Weber and Roger Gryson; 4th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994).
5 Doct. chr. 2.16; Qui enim scripturas ex Hebraea lingua in Graecam verterunt, numerari possunt,
Latini autem interpretes nullo modo. Ut enim cuique primis fidei temporibus in manus venit
codex Graecus, et aliquantulum facultatis sibi utriusque linguae habere videbatur, ausus est
interpretari.
Dietzfelbinger has pointed out, such comments may have been a reaction to
the numerous renderings of select prophetic passages (e.g. Isa 7:9 and 58:7).6
With regard to accessing the ol text, there are two major challenges. First,
there are no extant manuscripts which contain the complete book of Exodus.
Second, the Beuron edition of Exodus still remains unfinished. Regarding the
first challenge, there are five principal manuscripts which, when combined,
contain most of the book of Exodus. These are the Codex Lugdunensis (olL,
7th cent., 695 vv. from Exodus), the Vienna Palimpsest (olV, 5th cent., 60 vv.),
the Würzburg Palimpsest (olW, 5th cent., 503 vv.), and the Munich Palimpsest
(olM, 6th cent., 609 vv.).7 Additionally, C. Vercellone collected numerous ol
readings from the Codex Ottobonianus (olO 7/8th cent.).8 When these manu-
scripts are combined with Sabatier’s great 18th century work (olSb), it is possi-
ble to find ol texts (though sometimes fragmentary) for all but approximately
fifty verses of the book of Exodus. Regarding the second challenge, Rudolf Diet-
zfelbinger has provided an extraordinary amount of introductory and back-
ground information for the ol of Exodus in his dissertation, “Die Vetus Latina
des Buches Exodus.” This thesis was intended to lay the groundwork for the
completion of the Beuroner edition of Exodus.
Dietzfelbinger suggests the following Latin text-types for the book of Exodus
(the aforementioned mss are placed accordingly):9
6 Rudolf Dietzfelbinger, “Die Vetus Latina des Buches Exodus, Studien zur handschriftlichen
Überlieferung mit Edition von Kapitel 1” (Ph.D. diss., The University of Heidelberg, 1998), 13.
7 The respective titles for these mss within the Beuroner edition are as follows, L = 100, V =
101, O = 102, W = 103, M = 104. For L, see U. Robert, Pentateuchi versio latina antiquissima e
codice lugdunensi (Paris: Didot, 1881). For V, see Bonifatius Fischer, Beiträge zur Geschichte
der lateinischen Bibeltexte (Freiburg: Herder, 1986), 308–314, 382–438. For W, see E. Ranke,
Par palimpsestorum wirceburgensium. Antiquissimae Veteris Testamenti versionis latinae frag-
menta (Wien: G. Braumüller, 1871). For M, see Leo Ziegler, Bruchstücke einer vorhieronymian-
ischen Übersetzung des Pentateuch aus einem Palimpseste der k. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek zu
München (Munich: Theodor Riedel, 1883).
8 For O, see C. Vercellone, Variae lectiones Vulgatae latinae Bibliorum editionis, tom. i (Rome:
Spithöver, 1860). For a convenient catalog of the ol mss of Exodus, see John William Wevers,
ed., Exodus (Septuaginta 2.1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 22–36.
9 Dietzfelbinger, “Die Vetus Latina des Buches Exodus,” 8.
372 everson
X: Dubious texts
H: The Vulgate of Jerome
According to his preface to the Gospels, in 382, Jerome began his revision
of the Gospels at the invitation of Pope Damasus. This was followed by two
revisions of the Psalter (one according to the lxx and another according to
Hexaplaric revisions). Additionally, he revised Chronicles, Job, and “Solomon’s
Books” according to the lxx of Origen’s Hexapla. These, of course, were revi-
sions, not translations. Catherine Tkacz suggests that Jerome makes this dis-
tinction in his own writing, referring to the Gospels as a novum opus and his ot
translations as interpretationem novam and nostra translatio.12
In light of the Prologus Galeatus (i.e. Jerome’s ‘Helmeted Preface’ to Samuel
and Kings), Samuel and Kings are often believed to have been the first books
translated by Jerome. Therein Jerome writes, “This preface of the Scriptures
can be understood as a helmeted beginning to all of the books, which we turn
10 As Matthew Krauss has shown, it is likely that ol mss with Hebraizing tendencies have
been influenced by Hexaplaric lxx mss. See Matthew Kraus, “Hebraisms in the Old Latin
Version of the Bible,” vt 53 (2003): 487–513.
11 Dietzfelbinger, “Die Vetus Latina des Buches Exodus,” 110.
12 Catherine Brown Tkacz, “Labor tam Utilis: The Creation of the Vulgate.” vc 50 (1996): 42–72,
50.
the vetus latina and the vulgate of the book of exodus 373
from Hebrew into Latin.”13 According to H.J. White, this preface “is really an
introduction to the whole ot, and shows that even thus early he must have
conceived some idea of translating all the books.”14 Similarly, J.N.D. Kelly main-
tains that the Prologus Galeatus makes it “practically certain” that Samuel and
Kings were translated first.15 A different position is held by Benjamin Kedar-
Kopfstein who, in light of the theological importance of the respective books
and the development of Jerome’s technique, believes that the translations of
the Prophets and Psalms preceded those of Samuel and Kings. He also notes
that information found in the prefaces to Isaiah and Daniel would be redun-
dant if Samuel/Kings had been translated first.16 In any case, Jerome translated
Samuel, Kings, the Psalms, the Prophets, and Job between 390 and 394; Ezra
and Nehemiah between 394 and 395; Chronicles in 395; Proverbs, Canticles,
and Ecclesiastes in 398; the Octateuch between 398 and 404/5; and Tobit and
Judith in 407.17 For our purposes, it is important to note that Jerome is translat-
ing the book of Exodus after nearly ten years of translating and more than two
dozen translations under his belt.
In terms of method, the Hebrew text was the primary source for Jerome ( fons
veritatis).18 In his preface to Ecclesiastes, he describes his method of transla-
tion.19 First, he examines the Hebrew and determines its meaning. Second, he
13 Hic prologus Scripturarum quasi galeatum principium omnibus libris, quos de hebraeo
vertimus in latinum, convenire potest.
14 H.J. White, “Vulgate,” in A Dictionary of the Bible (ed. James Hastings; 5 vols.; New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1898–1904), 4:873–890, esp. 875.
15 J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies, (London: Duckworth, 1975), 161.
Tkacz maintains the same position. See, “Labor Tam Utilis,” 50–53; as well as her “Quid Facit
Cum Psalterio Horatius?: Seeking the Classical Allusions in the Vulgate,” in Nova Doctrina
Vetusque (ed. Douglas Kries and Catherine Brown Tkacz; New York: Peter Lang, 1999),
93–104.
16 Kedar-Kopfstein, “The Latin Translations,” 321. Elsewhere, he maintains that Jerome’s ref-
erence to having translated the ot from Hebrew into Latin in Vir. ill. 135 (vetus [testamen-
tum] iuxta hebraicum transtulit) refers to the Psalms and the Prophets, which are men-
tioned as having been translated in the previous chapter. See Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein,
“The Vulgate as a Translation: Some Semantic and Syntactical Aspects of Jerome’s Version
of the Hebrew Bible” (Ph.D. diss., The University of Jerusalem, 1968), 53.
17 For a discussion of these dates, see Kelly, Jerome, 156–162; and Tkacz, “Labor Tam Utilis,”
50–51.
18 Epist. 20.2; 34.4; cf. Adam Kamesar, Jerome, Greek Scholarship, and the Hebrew Bible: A
Study of the ‘Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim.’ (ocm; Oxford: Clarendon, 1993), 45.
19 “… hoc breviter admonens, quod nullius auctoritatem secutus sum; sed de hebraeo transfer-
ens, magis me septuaginta interpretum consuetudini coaptavi, in his dumtaxat, quae non
374 everson
In order to demonstrate the relationship between the lxx, the ol, the Vulgate,
and the mt, and to gain a sense for the quality of each translation, I have
conducted a number of analyses. Two of these concern proper nouns while
four others concern Hebraisms which do not lend themselves to Greek and
Latin.
(cont.)
In light of the data listed above, there are six possible alignment scenar-
ios.
Among the possible alignment scenarios, it is most common for the Vulgate
and the mt to be aligned on the one hand, while the lxx and the ol are aligned
on the other. It is significant that Jerome so frequently deviates from the ol for
a more Hebraic reading, thus demonstrating his independence from the lxx
and the ol during this period of translation. The ol’s dependence upon the
lxx is most clearly seen in Exod 14:2 (#19), where the Greek common noun
ἔπαυλις (“village”) has been transliterated into Latin as a proper noun, Epaulem.
Numbers 2, 12, and 21 offer an interesting scenario where the ol and the Vulgate
are aligned together against the lxx and the mt. It is possible that Jerome is
depending here upon the ol (esp. with Magdolum); however, the reverse is
entirely possible as well. Jerome’s dependence upon the Hebrew is clearly seen
in Exod 15:23 (#14) where his transliteration (Marath) reflects מרהsuffixed with
a directive-hē (i.e. )מרתה.
Rendering יסף. Another useful inquiry in determining the relationship be-
tween the lxx, the ol, the Vulgate, and the mt would be to examine standard
Hebrew syntagms, which, having no syntactic corollary in the target language,
the vetus latina and the vulgate of the book of exodus 377
lxx ol Vulgate mt
Exod 5:7 οὐκέτι iam non nequaquam ultra לא תאספון לתת
προστεθήσεται adponetis dare dabitis
διδόναι (L)
Exod 9:28 καὶ οὐκέτι et amplius non et nequaquam hic ולא תספון לעמד
προσθήσεσθε eritis hic (M) ultra maneatis
μένειν
Exod 9:34 προσέθετο τοῦ coepit peccare auxit peccatum ויסף לחטא
ἁμαρτάνειν (M)
Exod 10:28 ἔτι προσθεῖναι ultra apponere ultra videas תסף ראות
ἰδεῖν videre (Sb)
ultra venias (V)
Exod 14:13 οὐ προσθήσεσθε non apponetis nequaquam ultra לא תסיפו לראתם
ἔτι ἰδεῖν αὐτοὺς amplius videre eos videbitis
(Sb)
24 See Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), §§ 36.2.1d, 39.3.1b. For a list of additional awkward Hebraisms
within the lxx, see H. St. J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek, Volume 1,
Introduction, Orthography and Accidence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909),
§4.
378 everson
The lxx and the ol faithfully mimic the Hebrew with their awkward repetition
of ἀνὰ μέσον/inter. Jerome, however, prefers the more idiomatic rendering of
25 An additional occurrence of יסף+ infinitive appears in Exod 10:28 where olV follows the
adverbial rendering of the lxx (i.e. non amplius apparaebo, οὐκέτι ὀφθήσομαί).
26 See also Gen 4:2, 12; 8:12, 21 (×2); 18:29; 25:1; 37:8; 38:5, 26; 44:23; Num 22:15, 19; Deut 3:26;
5:25; 13:11; 18:16; Josh 7:12; 8:28; Judg 9:37; 11:14; 13:1, 21; 20:22–23, and 28.
27 See 1Sam 3:6, 8; 3:21; 27:4; 2 Sam 5:22; 7:10, 20; 14:10; 24:1; and 1Kgs 16:33. By the time Jerome
reached 2Kings, he appears to have stopped such redundancy (cf. 2Kgs 6:23; 21:8; and 28:7).
28 Kedar-Kopfstein, “The Vulgate as a Translation,” 281–284. A similar notion is expressed by
Kelly, Jerome, 162, who asserts that Jerome “tended to take greater liberties with the books
he translated latest, so that while he justly scorned any suggestion that his Samuel and
Kings could be described as a paraphrase, his version of Judges (404/5) comes pretty near
to being one.”
the vetus latina and the vulgate of the book of exodus 379
inter … et. Within the book of Exodus the pairing of ביןappears thirteen times.
Of these instances, Jerome never provides a literal translation.29
The ol mss usually follow the lxx in their awkward rendering of this phrase.
Of the five passages within Exodus where the lxx offers a literal rendering
and where ol mss are extant, there are four occasions where the ol repeats
the awkward syntax of the lxx (Exod 8:19 [olSb]; 11:7 [olV]; 26:33 [olSb]; 30:18
[olL]).30 The one exception appears in Exod 14:2 of olM where ἀνὰ μέσον … ἀνὰ
μέσον is rendered with inter … et.
Outside of the Vulgate of the book of Exodus, we find that Jerome becomes
increasingly periphrastic with the passage of time.31 Within the prophets, a
literal rendering appears for eight of the twenty occurrences (40%). Within
Samuel and Kings, a literal rendering appears for eight of the twenty-eight
occurrences (29%). Within Chronicles, a literal rendering is never used for the
eight occurrences (0%). Within the whole of the Pentateuch, a literal rendering
appears for six of the forty-six occurrences (13%). Finally, within Joshua, Judges
and Ruth, a literal rendering appears for only one of the sixteen occurrences
(6%).32
Omission of Redundant Nouns. The development of Jerome’s technique and/
or ability within the Vulgate may be seen in his steady reduction of seemingly
unnecessary proper nouns. Take the following verse, for example:
29 Exod 8:19; 9:4; 11:7; 14:2, 20; 16:1; 18:16; 26:33; 30:18; 31:13, 17; 40:7, and 30.
30 lxx of Exod 11:7 reads ἀνὰ μέσον … καὶ. I assume here that the redundant rendering of olV
in this verse is based upon a Greek text which reads ἀνὰ μέσον … ἀνὰ μέσον, for which there
are exemplars. See Wevers, Exodus, ad loc.
31 Our data is somewhat limited in that this phrase never appears in the Psalms, Job, Ezra,
Nehemiah, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, or Esther. Nevertheless, it should be noted
that this steady decline in literal rendering supports the order of translation suggested by
Kedar-Kopfstein (see above). In addition to the Exodus passages mentioned above, the
relevant passages are Gen 1:4, 14, 18; 3:15 (×2); 9:12–13, 15–17; 10:12; 13:3, 7, 8 (×2); 16:5, 14; 17:2,
7, 10–11; 20:1; 23:15; 26:28; 30:36; 31:44, 48–51; and 32:17; Lev 10:10 (×2); 11:47 (×2); 26:46; 27:12,
14; Num 17:13; 21:13; 30:17; 35:24; Deut 1:1, 16 (×2); 5:5; 17:8; Josh 3:4; 8:9, 11–12; 18:11; 22:25,
27–28; 24:7; Judg 4:5, 17; 9:23; 11:27; 13:25; 16:31; Ruth 1:17; 1Sam 7:12, 14; 14:42; 17:1; 20:3, 23,
42 (×2); 24:13, 16; 2 Sam 3:1, 6; 18:9; 21:7; 1 Kgs 5:26; 7:46; 14:30; 15:6–7, 16, 19 (×2), 32; 22:1, 34;
2Kgs 11:17 (×2); 16:14; 1 Chr 21:16; 2 Chr 4:17; 13:2; 16:3 (×2); 18:33; 19:10; 23:16; Isa 5:3; 59:2; Jer
7:5; Ezek 4:3; 8:3, 16; 10:6; 20:12, 20; 34:20; 43:8; 44:23; 47:16, 18 (×2); 48:22; Zech 5:9; 11:14; Mal
2:14; and 3:18.
32 The lxx consistently prefers a more literal rendering of the phrase: 16/20 (80%) for the
Prophets; 21/28 (75%) for Samuel and Kings; 6/8 (75%) for Chronicles; 38/46 (83%) for the
Pentateuch; and 11/16 (69%) for Joshua, Judges, and Ruth.
380 everson
וישמע פרעה … ויבקש להרג את־משה ויברח משה מפני פרעהExod 2:15 (mt)
Exod 2:15 (Vg.) Audivitque Pharao … et quaerebat occidere Mosen qui
fugiens de conspectu eius moratus
Exod 2:15 (lxx) ἤκουσεν δὲ Φαραω … καὶ ἐζήτει ἀνελεῖν Μωυσῆν ἀνεχώρη-
σεν δὲ Μωυσῆς ἀπὸ προσώπου Φαραω
Exod 2:15 (olL) Audivit autem Pharao … et quaerebat occidere Moysen.
Abscessit autem Moyses a faciae [sic!] Pharaonis
33 These are, Lord, God, Moses, Israel, Egypt, Aaron, Pharaoh, Jacob, Joseph, Abraham, Isaac,
Canaan, Esau, Levi, Levite, Jordan, Abram, Reuben, Balaam, and Noah. The proper nouns
were searched in morphologically tagged databases in their respective languages (e.g.
ֹ , Μωυσῆς, and Moses). Searching on the twenty most common proper nouns yields
מֶשׁה
a high percentage (usually a majority) of the total number of appearances of all proper
nouns within any given biblical book.
34 These comparisons are somewhat problematic in that they assume that the texts created
by and available to Jerome are the same as those of the digital versions. Regarding the
Greek texts that were available to Jerome, in light of his numerous references to the lxx,
his numerous references to various Hexaplaric readings, and his knowledge of the Hexapla
in Caesarea, one may assume that Jerome would have had access to a broad range of
readings. See Dennis Brown, Vir Trilinguis, A Study in the Biblical Exegesis of Saint Jerome
(Kampen: Pharos, 1992), 55–62.
the vetus latina and the vulgate of the book of exodus 381
The first three columns contain the number of proper nouns appearing from
each frequency-set. The last two columns contain the percentage of proper
nouns in the Vulgate and the lxx as compared to those of the mt. Notice that
in the books translated earlier (i.e. groups one and two), Jerome has actually
increased the number of proper nouns when compared to the mt. In the case
of group two, Jerome may have done so under the influence of the lxx, which
also has a ratio of proper nouns in excess of 100% when compared to the mt.35
A sharp decline to 98% is seen when proceeding down to group three. Similarly
groups four and five see an even further decrease in seemingly redundant
proper nouns.
Narrowing our focus to individual books and limiting our analysis to books
containing substantial amounts of narrative, like Exodus, the following pres-
ents a further breakdown of the numbers:
35 The increased percentage of the Vg./mt score might be problematic for Kedar-Kopfstein’s
position that the Prophets were translated prior to Samuel and Kings. However, the
genre of the literature may be an influential factor in this regard (i.e. prose literature
might lend itself to such emendations more so than poetry). For data which supports
Kedar-Kopfstein’s position, see the distribution of ( בין … ביןabove) and David L. Ever-
son, “An Examination of Synoptic Portions within the Vulgate,” vt 58 (2008): 178–
190.
382 everson
(cont.)
Overall, the ratio of proper nouns in the Vulgate as compared to the mt sees
a steady decrease from one book to the next. Two unusual ratios are those of
Ezra and Genesis. Though Ezra was translated after both Samuel and Kings, it
contains a much higher ration of proper nouns. Considering the lxx’s similarly
high ratio, it may be that Jerome was influenced by his Greek copy of Ezra.
Though Jerome translated Genesis at an earlier period, its ratio of proper nouns
is considerably lower than the ratio for the remainder of the Pentateuch and for
Joshua and Judges.
Initial ויאמר. In Latin, it is normal for the verb to appear last within a given
sentence or phrase. Similarly, though it has greater freedom in this regard,
Greek normally does not place the verb first within a given sentence or phrase
in Greek.36 Of course, the reverse is true for Hebrew narrative. Accordingly,
there are countless opportunities for both the lxx and Jerome to create an
awkward or inelegant translation. Take, for example, the numerous verses that
begin with ויאמר. In his earlier translations, much like the lxx, Jerome regularly
rendered this phrase literally with the combination of et/-que + dixit, ait, or
respondit appearing at the start of the verse. However, as time passes, this
occurs less frequently:
36 See Herman Louis Ebeling, “Some Statistics on Word Order in Greek,” in Studies in Honor
of Basil L. Gildersleeve (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1902), 229–240.
the vetus latina and the vulgate of the book of exodus 383
According to this chart, Jerome awkwardly mimics the initial ויאמרmore fre-
quently in his earlier translations and less frequently in his later translations,
whereas the lxx consistently reflects a wooden literalism.
Parataxis. Within biblical Hebrew, it is normal to find parallel or unsubordi-
nated clauses joined by the word “and” within Hebrew narrative. That is, the
paratactic arrangement of waw-consecutive imperfect verbs is the predomi-
nant sequence. In the words of Robert Alter, “parataxis is the essential literary
vehicle of biblical narrative.”37 Such repetition of paratactic syntax would be
inelegant or awkward in Greek or Latin, where hypotaxis is more common.
Within the book of Exodus, the ol usually mimics the parataxis of the lxx,
whereas the Vg. regularly introduces hypotaxis by means of ut clauses, par-
ticipial clauses, and cum clauses. For example, in Exod 1:7, Jerome introduces a
participial clause while olL continues the sequence of et + perfect verb:
ויסעו מרפידים ויבאו מדבר סיני ויחנו במדבר ויחן־שם ישראל נגד ההרExod 19:2
(mt)
Exod 19:2 (Vg.) Nam profecti de Raphidim et pervenientes usque in
desertum Sinai castrametati sunt in eodem loco ibique Israhel fixit
tentoria e regione montis
Exod 19:2 (lxx) καὶ ἐξῆραν ἐκ Ραφιδιν καὶ ἤλθοσαν εἰς τὴν ἔρημον τοῦ Σινα
καὶ παρενέβαλεν ἐκεῖ Ισραηλ κατέναντι τοῦ ὄρους
Exod 19:2 (olM) Et profecti sunt in Rapidin et contulit se ibi Israel circa
montem
37 Robert Alter, Genesis: Translation and Commentary (New York: Norton, 1996), xvii.
384 everson
quence of verbs. Notice also that the ol and the lxx reflect a different Vorlage
than that of the Vg. and the mt. Notice as well that the variety of prepositions
used by Jerome versus the repetitive et/καὶ of the ol and lxx. Other examples
would include Vg., germinantes multiplicati sunt vs. olL, creuerunt et multipli-
cati sunt (Exod 1:7); Vg., quae concepit et peperit vs. olL, et habuit eam et concepit
(Exod 2:2); Vg., qui ostendit vs. olSb, et ostendit (Exod 15:25); Vg., ascendens …
operuit vs. olM, ascedit … et operuit (Exod 16:13); and Vg., cumque descendisset
… stetit vs. olL, et descendit … et astitit (Exod 34:5).
4 Conclusion
mt, we saw that Jerome deviates from the Hebrew with increasing frequency
over time. Finally, we observed the Vulgate’s unique preference for hypotaxis
over and against the parataxis of the lxx, the ol, and the mt. Thus, as the
years went by, having translated an ever-increasing number of Hebrew books,
Jerome’s confidence and proficiency with the Hebrew language resulted in freer
translations.
Select Bibliography
Brown, Dennis. Vir Trilinguis: A Study in the Biblical Exegesis of Saint Jerome. Kampen:
Kok, 1992.
Dietzfelbinger, Rudolf. “Die Vetus Latina des Buches Exodus: Studien zur handschrift-
lichen Überlieferung mit Edition von Kapitel 1.” Ph.D. diss., The University of Hei-
delberg, 1998.
Fischer, Bonifatius. Beiträge zur Geschichte der lateinischen Bibeltexte. Freiburg: Herder,
1986.
Graves, Michael. Jerome’s Hebrew Philology: A Study Based on his Commentary on Jere-
miah. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae: Texts and Studies of Early Christian Life
and Language 90. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Hagendahl, Harald. “Jerome and the Latin Classics.” Vigiliae Christianae 28 (1974):
216–227.
Kamesar, Adam. Jerome, Greek Scholarship, and the Hebrew Bible: A Study of the ‘Quaes-
tiones Hebraicae in Genesim.’ Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon, 1993.
Kamin, Sarah. “The Theological Significance of the Hebraica Veritas in Jerome’s
Thought.” Pages 243–253 in ‘Shaʾarei Talmon’: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the
Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon. Edited by Michael A. Fishbane
and Emanuel Tov. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1991.
Kedar-Kopfstein, Benjamin. “The Latin Translations.” Pages 299–338 in Mikra: Text,
Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and
Early Christianity. Edited by Martin Jan Mulder. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad
Novum Testamentum 2.1. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988.
. “The Vulgate as a Translation.” Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, 1968.
Kelly, J.N.D. Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies. London: Duckworth, 1975.
Klein, Samuel. “Targumische Elemente in der Deutung biblischer Ortsnamen bei Hie-
ronymus.” Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 83 (1939):
132–141.
Kraus, Matthew. “Hebraisms in the Old Latin Version of the Bible.” Vetus Testamentum
53 (2003): 487–513.
Kreuzer, Siegfried. “Towards the Old Greek: New Criteria for the Analysis of the Recen-
386 everson
sions of the Septuagint (Especially the Antiochene/Lucianic Text and Kaige Recen-
sion).” Pages 239–253 in xiii Congress of the International Organization for Septu-
agint and Cognate Studies, Ljubljana, 2007. Edited by Melvin K.H. Peters. Society of
Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 55. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2008.
Marcos, Natalio Fernández. “The Old Latin of Chronicles Between the Greek and the
Hebrew.” Page 123–136 in ix Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint
and Cognate Studies, Cambridge, 1995. Edited by Bernard A. Taylor. Society of Biblical
Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 45. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997.
Meerschoek, G.Q.A. Le latin biblique d’après saint Jérôme. Latinitas Christianorum Pri-
maeva 20. Nijmegen: Dekker & Van de Vegt, 1966.
Plater, W.E. and H.J. White. A Grammar of the Vulgate: Being an Introduction to the Study
of the Latinity of the Vulgate Bible. Oxford: Clarendon, 1926.
Ranke, E. Par palimpsestorum wirceburgensium. Antiquissimae Veteris Testamenti ver-
sionis latinae fragmenta. Wien: G. Braumüller, 1871.
Rebenich, Stefan. Jerome. The Early Church Fathers. London: Routledge, 2002.
Robert, U. Pentateuchi versio latina antiquissima e codice lugdunensi. Paris: Didot, 1881.
Sparks, H.F.D. “Jerome as Biblical Scholar.” Pages 510–541 in The Cambridge History of the
Bible, Volume 1: From the Beginnings to Jerome. Edited by P.R. Ackroyd and C.F. Evans.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.
Tkacz, Catherine Brown. “Labor tam Utilis: The Creation of the Vulgate.” Vigiliae Chris-
tianae 50 (1996): 42–72.
Ulrich, Eugene. “Characteristics and Limitations of the Old Latin Translations of the
Septuagint.” Pages 67–80 in La Septuaginta en la Investigacion contemporanea (V
Congreso de la ioscs). Edited by Natalio Fernández Marcos. Textos y estudios “Car-
denal Cisneros” de la Biblia Políglota Matritense 34. Madrid: Instituto “Arias Mon-
tano,” 1985.
Vercellone, C. Variae lectiones Vulgatae latinae Bibliorum editionis, tom. i. Rome: Spit-
höver, 1860.
Wevers, John Williams, ed. Exodus. Septuaginta 2.1. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ru-
precht, 1991.
Ziegler, Leo. Bruchstücke einer vorhieronymianischen Übersetzung des Pentateuch aus
einem Palimpseste der k. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek zu München. Munich: Theodor
Riedel, 1883.
The Exodus Theology of the Palestinian Targumim
Bruce Chilton
Targums are constellations of oral traditions and opportunities for those tradi-
tions to flourish in the context of the biblical text. Both features emerge clearly
in Aramaic renderings of Exod 12:42. The chapter in Hebrew invites liturgical
expansion.
The tightly paced narrative of events leading up to the departure from
Egypt transforms itself into a set of instructions for keeping pesach in Exod
12. These appear anachronistic when compared to the narrative that proceeds,
particularly when reference is made to separating the lamb on the tenth day of
the month, prior to the events recounted to that point (Exod 12:3).
Some Aramaic meturgemanin (translators) who rendered the Hebrew text
show themselves aware of the deliberate anachronism by enhancing it. As they
conveyed the chapter in their versions, that night which differs from all others
appears in a series of four nights.
By expanding a single night into four, the meturgemanin exploited the liturgical
anachronism of interrupting the flight from Egypt with extensive preparations
for Passover, and the annual observation of that night. Four Nights, all timed in
pascal terms, mark the deepest creativity of God.
As a literary move, the targumic addition is astute; theologically, it opens up
the commemoration of Passover as the central, liturgical celebration not only
of Israel’s departure from Egypt, but of creation, the covenant with Abraham,
and the coming of the Messiah. The theology of Exod 12:42 flowers into a
comprehensive account of the divine economy.
Treatments of this “Poem of the Four Nights,” as it is called (hereafter,
“Poem”), have often focused on the second night, because it includes reference
to the Aqedah, the Binding of Isaac, in Gen 22.1 But it may distort discussion if
we always begin with that issue. The Poem is a wide and elegant application
of what the paschal night (as Roger Le Déaut called it2) means, and its power
resides in its poetry more than in any single reference or references.
One of the Targumim, Neophyti, includes an early form of the Poem. The state
of that manuscript, as well as the development of the Targumim as a whole,
makes Neophyti suitable for a discussion of the Poem.3
Among the Targumim to the Pentateuch, Onqelos appears to correspond
best of all the Targumim to rabbinic ideals of translation. Although paraphrase
is evident, especially in order to describe God and his revelation in suitably
reverent terms, the high degree of correspondence with the Hebrew of the
Masoretic Text (and, presumably, with the Hebrew text current in antiquity)
is striking. But precisely because formal correspondence with the Hebrew text
is one of the purposes of Onqelos, it offers no “Poem of the Fourth Nights.”
The dialect of Onqelos is commonly called “Middle Aramaic,” which would
place the Targum between the first century bce and 200 ce. A better designa-
tion, however, would be “Transitional Aramaic” (200 bce–200 ce) embracing
the various dialects (Hasmonaean, Nabataean, Palmyrene, Arsacid, Essene, as
1 See Israel Lévi, “Le sacrifice d’Isaac et la mort de Jésus,”rej 64 (1912): 161–184; Hans J. Schoeps,
“The Sacrifice of Isaac in Paul’s Theology,” jbl 65 (1946): 385–392; Roy A. Rosenberg, “Jesus,
Isaac, and the ‘Suffering Servant,’ ” jbl 84 (1965): 381–388; Leopold Sabourin, “Aqeda Isaaci
et sacrifium paschale,” vd 44 (1966): 65–73 and, “Isaac and Jesus in the Targums and the
n.t.,” RelStTh 1 (1981): 37–45; J. Edwin Wood, “Isaac Typology in the New Testament,” nts 14
(1968): 583–589; Robert J. Daly, “The Soteriological Significance of the Sacrifice of Isaac,” cbq
39 (1977): 45–75; Bruce Chilton, “Isaac and the Second Night: A Consideration,” Bib 61 (1980):
78–88; Chilton, Targumic Approaches to the Gospels: Essays in the Mutual Definition of Judaism
and Christianity (Studies in Judaism; Lanham: University Press of America, 1986), 25–37; and
Edward Kessler, Bound by the Bible: Jews, Christians and the Sacrifice of Isaac (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2004).
2 Roger LeDéaut, La Nuit Pascale: Essai sur la signification de la Pâque juive à partir du Targum
d’Exode xii 42 (AnBib 22; Rome: Institut biblique pontifical, 1963). See also Pierre Grelot,
Joseph Pierron, Gilles Gourbillon, La nuit et les fêtes de Pâques (Évangile nouvelle série 21;
Paris: Ligue catholique de l’Évangile, 1956).
3 The few observations here offered on the Targums by way of orientation may be supple-
mented with reference to Paul V.M. Flesher and Bruce Chilton, The Targums. A Critical Intro-
duction (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2011).
the exodus theology of the palestinian targumim 389
well as targumic) that came to be used during the period, since what followed
was a strong regionalization in dialects of Aramaic, which we can logically refer
to as Regional Aramaic (200ce–700ce). Because it was transitional, various
Targumim were produced in Transitional Aramaic after its demise as a com-
mon language. For that reason, the year 200ce is not a firm date, after which a
Targum in Transitional Aramaic cannot have been composed. Onqelos should
probably be dated towards the end of the third century, in the wake of simi-
lar efforts to produce a literal Greek rendering during the second century, and
well after any strict construal of the principle that targumim were to be oral. By
contrast with the rabbinic ethos that permitted the creation and preservation
of Onqelos, one might recall the story of Rabbi Gamaliel, who is said during the
first century to have immured a Targum of Job in a wall of the Temple (Talmud
Shabbath 115a).
Targum Neophyti i was discovered in 1949 by Alejandro Díez Macho in
the Library of the Neophytes in Rome. The paraphrases of Neophyti are sub-
stantially different from those of Onqelos. Entire paragraphs are added, as
when Cain and Abel argue in the field prior to the first case of murder (Gen
4:8); such “renderings” are substantial additions, and it is impossible to pre-
dict when remarkable freedom of this kind is to be indulged. Supplemen-
tal material of this kind is usually considered aggadic (narrative) rather than
halakhic.
The dialect of Neophyti is known as “Palestinian Aramaic” (and was pro-
duced during the period of Regional Aramaic 200 ce–700ce), to distinguish it
from the “Babylonian Aramaic” of Onqelos. That distinction between “Pales-
tinian” and “Babylonian” manifests the nascent regionalization in the Aramaic
language to which we have referred. But Neophyti is produced in a frankly
Regional Aramaic, while Onqelos appears in a Transitional Aramaic that is on
the way to becoming Regional. Yet the chronology of the two Targums is about
the same, although Neophyti appears somewhat later; the differences between
them are a function more of program than dating. The rabbis of Babylonia, who
called Onqelos “our Targum” exerted greater influence there than did their col-
leagues in the West.
The latest representative of the type of expansive rendering found in Neo-
phyti is Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. Its reference to the names of Mohammed’s
wife and daughter in Gen 21:21 put its final composition sometime after the sev-
enth century ce. This oddly designated Targum is so called in that the name
“Jonathan” was attributed to it during the Middle Ages because its name was
abbreviated with a yod. But the letter probably stood for “Jerusalem,” although
that designation is also not established critically. The title “Pseudo-Jonathan”
is therefore an admission of uncertainty.
390 chilton
Four nights are written in the book of memories before the Master of
the world. The first night, when he was revealed to create the world; the
second, when he was revealed upon Abraham, the third, when he was
revealed in Egypt, and his hand slew all the firstborn of Egypt and his right
hand delivered the first born of Israel; the fourth, when he will be revealed
to redeem the people of the house of Israel from among the peoples, and
he called all of them nights of watching.
This version represents the structural integrity of the Poem, but shorn of the
messianic focus of the earlier version we will investigate.
Neophyti and Pseudo-Jonathan are to be associated with two other Targums,
or, to be more precise, groups of Targums. The first group, in chronological
order, consists of the Fragments of the Cairo Geniza. They were originally part of
more complete works, dating between the seventh and the eleventh centuries,
which were deposited in the Geniza of the Old Synagogue in Cairo. In the type
and substance of its interpretation, these Fragments are comparable to the
other Targums of the Palestinian type. The same may be said of the Fragments
4 This and all renderings are the author’s, based on the electronic Aramaic text available in
The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (hereafter, cal; available online: http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/;
accessed 1 August 2013). See Michael Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Exodus Translated
with Notes (ArBib 2; Collegeville: Liturgical, 1994), published in the same volume with the
translation of Neophyti. This publication eclipses the value of the much-cited rendering by
J.W. Etheridge, The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch, with the
fragments of the Jerusalem Targum from the Chaldee (New York: Ktav, 1968). Textual resources
include Ernest G. Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance
(New York: Ktav, 1984); Moses Ginsburger, Pseudo-Jonathan (Thargum Jonathan ben Usiel zum
Pentateuch) nach der Londoner Handschrift (Hildesheim: Olms, 1971 [1903]); Alexandro Díez
Macho with L. Díez Merino, E. Martínez Borobio, and Teresa Martínez Sáiz, Exodus editio
critica (Biblia polyglotta Matritensia Series iv, Targum Palaestinense in Pentateuchum L. 2;
Matriti: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1980).
the exodus theology of the palestinian targumim 391
Indeed there are four nights, which are written in the book of memories.
The first night, when the lord was revealed upon the world to create
it. And the world was without form and void and darkness spread on the
face of the deep. And the memra of the lord was light and illuminating.
And he called it the first night.
The second night, when the lord was revealed upon Abram, one
hundred years old, and Sarah his wife ninety years old at the time to
establish what scripture said, Will Abram one hundred years old beget
and Sarah his wife ninety years old bear? And Isaac was thirty-seven years
old when he was offered on the altar. The heavens bowed and descended
and Isaac saw their perfections and his eyes were weakened from their
perfections. And he called it the second night.
The third night when the lord was revealed upon the Egyptians in the
middle of the night. His hand was slaying the firstborn of the Egyptians
and his right hand was protecting the firstborn of Israel, so as to fulfill
5 Textual study of Neophyti has been greatly facilitated by the cal (see previous note), which
also provides concordance tools. See Michael L. Klein, Geniza Manuscripts of Palestinian Tar-
gum to the Pentateuch i (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1986); Martin McNamara
and Robert Hayward, eds., Targum Neofiti 1: Exodus Translated with Introduction and Appa-
ratus (ArBib 2; Collegeville: Liturgical, 1994); Stephen A. Kaufman and Michael Sokoloff, A
Key-Word-in-Context Concordance to Targum Neofiti (The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon;
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993); and Alejandro Díez Macho, Ms. Neophyti
1, Vol. ii Éxodo (Testos y Estudios 8; Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas,
1968).
392 chilton
that which was said in the Torah, Israel, they are my firstborn son. And he
called it the third night.
The fourth night, when the world will complete its end, for the world to
be redeemed. The yokes of iron will be broken and the generations of the
wicked will be destroyed. Moses will come up from the wilderness and
the King Messiah will come from Rome. This one will lead at the head of
the flock and that one will lead at the head of the flock, and his memra
will lead between both of them. And I and they shall proceed together.
That is the night of the Passover for the name of the lord, preserved and
prepared for the redemption of all Israel through their generations.
Although Neophyti presents a rich version of the Poem, with a keen sense of
structure, at some points comparative reference to other Targumim will prove
rewarding.
The greater length of the second and fourth night texts is an obvious feature of
the Poem, but that notable asymmetry is only striking in view of the compa-
rable features that link the whole together. Each night is built up from clearly
identified moments within the Torah.
The first night cites the opening of Genesis (1:2) with its reference to what
was “without form and void” and to “darkness spread on the face of the deep.”
Yet the identification of the memra, God’s word of command, as being the
“light” of Gen 1:3–4 is equally powerful, establishing that darkness was the
medium of the primordial creation. Then, by referring to both “light” and
“illuminating,” the meturgeman ties the memra6 to the theme of revelation. God
reveals in each of the nights, and the force of revelation lies both in what is done
and in the disclosure to people of what is done.
Although the second night text contains more biblical references than the
first night text, it seems that probably for reasons of balance Neophyti’s meturge-
man has omitted one reference. Both the Cairo Geniza tosefta and one of the
Fragments Targum (p 110, from Paris7) open the second night as when “the
6 The targumic tosefta from the Cairo Geniza reinforces this connection, by introducing memra
into the text of each of the nights. This is one of several indications that, although the
manuscript from the Geniza is earlier than Neophyti, Neophyti’s text is earlier.
7 Cited in Chilton, “Isaac and the Second Night,” 83. For the text, see Michael Klein, The
Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch (AnBib 76; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980); and cal.
the exodus theology of the palestinian targumim 393
memra of the lord was revealed between the pieces.” This was likely a part of
the text initially, since the reference to Gen 15:17 occurs in the darkness of night
(Gen 15:12), when the patriarch was still Abram and not yet Abraham. But those
connections, and a basic anchor of the covenant with Abraham, are overlooked
in Neophyti in order to proceed to another sacrificial moment, the Aqedah
of Isaac. Reference to Isaac is first achieved by recalling the ages of Abraham
and Sarah at the time he was conceived (Gen 17:17; 21:5). Their respective ages
also provide the key to the statement that Isaac was thirty-seven years old
when he was offered on Mount Moriah in Gen 22. After that scene closes, the
death of Sarah is reported, and her age is given as one hundred twenty-seven
years. So, Isaac’s age might be inferred from the reference, although his vision
is innovative and we will turn to that aggada at the same time we deal with
expansions relative to the biblical text in the fourth night text.
The third night text presents a much more compact group of references, all
to the events recounted in Exodus. By specifying the middle of the night, the
timing overlooked in the second night text in Neophyti is re-established and
a link with the night reference in Exodus 12:12 is forged. Further, so too is an
immediate transition made to the slaying of the Egyptian firstborn and the
sparing of the Israelites (Exod 12:12–13). This then is keyed to the identity of
Israel as the lord’s firstborn (Exod 4:22).
The fourth night text might appear to break the pattern of biblical reference,
until it is kept in mind that the Bible in the background is targumic. “Yokes of
iron” picks up the image that appears in a negative form in Deut 28:48 and Jer
28:13–14. But in the Isaiah Targum, in a phase available in the Tannaitic period,8
wherever the term “yoke” appears, it is broken—and an innovative use of the
term “messiah” also appears (see 9:4 with 9:6, 10:27, and 14:25 with 14:29). This
theme of messianic vindication is characteristic of the Isaiah Targum, and is
linked with the promise of the destruction of the wicked. In this case, it appears
that the meturgeman of Neophyti is invoking a targumic understanding of a
biblical image. The messiah is to break the yokes of iron.
Of particular interest to any exegesis of the Poem, the Isaiah Targum also
associates the messiah and the removal of the yoke of oppression with the
Passover. Before referring to disappearance of the oppressors’ yoke and the
destruction of the gentiles before the messiah in 10:27, the meturgeman of
Isaiah innovatively states that affliction will pass “as the mastery of Pharaoh
8 For the phasal analysis of the Isaiah Targum, with one phase in the Tannaitic and one in
the Amoraic period, see Bruce Chilton, The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenience
of the Isaiah Targum (JSOTSup 23; Sheffield: jsot Press, 1982); Chilton, The Isaiah Targum:
Introduction, Translation, Apparatus, and Notes (ArBib 11; Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1987).
394 chilton
passed from you at the sea” (Isaiah Targum 10:26). Neophyti reflects a connec-
tion between the image of the yoke of iron and the messianic vindication it
celebrates in the fourth night text.
Yet, even granting that the orbit of what is considered “biblical” needs to be
widened to include targumic interpretation, the fourth night text is clearly not
biblical in the sense that the third is, or the first. It is more like the second,
although even freer; and, like the second night text, we need to reckon with
associations with other forms of Rabbinic literature in order to understand the
meaning and force of the Poem.
In the previous volume in this series, I dealt with the issue of Gen 22 in its pre-
sentation within Targum Neophyti.9 The Aqedah belongs to an understanding
of Gen 22 in the mind of the meturgeman as much as the messiah belongs to the
image of breaking the yoke from the people of Israel. But the particular exten-
sions that the Poem brings to the understanding of Gen 22 are striking. First, as
observed implicitly above, the events on Moriah become more important than
the sacrifice of Abraham in Gen 15. The offering of Isaac therefore becomes the
supreme moment of covenantal confirmation.
The ages of Abraham and Sarah, the first concern addressed in Neophyti’s
version of the Poem carries the valence of underscoring the exceptional nature
of Isaac’s birth, but also the insistence in Genesis that it must be through Isaac
that the promise to Abraham shall be fulfilled (Gen 17:19). By focusing on the
issue, then, the meturgeman makes the Aqedah into the pivot of the covenant
between God and Abraham.
The aggada that Isaac was thirty-seven years old at the time of the Aqedah
features into the same chronological concern, but also extends into another
dimension of meaning. Here Neophyti alludes to the presentation of Isaac in
the midrash Genesis Rabbah (56.8). In the midrash, Isaac is settled in his mind
about his fate, and is old enough to study Torah. In some versions of Gen 22,
Isaac dies on Moriah, and during the three days before God raised him, he
learns Torah from Shem, the son of Noah, in a heavenly academy.10 Neophyti’s
9 Bruce Chilton, “Genesis in Aramaic: The Example of Chapter 22,” in The Book of Genesis:
Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (VTSup 152; ed. Craig A. Evans, Joel N. Lohr, and
David L. Petersen; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 495–518.
10 See Martin McNamara, “Melchizedek: Genesis 14, 17–20 in the Targums, in Rabbinic and
Early Christian Literature,” Bib 81 (2000): 1–31.
the exodus theology of the palestinian targumim 395
Aqedah has Isaac see the angels surrounding the scene (which they also do in
Genesis Rabbah), but Abraham is privileged with that vision only to the extent
of the reflection in Isaac’s eyes.
With or without a precise knowledge of all or some of these midrashic tra-
ditions, the meturgeman of Neophyti advances the portrayal of Isaac’s sanctity.
Instead of seeing a vision of angels (as in Neophyti Genesis) and going to the
heavenly academy, the heavens in Neophyti’s Poem are lowered down so that
Isaac can see their perfections. Perfection, of course, is not designed for human
sight, and this is the same book that insists that no human may see God’s face
(Exod 33:20). From this emerges the explanation of Isaac’s blindness later in life
(Gen 27:1).
The linkage with Isaac’s age and the year of his mother’s death also has
a darker side. Some midrashim factor Sarah into the Aqedah of traditional
Judaism—although she is excluded from the biblical text of Gen 22—in order
to criticize Abraham explicitly. After speaking of the events on Moriah, Gen
23:1–2 reports with only incidental explanation that Sarah died. A classic mid-
rash, Leviticus Rabbah, makes what Abraham did responsible for her death. At
the same time, this interpretation embeds the story in the commemoration of
the New Year, when the ram’s horn, the shofar, is to be blown as the Aqedah is
remembered.
In the midrash contained in Leviticus Rabbah,11 Isaac returns home after
the Aqedah and tells his mother what happened on Moriah. Despairing and
bewildered, she asks, “Had it not been for the angel you would have been slain?”
When Isaac confirms that, the scene becomes searing: “Then she uttered six
cries, corresponding to the six blasts of the shofar. It is said, She had barely
finished speaking when she died.” Absent from Mount Moriah, Sarah is the only
parent emotionally present to her son, and the ram’s horn that is blown every
new year conveys her grief. Every time the shofar sounds, those who are aware
of this midrash remember both Sarah’s love and Abraham’s hardness of heart.
Not content with this overt preference of Sarah to Abraham in terms of moral
integrity and basic humanity, this midrash goes on to caricature Abraham as a
compulsive sacrificer. Posing the question of where Abraham had been prior to
the burial of Sarah, Leviticus Rabbah goes on:
Where did he come from? Rabbi Judah son of Rabbi Shimon said, He came
from Mount Moriah. Abraham harbored doubts in his heart and thought,
11 See Leviticus Rabbah 20.2 in The Midrash Rabbah: Leviticus (trans. Judah J. Slotki; ed.
H. Freedman and Maurice Simon; London: Soncino, 1977).
396 chilton
Perhaps some disqualifying blemish was found in him and his offering
was not accepted.
So while his wife has just died of grief at the realization of his heartlessness,
Abraham is still caught up with the impulse to kill Isaac after God has told him
to stop threatening his son’s life.
Abraham is stuck in his understanding before the angelic intervention in this
midrash, fretting that his child wasn’t pure enough to be sacrificed instead of
rejoicing that the son of the covenant had been spared by divine compassion.
Sarah wasn’t there, but she understands what Abraham cannot grasp, even after
a divine vision and voice had shown him the truth. The insight that the impulse
to sacrifice his son came from the patriarch himself, rather than from God, links
the interpreter who composed this midrash in Leviticus Rabbah directly with
Muslim interpreters.12
This revisionist reading of the Aqedah, however, does not appear to be conso-
nant with the Poem. Rather, as in Genesis Rabbah, the Aqedah is the covenantal
moment, the pivot of Abraham’s faithfulness. Treatments of Isaac’s offering
along these lines, and perhaps the Four Nights itself, may help to explain how
Christian typology thrived to the extent that it did during the second century.
Melito, the second-century bishop of Sardis, is of particular interest because his
writing On the Pascha was popular, intended for public recitation at the time
of the nocturnal paschal celebration of Easter. He argued, in an eloquent but
inaccurate folk etymology, that the term paskha (that is, Passover, when Chris-
tians celebrated the resurrection of Jesus), which transliterates Aramaic pis-
cha in Greek, derived from the Greek verb meaning to suffer, paskhein. Melito
expressed the idea with a poetic eloquence that won him many admirers in his
own time and later.
Melito’s evocation of the suffering of Christ13 as the very meaning both of
the crucifixion and the Scriptures of Israel helps explain why the image of the
12 A topic explored in Bruce Chilton, Abraham’s Curse: Child Sacrifice in the Legacies of the
West (New York: Doubleday, 2008), 143–170.
13 See Stuart J. Hall, Melito of Sardis, Peri Pascha and Fragments (oect; Oxford: Clarendon,
1979). Editorial work in this case is particularly important, since the textual evidence is
fragmentary.
the exodus theology of the palestinian targumim 397
Suffering Servant from Isaiah and of Isaac on Moriah was so easily identified
with Jesus in early Christianity (On Passover 46–69):
Recitations of this kind made the image of Jesus being bound with Isaac so
well known that the Fathers could refer to it in passing with the assurance that
the image would be understood and appreciated. Melito had already taught
Christians to “Learn therefore who is the Suffering One, and who shares the
suffering of the Suffering One,” so well that they could readily understand they
were to be new Isaacs, following the example of the One who had completed
the sacrifice of Isaac. That was key to his argument that, while Jesus was bound
by his executioners as Isaac was, and carried his cross as Isaac brought the wood
for sacrifice, Jesus suffered and completed the paschal offering, while Isaac did
not.
Argument as to the direction of influence between Christian depictions of
Christ’s sacrifice and Judaic depictions of Isaac’s are less important than the
398 chilton
fact of their conversation, not only concerning Gen 22, but its connection to
the Passover. Melito, precisely in setting out a rejoinder to the meaning of the
paschal feast, may help us to date the usage of materials such as the Poem.
14 See Bruce Chilton, “Typologies of Memra and the Fourth Gospel,” Targum Studies 1 (1992)
89–100; and Chilton, Judaic Approaches to the Gospels (isfcj 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1994), 177–201.
the exodus theology of the palestinian targumim 399
noun memra from the infinitive memar. So, in the Targumim as in Justin,
the memra/logos is the act of speaking, while Spirit of prophecy/prophetic
Spirit is the power of speech. Justin can be bold in his application of the
possibilities these usages offer precisely because they are so widely agreed as
to be axiomatic.
Targum Neophyti develops particular emphases in its deployment of the
term memra. It is named from Gen 1 as what “created and perfected the heavens
and the earth” (Neophyti Genesis 1:1).15 The resulting perfection, of course, is
what Isaac will see in the second night text. Alongside this vigorous theology
of the memra as primordially creative, Neophyti also portrays it as the object
of worship and prayer. In Gen 12:8 of Neophyti, Abram builds an altar, not
merely to the lord, but to “the name of the memra of the lord,” and Neophyti
specifies that Abram “worshipped and prayed” there, where the Hebrew text
speaks of his calling on the name of the lord. Both such usages are instanced
in other Targumim; their deployment in Neophyti prepares the ground for the
Poem.
The covenant with Abram is revealed by means of the memra in Neophyti
Genesis 17:1–4, and it involves his service as well as God’s promise to strengthen
Abram. This sense of memra as a conduit of divine power and of human
worship at one and the same time comes to clear expression in Neophyti, and
establishes the usage by the time the Poem appears. After all, in Neophyti, the
lord promises that his memra will never to depart from Jacob, that is, Israel
(Neophyti Genesis 28:15). In fact, memra appears twice in that key promise, in
the first case the lord says that he will be present “in my memra.” The deep
connection between Israel and God through the memra is clearly articulated. In
Exodus, Neophyti specifies the memra as the medium of revelation to Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob (Neophyti Exodus 6:3).
This pattern of usage sets the stage for the promise in Exodus that “my
memra will be to you a redeemer God, and you shall know that I am the
lord your God who redeemed and brought you out from beneath the yoke
of the servitude of the Egyptians” (Neophyti Exodus 6:7). As in other Targums,
memra can therefore appear as an agent of divine punishment in order to make
Israel’s vindication possible, but in the case of Neophyti the association with the
destruction of the Egyptians is of particular concern: “I will pass in my memra
through the land of Egypt this night” (Neophyti Exodus 12:12). Their destruction
15 For a discussion of the textual difficulties, and the reasons for accepting the reading
“memra” here (which is in any case repeated throughout the chapter), see McNamara and
Hayward, Exodus, 52.
400 chilton
16 See Martin McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis Translated, with Apparatus and Notes
(ArBib 1a; Collegeville: Liturgical, 1992), 7–9.
the exodus theology of the palestinian targumim 401
“to him shall all the kingdoms be subject” (Neophyti Genesis 49:10). This theme
of subjection is adumbrated through the figure of Abram in Neophyti Genesis
15 (as observed above). But the terms in which the messiah is described in
the following verse of Gen 49 in Neophyti’s rendering make the description
in the Poem appear tame in comparison: “He girds his loins and goes forth
to war against those that hate him; and he kills kings with rulers and makes
the mountains red from the blood of their slain and makes the valleys white
from the fat of their warriors. His garments are rolled in blood, like a presser of
grapes” (Neophyti Genesis 49:11–12).
The vigorous militancy of the messiah is evidently a proud feature of Neo-
phyti. At the same time, this Targum is also explicit in its antipathy to Rome,
the enemy that must be defeated for Israel to be vindicated. In Gen 15, the
same chapter that portrays Abram as a military victor, Neophyti identifies the
impure birds that came upon the sacrifice as the “kingdoms of the earth” that
conspire against Israel (Neophyti Genesis 15:11). In a dream, Abram also sees the
four kingdoms that are to arise against his progeny: Babylonia, Media, Greece,
and Edom. The last of the four, a well-known cipher for Rome, is characterized
as “the wicked that shall fall and not rise again” (Neophyti Genesis 15:12). This
interpretation of Abram’s sleep also appears in Genesis Rabbah (44.17), rein-
forcing the connections already observed between its traditions and Neophyti’s.
There as in Neophyti, Edom is nothing other than Rome.
When the Poem portrays the messiah as coming from Rome, it is a sensi-
ble image of his necessary defeat of a hated adversary as preliminary to the
comprehensive vindication of Israel. In the Babylonian Talmud (Sanh. 98a) a
teaching of Joshua ben Levi associates the messiah with Rome, and that ref-
erence is often cited in discussions of the Poem. Although it does establish a
connection of the messiah with Rome during the Amoraic period, the anti-
Roman militancy that Neophyti attests is a much more significant context.
Rome’s impurity is also represented in Leviticus Rabbah 13:5. Here four un-
clean animals (the camel, the rock badger, the hare, and the pig) are the same
kingdoms already discussed, with Rome at the end. In this case, however, as
Jacob Neusner has shown, Rome is explicitly the last such rule, because the
kingdom will belong to the lord once Rome passes.17
So considerable was the militancy and cosmological significance of the mes-
siah that the meturgeman of Neophyti faced a difficulty. An earlier, Tannaitic
17 Jacob Neusner, The Emergence of Judaism (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004),
35–38. See also Misgav Har-Peled, The Dialogical Beast: The Identification of Rome with the
Pig in Early Rabbinic Literature (Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University, 2013), 168–176.
402 chilton
conception had indeed portrayed the messiah as a victor, but also as an adher-
ent to the Torah. Over time, an Amoraic conception saw the messiah increas-
ingly as a teacher, whose success in promoting obedience to the Torah would
bring about Israel’s vindication.18 The anti-Roman sentiment of the meturge-
man of Neophyti, however, demanded a more aggressive king, and the meturge-
man prepared the way for his description in the Poem, as we have seen. But the
Torah still had its advocate, in Moses himself. He and the messiah are paired
in their functions of leadership, although they lead in different ways, and each
is identified with his biblical task of shepherding, which links Moses (see Exod
3:1) and David (see 1Sam 16:11) in their tending flocks.
On the understanding that the four nights are all celebrated together, Pass-
over will see the messianic redemption of Israel, as well as the creation, the
Aqedah, and the exodus. As early as the Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael (Pisha 1419),
the pascal night was eschatological: “On that night they were redeemed and on
that night they are going to be redeemed, the words of Rabbi Joshua, as it is
said, that is a night of the lord’s watching.”
In another innovative reading, at the start of Exod 12:42 Neophyti sets out the
meaning of the nights: they are not merely “to the lord” but “for redemption
to the name of the Lord.” Redemption in its ancient sense, a sacrificial replace-
ment that sees vindicated celebration but also either excludes or annihilates
those opposed,20 is a leading concept that emerges within the exegetical frame-
work of Targum Neophyti. Its Poem is not an outlier, or a careless appendage,
but a component of a comprehensive reading of the Torah.
Neophyti 1 embeds the Poem in an exegetical framework21 that coordinates
the presentation within the Targum in a way that is consistent with Amoraic
theology. Its unusual, vigorous assertion of the messiah’s power and his rela-
tionship to Moses is explicable on that basis.
Select Bibliography
Gregory E. Sterling
The book of Exodus has played a significant role in many contexts, including
political contexts. For example, when the United States was first establishing
its identity, Benjamin Franklin proposed that the seal of America should be an
image of Moses with his rod lifted high over the Egyptian army drowning in
the Red Sea. Thomas Jefferson was less martial and preferred a picture of the
Israelites in the wilderness led by the pillars of cloud and fire. The power of
the story of the exodus has been used by many to oppose oppression including
civil right activists in the United States, black leaders in South Africa under
apartheid, and liberation theologians in South America.1
The book has been particularly important for Jews who celebrate the story
of the exodus annually at Passover. It was—as we will see—important for
Philo of Alexandria, but how did he interpret it? What did Exodus mean for
the most prolific commentator on the Pentateuch in Second Temple Judaism
who cited or alluded to the book more than any other biblical book apart from
Genesis?2 What did Exodus mean for an ancient Jew who—rather than fleeing
Egypt—made Egypt his home? In fact, Philo not only resided in Egypt but was
proud of his home city of Alexandria.3 What did it mean for the lead delegate on
an embassy to Gaius to defend the Jewish community against the accusations
of Alexandrian intellectuals?4 What did it mean for a thinker whose intellectual
commitment to Platonism was only exceeded by his commitment to Moses?5
Philo knew Exodus as a distinct scroll within the Pentateuch and knew a
Greek name for the scroll. The biblical commentator wrote: “The hierophant
1 A helpful collection of the sources for these references is Michael Walzer, Exodus and Revolu-
tion (New York: Basic Books, 1985), 3–6.
2 See below. Philo cited or alluded to Genesis 4,303x; Exodus 1,755x. The next closest book is
Deuteronomy at 834x.
3 On Philo’s relationship to his home city see David T. Runia, “Philo, Alexandrian and Jew,”
in Exegesis and Philosophy: Studies on Philo of Alexandria (vcss 332; Hampshire: Variorum,
1990), 1–18; and Sarah Pearce, “Belonging and not Belonging: Local Perspectives in Philo of
Alexandria,” in Jewish Local Patriotism and Self-identification in the Graeco-Roman Period (ed.
Siân Jones and Sarah Pearce; JSPSup 31; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 79–105.
4 So Josephus, Ant. 18.259–260.
5 On the relationship between the two in Philo see Gregory E. Sterling, “Platonizing Moses:
Philo and Middle Platonism,” SPhA 5 (1993): 96–111.
(Moses) quite appropriately entitled one entire sacred book of the legislation
Exodus (Ἐξαγωγή), having found a name appropriate to the oracles it con-
tains.”6 Interestingly, Philo called the book Ἐξαγωγή rather than Ἔξοδος. He
used ἔξοδος to describe the journey out of Egypt, but elected not to use it as
the title for the book.7 Naomi Cohen suggested that Philo was influenced by
the play of Ezekiel the Tragedian entitled Ἐξαγωγή.8 Cohen’s suggestion is quite
possible since Philo did appear to know and use Ezekiel’s play.9 Further, Philo is
the only author whom we know called the scroll by Ἐξαγωγή: all other ancient
witnesses to the name use Ἔξοδος in various forms.10 It may well be that Philo
elected to give the name of the book the cognate that reflects the dramatic or
literary title that he knew.
If he gave a unique name to the book, did he understand it in an unusual
way? How did Exodus function in his writings? In order to answer this, we will
explore the use of Exodus in his writings by working from the broadest level
down to the smallest. We will return to our larger questions in our conclusions.
Philo wrote more than seventy treatises, although not all of these have come
down to us.11 His corpus may be divided into five subgroups. The bulk belong
6 Philo, Migr. 14. See also Her. 14, 251; and Somn. 1.117, where Philo used the title to introduce
a citation from Exodus: Her. 14 (Exod 14:14), 251 (Exod 19:18); and Somn. 1.117 (Exod 10:23).
On Philo’s knowledge of the names of biblical books see Helmut Burchardt, Die Inspiration
heiliger Schriften bei Philo von Alexandrien (2d ed.; Basil: Brunner Verlag Giessen, 1992),
73–74; and Naomi G. Cohen, “The Names of the Separate Books of the Pentateuch in Philo’s
Writings,” SPhA 9 (1997): 54–78, esp. 58–61; and Cohen, Philo’s Scriptures: Citations from the
Prophets and Writings: Evidence for a Haftarah Cylce in Second Temple Judaism (JSJSup 123;
Leiden: Brill, 2007), 25–53.
7 Philo used ἔξοδος 20x, 10x for the journey from Egypt: Migr. 15, 151; Her. 273; Mos. 1.105, 122,
268; 2.248; Hypoth. 8.6.1, 2, 5.
8 Cohen, “The Names of the Separate Books of the Pentateuch in Philo’s Writings,” 58–61;
and Cohen, Philo’s Scriptures, 29–33. The title of Ezekiel’s work was mentioned by Poly-
histor (Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.28.12 = frg. 13) and Clement, Strom. 1.23.55.1 (= frg. 1a). I have
used the edition of Carl R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Volume 2:
Poets (sbltt 30; sblps 12; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989).
9 See Gregory E. Sterling, “From the Thick Marshes of the Nile to the Throne of God: Ezekiel
the Tragedian in Philo of Alexandria,” SPhA 26 (2014): 115–133.
10 See John W. Wevers, Exodus (Septuaginta 2.1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991),
65, who lists 21 variations of the inscriptio: all use ἔξοδος.
11 Unless otherwise noted, I have used the standard edition of Leopold Cohn et al., eds.,
406 sterling
to the three commentary series that he wrote: the Questions and Answers on
Genesis and the Questions and Answers on Exodus, the Allegorical Commentary,
and the Exposition of the Law.12 While the names for the three series are later
conventions, the design and literary integrity of each series is Philonic. Philo
signaled the literary integrity of each series in multiple ways: he used Scripture
quite differently in each series (see below) and, in the Allegorical Commentary
and Exposition of the Law, linked the treatises together through secondary
prefaces.13 We may group the other treatises into two subgroups, apologetic
treatises and philosophical treatises, although these groupings are strictly for
the purposes of analyzing the corpus as a whole. The groupings do not have the
literary unities that the three commentary series have.14
The Commentary Series. It is important to note the different ways that Philo
handled the biblical text in his writings in order to appreciate his treatment
of Exodus. The Questions and Answers are a running zetematic commentary
on Gen 2:4–28:9 and Exod 12:2–23; 20:25; 22:1–28:4 that pose questions and
then offer answers, first on the literal level and then on the allegorical level.
Philo cited the text in the questions and, on rare occasions, cited other bibli-
Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt (7 vols.; Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1896–1930; 2d ed.;
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1962).
12 There are a number of excellent introductions to the series. I have summarized my own
assessment in several places including: “The Interpreter of Moses: Philo of Alexandria and
the Biblical Text,” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism (ed. Matthias
Henze; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 413–433; and “When the Beginning is the End:
The Place of Genesis in the Commentaries of Philo,” in The Book of Genesis: Composition,
Reception, and Interpretation (ed. Craig A. Evans, Joel N. Lohr, and David L. Petersen; VTSup
152; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 427–446, esp. 428–437.
13 Secondary prefaces summarize the previous scroll and introduce the current scroll. They
serve as bridges between scrolls in a multi-scroll work. See my “The Place of Genesis in the
Commentaries of Philo,” 433, for details. Six of the treatises in the Allegorical Commentary
have secondary prefaces: Plant. 1; Ebr. 1; Sobr. 1; Her. 1; Fug. 2; and Somn. 1.1. All of the
prefaces in the Exposition of the Law have secondary prefaces except Mos. that introduces
the series as a whole and Opif. that is the first scroll in the series. See Abr. 1–6; Ios. 1; Decal.
1; Spec. 1.1; 2.1; 3.7; 4.1, 132–135 (for Virt.); Praem. 1–2.
14 For a summary see Gregory E. Sterling, “Philo,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010): 1063–1070. For more thorough introductions to Philo’s
writings see Jenny Morris, “The Jewish Philosopher Philo,” in Emil Schürer, The History of
the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (rev. and ed. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and
Martin Goodman; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: t&t Clark, 1973–1987), 3.2:809–889, esp. 819–870; as
well as James R. Royse, “The Works of Philo,” in The Cambridge Companion to Philo (ed.
Adam Kamesar; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 32–64.
the people of the covenant or the people of god 407
cal texts in his answers.15 The Allegorical Commentary probably came after the
Questions and Answers, although the relationship is a point of dispute among
scholars and is not entirely clear.16 The Allegorical Commentary, like the Ques-
tions and Answers, is a running commentary on Genesis 2:1–18:2. While Philo
used questions in his exegesis, he approached the text quite differently.17 Philo
began each unit by citing the primary biblical lemma. A treatise may have a
single biblical lemma or several; the length of each lemma can vary from a half
verse18 to a brief paragraph.19 Philo then interpreted the biblical lemma word by
word or phrase by phrase. The interpretations are allegorical and incorporate
secondary and even tertiary lemmata on which Philo commented. The connec-
tions between the lemmata are frequently made via catchwords or thematic
similarities.20 The layers of commentary—primary, secondary, and tertiary—
and the sophistication of Philo’s allegorical interpretations make the Allegor-
ical Commentary challenging reading. The Exposition of the Law is different
15 On secondary lemmata in the qg and qe see David T. Runia, “Secondary Texts in Philo’s
Quaestiones,” in Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and
Answers on Genesis and Exodus (ed. David M. Hay; bjs 232; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991),
47–79, who provided a list of 100 instances (see 77–79).
16 Maren R. Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2011), 152–168, esp. 163–168, argued that qg and qe reflect
a more advanced stage in the development of Philo’s relationship to his audiences than
the Allegorical Commentary. I have earlier argued that a redaction critical analysis of qg 1
and the treatises in the Allegorical Commentary suggest that qg preceded the Allegorical
Commentary. See Gregory E. Sterling, “Philo’s Quaestiones: Prolegomena or Afterthought?”
in Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on
Genesis and Exodus (ed. David M. Hay; bjs 232; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 99–123.
Abraham Terian argued for the priority of the Quaestiones based on cross-references
in “The Priority of the Quaestiones among Philo’s Exegetical Commentaries,” in Both
Literal and Allegorical, 29–46, although James R. Royse, “Did Philo Publish His Works?”
SPhA 25 (2013): 75–100, esp. 88–99, has recently challenged some of Terian’s internal
cross-references.
17 Philo frequently offered answers in the Allegorical Commentary to questions raised in qg,
e.g., qg 1.1 and Leg. 1.19–20; qg 1.2 and Leg. 1.22–24; qg 1.4 and Leg. 1.31–32; qg 1.6 and Leg.
1.45. For details see Sterling, “Prolegomena or Afterthought?,” 112–115.
18 E.g., Agr. deals with Gen 9:20a and Plant. with Gen9:20b.
19 E.g., Migr. deals with Gen 12:1–4, 6.
20 For an analysis of a treatise see David T. Runia, “The Structure of Philo’s Allegorical Treatise
De Agricultura,” SPhA 22 (2010): 87–109, esp. 99–108. I would qualify Runia’s treatment
by noting that there are some examples of tertiary lemmata, a view that he and his
student Albert Geljon have adopted in their recent commentary, Philo of Alexandria On
Cultivation: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (pacs 4; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 10–16.
408 sterling
again. In his last major commentary series, Philo typically paraphrased the bib-
lical text and then offered a commentary on it.21 He did not routinely cite the
biblical text in lemmata as he did in the Allegorical Commentary or use ques-
tions that incorporated citations as he did in the Questions and Answers. The
work is not a running commentary on a section of text, but a comprehensive
treatment of the entire Pentateuch, arranged in three central parts: creation,
the historical narrative, and the legislation.22
Commentaries on Exodus. How important was Exodus within these three
commentary series? We begin by considering how many treatises Philo devoted
to Exodus in his commentaries. Unfortunately, most of the Questions and Ans-
wers have been lost: we have some of the work in a literal sixth century Arme-
nian translation23 and fragments of the original Greek.24 The loss of the original
Greek has resulted in a loss of the structure of the text. The Armenian has four
books on Genesis and two on Exodus. However, this does not appear to reflect
the original structure for either Genesis or Exodus. For example, Eusebius
mentioned five books on Exodus in his catalogue of Philo’s works in the Epis-
copal library in Caesarea.25 Ralph Marcus suggested that both the Questions
21 Philo’s practice of paraphrasing the biblical text led Peder Borgen to call his commentaries
rewritten Bible (Philo of Alexandria, An Exegete for His Time [NovTSup 86; Leiden: Brill,
1997], 46–79, esp. 63–79). Since Philo added commentary to his paraphrases, I would prefer
to say that he used the technique of rewritten Bible in the Exposition of the Law rather
than to call it rewritten Bible. It is still a commentary.
22 He gave us a plan for the Exposition on three occasions. The first two texts suggested that
he would work with two major sections: historical and legislative (Mos. 2.45–47; Abr. 2–5).
In his final statement, Philo separated out creation and divided the Pentateuch into three
parts: creation, historical narrative, and legislation (Praem. 1–3).
23 The Armenian text is available in Johannes Baptista Aucher, Judaei paralipomena Armena
(Libri videlicet quottuor In Genesin, libri duo In Exodum, sermo unus De Sampsone, alter De
Jona, tertius De tribus angelis Abraamo apparentibus): Opera hactenus inedita (Ex Armena
verione antiquissima ab ipso originali textu Graeco ad verum stricte exequuta saeculo v. nunc
primum in Latium fideliter translata [Venice: S. Lazarus, 1826]).
24 On the Greek fragments see Françoise Petit, Quaestiones in Genesim et in Exodum: Frag-
menta graeca (opa 33; Paris: Cerf, 1978). For additional Greek fragments on qe see James
R. Royse, “Further Greek Fragments of Philo’s Quaestiones,” in Nourished with Peace: Stud-
ies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel (ed. Frederick E. Greenspahn, Earle
Hilgert, and Burton L. Mack; Chico: Scholars Press, 1984), 143–153, esp. 151–152; Royse,
“Philo’s Quaestiones in Exodum 1,6,” in Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of
Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus (ed. David M. Hay; bjs 232;
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 17–27; and Royse, “Philo of Alexandria, Quaestiones in Exo-
dum 2.62–68: Critical Edition,” SPhA 24 (2012): 1–68.
25 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.18.5.
the people of the covenant or the people of god 409
and Answers on Genesis and the Questions and Answers on Exodus corresponded
to the parashiyyot or weekly reading cycles of the Babylonian lectionary.26 If
Marcus is correct, there were six books in the original Questions and Answers
on Exodus.27 Whether there were five or six, roughly half of the Questions and
Answers were devoted to Exodus.
The Allegorical Commentary was based exclusively on Genesis; there are no
treatises devoted to Exodus.
It is much more difficult to determine which books in the Exposition of the
Law were devoted to Exodus since it was structured thematically. It is clear
that On the Creation and the Lives of Abraham, Isaac (lost), Jacob (lost), and
Joseph were based on Genesis. On the Decalogue is based on Exodus. Like the
later rabbis, Philo used the ten commandments as headings to group the other
laws (On the Special Laws, 4 vols.). We could say that these treatises have a
basis in Exodus—although the same could be said for Leviticus, Numbers,
and Deuteronomy—but are not based on Exodus, i.e., they are not running
commentaries on Exodus. The same can be said for the collection of laws
under the headings of virtues (On the Virtues). The final work, On Rewards
and Punishments, is based on Moses’ farewell discourse in Deuteronomy. The
work which most closely follows Exodus is the two volume introduction to
the Exposition, The Life of Moses. The first volume is the closest thing that we
have to a running commentary on Exodus in the Exposition, while the second
volume is structured thematically.
There were 59 treatises in the three commentary series as we can reconstruct
them. Of these 59, 43 or 73% were based on Genesis, while 8 or 14% were based
on Exodus (qe 1–6; Mos. 1; and Decal.) and another 6 or 10% have a basis in
Exodus (Mos. 2; Spec. 1–4; Virt.). While Exodus pales in comparison to Genesis
in terms of the number of commentaries based on it, it is the second most
frequently commented on book by Philo. The only other work to receive a
commentary is Deuteronomy (Praem).
There is one other work that deserves to be mentioned, Philo’s Hypothetica,
an apologetic work that assumes the story of Exodus but does not provide a
commentary on it (see below).
26 Ralph Marcus in Francis Henry Colson, George Herbert Whitaker, and Ralph Marcus,
eds., Philo (10 vols. with 2 supplementary vols; lcl; Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1929–1962), Sup 1:xiii–xv.
27 For details see James R. Royse, “The Original Structure of Philo’s Quaestiones,” SPhilo 4
(1976–1977): 41–78; Royse, “Philo’s Division of His Works into Books,” SPhA 13 (2001): 59–85,
esp. 76–85; and Royse, “The Works of Philo,” 34–38.
410 sterling
Number of
Biblical book citations or allusions
Genesis 4,303
Exodus 1,755
Leviticus 737
Numbers 586
Deuteronomy 834
This confirms the primacy of Genesis and the secondary importance of Exodus
for Philo.
There is, however, an interesting dimension that should not be overlooked.
We would expect that Philo would make more use of Exodus in the Exposition
of the Law than he did in the Allegorical Commentary since the Exposition
had two works based on Exodus29 and six that had a basis in it.30 Here are the
counts.31
28 The counts are based on the work of J. Allenbach et al., eds., Biblia Patristica. Supplément:
Philon d’Alexandrie (Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1982). For more
details see Sterling, “When the Beginning is the End,” 436–438.
29 Mos. 1 and Decal.
30 Mos. 2; Spec. 1–4; and Virt.
31 See Appendix 1.
the people of the covenant or the people of god 411
The fascinating aspect of this count is that there are almost as many citations
and allusions to Exodus in the Allegorical Commentary as there are in the Expo-
sition of the Law. It is true that there are nineteen treatises and an additional
fragment extant for the Allegorical Commentary,32 while there are only twelve
extant for the Exposition of the Law. Still, it is impressive that there are as many
citations and allusions to Exodus in the Allegorical Commentary as there are.
32 Leg. 1–2 (= Leg. 1 out of 4 original treatises), Gig. and Deus were originally one treatise; and
De Deo is only extant as a fragment.
412 sterling
It means that Exodus played a significant role in Philo’s writing of his Gene-
sis commentary. Genesis may have been the focal point of his work, but Philo
never forgot Exodus.
How did Philo understand Exodus? He knew and cited or alluded to every
chapter in the ἐξαγωγή; however, he drew on some sections of Exodus more
than others. The following chart indicates the frequency of his references to
each chapter.33
1 31 15 47 29 18
2 66 16 55 30 21
3 85 17 20 31 15
4 54 18 19 32 49
5 15 19 26 33 41
6 13 20 145 34 23
7 40 21 75 35 15
8 19 22 79 36 8
9 16 23 126 37 22
10 13 24 87 38 7
11 2 25 119 39 27
12 119 26 49 40 3
13 24 27 24
14 30 28 105
The chart makes Philo’s predilections clear: he was keenly interested in Pass-
over (Exod 12)—a feast that he spiritualized and universalized, the Decalogue
(Exod 20), selections from the Book of the Covenant (Exod 23), the tabernacle
33 I recognize the artificial nature of using chapter divisions since they are a much later
convention, but do so for the practical purposes of indicating the relative frequency of
the citations and allusions across the whole of Exodus.
the people of the covenant or the people of god 413
(Exod 25), and the priesthood (Exod 28). These are the texts that surface most
frequently in his commentaries. We will consider how he handled them below,
but we should ask how he handled the narrative of Exodus. For the sake of
brevity, we will consider some of the larger blocks of material.
Moses. Philo’s presentation of Moses is fascinating.34 While he followed the
narrative of Exodus in On the Life of Moses 1, he did far more than paraphrase
the biblical text. He stated that he would at the outset: “I will relate the story of
Moses as I have learned it both from the sacred books which he left behind as
marvelous monuments of his wisdom and from certain elders of the nation.”35
Philo never mentioned any of the elders by name—he did not mention any
Jewish predecessors by name; however, we can identify at least one of them,
Ezekiel the Tragedian. In addition to the inscriptio for the work, Philo shared
a number of similarities with Ezekiel. There is a cluster of these similarities in
the story of Moses’ birth. The biblical narrative related the inability of Moses’
parents to keep their baby concealed to lead his mother to construct an ark
and place him in it (καὶ ἐνέβαλεν τὸ παιδίον εἰς αὐτήν).36 Both Ezekiel and Philo
omitted the ark and suggested that Moses was exposed on the bank of the river,
although they differed in who exposed him: Ezekiel had Moses’ mother expose
her child (ὑπεξέθηκεν), while Philo suggested that both parents exposed him
(ἐκτιθέασι).37 The two even agree on the verb, although Ezekiel used a form
with an additional prepositional prefix. Both forms of ὑπ/εκτίθημι were used
for infant exposure.38 The tragedian and the exegete also agree on the nature
of the place where Moses was exposed. Exodus says that Moses’ mother set
the ark “in the marsh at the river” (εἰς τὸ ἕλος παρὰ τὸν ποταμόν).39 Ezekiel and
Philo altered each prepositional phrase similarly: “in the marsh” (εἰς τὸ ἕλος)
and “at the river” (παρὰ τὸν ποταμόν). They qualified the marsh by making it
34 There is a large body of literature on Moses in Philo. The most important recent full scale
treatment is Louis H. Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses in the Context of Ancient Judaism
(cjas 15; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007).
35 Philo, Mos. 1.4.
36 Exod 2:3.
37 Ezekiel 16; Philo, Mos. 1.10. See also § 11.
38 See the examples in Holladay, Fragments, 413. Philo, Mos. 1.14, uses ἐκκεῖμαι that also means
“expose.” See Herodotus 1.110. On the issue of infanticide in Philo see Adele Reinhartz,
“Philo on Infanticide,” SPhA 4 (1992): 42–58, esp. 51; Maren R. Niehoff, Philo on Jewish
Identity and Culture (tsaj 86; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 163–174; Daniel R. Schwartz,
“Did the Jews Practice Infant Exposure and Infanticide in Antiquity?” SPhA 16 (2004):
61–95; and Maren R. Niehoff, “Response to Daniel R. Schwartz,” SPhA 17 (2005): 99–101.
39 Exod 2:3. See also 2:5.
414 sterling
thickly grown: in Ezekiel Moses’ mother set him “in a thickly grown marsh”
(λάσιον εἰς ἕλος δασύ), while in Philo Pharaoh’s daughter found the child “in the
thickest part of the marsh” (ἐν τῷ δασυτάτῳ τῶν ἑλῶν).40 Since they lacked an
ark in their stories, they could not have Moses set in water. They solved this by
suggesting that Moses was set on the bank of the river rather than at the river.
In Ezekiel Moses’ mother set her infant “at the edge of the river” (παρ’ ἄκρα
ποταμοῦ) and Pharaoh’s daughter drew him “from the moist bank of the river”
(ὑγρᾶς ἀνεῖλε ποταμίας ἀπ’ ᾐόνος).41 Philo had the parents set him “on the banks
of the river” (παρὰ τὰς ὄχθας τοῦ ποταμοῦ).42 These examples could be extended,
but these suffice to indicate the nature of the relationship between Philo and
Ezekiel.43 Philo, like Josephus, embellished the biblical text by incorporating
other traditions.
The Exodus. Unsurprisingly, Philo knew and retold the story of the exodus.
There are at least three dimensions to his understanding of the story that are
important to note. The first is that Philo knew and retold the basic story of the
exodus.44 He did, however, change one fundamental aspect of the story. He fre-
quently emphasized that the exodus was a migration or a colonization move-
ment rather than a mad dash to flee the bonds of slavery. The language that he
preferred to describe their movement was “colonization” (ἀποικία).45 He stated
it bluntly when he wrote: “they went out not for war but for colonization.”46
Second, Philo was keenly aware of the scurrilous accounts of the exodus
that some of his contemporaries reported. This is evident in several of his
retellings, but most prominently in the fragmentary work that we know as
the Hypothetica.47 The standard line was that the Jews were a group of lepers
who had been expelled from Egypt. It is attested in Manetho,48 Diodorus
vary. The point is that he universalized the text and made it applicable to every-
one who turns from the sense-perceptible body with its desires to the soul with
its affinity for the intelligible.
Sinai. All of this makes good sense as an interpretation of the biblical narra-
tive; however, a reader of On the Life of Moses is in for an abrupt surprise. We
begin reading book 1 and follow the familiar story of Exodus through chapter 17.
At this point the text suddenly jumps to Numbers 13–14 and the reader is left to
scratch her or his head and wonder what happened to Mount Sinai. The Sinai
pericope (Exod 19–24) is of fundamental importance for understanding Israel
in Exodus, but it is not in On the Life of Moses 1. Philo will retell it in On the Deca-
logue,62 but elected to omit it in his introductory biography to the Exposition
of the Law. In fact, he only mentions Sinai twice in his entire oeuvre.63 Why?
We have one significant hint. Philo does not relate the covenant between
God and Israel. There may be several reasons for this. First, he did not know
Hebrew. This meant that he did not read בריתbut διαθήκη. The result is that he
did not think in terms of a mutual agreement between God and Israel but of
a testament.64 He used διαθήκη, but not in connection with the relationship
between God and Israel at Sinai.65 Second, Philo’s omission may have been
more than a linguistic phenomenon. Josephus also omitted the covenant.66 The
in the Second Temple Period (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C.R. de Roo; JSJSup 71;
Leiden: Brill, 2003), 251–266.
67 There are several helpful treatments of Philo’s broadening of the concept. See Ellen Birn-
baum, The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought: Israel, Jews, and Proselytes (bjs 290; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1996), 128–159; and Manuel Vogel, Das Heil des Bundes: Bundestheologie
im Frühjudentum und im frühen Christentum (TAnZ 18; Tübingen: A. Francke, 1996), 210–
219.
68 See Philo, qe 2.51–124; Mos. 2.71–140; and Josephus, A.J. 3.180–187.
69 Philo, Spec. 1.172. Cf. also Josephus, B.J. 5.217; A.J. 3.182.
70 Philo, qe 2.112; Mos 1.124; Spec. 1.87. Cf. also Josephus, A.J. 3.186.
71 Philo, qe 2.75; Her. 221; Mos. 2.103. Cf. also Josephus, B.J. 2.517; A.J. 3.183.
72 Philo, qe 2.85; Mos. 2.88. Cf. also Josephus, A.J. 3.184.
73 Philo, Mos. 2.117–118. Cf. also Josephus, A.J. 3.184, who has a similar understanding but
differs in specifics.
74 Philo, qe 2.109; Mos. 2.122. Cf. also Josephus, A.J. 3.185.
75 Exod 25:8 (9 mt); 25:40; 26:30; 27:8.
76 Exod 25:8 in qe 2.52; Exod 24:40 in qe 2.82; and Exod 26:30 in qe 2.90.
418 sterling
In On the Life of Moses, he grouped the first two texts from Exodus together and
wrote: “He (Moses) saw within his soul the incorporeal ideas of the corporeal
objects that were about to be made. It was necessary that the sense-perceptible
copies be shaped according to these, as if from an archetypal picture and noetic
patterns (νοητῶν παραδειγμάτων).”77 The final phrase in Philo’s text is an echo
of Exodus 25:8: “You will make (it) for me according to everything that I show
you on the mount: the pattern of the tent (τὸ παράδειγμα τῆς σκηνῆς) and the
pattern of all the furnishings (τὸ παράδειγμα πάντων τῶν σκευῶν αὐτῆς).” The
Pentateuchal commentator concluded by alluding to Exodus 25:40—“See that
you make it according to the type (κατὰ τὸν τύπον) that has been shown to
you on the mount”—when he wrote: “Therefore the shape of the pattern (ὁ
τύπος τοῦ παραδείγματος) was stamped on the mind of the prophet, painted
and molded invisibly without any matter by unseen forms. He fashioned the
final product according to the shape (πρὸς τὸν τύπον).”78 The point is that Pla-
tonism is not imposed on the text, it is read from the text. Philo read Moses and
recognized the reality expressed by Plato.79 He interpreted the cult of ancient
Israel—the Passover,80 the tabernacle, and the priesthood—by spiritualizing
and universalizing it.
Were there any specific texts in Exodus that played a particularly important
role in the thought of Philo? There are 16 texts that he cited more than 10x
each across a minimum of 3 different treatises. Here is a table of the texts from
Exodus that were clear favorites of Philo.
81 All counts are based on Allenbach et al., Biblia Patristica. Supplément. I have included
texts that incorporate the specific verse in a larger citation in the count, although not
if it is a summary of a major text. E.g., I did not count 20:1–17 for 20:8–10 (11) or 20:12 or
20:17.
82 Philo, qg 4.2, 4, 8, 8, 22; qe 1.20; 2.3, 3, 11, 14, 16, 47, 51, 61, 62, 63, 63, 66, 66, 67, 67, 68, 68, 122;
Cher. 27; Sacr. 9; Det. 92, 139, 159, 160, 160, 161; Plant. 26; Her. 70; Fug. 110, 112; Mut. 11, 57, 82;
Deo 4, 4, 4, 5; Somn. 1.231, 234; 2.227, 237, 292; Mos. 1.75; Abr. 121; Spec. 1.81.
83 Philo, Her. 172 (20:13–17); Ios. 144; Decal. 51 (20:13–17), 106 (20:13–17),142, 173, 175 (20:13–18);
Spec. 4.78, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 89, 92, 95.
84 Philo, Sacr. 133, 133; Conf. 160; Fug. 53 (21:12–14), 65, 75, 76, 77, 93, 102, 107; Spec. 3.104, 120,
123, 128, 129, 136.
85 Philo, qg 4.16; Det. 39, 40, 44 (4:14–16), 126, 126, 129, 132, 132, 135, 135, 137, 140; Migr. 78; Mut.
168; Mos. 1.84 (4:14–16).
86 Philo, qe 1.2, 2, 9, 10, 10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 12, 13; Mos. 2.224; Spec. 2.145, 146, 149.
87 Philo, qe 1.4, 4, 4, 14, 15, 18, 19, 19, 19, 19, 19; Leg. 3.154; Sacr. 63; Migr. 25; Her. 255.
88 Philo, Det. 52; Ebr. 17; Her. 171; Decal. 106, 118, 121, 165; Spec. 2, 2; 2.224, 226, 235, 237, 261; Frg.
(110, 16).
89 Philo, qe 2.49, 49; Her. 168 (20:3–17); Congr. 120; Decal. 36 (20:3–17), 51 (20:2–12), 106
(20:2–12), 154 (20:2–17), 168 (20:2–12), 175 (20:2–18); Spec. 1.34 (20:3–17); 2.224 (20:1–11);
Praem. 2, 53, 55.
90 Philo, Her. 170; Opif. 128; Decal. 96, 98, 158; Spec. 2; 2.39, 56 (20:8–10), 86 (20:8–10), 260; Prov.
1.84; Hypoth. 8.7.1 (20:9–10), 15 (20:9–10), 20 (20:9–10).
91 Philo, qe 2.115, 115, 116, 116; Leg. 3.118, 123, 125, 128, 129, 132; Her. 303; Mos. 2.128; Spec. 1.88;
4.69.
92 Philo, qg 2.45; qe 1.1 (12:1–2), 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1; Congr. 161; Mos. 2.222 (12:1–2); Spec. 2.150,
152.
420 sterling
(cont.)
These texts represent major concerns for the Alexandrian exegete. We will work
through the first three briefly to illustrate the point.
Exodus 3:14. The Greek translators of the Hebrew text of Exod 3:14 rendered
( אהיה אשר אהיהliterally, “I will be what I will be”) by ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν (“I am the
Self-Existent”). Philo understood ὁ ὤν to be the name for God, although not a
proper name. For example, in his discussion of God’s name in On the Change
of Names, he said: “Therefore it follows that it is not possible to assign a proper
name to the truly Self-Existent (τῷ ὄντι πρὸς ἀλήθειαν).” He asked: “Don’t you
see that to the prophet who wanted to know how to respond to those who
would ask him about his name, he said: ‘I am the Self-Existent’ (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ
ὤν), which means I am by nature Self-Existent (ἴσον τῷ εἶναι πέφυκα), not to
be named.”99 The name fascinated Philo because it allowed him to connect it
to Plato’s language for Being (τὸ ὄν) in the Timaeus. The Athenian had asked:
“what is that which always exists (τὸ ὄν) and has no genesis? And what is that
which always becomes (τὸ γιγνόμενον) but never is self-existent (ὄν)?”100 Plato’s
questions became famous among the Middle Platonists who frequently used
93 Philo, Decal. 162 (23:10–11); Spec. 2.86 (23:10–11), 87 (23:10–11), 96 (23:10–11), 104 (23:10–11),
105, 108, 109; 4.215 (23:10–11); Virt. 97 (23:10–11), 98 (23:10–11); Praem. 153 (23:10–12); Hypoth.
8.7.15, 15.
94 Philo, qe 2.67, 67, 68, 68, 68, 68, 68, 68, 68; Her. 166; Fug. 101; Deo 5,5;
95 Philo, Leg. 1.40; Det. 39, 40 (7:1–2), 161; Sacr. 9; Migr. 84, 169; Mut. 19, 125, 128; Somn. 2.189;
Prob. 43.
96 Philo, Leg. 2.102, 103; Agr. 80, 82; Sobr. 13 (15:1–18); Ebr. 111; Somn. 2.269; Mos. 1.180 (15:1–21);
2.256 (15:1–20); Contempl. 85 (15:1–21), 87 (15:1–21).
97 Philo, Conf. 160; Fug. 53 (21:12–14), 77, 78, 80, 83; Spec. 3.86, 88, 91, 130.
98 Philo, qe 2.37, 37, 37, 37, 37; Deus 60; Conf. 96, 99; Somn. 1.61; 2.222.
99 Philo, Mut. 11.
100 Plato, Tim. 27D.
the people of the covenant or the people of god 421
101 E.g., Plutarch, E Delph. 393a–c and Numenius frgs. 2, 3, 4a, 5, 6, 7, 8. On Numenius’s
conflation of Exod 3:14 and Plato see John Whittaker, “Moses Atticizing,”Phoenix 21 (1967):
196–201.
102 Philo, Mut. 14.
103 E.g., Philo, Det. 159–161.
104 On Philo’s understanding of God see my “The First Theologian: The Originality of Philo
of Alexandria,” in Renewing the Tradition: Studies in Texts and Contexts in Honor of James
W. Thompson (ed. Mark W. Hamilton, Thomas H. Olbricht, and Jeffrey Patterson; ptms 65;
Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 145–162.
105 Philo, Fug. 53, the lemma; §§ 54–64, take up Exod 21:12; §§65–76, take up Exod 21:13;
§§77–82 take up Exod 21:14; and §§ 83–86 take up Exod 21:15. §§87–118 go on to take up
the meaning of the cities of refuge.
106 mt of Exod 21:12 reads ימות מותwhich the lxx renders as θανάτῳ θανατούσθω.
107 On the death of the soul in Philo see Dieter Zeller, “The Life and Death of the Soul in
Philo of Alexandria: The Use and Origin of a Metaphor,” SPhA 71 (1995): 19–55; reprinted
as “Leben und Tod der Seele in der allegorischen Exegese Philos. Gebrauch und Ursprung
einer Metapher,” in Dieter Zeller, Studien zu Philo und Paulus (bbb 165; Bonn: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 2011), 55–99; Emma Wasserman, The Death of the Soul in Romans 7: Sin, Death,
and the Law in Light of Hellenistic Moral Psychology (wunt 2.256; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2008), esp. 60–76, for the origins of the concept; John T. Conroy, Jr. “‘The Wages of Sin
is Death’: The Death of the Soul in Greek, Second Temple Jewish, and Early Christian
Authors” (Ph.D. diss., University of Notre Dame, 2008); and Conroy, “Philo’s ‘Death of the
Soul’: Is This Only a Metaphor?” SPhA 23 (2011): 23–40.
422 sterling
Genesis 2:17.108 In On Flight and Finding, he said that he attended the lectures
of a woman named Investigation who taught him: “some who are alive have
died and some who are dead live.” She explained: “bad people who extend
their lives to extreme old age are dead since they have cut themselves off from
a life of virtue.” She continued: “the good, on the other hand, even if they
are separated from partnership with the body, live for ever, since they have
obtained an immortal lot.”109 Philo next explained Exod 21:13, especially the
phrase, “not intentionally, but God delivered him.” The Alexandrian thought
that in this instance, the unintentional aspect of the act was that God had
used someone to punish another: God does not directly punish but can use
instruments to punish. The classic example of this is the work of the powers
who are alluded to in the plural of Genesis 1:27 since God could not create evil.
Finally, Philo came to Exod 21:14 which he understood to refer to attributing
our sinful human actions to God. The law presumed that the murderer had
fled to God’s altar to claim protection. Philo pointed out that the guilty person
should be pulled away since the murderer was, in effect, attempting to transfer
the guilt to God. For this there could be no forgiveness. He proceeded to
reinforce this with a citation from Plato’s Theaetetus110 and the capital offenses
of reviling a parent in Exod 21:15. Philo exclaimed: “He all but shouts and
cries that no pardon should be given to anyone who blasphemes against the
Deity.”111 While Philo does not say that the person has died the death, it is the
logical extension of his reasoning from Exod 21:12–14. In short, the two verses
introduced a fundamental distinction between sins done in ignorance and
sins done intentionally.112 Philo recognized the distinction and argued that the
former were forgivable and the latter were not.113
Exodus 20:17. The final text that we will consider is the last of the Ten Words,
the prohibition against coveting.114 Philo cited the text only once,115 although
he alluded to it 16x. The most interesting aspect of his use of Exod 20:17 is that
Philo only cited or alluded to the prohibition; he did not cite or discuss the
objects that are mentioned in the law.116 The reason is that Philo considered
desire to be the origin of the passions. He called it a passion117 and “the fount
of all evils.”118 The specific objects mentioned in the law were not important;
rather, it was important to understand desire as the point d’appui for evil within
humans.119 I do not want to suggest that Philo understood the prohibition to
be against all desire, but excessive desire, a desire that leads the irrational part
of the soul to overcome the rational. He was openly indebted to the Platonic
tradition and thought that humans struggled to maintain reason (λόγος) in the
face of spirit (θυμός) and desire (ἐπιθυμία),120 just as Plato had described them
in the Timaeus.121 The challenge was for reason to control all desire.122 More
broadly put, the individual needed to practice self-control (ἐγκράτεια).123 This
assessment of excessive desire (ἐπιθυμία) as the origin for evil, was a common
outlook that Philo shared with Jews124 and early Christians,125 although they
did not necessarily share his Platonic anthropology.
4 Conclusions
We are now ready to return to our initial questions. Exodus was the second most
important book in the Pentateuch—which were Philo’s de facto Scriptures—if
the amount of attention that he devoted to it is any indication. At first this is
surprising for at least two reasons. One, Philo lived in Egypt. Why would he
devote so much attention to a work that celebrated the Israelites flight from
Egypt? Two, Exodus can be understood as a particularistic text: it tells the
116 Exod 20:17, οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ πλησίον σου. οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ
πλησίον σου οὔτε τὸν ἀγρὸν αὐτοῦ οὔτε τὸν παῖδα αὐτοῦ οὔτε τὴν παιδίσκην αὐτοῦ οὔτε τοῦ βοὸς
αὐτοῦ οὔτε τοῦ ὑποζυγίου αὐτοῦ οὔτε παντὸς κτήνους αὐτοῦ οὔτε ὅσα τῷ πλησίον σού ἐστιν.
117 Philo, Spec. 4.80.
118 Philo, Spec. 4.84. Cf. §§ 84–85.
119 Cf. Philo, Opif. 152, where he said that desire led to pleasure “which is the beginning of
wrongs and transgressions”; Decal. 153, 173.
120 Philo, Spec. 4.92.
121 Plato, Tim. 69E.
122 Philo, Spec. 4.95.
123 For a full treatment see Hans Svebakken, Philo of Alexandria’s Exposition of the Tenth
Commandment (spm 6; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012).
124 E.g., 4Macc 2:2–4.
125 Rom 7:7–8; Jas 1:15; Ap. John. ii,1.21.30–37.
424 sterling
story of the exclusive bond between God and the people of Israel. Why would
someone who was intellectually committed to Hellenistic philosophy devote
so much energy to it?
In the first place, he could probably not neglect it. The work was too funda-
mental to Jewish identity to ignore. It did, after all, tell the story of the origin
of the people of Israel. The connection between the story and the annual cel-
ebration meant would have made it unavoidable for someone committed to
commenting on the Pentateuch. As strongly as Philo emphasized the allegor-
ical interpretation of the cult, he insisted on the keeping of Israel’s feasts.126 I
also do not think that he could neglect it for geographical reasons. There was a
tendency for some Diaspora Jews to tell the stories of their own communities
in the light of biblical stories set in the same locales. The stories offered them
an opportunity to legitimate their community’s presence in the Diaspora.127 So,
for example, Cleodemus Malchus related stories about Abraham’s descendants
in North Africa,128 Artapanus told the stories of the ancestors that were set in
Egypt,129 Pseudo-Hecataeus described the origins of the Jewish community in
Egypt,130 and Pseudo-Eupolemus—perhaps a Samaritan—recanted events in
Samaria or from a Phoenician perspective.131 If these examples are an accurate
indication that Jews and Samaritans used geography to legitimate their Dias-
pora communities, Philo would have felt some internal pressure to comment
on the text that dealt with his homeland. Even if he had not felt internal pres-
sure to do so, the comments by non-Jews in Egypt about Jewish origins could
not have gone unchecked—as Philo’s direct response in the Hypothetica attests.
In short, there may have been different pressures for him to comment on Exo-
dus but it does not appear to be reasonable to think that he could have simply
omitted it.
What did he make of it? The answer moves in two opposing directions. On
the one hand, he retold a great deal of it and defended it when it was attacked
by outsiders. It would be a mistake to minimize Philo’s loyalty to his ancestral
traditions. The Jewish community in Alexandria had good reasons for selecting
him to lead the embassy to Gaius. On the other hand, he consistently moved the
focus from a national to an individual concern or the particular institutions of
Israel to universal and cosmological perspectives. In this way the particularistic
and the universal come up against each other.
The matter has sometimes been cast as a dialectic between a form of uni-
versalistic particularism or a form of particular universalism.132 In other words,
Philo may have begun with Israel as God’s particular people but universalized
what this meant or he may have qualified a universalistic perspective through
the particular lens of his ancestral traditions. We can phrase the issue in the
light of one of the texts above: did Philo extend Exod 3:14 to include Middle
Platonism’s First Principle or did he understand that both were expressions of
a single reality? Another way to put this would be to ask whether he was an
inclusivist who welcomed others as long as they shared his own viewpoint or
was he a relativist who thought that there could be competing but equally valid
understandings of the same reality? The case can be responsibly argued either
way. I think that he belongs in the latter camp, but must qualify this by not-
ing that he did not relativize all perspectives. He rejected Epicurean thought
and Egyptian religion. He called the former “godless” and the latter a form of
“atheism.”133 There were multiple expressions of the same reality, but not all
interpretations of reality were valid.
The dilemma that an interpreter of Philo faces in attempting to answer
these questions was the same dilemma that Philo faced when he interpreted
Exodus. If we sense tensions in his interpretations, it is probably because he
expressed the tensions that he felt. They are the same tensions that anyone
feels who is both committed to the biblical narrative and to the use of reason
in a philosophical framework.
5 Appendix
134 This is based on the references in Allenbach et al., Biblica Patristica. Supplément. The Sup-
plément lists the references in order of the biblical text. I have used the references in the
Supplément, but rearranged them in the order of Philo’s treatises. I have also added the ref-
erences to Deo to align with the chapters in Folker Siegert, Philon von Alexandrien, Über
die Gottesbezeichnung ‘wohltätig verzehrendes Feuer’ (De Deo). Rückübersetzung des Frag-
ments aus dem Armenischen, deutsche Übersetzung und Kommentar (wunt 34; Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1988). For an English translation see Siegert, “The Philonian Fragment De
Deo,” SPhA 10 (1998): 1–33.
the people of the covenant or the people of god 427
Select Bibliography
Allenbach, Jean, André Benoît, Daniel A. Bertrand, Annie Hanriot-Coustet, Éric Junod,
Pierre Maraval, André Pautler, and Pierre Prigent, eds. Biblia Patristica. Supplément:
Philon d’Alexandrie. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1982.
Aucher, Johannes Baptista. Judaei paralipomena Armena (Libri videlicet quottuor In
Genesin, libri duo In Exodum, sermo unus De Sampsone, alter De Jona, tertius De
tribus angelis Abraamo apparentibus): Opera hactenus inedita (Ex Armena verione
antiquissima ab ipso originali textu Graeco ad verum stricte exequuta saeculo v. nunc
primum in Latium fideliter translata). Venice: S. Lazarus, 1826.
Birnbaum, Ellen. The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought: Israel, Jews, and Proselytes.
Brown Judaic Studies 290. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996.
Borgen, Peder. Philo of Alexandria, An Exegete for His Time. Novum Testamentum
Supplements 86. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Burchardt, Helmut. Die Inspiration heiliger Schriften bei Philo von Alexandrien. 2d ed.
Basil: Brunner Verlag Giessen, 1992.
Cohen, Naomi G. “The Names of the Separate Books of the Pentateuch in Philo’s
Writings.” Studia Philonica Annual: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism 9 (1997): 54–78.
Cohn, Leopold, Paul Wendland, Sigofred Reiter, and Ioannes Leisegang, eds. Philonis
Alexandrini opera quae supersunt. 7 vols. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1896–1930. 2d ed.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1962.
Delassus, D. “La theme de la Paque chez Philon d’Alexandrie.” Ph.D. diss., Lille, 1972.
Feldman, Louis H. Philo’s Portrayal of Moses in the Context of Ancient Judaism. Chris-
tianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series 15. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame
Press, 2007.
Grabbe, Lester L. “Did All Jews Think Alike? ‘Covenant’ in Philo and Josephus in
the Context of Second Temple Judaic Religion.” Pages 251–266 in The Concept of
Covenant in the Second Temple Period. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline
C.R. de Roo. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman
Period Supplement Series 71. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Morris, Jenny. “The Jewish Philosopher Philo.” Pages 809–889 in Emil Schürer, The His-
tory of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Edited and revised by Geza Vermes,
Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman. 3 vols. Edinburgh: t&t Clark, 1973–1987.
Niehoff, Maren R. Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2011.
. Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum
86. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001.
Pearce, Sarah J.K. The Land of the Body: Studies in Philo’s Representation of Egypt Wis-
senschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 208. Tübingen: Mohr Sie-
beck, 2007.
438 sterling
Craig A. Evans
The exodus story was the single most important story in Israel’s sacred national
narrative. For influence on Judaism and early Christianity in late antiquity
among the books of Moses the book of Exodus was eclipsed only by the book
of Deuteronomy, the most often quoted book of Moses.
The book of Exodus narrates the story of the birth of Moses, his providen-
tial protection and care, his life in the court of Pharaoh, his flight into the
wilderness, his encounter with God at the burning bush, his confrontation with
Pharaoh, the ten plagues that humiliated Pharaoh, his magicians and their
gods, the remarkable exodus itself, including the crossing of the sea and the
destruction of Pharaoh’s army, the wilderness wonders, including the provision
of manna, the receiving of the law at Mount Sinai, and the construction of the
tabernacle.
Running throughout the book of Exodus is the theme of God’s absolute
sovereignty. He is no mere god among many, he is the only God, the God of
the whole earth and his people, Israel, are to worship him and him alone. He is
also a gracious covenant God, whose desire is to shepherd Israel, to guide them
to a permanent home, to give them a law that promotes justice and promotes
the religious and spiritual maturity of Israel.
It is not surprising that Jesus and the major authors of New Testament
literature draw so heavily upon the book of Exodus. For Jesus the covenant is
foundational to understanding his mission. For Paul it is the many lessons, not
least the defeat of mighty Pharaoh and the exaltation of Israel. For the fourth
evangelist it is the giving of the law a second time and then filling the tabernacle
with God’s glory, an adumbration of the incarnation of the Logos in the person
of Jesus.
1 Exodus in Jesus
prince of demons he casts out demons” (Mark 3:22). We should assume par-
allelism here, that is, the “prince of demons” is Beelzebul. This is made clear
in Matthew, where it is the Pharisees who accuse Jesus, saying, “It is only by
Beelzebul [ἐν τῷ Βεελζεβοὺλ], the prince of demons, that this man casts out
demons” (Matt 12:24). Matthew has either simplified Mark’s language, or he
has used the parallel in Q. In any case it is clear that Beelzebul and the prince
of demons are indeed one and the same. The evangelist Luke does not iden-
tify those who accuse Jesus, saying only that “some of them said, ‘He casts out
demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons’” (Luke 11:15). Luke’s language is
similar to Matthew’s, so it is possible the form of the accusation in Matthew
and Luke dervies from q and not from Mark.
The epithet “Beelzebul” comes from the Canaanite Baal Zebul, בעל זבול,
probably meaning “Lord of the princes,” but in 2 Kings it appears as ַבַּעל ְזבוּב,
a deliberate mispronunciation, probably meaning “Lord of the Flies” (see 2 Kgs
1:2, 3, 6, 16 “Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron”). The Greek translator understood
the Hebrew this way, translating Βααλ μυῖαν, “Baal of flies.” Accordingly, the
Synoptic Βεελζεβούλ, transliterating Jesus’ Aramaic words, בעל זבול,1 reflects the
original pronunciation.2
There are more than a dozen occurrences of Beelzebul in the first-century
pseudepigraphon Testament of Solomon, a work that is more of a handbook
on demonology and exorcism than a testament. In this imaginative account
Israel’s famous king overpowers the demons, including Beezebul. In 3:6 Solo-
mon demands the demon’s identity, and it replies, ἐγώ εἰμι Βεελζεβοὺλ τῶν δαι-
μονίων ὁ ἔξαρχος (“I am Beelzeboul, the ruler of the demons”). The parallel with
the language used in the accusation against Jesus is apparent.
To be sure, our version of the Testament of Solomon has been edited by
Christians, but in its original form it was Jewish (beginning of the first century?)
and reflected the kind of lore we hear about in Josephus’ account of Eleazar
the exorcist who in the name of Solomon and with the help of incantations
said to have been composed by Solomon was able to cast out demons—on one
1 Maurice Casey (An Aramaic Approach to q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke
[sntsms 122; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002], 156) believes the Aramaic-
speaking Jesus would have said בעל זבול. Casey thinks that Βεελζεβούλ was not originally in
q but, influenced by Mark, the evangelists Matthew and Luke added it.
2 For a concise summary, see Wolfgang Herrmann, “Baal Zebub,” in Dictionary of Deities and
Demons in the Bible (ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst;
Leiden: Brill, 1999), 154–156. For further discussion, see Lloyd Gaston, “Beelzebul,” tz 18 (1962):
247–255; E.C.B. MacLaurin, “Beelzeboul,” NovT 20 (1978): 156–160; and Walter A. Maier iii,
“Baal-zebub,” abd 1:554.
442 evans
occasion in the very presence of General Vespasian, his son Titus, and other
Roman officers and authorities (Josephus, Ant. 8.45–49). There can be little
doubt that the Solomonic exorcistic traditions were being put to good use in
the days of Jesus.3 Not only were Jewish exorcists out and about, invoking Jesus’
name (Mark 9:38–40; Acts 19:13–17),4 in addition to the names of Solomon and
other worthies, Jesus himself apparently conceded without embarrassment or
qualification that disciples and colleagues of the Pharisees and scribes also
engaged in exorcisms.5 In this way Jesus was able to discredit the logic behind
the accusation leveled against himself: “And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul,
by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges”
(Matt 12:27 = Luke 11:19). If the success of Jesus in casting out evil spirits warrants
a charge of being in league with Beelzebul, then the success of the exorcists who
associate with the scribes and Pharisees warrants the same charge.6
But what catches our eye is the main point that Jesus makes regarding
the significance of his victory over Satan: It is evidence of the truth of his
proclamation that the kingdom (or rule) of God is at hand. The saying comes
3 In the time of Jesus and beyond, if the magical papyri, lamellae, and bowls, which often appeal
to Solomon, are any indication.
4 Pagan exorcists made use of the name of Jesus, much to the annoyance of Origen (Contra
Celsum 1.6; 2.4). The name of Jesus also appears in charms and incantations. The Rabbis
debate the matter, arguing that it was better to die safe within the boundaries of Torah than to
be healed in the name of Jesus (t. Hullin 2.22–23). Apparently they had something to debate,
for the name of Jesus sometimes appears in Jewish charms and incantations.
5 Rightly R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (nicnt; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 479: “Jesus
takes it for granted that genuine exorcisms are taking place in Jewish circles unconnected
with himself.” However, early Christian interpreters found it difficult to accept what Jesus
readily concedes, namely, the disciples of the Pharisees could successfully cast out evil spirits.
Some Christian interpreters think Jesus was referring to his own disciples (“your sons”). For
example, see Thomas C. Oden, ed., Incomplete Commentary on Matthew (Opus imperfectum)
(trans. James A. Kellerman; Ancient Christian Texts 2; Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,
2010), 228. Jerome resists this temptation, interpreting the saying of Jesus as it should be. See
Manlio Simonetti, ed., Matthew 1–13 (accsnt 1a; Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001),
247.
6 For further discussion of the seriousness of the charge that was brought against Jesus, see
Meinrad Limbeck, “Beelzebul—eine ursprüngliche Bezeichnung für Jesus?” in Wort Gottes in
der Zeit Festschrift Karl Hermann Schelkle zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Helmut Feld and Josef Nolte;
Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1973), 31–42; Arland J. Hultgren, Jesus and His Adversaries: The Form
and Function of the Conflict Stories in the Synoptic Tradition (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979),
100–106; and Dwight D. Sheets, “Jesus as Demon-Possessed,” in Who Do My Opponents Say
that I Am? An Investigation of the Accusations against the Historical Jesus (ed. Scot McKnight
and Joseph B. Modica; lnts 327; London: t&t Clark, 2008), 27–49.
exodus in the new testament 443
from q, but not with an important difference in Matthew and Luke. Matthew
words the dominical assertion this way: “But if it is by the Spirit of God that I
cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matt 12:28,
emphasis added). Luke words it this way: “But if it is by the finger of God that
I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Luke 11:20,
emphasis added). Many agree that Luke’s “by the finger of God” (ἐν δακτύλῳ
θεοῦ) represents the original form of q, reflecting the very words of Jesus, while
Matthew’s “by the Spirit of God” (ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ) is a deliberate avoidance of
anthropomorphism.7
By declaring that his ability to cast out evil spirits is “by the finger of God,”
Jesus has alluded to the confession of Pharaoh’s magicians: “This is the finger
of God” (Exod 8:19).8 In saying this, the magicians have conceded that it is not
magic at work in Moses and Aaron; rather, it is the power of God. Through magic
they can mimic some of the things performed by Aaron and Moses, but other
things are beyond their powers.
In rabbinic and targumic interpretation the notorious Jannes and Jambres
were numbered among Pharaoh’s magicians (e.g., Tg. Ps.-J. Exod 1:15; 7:11; Tg.
Ps.-J. Num 22:22; b. Menah. 85a; Exod. Rab. 9.7 [on Exod 7:12]). The antiquity and
currency of the Jannes and Jambres legend is attested by Qumran’s Damascus
Covenant (cd 5:18–19; 4q266 frag. 3, col. ii, lines 5–7; 4q271 frag. 1, line 1; 6q15
frag. 3, lines 1–2), by an apocryphal work that may have circulated under the
name The Book of Jannes and Jambres, by Pliny the Elder (Nat. Hist. 30.1.11), and
by 2Tim 3:8–9, among others.9
7 It is also thought that the evangelist Luke would have retained “Spirit” (given his interests
in the Spirit) had that been the original reading of Q. For comments on Matthew’s form
of the text, see Dale C. Allison Jr. and W.D. Davies, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. Volume ii: Commentary on Matthew viii–xviii
(icc; Edinburgh: t&t Clark, 1991) 339–340; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 479–480. For
comments on Luke’s form of the text, see I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (nigtc;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 475–476; and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to
Luke x–xxiv (ab 24a; Garden City: Doubleday, 1985), 918.
8 The allusion is not to Exod 31:18 and Deut 9:10, which refer to the tablets of stone, which were
“written with the finger of God.”
9 The allusion to Jannes and Jambres in the Damascus Covenant reads in full: “For in times past
Moses and Aaron stood in the power of the Prince of Lights and Belial raised up Yannes and
his brother in his cunning when seeking to do evil to Israel the first time” (cd 5:17–19 and the
parallels in caves 4 and 6 already cited). The apocryphal Book of Jannes and Jambres is extant
in three papyrus fragments housed in Dublin, London, and Vienna. See Albert Pietersma
and R.T. Lutz, “Jannes and Jambres,” in James H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha (2 vols., New York: Doubleday, 1983–1985), 427–442. For discussion of the
444 evans
Jesus’ use of the words, “finger of God,” rather than some other equivalent,
such as “power of God” or “Spirit of God,” in the context of being accused
of being in league with Satan, leads me to believe that Jesus intentionally
alluded to the story of Moses and the magicians in Exodus 7–8.10 One thinks
of the rabbinic interpretation of Exod 8:15 (v. 19 in Eng.): “This is the finger
of God.” According to the sages, “As soon as the magicians realized that they
were not able to produce gnats, they recognized that the deeds were those of
God and not demons” (Exod. Rab. 10.7 [on Exod 8:15]). Some will object that
this rabbinic interpretation is found in a late source and so is not admissible.
But we have already seen, the legend of Jannes and Jambres, also found in the
Exodus Rabbah, the Talmud, and a not particularly old Targum, is attested in the
Damascus Document, which dates to the first century bce, and in a mostly lost
apocryphal work, that probably dates to the first century ce. Closely related to
the Jannes and Jambres legend is the idea that the magicians of Pharaoh, which
would include Jannes and Jambres, were empowered by demons. The parallel
with the accusation against Jesus and the way Jesus replies is too close to be a
coincidence.
If his power is “by the finger of God,” then Jesus stands in the company of
Moses and Aaron, not in the company of Pharaoh’s magicians, who accord-
ing to contemporary interpretation, were themselves in league with Satan (or
“Belial,” as the Damascus Document expressed it) or with demons (as in rab-
binic midrash).11
His critics may well have sensed that there was indeed something extraor-
dinary about Jesus. They do not accuse him, as they did John the Baptist, of
Targum and other traditions, in which Jannes and Jambres appear, see Martin McNamara,
The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib 27a; 2d ed., Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978), 82–96.
10 See Thomas Walter Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1948), 82–83. Ben Meyer agrees with Manson, describing Jesus’ “submerged refer-
ence” to Exod 8:15 as “typical of Jesus.” See Ben F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London: scm
Press, 1979), 294 n. 89.
11 In retelling the story of the encounter with Pharaoh’s magicians, Josephus has Moses speak
of the divine power at work in him, as opposed to the magic and trickery of the magicians
(Ant. 2.286). Israel’s old story of God’s defeat of Pharaoh and his magicians was well known
in late antiquity. Sometimes it was even mentioned in the context of a magical spell! We
see this in a major incantation, intended to be used against demons, in which Jewish
traditions appear in several places. At the mid-point in the charm the exorcist is instructed
to say: “I adjure you by him who appeared to Israel in the pillar of light and in the cloud
by day, and who rescued his people from the work of Pharaoh and brought upon Pharaoh
the ten plagues because he disobeyed” (pgm iv.3033–3037).
exodus in the new testament 445
“having a demon” (Matt 11:18 = Luke 7:33); they accuse Jesus of being possessed
by the prince of the demons, also known as Beelzebul.12 The accusation is, in a
sense, a left-handed compliment. It also gives Jesus the opportunity to affirm
the truth of his message regarding the kingdom, that God is present in a new
and powerful way, and to affirm that God is at work in him in a way that is com-
parable to the way God was at work in Moses, in bringing about the salvation
of Israel. In the present work of Jesus God is again at work, saving his people.
12 As noted by Samson Eitrem, Some Notes on the Demonology of the New Testament (so 12;
Oslo: A.W. Brøgger, 1950), 1–2, 6.
13 One commentator suggests that the intent was to discredit Jesus in the eyes of his sup-
porters, by forcing him to an absurd position. See R.T. France, The Gospel of Mark (nigtc;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 470.
446 evans
But the Sadducees’ real fault lies in their failure to perceive the implications
of a very important passage of Scripture in Exodus and the implications of the
power of God revealed in that passage. Jesus says: “And as for the dead being
raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush,
how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and
the God of Jacob’? 27 He is not God of the dead, but of the living; you are quite
wrong” (vv. 26–27).
The passage to which Jesus refers (i.e., “the passage about the bush”) is Exod
3:1–6. The last verse reads (in the Hebrew, then in the Aramaic, and then in the
Greek):
Jesus’ quotation, ἐγὼ ὁ θεὸς Ἀβραὰμ καὶ ὁ θεὸς Ἰσαὰκ καὶ ὁ θεὸς Ἰακώβ, loosely
follows Exod 3:6, omitting “the God of your fathers.” The regular appearance of
the definite article (in Matt 22:32 and Luke 20:37 also) likely reflects a Greek
rendering of Jesus’ words independent of the lxx (in which the definite article
appears but once, before “your fathers”). Jesus’ original utterance could have
been based on either the Hebrew or the Aramaic.
Jesus has appealed to one of the most sacred and most important passages in
all of Jewish Scripture. To build a compelling scriptural argument for the resur-
rection, against Sadducean skepticism, one would have to appeal to the Torah,
whose authority the Sadducees accepted, not to the Prophets and Writings
(such as Isa 26:19; Ps 16:9–11; Job 19:26; Dan 12:1–2), whose authority the Sad-
ducees did not accept. There is a rabbinic story relating to Gamaliel in which
the great sage appealed to all parts of Scripture, including Torah: “Sectarians
[or heretics] asked Rabban Gamaliel: ‘When do we know that the Holy One,
blessed be He, will resurrect the dead?’ He answered them from the Torah, the
Prophets, and the Writings” (b. Sanh. 90b).14
Jesus’ appeal to Torah, in this case Exod 3, shows that he was well aware of
what part of Scripture the Sadducees respected as authoritative. Jesus infers
from God’s self-identification as “the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac,
14 The story may reach back to Gamaliel (first century), but in its present form, where we
have explicit reference to the tripartite form of Scripture (i.e., “the Torah, the Prophets,
and the Writings”), the language reflects a later period when the canon of Scripture has
been settled.
exodus in the new testament 447
and the God of Jacob” that “He is not the God of the dead but of the living” (Mark
12:27). This affirmation further implies that the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, are still living.
The assertion that God is the God “of the living” is likely an inference based
on the frequent association of God with life or living that we find in Hebrew
Scripture. Many times we hear in Ezekiel, “as I live, says the Lord God” (Ezek
5:11; 14:16, 18, 20; passim). The turn of phrase appears also in Zeph 2:9. Malachi
asks, “Has not the one God made and sustained for us the spirit of life?” (Mal
2:15). God is often called “the living God” (1Sam 17:26, 36; 2 Kgs 19:4; Isa 37:4; Jer
10:10; Hos 1:10; Pss 42:2; 84:2; Dan 6:20, 26).15 Accordingly, to assert that God is
the God “of the living” would have been taken for granted.
The statement, “He is not the God of the dead but of the living” (οὐκ ἔστιν
θεὸς νεκρῶν ἀλλὰ ζώντων) is proverbial; parallels are found in rabbinic sources:
“The Torah speaks not of the dead but of the living [לא דברה תורה במתים אלא
( ”]בחייםMidr. Mishle on Prov 17:1).16 Jesus’ hearers, friendly or antagonistic,
would all agree that the God of Israel is a God “of the living.” If this is true, and
if God identifies himself also as the “God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac,
and the God of Jacob,” logic suggests that someday these patriarchs will again
live. If not, then the God of Israel is not a God of the living but a God of the
dead. Accordingly, the logical inference that the patriarchs are yet living implies
and anticipates the resurrection. Grammar and tense play no role here (either
in an assumed present tense, or transforming a past reference into a future
reference).17 The argument turns on an inference drawn from parallel truths.
God is the God of the patriarchs; he is also the God of the living. Therefore the
patriarchs, though presently dead, must some day live.
Jesus’ argument approximates that of his older contemporary Philo, who
speaks of the three great patriarchs as eternal (Philo, On Abraham 50–55),18 as
15 The Hebrew emphasis on the Lord as a God of the living or a God of life may on occasional
stand in deliberate contrast to the Canaanite god of death (Mot), to which Isaiah may have
ironically alluded in 28:15 and 18, where he speaks of Israel foolishly making “a covenant
with Death” and “an agreement with Sheol.”
16 Burton L. Visotzky, The Midrash on Proverbs (yjs 27; New Haven: Yale University Press,
1992) 144 n. 8. The application of the proverb in this midrash is not the same as Jesus’
application. In the midrash the “dead” are Gentiles, who have no obligation to the Torah;
the “living” are Jews, who do have an obligation to the Torah.
17 On this point, see Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 703–704.
18 Philo’s argument is somewhat obtuse. He reminds his readers that God identifies himself
as “the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Exod 3:6) and then
448 evans
well as the affirmation found in 4Macc 7:18–19: “But as men with their whole
heart make righteousness their first thought, these alone are able to master the
weakness of the flesh, believing that unto God they die not, as our patriarchs,
Abraham and Isaac and Jacob die not, but they live unto God” (on the last
phrase, see Luke 20:38, “for all live to him”).19 One also thinks of 4 Macc 16:25:
“those who die for the sake of God live unto God, as do Abraham and Isaac and
Jacob and all the patriarchs.” The tradition here in 4 Maccabees complements
Jesus’ inference from Exod 3:6 and the truism that the God of the patriarchs is
indeed a God “of the living.”
A similar argument is found in rabbinic literature and is credited to Rabbi
Hiyya: “You know how to recite [Scripture] but you do not know how to inter-
pret [the verse]: ‘For the living know that they will die’ [Qoh 9:5] refers to the
righteous who are called ‘the living’ even when they are dead … And whence
do we know that the righteous are called ‘the living’ even when dead? For it
is written, ‘This is the land which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob,
saying’ [Deut 34:4]” ( y. Ber. 2.3; cf. b. Ber. 18a).
In short, Jesus’ defense of the resurrection is based on God’s revelation and
self-description as “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob.” He is the God of the living, not the God of the dead. If he is the God
of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—as he himself disclosed to Moses the great
lawgiver—then life, not death, will surely be the destiny of all those linked to
him in faith. If all of God’s people are destined to perish and to remain dead,
then in what sense is he the God of the living? The living God will surely reign
over a living people.
goes on to assert that “it is more reasonable that the name of the everlasting God should
be conjoined with what is immortal than with what is mortal.” In what sense the three
great patriarchs are immortal is not clear.
19 For further discussion of this approach, see F.G. Downing, “The Resurrection of the Dead:
Jesus and Philo,” jsnt 15 (1982): 42–50; repr. in Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter, eds.,
The Historical Jesus: A Sheffield Reader (BibSem 33; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1995), 167–175.
exodus in the new testament 449
The expression, “blood of the covenant” (τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης), alludes
to Exod 24:8: “And Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people, and
said, ‘Behold the blood of the covenant [ ַדם־ַהְבּ ִרית/ lxx: τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης],
which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.’”20
Jesus’ words probably also allude to Jer 31(38):31: “Behold, the days are coming,
says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant [ ְבּ ִרית ֲח ָדָשׁה/ lxx: διαθήκην
καινήν] with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.”21 The last part of the
saying, “which is poured out on behalf of many,” may also allude to the Suffering
Servant of Isa 52:13–53:12.22 These various scriptures may account, in part, for
the variations in the language of the Words of Institution (compare Mark 14:24
with Matt 26:28; Luke 22:20; 1Cor 11:25; Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 66.3; Apostolic
Constitutions 8.12.37).
The foundational passage underlying the Words of Institution is Exod 24:1–
8, in which the story is told how God established his covenant with Israel,
through Moses. The blood was thrown against the altar, next to the twelve pil-
lars that represented the twelve tribes, then it was thrown upon the people,
who shout that they will obey (24:4–8). While throwing the blood on the peo-
ple, Moses cries out: “Behold the blood of the covenant” (cf. Tg. Onq. “This is the
blood of the covenant”). In announcing that the wine represented his “blood
of the covenant” and then sharing it with his disciples, Jesus has inaugurated
the (new) covenant for the people of Israel, represented by his twelve disci-
ples.23
20 Vincent Taylor, Jesus and His Sacrifice (London: Macmillan, 1937) 71, 131, 204; Rudolf Pesch,
Das Markusevangelium (htknt 2.1–2; Freiburg: Herder, 1977, 1991), 2:358; Rikki E. Watts,
Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark (wunt 2.88; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 351–353; Maurice
Casey, Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel (sntsms 102; Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1998), 241–242; France, Mark, 570; and Joel Marcus, Mark 8–16 (ab 27a; New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2009), 966.
21 Ben. F. Meyer, “The Expiation Motif in the Eucharistic Words: A Key to the History of
Jesus?” Greg 69 (1988): 461–487. It is possible that the language of Zech 9:11 (“by your blood
of the covenant, I will set your captives free from the waterless pit”) is also echoed. It is
unnecessary to paraphrase the passage to read: “the blood of my covenant with you” (cf.
rsv, nrsv), for the reciprocity of the covenant is clear enough. See Carol L. Meyers and
Eric M. Meyers, Zechariah 9–14 (ab 25c; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 138–140. The covenant
is both God’s (or “my,” as some versions paraphrase) and Israel’s (“your,” which is how the
Hebrew actually reads; the second person pronoun occurs in some Greek mss).
22 Ben F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus, 64; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 966–967.
23 On the typology of the twelve, see Craig A. Evans, “The Baptism of John in a Typological
Context,” in Dimensions of Baptism: Biblical and Theological Studies (ed. Anthony R. Cross
and Stanley E. Porter; JSNTSup 234; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 45–71.
450 evans
In the parallel versions of the Words of Institution found in Luke 22:20 and
1Cor 11:25 we hear of the “new covenant” in Jesus’ blood. The adjective “new”
(καινή), which modifies “covenant,” is derived from Jer 31:31, part of an oracle
that anticipates the restoration of fallen Israel.24 The new covenant of Jer 31:31
stands over against the old covenant, given at Sinai (as is made clear in 31:32).
Although the adjective does not appear in Mark’s version of Jesus’ words, it is
very probable that it was an original part of the tradition, whether explicitly
expressed or implied. Indeed, the full import of Jesus’ words can hardly be
understood without reference to Jer 31:31–32.25 The same is probably true in
the case of the men of Qumran, who also spoke of “the new covenant” (הברית
)החדשה, established not through the death of anyone but through their faithful
interpretation of Torah (cd 6:19; 19:33; 20:12; 1QpHab 2:3). One will not find Jer
31:31 quoted in any of these passages, but it is probable that this passage from
Jeremiah inspired the idea of the new covenant.26 Indeed, elsewhere among
the Qumran scrolls we find references to entering the covenant, without the
adjective “new,” yet it is this new or renewed covenant that is in view (e.g.,
cd 15:7–10; 1qs 1:6–7).
Peter Stuhlmacher very plausibly suggests that in the context of a meal, in
which he speaks of a (new) covenant, Jesus foresees the fulfillment of Isa 25:6–8,
in which is envisioned the restoration of Israel, when hunger, death, and sorrow
will cease. Stuhlmacher believes, rightly in my judgment, that this collocation
24 C.F.D. Moule, The Gospel According to Mark (cbc; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1965), 115.
25 France, Mark, 570.
26 So Matthew Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins: Studies in the Jewish Background of
the New Testament (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1961), 91–92; Jean Carmignac in his com-
mentary on 1QpHab in Jean Carmignac, Édouard Cothenet, and Hubert Lignée, Les textes
de Qumran: Traduits et annotés. Vol. 2: Règle de la Congrégation, etc. (Paris: Letouzey et
Ané, 1963), 95; and Shemaryahu Talmon, “ ‘Exile’ and ‘Restoration’ in the Conceptual World
of Ancient Judaism,” in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives (ed.
James M. Scott; JSJSup 72; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 107–146, here 145. The prophet Jeremiah
is mentioned by name in cd 8:20. The words ברית חדשהare a hapax legomenon in the
Hebrew Bible. Their appearance in the Damascus Document in the definite form can only
be in reference to Jer 31:31. However, in the thinking of Qumran the “new covenant” was
not a replacement of the old covenant; it was, rather, a renewal of the covenant. For more
on this, see Craig A. Evans, “Covenant in the Qumran Literature,” in The Concept of the
Covenant in the Second Temple Period (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C.R. de Roo;
JSJSup 71; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 55–80, esp. 58–60; and Lawrence H. Schiffman, Qumran and
Jerusalem: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 2010), 251–253.
exodus in the new testament 451
of materials (Exod 24:8; Jer 31:31–32; Isa 25:6–8), interpreted in the light of his
anticipated death, originated with Jesus and laid the foundation for the early
Church’s theology of atonement.27
The last clause, “which is poured out on behalf of many” (τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον
ὑπὲρ πολλῶν), alludes to Isa 53:12 (“he poured out [ ]ֶהֱע ָרהhis soul to death, and
was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many [ ַרִבּים/ lxx:
πολλῶν]”), a passage drawn to the Exodus context in all probability by the simi-
lar language in Exod 29:12 (“and the rest of the blood you shall pour out [ ִתְּשֹׁפְּך/
lxx: ἐκχεεῖς] at the base of the altar”). The allusion to the Suffering Servant
enables Jesus to link the covenantal language of Exodus 24 and Jeremiah 31 with
the figure with whom Jesus identifies.
Whether or not Jesus expected his disciples to drink the cup—the cup
that signified his blood, the “blood of the covenant”—“in memory” of him (as
in Luke 22:19; 1Cor 11:24; Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 66.3), he declared that he
himself would not drink it again until the day he will drink it in the kingdom
of God (Mark 14:25). Implicit in his declaration is a disjunction between the
old covenant, as originally given at Sinai, and the new covenant, foretold by
Jeremiah, which will be made possible in Jesus’ blood. Jesus will not drink wine
again until the new covenant is fully realized in the kingdom of God.
Themes and stories from Exodus play significant parts in some of Paul’s most
important theological discussions. In some cases the stories of Exodus provide
Paul with analogies that offer practical guidance. There are several interesting
examples in his Corinthian letters. In his first letter, the apostle alludes to the
first Passover when he exhorts the Corinthian Christians to clean out the old
leaven, reminding them that the Messiah, the Passover lamb, has been sacri-
ficed (1Cor 5:7–8). A few chapters later Paul draws an interesting comparison
between Christian experience and the people of God, under the leadership of
Moses, who “passed through the sea” and later were disobedient and were pun-
ished (1Cor 10:1–11). In the second letter, Paul draws a fascinating analogy based
on the veil of Moses (2Cor 3:12–18) and provides teaching on finances on the
basis of what is said about the manna (2Cor 8:1–15). I shall review these pas-
sages briefly and then spend more time in Romans 9, where Paul develops his
doctrine of election based on the fate of Pharaoh.
2.2 “All were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea”
After his discourse on the proper use of liberty (chaps. 8–9) Paul once again
warns the Corinthians not to fall into immorality (chap. 10). And again his warn-
ing is inspired by stories from the book of Exodus. He reminds the Corinthians
that their ancestors “were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,
and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the
same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink” (vv. 1b–3a).
Paul refers, of course, to the crossing of the sea (Exod 14:21–22) and the mirac-
ulous provision of water (Exod 17:1–7). Saying the ancestors were “under the
cloud” refers to the pillar of cloud that led the people by day (Exod 13:21–22).
exodus in the new testament 453
28 Among others, see Ps.-Philo, Bib. Ant. 10:7, where we are told that God provided Israel
with manna, quail, and “a well of water to follow them” (see also 11:15; 20:8). It is probable
that Paul knew of this interpretive tradition (though probably not Biblical Antiquities). For
further discussion, see Peter E. Enns, “The ‘Moveable Well’ in 1Cor 10:4: An Extrabiblical
Tradition in an Apostolic Text,” bbr 6 (1996): 23–38.
29 See Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (pntc; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 451.
30 On this point, see Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (nicnt; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1987), 448–449.
454 evans
They are “changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another” (2 Cor
3:18), says the apostle.
Paul’s veil metaphor is taken from the story of Moses and his veil (Exod
34:29–35). We are told that when Moses came down from Mount Sinai, with
the two newly-inscribed stone tablets, his face shone with the glory of God,
“because he had been talking with God” (v. 29). When Aaron and the people
saw it they were afraid, so Moses veiled his face, removing the veil when he was
in the presence of God and replacing the veil when he was not.
Paul remarks that the divine glory reflected in the face of Moses had begun
to fade (2Cor 3:7) and that Moses continued to wear the veil, in part so that the
people of Israel might not notice that this glory was beginning to fade (v. 13).
Paul’s point is comparative: Whereas the ministry of Moses was a temporary,
fading one, the ministry of Christ is eternal and not only does not fade, it
intensifies, “from one degree of glory to another.” It should be noted that
what is translated “fading” (καταργούμενος) in vv. 7 and 13 is better rendered
“being nullified”, “abolished,” or “make of no effect.” What Moses (and here Paul
probably means how the synagogue of his day understands Moses) is trying to
hide behind the veil is the loss of the law’s power. In short, the law is no longer
effectual. It cannot save.
Paul’s exegesis is curious, for the Hebrew text says nothing about Moses
trying to hide from the people the ineffectual glory reflected in his face. If Paul
has exploited a Jewish exegesis we cannot tell. It may be his own creative work.
However, when Paul loosely quotes Exod 34:34, “when a man turns to the Lord
the veil is removed” (2Cor 3:16), he seems to have interacted with an old Jewish
interpretation. In the Hebrew text Exod 34:34 reads: “whenever Moses went in
before the Lord to speak with him, he took the veil off.” Paul’s paraphrase is not
based on the lxx (which renders the Hebrew literally); it appears to be based
on a different vocalization of the Hebrew (or Aramaic). His “turn to the Lord”
(ἐπιστρέψῃ πρὸς κύριον) refers to repentance, which in Hebrew and Aramaic is
based on the verb shuv (“to turn”) and the cognate noun teshuvah (“returning
[to the commandments]”).
This brings us to the Aramaic paraphrase of Exodus. According to Exod 33:7
in the Hebrew, “every one who sought the Lord would go out to the tent of
meeting.” But the Aramaic reads, “anyone who repented before the Lord with
a perfect heart went out to the tent of meeting” (Tg. Ps.-J.). Paul’s argument in
2Corinthians 3 presupposes some form of this understanding of Exodus. And
there is more.
When Paul goes on to say that “the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of
the Lord is, there is freedom” (v. 17), we probably again have echoes of Aramaic
interpretation and paraphrasing. According to Exod 33:16 in the Hebrew, “Is
exodus in the new testament 455
it not in thy going with us, so that we are distinct, I and thy people, from all
other people that are upon the face of the earth?” But the Aramaic reads, “…
unless your Shekinah speaks with us and wonders are performed for us when
you remove the spirit of prophecy from the nations and speak in the Holy Spirit
to me and to your people, so that we become different from all the peoples that
are on the face of the earth?” (Tg. Ps.-J.).31 Paul’s introduction of the Spirit of
the Lord, in a context where he has made reference to Exod 33, likely is related
in some way to interpretation current in his day, which comes down to us in a
much later and much more developed form in the Targum.32
And finally, Paul’s reference to “freedom” (2Cor 3:17), which is not present in
the Hebrew text, once again probably reflects Aramaic interpretation. Accord-
ing to Lev 26:13 in the Hebrew God declares, “I am the Lord your God, who
brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, that you should not be their slaves;
and I have broken the bars of your yoke and made you walk erect.” But in the
Aramaic we read: “… who broke off the yoke of the nations from you and led
you to freedom.”33
2.4 “He who gathered much had nothing over, and he who gathered little
had no lack”
Paul articulates a policy for giving and uses the giving of the manna as an anal-
ogy. He says, “as a matter of equality your abundance at the present time should
supply their want, so that their abundance may supply your want, that there
may be equality” (2 Cor 8:14). This is adumbrated with Israel’s experience with
the manna: “He who gathered much had nothing over, and he who gathered
little had no lack” (v. 15, quoting Exod 16:18).
31 English translation of the Targum is based on Michael Maher, in Targum Neofiti 1 and
Pseudo-Jonathan: Exodus (ed. Martin McNamara, Robert Hayward, and Michael Maher;
ArBib 2; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1994), 257.
32 For further discussion, see McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum,
179–181.
33 For further discussion, see McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum,
175–177. English translation of the Targum is based on Bernard Grossfeld, The Targum
Onqelos to Leviticus and Numbers (ArBib 8; Wilmington: Glazier, 1988), 60.
456 evans
every advantage (status as God’s chosen people, the patriarchs, the covenants,
Torah, the temple), much of Israel has become estranged from God through
unbelief and hardness of heart (Rom 11:1–10). This should not surprise, because,
after all, “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are
children of Abraham because they are his descendants” (9:6b–7a).
The proof of this is in fact that the promised seed passed through Isaac,
Abraham’s second-born son, not Ishmael, his first-born son (v. 7b, quoting
Gen 21:12). From this Paul infers that physical descent from Abraham is no
guarantee of election. God makes his choice in advance—before anyone has
done anything (vv. 8–13). God chose Jacob over Esau, not because the former
was morally superior to the latter (indeed, a careful and fair reading of the
Genesis narrative suggests the opposite), but because God willed it. He had
promised an heir to Abraham and Sarah, and he kept that promise. In another
context Paul explains that in acting the way he has, God has excluded human
boasting (Rom 3:27; 4:2; 1Cor 1:28–31; Eph 2:8–9). In everything pertaining to
redemption humans have no grounds for boasting.
To drive home the point he is making about God’s sovereign right to choose,
Paul reminds his readers of what “the scripture” says to Pharaoh (Rom 9:17): εἰς
αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐξήγειρά σε ὅπως ἐνδείξωμαι ἐν σοὶ τὴν δύναμίν μου καὶ ὅπως διαγγελῇ τὸ
ὄνομά μου ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ (“I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing
my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth”). Paul
has loosely quoted the lxx version of Exod 9:16: ἕνεκεν τούτου διετηρήθης, ἵνα
ἐνδείξωμαι ἐν σοὶ τὴν ἰσχύν μου, καὶ ὅπως διαγγελῇ τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ
(“For this reason you have been spared in order that I might display in you
my power and in order that my name might be proclaimed in all the land”).
Whereas the lxx uses the passive verb διετηρήθης, “you have been spared” or
“preserved,” Paul uses the active verb and direct object ἐξήγειρά σε, “I have raised
you up.” To raise up Pharaoh, and not merely preserve him, accentuates his
dramatic fall, both in the plagues and in the destruction of his army in the
sea. There is also an interesting difference between the Greek and the Hebrew.
Whereas the Hebrew reads אְתָך ֶאת־כִֹּחי ֹ ַה ְר, “I will show you my strength,” both
the lxx and Paul read ἐνδείξωμαι ἐν σοὶ τὴν ἰσχύν μου, “I might show in you
my strength” (Paul: τὴν δύναμίν μου, “my power”). The Hebrew makes it clear
that God will demonstrate his strength to Pharaoh.34 But in the Greek God
demonstrates his strength in Pharaoh (ἐν σοὶ) for the all world to see, as the
34 J.H. Hertz, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs: Hebrew Text, English Translation with Commen-
tary: Exodus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1930) 98: “to make thee experience My
power.”
exodus in the new testament 457
last part of the verse suggests: “so that my name may be declared throughout
all the earth.”35
The experience of Pharaoh becomes a template for Paul’s theology of elec-
tion. From a human point of view Pharaoh possessed great power and from an
Egyptian point of view Pharaoh was blessed of the gods. He was chosen of the
gods; their elect one. But as it turns out, it was the God of Israel who gave him
his power and raised him up, that God might show him (so the Hebrew) and
demonstrate in him (so the Greek) the power of God over the false gods and
the false, oppressive power of the Egyptian empire.
Paul’s appeal to the example of Pharaoh, with which no Jew (whether a
follower of Jesus or not) could disagree, reinforces his argument concerning
the physical descendants of Abraham. Just as God chose a nation of slaves over
mighty Egypt, just as he chose the younger Isaac over Ishmael, or the younger,
manipulative Jacob over Esau, so God in his sovereign right may chose whom
he wishes to chose. If he chose the physical descendants of Abraham, he may
also choose a people for himself from among the Gentiles. This is not a new
people that replaces the original people of God; rather, it is a people who stand
side-by-side with the Jews, under the Lordship of the Messiah.36
The Prologue of John (John 1:1–18) is one of the most fascinating passages in
the writings that make up the New Testament. Its memorable opening words,
“In the beginning was the Word …,” immediately bring to mind the opening
words of the book of Genesis, “In the beginning God created the heavens and
the earth.” The first five verses of the prologue (John 1:1–5) introduce the Word,
the Logos, and place it/him in the very beginning of creation, by which/whom
came light and life.
The last five verses of the prologue (John 1:14–18) compare the Logos with
Moses the great lawgiver. Through Moses the law was given, at the time of
establishment of the first covenant. But it was through the Logos, who from
35 As though to say God’s power “will be declared over and over again” throughout the world.
See John I. Durham, Exodus (wbc 3; Dallas: Word, 1987), 128.
36 Paul argues this because God, who is One, is the God of the Gentiles as well as God of
the Jews. For further discussion of Paul’s argument, see Mark D. Nanos, “Paul and the
Jewish Tradition: The Ideology of the Shema,” in Celebrating Paul: Festschrift in Honor of
Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, O.P., and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. (ed. Peter Spitaler; cbqms 48;
Washington, dc: Catholic Biblical Association, 2011), 62–80, here 67–72.
458 evans
eternity resided in the very bosom of the Father, that grace and truth were given,
at the time of the re-establishment of the covenant. Failure to appreciate fully
the Exodus typology at work in the last five verses of John’s Prologue has led
not only to inadequate exegesis, but also to questionable translation.
I begin with the opening verse, which reads: ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος
ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. The rsv translates: “In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Almost
every translation renders the preposition πρός in the second clause “with.” But
πρός with the accusative means “to,” “(moving) toward,” or “facing” (lsj). Had
the author meant to say “with God,” he could have used either πρός, παρά, or
σύν with the dative. Long ago B.F. Westcott sensed the problem. Although his
great commentary on John used the Revised Version as its translation (and
so rendered John 1:1 “with God”), Westcott remarked in his notes that πρὸς
τὸν θεόν implied not so much being with someone but “being (in some sense)
directed towards and regulated by that with which the relationship is fixed.”37
C.K. Barrett considers the problem, acknowledging that in its classic usage the
meaning of the preposition πρός could hardly be “with.” But he notes that in
the later post-classical koine Greek of the first century πρός could sometimes
more or less mean “with,” as in Mark 6:3, οὐκ εἰσὶν αἱ ἀδελφαὶ αὐτοῦ ὧδε πρὸς
ἡμᾶς; (“Are not his sisters here with us?”).38
That the meaning of πρός had begun to be used as an approximate equivalent
of παρά followed by a dative is not in dispute. The question before us concerns
its meaning in John 1:1. Raymond Brown rightly recognizes the ambiguity of the
preposition πρός and so paraphrases the verse to read, “In the beginning was the
Word; the Word was in God’s presence, and the Word was God.”39 Of course, to
be facing someone is to be in that person’s presence.40
37 B.F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes
(2 vols.; London: John Murray, 1908), 1:6.
38 C.K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John (London: spck, 1958), 127–128. Barrett’s view
remains unchanged in the 1978 second edition.
39 Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (ab 29/29a; Garden City: Doubleday,
1966–1970), 1:3–5.
40 Many commentators appeal to Mark 6:3, but we will do better to look at an example from
the Johannine Writings. We find in 1 John 1:1–2, “we … proclaim to you the eternal life which
was with the Father [πρὸς τὸν πατέρα].” 1 John 1:1–2 alludes to the opening verses of John’
Prologue. Here the “eternal life” plays on the “word of life” in v. 1, which refers to the Logos,
who is the source of life, and at the same time is the message Jesus proclaimed, which if
accepted results in life. This “word” was “with the Father,” or, better, was “facing the Father,”
or as Brown argues with respect to John 1:1, was “in the Father’s presence.”
exodus in the new testament 459
My primary concern here is not how we render πρὸς τὸν θεόν in 1:1, but that
we not allow the conventional translation “with God” obscure the point that
the Prologue tries to make in the final five verses (1:14–18). In this part of the
Prologue Moses and Jesus are compared. The author wishes to demonstrate the
surpassing greatness of the latter and to do this he underscores the difference
in each person’s position with regard to God.
Of Moses the Prologue says, “For the law was given through Moses … No one
has ever seen God” (vv. 17a, 18a). The first part (v. 17a) is explicit, referring to
the giving of the law at Mount Sinai (Exodus 20–32). The second part (v. 18a) is
implicit but clear. The reference is to Moses’ request to see the face (or glory) of
God: “I pray thee, show me thy glory” (Exod 33:18), to which God replies: “you
cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live” (33:20). God makes it
possible for Moses to catch but a fleeting glimpse of his back (33:21–23; 34:6–7).
Of Jesus the Prologue says, “grace and truth came through Jesus Messiah
… the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known”
(vv. 18b, 17bc). The words “grace and truth” (ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια) allude to
the very words God spoke when he passed before Moses: “The Lord, the Lord,
a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love
and faithfulness” (Exod 34:6). The words “steadfast love and faithfulness” are
ֶחֶסד ֶוֱאֶמת, which in Greek can be translated χάρις καὶ ἀλήθεια. Earlier in the
Prologue we are told that the Logos “became flesh and dwelt among us, full
of grace and truth” (v. 14a). The phrase, “full of grace and truth” (πλήρης χάριτος
καὶ ἀληθείας), corresponds with the Hebrew’s “abounding in steadfast love and
faithfulness” () ַרב־ֶחֶסד ֶוֱאֶמת.41 This Jesus, full of grace and truth, is God’s Son and
he alone resided “in the bosom of the Father” and in his incarnation (v. 14) and
ministry he has made the Father known. Residing in the bosom (not side) of
the Father implies that the eternal Son has enjoyed a face to face relationship
with God. This is why it is important to be reminded of the basic meaning of
the preposition πρός in the first verse of the Prologue: The Word faced God.
When the Prologue says, “the Word became flesh and dwelt [ἐσκήνωσεν]
among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory [δόξη]” (v. 14ab),
it recalls the glory of God filling the leather tabernacle: “Then the cloud cov-
ered the tent of meeting, and the glory [ ְכבוֹד/ lxx: δόξη] of the Lord filled the
tabernacle [ ַהִמְּשָׁכּן/ lxx: ἡ σκηνή]” (Exod 40:34). The Prologue’s “dwelt” (ἐσκή-
νωσεν) is cognate with σκηνή, which can be translated “tent,” “dwelling,” or, as
41 The Prologue’s Greek represents an independent rendering of either the Hebrew or Ara-
maic, not a borrowing of the lxx, which reads: καὶ πολυέλεος καὶ ἀληθινὸς (“full of mercy
and truth”).
460 evans
4 Conclusion
Exodus’ story of the giving of the covenant, the tabernacle whereby God’s
dwelling presence among his people is both seen and felt, and the wilder-
ness experience itself—both the good and the bad—established patterns and
typologies by which Jesus and his teaching successors understand what has
taken place in their time and are able to articulate a theology and an ethic
that will guide the Church in the centuries to come. The Exodus takes its place
alongside Genesis as a book that contributes major theological ideas to the
thinking of Jesus and his early followers.
In his ability to heal and cast out evil spirits, Jesus believed that he was
imbued with the very power of God that had been at work in Moses and Aaron,
the power that defeated Pharaoh, his magicians, and their gods. The power
of God that resulted in Israel’s deliverance from Egyptian bondage was now
exodus in the new testament 461
at work in Jesus, who like Moses long ago proclaims the kingly authority of
God. Indeed, the way by which the God of Israel identified himself to Moses
at the burning bush implied that the patriarchs remained alive to God and so
guaranteed the truth of the resurrection. These great convictions, all founded
on the book of Exodus, made it possible for Jesus to speak of his anticipated
death in terms of “blood of the new covenant.”
For Paul the stories of Exodus supplied the early Church with a number
of lessons relating to morals and behavior. But the story of God’s power over
Pharaoh provided Paul with an important paradigm that enabled him to under-
stand God’s sovereignty, especially with respect to election. But more impor-
tantly, in the Exodus God demonstrated his power over all deities and the
nations that serve them. This vision of God made it possible for Paul to speak
of God as a God of all people and to conceive of a Church, an “assembly of
God” (1Cor 1:2; 10:32; 11:16, 22; 15:9; Gal 1:13; 1Thess 2:14; 2 Thess 1:4), in which all
people—Jews and Gentiles alike—stand as equals under God and the lordship
of God’s Son, Jesus the Messiah.
The fourth evangelist finds in Exodus a narrative typology upon which he
can build his wisdom Christology. He finds in the dramatic story where God
demonstrates that he is indeed full of grace and truth, in which God forgives
his idolatrous people and gives the law a second time, the very presence of
the eternal Logos, the Son, who existed in the bosom of the Father and in
human time “became flesh and dwelt among us,” an event foreshadowed by
God’s dwelling within the leather tabernacle.
The book of Exodus is quoted and echoed in a number of other New Tes-
tament writings, among them especially the book of Hebrews, but the limited
survey above has hopefully demonstrated how foundational the second book
of Moses was for Jesus and his early followers who developed in greater detail
their Master’s theology.
Select Bibliography
Allison Jr., Dale C., and W.D. Davies. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Gospel according to Saint Matthew. Volume 2. International Critical Commentary.
Edinburgh: t&t Clark, 1991.
Barrett, C.K. The Gospel according to St. John. London: spck, 1958.
Black, Matthew. The Scrolls and Christian Origins: Studies in the Jewish Background of
the New Testament. New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1961.
Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel according to John. 2 vols. Anchor Bible 29 and 29a.
Garden City: Doubleday, 1966–1970.
462 evans
Carmignac, Jean, Édouard Cothenet, and Hubert Lignée. Les textes de Qumran: Traduits
et annotés. Volume 2. Règle de la Congrégation, etc. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1963.
Casey, Maurice. An Aramaic Approach to q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 122. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2002.
. Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel. Society for New Testament Studies Mono-
graph Series 102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Ciampa, Roy E., and Brian S. Rosner. The First Letter to the Corinthians. Pelican New
Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.
Downing, F. Gerald. “The Resurrection of the Dead: Jesus and Philo.” Journal for the
Study of the New Testament 15 (1982): 42–50. Reprinted in pages 167–175 in The
Historical Jesus: A Sheffield Reader. The Biblical Seminar 33. Edited by Craig A. Evans
and Stanley E. Porter. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.
Durham, John I. Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary 3. Dallas: Word, 1987.
Eitrem, Samson. Some Notes on the Demonology of the New Testament. Symbolae
Osloenses 12. Oslo: A.W. Brøgger, 1950.
Enns, Peter E. “The ‘Moveable Well’ in 1 Cor 10:4: An Extrabiblical Tradition in an
Apostolic Text.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 6 (1996): 23–38.
Evans, Craig A. “Covenant in the Qumran Literature.” Pages 55–80 in The Concept of the
Covenant in the Second Temple Period. Journal for the Study of the New Testament
Supplement Series 71. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C.R. de Roo. Leiden:
Brill, 2003.
. “The Baptism of John in a Typological Context.” Pages 45–71 in Dimensions of
Baptism: Biblical and Theological Studies. Journal for the Study of the New Testament
Supplement Series 234. Edited by Anthony R. Cross and Stanley E. Porter. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 2002.
Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on
the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
Fitzmyer, Joseph. A. The Gospel according to Luke x–xxiv. Anchor Bible 24a. Garden
City: Doubleday, 1985.
France. R.T. The Gospel of Mark. New International Greek Testament Commentary.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
. The Gospel of Matthew. New International Commentary on the New Testa-
ment. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.
Gaston, Lloyd. “Beelzebul.” Theologische Zeitschrift 18 (1962): 247–255.
Grossfeld, Bernard. The Targum Onqelos to Leviticus and Numbers. The Aramaic Bible
8. Wilmington: Glazier, 1988.
Gundry, Robert. H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1993.
Hengel, Martin. The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament. Phila-
delphia: Fortress, 1981.
exodus in the new testament 463
Herrmann, Wolfgang. “Baal Zebub.” Pages 154–156 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons
in the Bible. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst.
Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Hertz, J.H. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs: Hebrew Text, English Translation with Com-
mentary: Exodus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1930.
Hultgren, Arland J. Jesus and His Adversaries: The Form and Function of the Conflict
Stories in the Synoptic Tradition. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979.
Limbeck, Meinrad. “Beelzebul—eine ursprüngliche Bezeichnung für Jesus?” Pages 31–
42 in Wort Gottes in der Zeit: Festschrift Karl Hermann Schelkle zum 65. Geburtstag.
Edited by Helmut Feld and Josef Nolte. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1973.
MacLaurin, E.C.B. “Beelzeboul.” Novum Testamentum 20 (1978): 156–160.
Maier iii, Walter. A. “Baal-zebub.” Page 554 in vol. 1 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary.
Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Manson, Thomas Walter. The Teaching of Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1948.
Marcus, Joel. Mark 8–16. Anchor Bible 27a. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.
Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke. New International Greek Testament Commen-
tary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.
McNamara, Martin. The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch.
2d ed. The Aramaic Bible 27a. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978.
McNamara, Martin, Robert Hayward, and Michael Maher, eds. Targum Neofiti 1 and
Pseudo-Jonathan: Exodus. The Aramaic Bible 2. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1994.
Meyer, Ben F. The Aims of Jesus. London: scm, 1979.
. “The Expiation Motif in the Eucharistic Words: A Key to the History of Jesus?”
Gregorianum 69 (1988): 461–487.
Meyers, Carol L., and Eric M. Meyers. Zechariah 9–14. Anchor Bible 25C. New York:
Doubleday, 1993.
Moule, C.F.D. The Gospel According to Mark. The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the
New English Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.
McKnight, Scot. Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement
Theory. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2005.
Nanos, Mark D. “Paul and the Jewish Tradition: The Ideology of the Shema.” Pages 62–80
in Celebrating Paul: Festschrift in Honor of Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, O.P., and Joseph
A. Fitzmyer, S.J. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 48. Edited by Peter
Spitaler. Washington, dc: Catholic Biblical Association, 2011.
Pesch, Rudolf. Das Markusevangelium. 2 vols. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum
Neuen Testament 2.1–2. Freiburg: Herder, 1977, 1991.
Pietersma Albert, and R.T. Lutz. “Jannes and Jambres.” Pages 427–442 in The Old Testa-
ment Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. New York: Double-
day, 1983–1985.
464 evans
Schiffman, Lawrence H. Qumran and Jerusalem: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the
History of Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.
Sheets, Dwight D. “Jesus as Demon-Possessed.” Pages 27–49 in Who Do My Opponents
Say that I Am? An Investigation of the Accusations against the Historical Jesus. Edited
by Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica. Library of New Testament Studies 327.
London: t&t Clark, 2008.
Simonetti, Manlio, ed. Matthew 1–13. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New
Testament 1a. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001.
Stuhlmacher, Peter. Jesus of Nazareth—Christ of Faith. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993.
Talmon, Shemaryahu. “ ‘Exile’ and ‘Restoration’ in the Conceptual World of Ancient
Judaism.” Pages 107–146 in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspec-
tives. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period
Supplement Series 72. Edited by James M. Scott. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Taylor, Vincent. Jesus and His Sacrifice. London: Macmillan, 1937.
Visotzky, Burton L. The Midrash on Proverbs. Yale Judaica Series 27. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1992.
Watts, Rikki E. Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum
Neuen Testament 2.88. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997.
Westcott, B.F. The Gospel according to St. John: The Greek Text with Introduction and
Notes. 2 vols. London: John Murray, 1908.
Exodus in Josephus
Paul Spilsbury
1 For the most recent English translation of this material, utilized throughout this chapter, see
Louis H. Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1–4: Translation and Commentary (ed. Steve Mason;
Leiden: Brill, 2000). The previous English standard remains valuable: Josephus (trans. H. St.
J. Thackeray, et al.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926–1965), cited as Thackeray, lcl.
The standard Greek text is Benedictus Niese ed., Flavii Josephi Opera et Apparatu Critica
Instruxit (7 vols.; Berlin: Weidmann, 1885–1895). See also Étienne Nodet ed., Flavius Josèphe,
Les Antiquités Juives: Livres i à iii (2d ed. Paris: Cerf, 1992).
2 See, e.g., Christopher T. Begg, Josephus’ Account of the Early Divided Monarchy (aj 8,212–420):
Rewriting the Bible (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993); Christopher T. Begg, Josephus’
Story of the Later Monarchy (aj 9,1–10, 185) (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000); Louis
H. Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1998); Louis H. Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible (JSJSup 58; Leiden: Brill, 1998);
and Paul Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew in Flavius Josephus’ Paraphrase of the Bible (tsaj 69;
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998). Broadly speaking, Josephus’ biblical paraphrase is not dis-
similar to other examples of “rewritten” Bible in Jewish antiquity such as Jubilees, the Genesis
Apocryphon, and Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities. Similar material is also found in such
Hellenistic-Jewish authors as Eupolemus, Demetrius, Artapanus and Ezekiel the Tragedian,
as well as in Philo and the rabbinic literature of subsequent centuries.
1 Josephus’ Moses3
3 On this theme see further Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation, 374–442; and Spilsbury, Image,
94–111.
4 E.g., Ant. 2.205, 238, 243, 257, 262; 3.12, 65, 67, 69, 74, 97, 187, 188, 192, 317, 322; 4.196, 320, 321,
326, 331.
5 Ant 1.95 (quote from Nicolaus of Damascus); 1.240 (quote from Alexander Polyhistor); 2.6,
18, 20, 23, 24; 3.180; 4.13, 150, 156; Apion 2.75 (noster legislator), 145, 154, 156, 161, 165, 169, 173,
209, 257, 286. Moses is the subject of νομοθετέω in Ant 3.266, 268, 317 and νομοθεσία is used in
connection with Moses in Ant. 3.287 and 320.
6 Moses’ stated reason for ascending Sinai was to receive “something useful” (τι … χρήσιμον)
from God (Ant. 3.75).
468 spilsbury
that God “graciously received me and … prescribed a blessed life for you and a
well-ordered constitution (πολιτείας κόσμος)” (Ant. 3.84). The commandments,
we learn in another place, are tokens of God’s favour mediated through Moses
the interpreter (ἑρμηνεύς, Ant. 3.87; see also 4.13).7 All of this raises another
important facet of Josephus’ picture of Moses, for which, however, he has
no specific term, namely, that of his being a mediator between God and the
people.8 This is a theme which Josephus develops in two important ways. In
the first instance Moses acts as a channel of God’s blessing. Moses himself is
very conscious of this role on the shores of the Red Sea where he reminds the
people that “from Him [sc. God] all things have happened for you as many as He
promised through me (δι’ ἐμοῦ) for your salvation and liberation from slavery”
(Ant. 2.331). The same thrust is evident again much later when Moses refers to
himself as “his subordinate general and servant (ὑποστρατήγῳ … καὶ ὑπηρέτῃ)
in the things with which He wished to benefit our people” (Ant. 4.317; see also
3.16).9
Another way in which Moses acts as a mediator is by supplicating God and
waiting upon him with divine service. This is true despite the fact that the
priesthood is officially conferred upon Aaron10 (Ant. 3.188–192; cf. Exod 28.1; Lev
8.1ff.), since even after the inauguration of Aaron Moses continues to devote
himself to the service (θεραπεία) of God (Ant. 3.212). In Ant. 3.69 Reuel refers
to the part Moses must play in the people’s salvation “by ministering to God”
(ὑπουργῶν τῷ θεῷ); and argues further that by attendance (προσεδρεύων) on God
he will render him more propitious to the army (Ant 3.72; see also Ant. 3.10, 22).
Josephus’ Moses is also a prophet.11 He has knowledge of the future (Ant.
2.237), and is referred to explicitly as προφήτης in 2.327. In Ant. 2.293 Josephus
explains that one of his reasons for relating the plagues of Egypt was to show
that Moses “was not mistaken in any of the things that he predicted” (see
7 Cf. Philo, Moses 1.1.1. “I propose to write the life of Moses, whom some describe as the
legislator (νομοθέτης) of the Jews, others as the interpreter (ἑρμηνεύς) of the Holy laws.”
8 Cf. Ludwig Bieler, θειοσ ανηρ: Das Bild des “göttlichen Menschen” in Spätantike und
Frühchristentum (Vienna: Oskar Höfels, 1935–1936), 2:33.
9 Besides the laws, two other benefits that accrue to the Israelites because of Moses are
freedom (ἐλευθερία) from slavery and the possession of Canaan (Ant. 2.268–269; also 3.19,
44–66, 64, 300, 314; 4.168, 212–213, 242, 294).
10 Wayne Meeks is correct to point out that Josephus never applies the title or official status
of “priest” to Moses. Nevertheless, he acknowledges that “Josephus emphasizes Moses’
office as Israel’s unequalled intercessor before God”; Wayne A. Meeks, The Prophet-King:
Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (NovTSup 14; Leiden: Brill, 1967), 137.
11 Cf. Deut 18:15, 18; 34:10
exodus in josephus 469
also Ant. 4.312, 320; 5.40), and at the end of his life Moses appoints Joshua
to succeed him both as commander and in his prophetic function (ἐπί τε
ταῖς προφητείαις; Ant. 4.165, 329; cf. Sir 46:1). Further, it is Moses’ position as
intermediary between the people and God that accounts for his enduring
authority. Josephus is at pains to point out that this authority remains even in
his own day. Thus he writes in one place: “Surely there is no one of the Hebrews
who, just as if he [Moses] were present and ready to punish him should he act
in an unbecoming manner, does not obey the laws prescribed by him, even
if he would be able to escape notice” (Ant. 3.317). A little later he concludes
that “up to the very present the writings left by Moses have such power (ἰσχύς)
that even those who hate us agree that God established the constitution for
us through Moses and his merit (διὰ Μωυσέος καὶ τῆς ἀρετῆς τῆς ἐκείνου)” (Ant.
3.322).
Another aspect of Josephus’ presentation of Moses has to do with the way
that he seems to insinuate at certain points that Moses was more than a mere
mortal. Thus, when Moses is long absent on Mount Sinai the “sober-minded,”
Josephus informs us, consider it likely that he has been “translated (μεταστῆ-
ναι) by God to Himself because of his inherent virtue (προσοῦσα ἀρετή)” (Ant.
3.97).12 Although in the final analysis Josephus denies apotheosis for Moses this
does not detract from Moses’ high status. Rather it enhances his image as a
man in close communion with God (cf. Ant. 3.75). At two other points in the
narrative Moses is allowed a sight of God (Ant. 2.275—the burning bush; Ant.
3.88—Mount Sinai), and in 3.99 Josephus implies that Moses partook of celes-
tial food13 during his forty-day absence on the mountain (cf. Exod 34.28; Deut
9.9, 18). The final passage to be noted on this theme is Ant. 3.180, in which Jose-
phus refers to Moses as θεῖος ἀνήρ. The context in which the term occurs is vital
for an understanding of its import. Josephus writes:
One might wonder at the hatred of men toward us that they have con-
tinued to have on the ground that we belittle the Divinity (τὸ θεῖον) that,
indeed, they themselves have made up their minds to reverence. For
12 Earlier they are said to have been of the opinion that he had “returned to the Divinity”
(πρὸς τὸ θεῖον ἀνακεχωρηκέναι; Ant. 3.96). See also Ant. 1.85 (of Enoch), and 9.28 (of Elijah).
In Ant. 4.326 Josephus explains that Moses confirmed the fact of his own death in advance
out of fear that people would think that he had been translated to God because of his
virtue.
13 See also Bieler, θειοσ ανηρ, 2:33. Josephus perhaps reflects knowledge of traditions
asserting that Moses ascended into heaven to receive the Torah. For a discussion of these,
see Meeks, Prophet-King, 205–209.
470 spilsbury
The first thing that strikes one about this passage is its apologetic thrust. Jose-
phus is defending the Jewish people from the charge that they slight (ἐκφαυ-
λιζεῖν) the divinity. Also striking is Josephus’ line of defense, namely, to iden-
tify the Jews with their lawgiver so that once it is established that he is a
θεῖος ἀνήρ it will become clear that the charge of impiety brought against all
Jews is spurious. This point is particularly important because if the identifica-
tion of the lawgiver with those who follow the laws be admitted, it becomes
clear that the thrust of Josephus’ description of Moses must be to counter the
charge of slighting the divinity. It would seem therefore that the term θεῖος
ἀνήρ in this context is a reference to Moses’ piety rather than a suggestion
that he is in some sense divine, or a god.14 This interpretation is supported
by Holladay’s detailed analysis of Josephus’ use of the adjective θεῖος. A sur-
vey of Josephus’ use of the term reveals that, with rare exceptions, he uses
θεῖος to describe objects, phenomena, concepts or events, and not persons.15
In many of these instances, Holladay notes, the meaning tends towards ἱερός
or ἅγιος.16 The impact, nevertheless, is to ensure the highest possible status for
Moses.
We turn now to a survey of Josephus’ Exodus narrative.
14 Cf. Dieter Georgi, Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirch-
ener, 1964), 147.
15 Carl R. Holladay, Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism: A Critique of the Use of this Category
in New Testament Christology (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), 57–65. See also Francis
MacDonald Cornford, Principium Sapientiae: the Origins of Greek Philosophical Thought
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952), 108.
16 Holladay, Theios Aner, 61, 101. Significant exceptions to this general tendency are the
description of Augustus as ὁ θεῖος Σεβαστός in a Claudian edict (Ant. 19.289) and, in Apion
the comment that the wisdom and foreknowledge of the future of a certain Amenophis,
“were regarded as marks of divinity” (Apion 1.232). Josephus also claims that the Egyptians
regarded Moses as remarkable (θαυμαστός) and divine (θεῖος) (Apion 1.279). In none of
these instances, though, does Josephus directly associate himself with the designation
of a human as “divine,” though they do demonstrate that he is fully aware of such an
understanding among others.
exodus in josephus 471
17 For similarly negative portrayals of the Egyptians in ancient literature, see Feldman,
Judean Antiquities 1–4: Translation and Commentary, 186 n. 563.
18 The oracle is not invented by Josephus. See the discussion of the development of this
story in Jewish midrash in René Bloch, “Methodological Note for the Study of Rabbinic
Literature,” in Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice (ed. William Scott
Green; bjs 1; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978), 1:51–75.
472 spilsbury
2.225–226), and on another playfully flings the king’s crown to the floor and
tramples on it (Ant. 2.233)! Not surprisingly, the Egyptians interpret this last
action as an evil omen (Ant. 2.234) and the sacred scribe implores Pharaoh to
kill Moses. However, the princess and God’s providence (προνοία) intervene to
save his life (Ant. 2.235).
Next (Ant. 2.239–253), Josephus relates a story about how Egypt is invaded
by the Ethiopians and how Moses, now fully educated and grown to maturity,
is called upon to liberate the Egyptians from their oppressors.19 In the preface
to this story Josephus writes that it was this event that demonstrated his virtue
to the Egyptians and made it clear that he had been born for their humiliation
and for the advancement of the Hebrews (Ant.2.238).20 In the course of the
campaign Moses has opportunity to demonstrate his intelligence (συνέσις) by
using ibises to control deadly serpents they encounter along the way (Ant.
2.244), and in the climax of his exploits Moses is admired by the Ethiopian
princess for his noble fighting (μαχόμενος γενναίως) and the ingenuity of his
military maneuvers (ἡ ἐπίνοια τῶv ἐγχειρήσεων, Ant. 2.252) to such an extent
that she falls in love with him and proposes marriage.21 Ultimately, Moses’
στρατηγία becomes the object of Pharaoh’s envy and suspicion that he would
use his success to start a revolution (νεωτερίσειε)22 in Egypt (Ant. 2.254–255).
Thus, he is forced to flee into the desert to escape a murder plot. This he does
without provisions, “trusting firmly in his perseverance” (Ant. 2.256).23 Most
strikingly for readers of Exodus, Josephus here omits the story of Moses’ murder
of the Egyptian guard, and thus avoids tarnishing his picture of Moses’ youth
(cf. Exod 2:12).
19 See the discussion in Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1–4: Translation and Commentary, 201–
202 n. 664.
20 See also Ant. 2.243.
21 The biblical warrant for this story would seem to be Num 12:1 in which we learn that
Miriam and Aaron were angry with Moses for marrying an Ethiopian woman.
22 Thackeray lcl translates this to the effect that Pharaoh was afraid that Moses would
“revolutionize” Egypt. For Abraham as a reformer, see Ant. 1.155 and 161.
23 This echoes a comment made about Moses in an earlier context in which Josephus
remarks on Moses’ “contempt of toils” (πόνωv καταφρόνησις), an expression often asso-
ciated with Stoic conceptions of virtue. See also Ant. 2.7, 204; 3.297; 4.294.
exodus in josephus 473
24 Josephus calls him Raguel (Ῥαγουήλος) and notes later that his surname was Ἰεθεγλαίος
(Ant. 2.264). On this figure in Josephus, see further Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1–4:
Translation and Commentary, 205–207 n. 687.
25 Josephus uses the name Σιναῖον rather than Horeb (cf. Exod 3.1).
26 Exod 3:1 refers to Horeb as “the mountain of God;” cf. Exod 18:5.
27 Exod 3:2 refers to “the angel of the Lord.” Josephus omits this.
28 In Exod 3:5 Moses is instructed to take off his sandals and not to come any closer.
29 Josephus draws attention to Moses’ ancestry again in Ant. 2.210 and 299. On the impor-
tance of this theme in antiquity in general and in Josephus’ biblical paraphrase in partic-
ular, see Louis H. Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait of Moses, Part 1,” jqr 82 (1991): 293–295 and
note 23.
474 spilsbury
30 In reference to this passage, Tessa Rajak has noted that Moses is presented as the leader
of a democratic system with the whole people of Israel as the δῆμος; Tessa Rajak, “Flavius
Josephus: Jewish History and the Greek World” (D.Phil. diss., University of Oxford, 1974)
1:258. In another place (Ant. 2.281) Moses sets off to confront Pharaoh having first obtained
the Hebrews’ agreement to follow his orders (see also Ant. 4.37, 64). Although Josephus
was no great believer in democracy as such, he was not averse to using language evocative
of Athens when it suited his purpose to do so. The term ἰδιώτης is used negatively of Herod
in Ant. 14.403.
31 In Ant. 3.90 Josephus says the same thing about the words of the Decalogue. On this
scruple see Smith, “Occult,” 237. On the consequences of the suppression of the divine
name for the pagan view of Judaism, see Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies
in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (trans. J. Bowden; London:
scm, 1974), 1:266–267. On Josephus’ reticence to divulge the divine name and similar
scruples at Qumran, see David Lenz Tiede, The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker
(Missoula: Scholars Press, 1972), 229 n. 227. John G. Gager has drawn attention to the
relationship between the divine name and the performance of miracles—a relationship
he suggests may be hinted at by Josephus here in Ant 2.276; see John G. Gager, Moses in
Greco-Roman Paganism (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972), 144.
exodus in josephus 475
and while the choice of Aaron as high priest is not explained in Exod 28:1 and
Lev 8:1, Josephus ascribes it partly to Moses’ virtue (Ant. 3.192)!32
Josephus’ account of Moses’ showdown with Pharaoh, along with the plagues
that ensue, is a narratively embellished paraphrase of the biblical story. In the
initial encounter Moses reminds the king of his military services to Egypt and
points out that he had not been properly rewarded at the time (Ant. 2.282).
He also relates his encounter with God at Sinai and the divine commission he
had received (Ant. 2.283). Pharaoh’s response is to scoff (χλευάζω) at him and to
accuse him of being an escaped slave and a magician (Ant. 2.284).33 Josephus
omits any mention of God hardening Pharaoh’s heart (cf. Exod 4:21; 7:3, 13;
9:12, 35; 14:4), and focuses rather on Pharaoh’s hostility, anger, and obstinacy;
and notes at one point that he threatened to behead Moses (Ant. 2.310). At
another point Moses warns the king that he will have only himself to blame
“for suffering what one who opposed the commands of God was likely to suffer”
(Ant. 2.291), and further that “to those who arouse divine wrath against them
calamities arise from all sides, and neither earth nor air is friendly to them, nor
do they have births of children in accordance with nature, but all things are
hostile and warlike” (Ant. 2.292).
For his decision to rehearse the plagues in detail Josephus offers three rea-
sons, namely, that no such plagues had ever befallen any nation before, that
Moses’ predictions had proven true in every case and, finally, that “it is appro-
priate for humanity to learn to be careful to do those things at which the Deity
will not be displeased and not to turn him to anger to punish them for their
injustice” (Ant. 2.293). Though Josephus claims to be relating all of the plagues,
he in fact has only nine, with the fifth (the disease on the cattle) missing. Also,
the biblical plague of the swarms of flies (Exod 8:21, 24) is rendered by Jose-
32 We may also note that whereas in Numbers 17:3 Aaron’s name is inscribed on his staff,
in Ant. 4.64 Josephus substitutes the word “Levite.” Cf. Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait of
Moses, Part 1,” 312. See also Louis H. Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait of Aaron,” in Classical
Studies in Honour of David Sohlberg (ed. Ranon Katzoff; Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University
Press, 1996); Meeks, Prophet-King, 136–137. Also, whereas Josephus implies that Moses is
the elder brother in Ant. 2.216, he later blunders by stating that Aaron was three years
older (Ant. 2.319).
33 On Moses’ reputation in antiquity for being a magician, see Feldman, Judean Antiquities
1–4: Translation and Commentary, 214 n. 752; and Gager, Moses 134–161.
476 spilsbury
phus as “wild beasts of every kind and of many forms, of which no one had
previously encountered any” (Ant. 2.303).34 The descriptions of preparations
for and effects of the final plague are greatly reduced as compared to Exod 11
through 13, though Josephus does note that these events are the basis for the
Jewish festival of Pascha (πάσχα, Ant. 2.313).35 When the Israelites finally depart
Egypt they are honored with gifts: “some in order that they might depart more
swiftly, others from neighborly relations with them” (Ant. 2.314; cf. Exod 11:2;
12:33).
In the scene that follows Josephus portrays Pharaoh rationalizing his deci-
sion to change his mind yet again on the basis that God’s command had been
obeyed (in that the people had been allowed to depart), and that they would
thus no longer have divine protection (Ant. 2.320). Contrary to the biblical
notice that the Israelites were prepared for battle, Josephus’ Pharaoh under-
stands them to be unarmed (cf. Exod 13:18).36 Further, for the biblical explana-
tion of the route taken for the exodus, namely, that the shorter way through
Philistine country would lead to war and the possibility that the Israelites
would change their minds and return to Egypt (Exod 13:17), Josephus provides
more elaborate rationale in which a desire to conceal their movements from
the hostile Philistines (Παλαιστίνοι)37 is just one consideration. The two other
reasons are to punish the Egyptians should they breech trust and pursue them,
and in order to fulfill God’s command that they worship him on Mount Sinai
(Ant. 2.322–323). Josephus also adds to the 600 Egyptian chariots who pursue
the Israelites 50,000 horsemen and 200,000 heavy infantry (Ant. 2.324).
Josephus’ description of the Red Sea crossing is highly dramatic and greatly
embellished as compared to the biblical account. We may note the following
highlights. First of all, Josephus provides Moses with a long oration in response
34 Perhaps Josephus has in mind the passage in Wis 11:17–19 which reads: “For your all-
powerful hand, which created the world out of formless matter, did not lack the means
to send upon them a multitude of bears, or bold lions, or newly-created unknown beasts
full of rage, or such as breathe out fiery breath, or belch forth a thick pall of smoke, or flash
terrible sparks from their eyes; not only could the harm they did destroy people, but the
mere sight of them could kill by fright.”
35 On Josephus’ use of this designation see further Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1–4: Transla-
tion and Commentary, 222 n. 822.
36 Josephus adds a note at Ant. 2.349 to the effect that after the Egyptian army had been
drowned in the Red Sea their weapons washed up on the beach, thus allowing the
Israelites to rearm themselves.
37 Josephus notes that the Israelites feared the Philistines because of “an ancient enmity”
with them, but offers no further explanation (Ant. 2.322).
exodus in josephus 477
When, therefore, the entire army of the Egyptians was within, the sea
poured back upon them and surrounded them surging, owing to winds
descending upon the Egyptians; and rains came down from heaven and
frightful thunder with lightning flashing at the same time, and thunder-
bolts poured down. In short, there was not one of those forces that befall
men for their destruction owing to the wrath of God that did not then
come together. For, indeed, a dark and gloomy night enveloped them.
Ant. 2.343–344
38 Cf. Exod 14:14 “The lord will fight for you, and you have only to keep still.”
39 Cf. Exod 14:19–20 in which it is the “angel of God” in the pillar of cloud that keeps the
Egyptians from advancing on the people.
40 On this event, see Arrian, Anab. 1.26 and Strabo, Geog. 14.3.9.666–667; cf. Feldman, Judean
Antiquities 1–4: Translation and Commentary, 230, n. 897.
478 spilsbury
For the next phase of the narrative told in just over three chapters in Exodus
(15:22–18:27) Josephus provides a paraphrase of some seventy-four paragraphs.
The opening sentence of Antiquities Book 3 sets the tone for this part of the
story: “After such an unexpected rescue, the Hebrews were again sorely afflicted
(δεινῶς ἐλύπει) while they were being led to Mount Sinai” (Ant. 3.1). For the
statement in Exodus that “for three days they traveled in the desert without
finding water” (Exod 15:22) Josephus elaborates at some length, saying: “The
country was completely desolate and without the means for their nourishment
and lacking water to an extreme degree,” and further that, “It not only was
wanting in furnishing something for humans but it was also incapable of
feeding any type of living creature, for it was sandy, and no wetness arose from
it that would be able to produce fruit” (Ant. 3.1). Along with numerous other
statements in this vein, Josephus remarks that it was the women and children in
particular who begged Moses for some kind of relief (Ant. 3.5–6; cf. Exod 15:24).
Indeed, for Josephus both Marah41 and Elim prove to be great disappointments,
with the latter surrounded by “no more than seventy” Palms stunted by an
inadequate supply of water and sandy soil (Ant. 3.9–11).
Josephus also conflates the Elim scene with the next one in the biblical nar-
rative, namely, the grumbling of the community in the wilderness of Sin (Exod
16). Here too Josephus elaborates significantly by supplying Moses with a long
speech reminding the people of how God had rescued them from Egypt and
provided all their needs, and urging them not to despair despite the propensity
of all people to grumble and to be “fond of having reproaches at hand” (Ant.
3.13–23). Ultimately, Moses is concerned in all of this not for himself but that in
their desire to stone him the people should be seen to passing sentence against
God (Ant. 3.21).
Regarding the provision of quail and manna in the next part of this story, we
may note that while being gifts of divine providence both are also rationalized
to some extent. Thus, Josephus indicates that this species of quail is common
in the area and that they landed where they did because of exhaustion after
crossing the sea (Ant. 3.25). The manna, for its part, “still even now” may be
found in that region of the desert (Ant. 3.31). In contrast to these two stories,
the account of water from the rock at Rephidim is elaborated on in anticipation
of Moses’ sojourn on Sinai (Ant. 3.36; cf. Exod 17:6). Not only does Moses spend
41 The miracle at Marah is given a rationalizing explanation whereby the brackish water near
the surface is drawn off to provide access to the sweeter water below (Ant. 3.8).
exodus in josephus 479
time on the summit of the mountain communing with God, but Josephus tells
us that there is in the temple a document revealing that God had foretold to
him that water would issue from the rock (Ant. 3.38; cf. Ant. 4.303; 5.61).42 The
response of the people to the gushing flow of the clearest kind of water is to
admire Moses and to offer sacrifices to God.
The final two episodes in this part of the wilderness trek receive particular
attention from Josephus, namely, the attack of the Amalekites43 (Exod 17:8–16)
and the visit of Moses’ father-in-law Jethro (Exod 18). The Amalekites’ aggres-
sion is of particular importance to Josephus, though, significantly, he omits the
divine intention recorded in Exod 17:14 to “completely blot out the name of
Amalek from under heaven.” Rather, Moses predicts that the Amalekites “would
perish with utter annihilation and that not one of them would be left … because
they had attacked the Hebrews … while they were in desert land and exhausted”
(Ant. 3.60; cf. Deut 25:17–18). Before that, Josephus had greatly heightened
the Amalekites’ crime by having them encourage neighboring nations to war
against the Hebrews (Ant. 3.40–42). The battle itself is rendered with color-
ful detail including stirring exhortations, deployment details, and a description
of Joshua as “a most courageous man and excellent in enduring toil and most
capable in understanding and in speech, one who worshipped God outstand-
ingly and who had made Moses his teacher of piety toward Him and who was
honored among the Hebrews” (Ant. 3.49). The victory over the Amalekites was
so complete, Josephus states, that it was only nightfall that prevented the anni-
hilation of the entire army (Ant. 3.54).
Finally, three months after departing Egypt the Israelites arrive at Sinai
where they are met by Reuel.44 Though largely similar to the biblical story,
some differences in detail stand out. The first is that in Josephus’ version
Moses’ wife Zipporah and their two sons had been with Moses throughout the
exodus, while in the Bible they had been with Jethro (Exod 18:2–5). Another
difference in detail is that in Exodus Jethro offers a burnt offering to God after
hearing all that he had done to rescue the Israelites (Exod 18:9–12), whereas in
42 Josephus does not comment on the fact that the temple no longer exists at the time of
writing.
43 On Josephus’ treatment of this episode, see further Louis H. Feldman, “Remember Amalek!”
Vengeance, Zealotry, and Group Destruction in the Bible according to Philo, Pseudo-Philo,
and Josephus (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 2004), 29–37.
44 In Exodus the visit of Jethro (chapter 18) occurs before the arrival at Sinai (Exod 19:1),
though there is a notice at Exod 18:5 that the visit occurred “near the mountain of God.” On
exegetical traditions related to this point, see Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1–4: Translation
and Commentary, 246 n. 123.
480 spilsbury
Josephus’ version it is Moses who makes the offering before feasting the entire
community “near the bush that had escaped the burning of the fire” (Ant. 3.63).
Thirdly, after offering advice to Moses concerning the delegation of judicial
matters to competent subordinates (as in Exod 18:13–26), Josephus’ Reuel goes
further by offering advice on the arrangements of military resources as well
(Ant. 3.70). Finally, whereas the biblical story of Jethro ends simply by saying
that “Moses sent his father-in-law on his way” (Exod 18:27), Josephus makes a
somewhat laborious point about how Moses demonstrated his virtue by giving
Reuel due credit for the innovations he had advised, rather than claiming them
for himself (Ant. 3.73–74).45
Josephus’ account of Moses’ ascent of the mountain and all that transpired dur-
ing this time is paraphrased, adapted and embellished in numerous ways that
cannot all be enumerated here. As is typical for Josephus he makes much of
the grandeur of the mountain itself (Ant. 3.76) and states that while the peo-
ple prepared themselves to receive from God the gift “by which they would
live well” (Ant. 3.78) they dressed sumptuously and feasted for two days. Jose-
phus says nothing of the stern prohibitions regarding approaching the moun-
tain (Exod 19:12, 21–24), but does describe the fear and bewilderment of the
people at the manifestations of God’s presence in the form of lightning and
thunder, rain and violent winds (Ant. 3.80–81). For Josephus, Sinai is a place
“frequented” (φοιτῶντος) by God (Ant. 3.82; also 2.265), and when Moses returns
from his first encounter he is “elated and high-spirited” (γαῦρός τε καὶ μέγα
φρονῶν, Ant. 3.83). His message to the gathered community is that “God …
graciously received me and having prescribed a blessed life (βίον … εὐδαί-
μονα)46 for you and well-ordered constitution (πολιτείας κόσμον),47 is also com-
ing Himself into the camp” (Ant. 3.84). We may note here that while Josephus
nowhere indicates that God entered into a covenant with the people,48 he does
45 Josephus makes a similar point with reference to the prophecies of Balaam in Ant. 4.157–
158.
46 Cf. Ant. 1.14
47 Cf. Ant. 1.5
48 On this point see further Paul Spilsbury, “God and Israel in Josephus: a Patron-Client
Relationship,” in Understanding Josephus (ed. Steve Mason; JSPSup 32; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1998).
exodus in josephus 481
enumerate on several occasions the special regard or care that God has for the
people (e.g. Ant. 3.88).
The giving of the Decalogue in Exod 20:1 is prefaced by the statement: “I
am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of
slavery.” In Josephus this statement is expanded to encompass a review of
God’s faithfulness not only to the Israelites in the wilderness but also to Adam,
Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and his twelve sons. Moses exhorts the people to
reverence with their lives the words that are about to be spoken, “For you will
lead a blessed life if you follow them and, enjoying a fruitful earth and a sea that
is not stormy and the birth of children begotten in accordance with nature,
you will also be terrifying to your enemies” (Ant. 3.88). Although Moses is
described as God’s “interpreter” (ἑρμηνεύς) and also as “a hearer of an immortal
voice,” (ἀκροατὴς ἀφθάρτου φωνῆς) nevertheless, the people are brought as near
as possible to hear for themselves what was being said, “in order that the
excellence of spoken words might not be harmed by a human tongue in being
transmitted to their knowledge” (Ant. 3.89). These words, Josephus tells us, he
is not permitted to relate verbatim though he may summarize their contents
(Ant. 3.90).49 This he does very succinctly (Ant. 3.91–92), and we may note that
the first commandment is conflated with the words of Deuteronomy 6:4 in that
Josephus writes: “The first saying (λόγος) teaches us that God is one (θεός ἐστιν
εἷς) and that it is necessary to worship him alone” (Ant. 3.91).
In Josephus’ retelling the people rejoice at the giving of the commandments
(Ant. 3.93) and ask Moses to bring them laws (νόμοι) from God. Regarding these
Josephus indicates that he intends to write a separate work so does not detail
them here (Ant. 3.94).50 He does, however, reveal his own priestly interests by
providing extensive and careful information on the tabernacle (Ant. 3.102–133),
the ark (Ant. 3.134–138), the table (Ant. 3.139–143), the candelabrum (Ant. 3.144–
146), the altars (Ant. 3.147–150), and the vestments of the priests (Ant. 3.151–158)
and the high priest (Ant. 3.159–178). Such is his attention to these matters,
in fact, that other aspects of the biblical narrative may be conveniently over-
looked. For instance, the entire episode of the golden calf (Exod 32) is missing
from Josephus’ account, along with the rest of the narrative in chapters 33 and
49 Josephus exhibits a similar reticence concerning the disclosure of the divine name at Ant.
2.276.
50 It seems unlikely that Josephus ever completed this projected work, though he does
provide summaries of the law in Ant. 4.196–301 and Apion 2.164–219; on which see John
M.G. Barclay, Against Apion: Translation and Commentary (ed. Steve Mason; Leiden: Brill,
2007); Spilsbury, Image, 111–113; and Geza Vermes, “A Summary of the Law by Flavius
Josephus,” Novum Testamentum 24 (1982): 289–303.
482 spilsbury
34. What is much more important to Josephus is that his readers understand
the symbolism of the tabernacle and the priestly vestments. Thus, he writes in
Ant. 3.123 that the proportions of the tent are “an imitation of the nature of the
universe” (μίμησιν τῆς τῶν ὅλων φύσεως). More elaborately later on (Ant. 3.179–
180) he states:
For if someone should investigate the construction of the tent and should
observe the clothing and the vessels of the priest that we use for the sacred
service, he would find that … each of these is in imitation and represen-
tation of the universe (ἀπομίμησιν καὶ διατύπωσιν τῶν ὅλων), if someone
should be willing to consider them ungrudgingly and with understand-
ing.51
The detailed explanation that follows includes allegorical meanings for the
tent, the table with its twelve loaves, the candelabrum, the tapestries, the high
priest’s garments, and his headdress (Ant. 3.179–187).52 All of this, Josephus
assures us, is yet further evidence of the virtue of the lawgiver Moses. For the
closing scene of the book of Exodus, namely, the advent of the glory of the Lord
in the tabernacle, Josephus states that God came as a guest (ἐπεξενώθη) and
dwelt (κατεσκήνωσε) in this sanctuary; and further that his presence (παρουσία)
there was signaled by a “sweet dew” that issued from the cloud (Ant. 3.203).
7 Conclusion
There are many details of Josephus’ retelling of the book of Exodus that we have
not detailed in this study. Nevertheless, what we have attempted to show is the
tone and tenor of Josephus’ account, and especially the importance to him of
the figure of Moses not only for this section of the story, but for the project of the
Antiquities as a whole. It is clear that Josephus had intimate knowledge of the
Book of Exodus, whether in Hebrew or Greek or both, and that he was familiar
with exegetical traditions regarding its interpretation. Additionally, Josephus
was not at all averse to “enriching” the story with narrative details of all kinds
whether derived from traditional retellings or from his own imagination.
Select Bibliography
Barclay, John M.G. Against Apion: Translation and Commentary. Vol. 10 of Flavius Jose-
phus: Translation and Commentary. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Bieler, Ludwig. θειοσ ανηρ: Das Bild des “göttlichen Menschen” in Spätantike und
Frühchristentum. Vienna: Oskar Höfels, 1935–1936.
Feldman, Louis H. “Josephus’ Portrait of Aaron.” Pages 167–192 in Classical Studies in
Honour of David Sohlberg. Edited by Ranon Katzoff. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University
Press, 1996.
. Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible. Hellenistic Culture and Society 27. Berke-
ley: University of California Press, 1998.
. Judean Antiquities 1–4: Translation and Commentary. Vol. 3 of Flavius Josephus:
Translation and Commentary. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
. “Remember Amalek!” Vengeance, Zealotry, and Group Destruction in the Bible
according to Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus. Monographs of the Hebrew Union
College 31. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 2004.
. Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible. Journal for the Study of Judaism Supple-
ments 58. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Gager, John G. Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism. Society of Biblical Literature Mono-
graph Series 16. Nashville: Abingdon, 1972.
Georgi, Dieter. Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief. Wissenschaftliche Monogra-
phien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 11. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1964.
Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during
the Early Hellenistic Period. Translated by J. Bowden. London: scm, 1974.
Holladay, Carl R. Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism: A Critique of the Use of this Category
in New Testament Christology. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 40.
Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977.
Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray, Ralph Marcus, A. Wikgren, and Louis H. Feld-
man. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926–1965.
Meeks, Wayne A. The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology.
Supplements to Novum Testamentum 14. Leiden: Brill, 1967.
Niese, Benedictus, ed. Flavii Josephi Opera et Apparatu Critica Instruxit. 7 vols. Berlin:
Weidmann, 1885–1895.
Nodet, Étienne, ed. Flavius Josèphe, Les Antiquités Juives: Livres i à iii. 2d ed. Paris: Cerf,
1992.
Smith, Morton. “The Occult in Josephus.” Pages 236–256 in Josephus, Judaism and
Christianity. Edited by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata. Leiden: Brill, 1987.
Spilsbury, Paul. “God and Israel in Josephus: a Patron-Client Relationship.” Pages 172–191
in Understanding Josephus. Edited by Steve Mason. Journal for the Study of the
Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 32. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
484 spilsbury
. The Image of the Jew in Flavius Josephus’ Paraphrase of the Bible. Texte und
Studien zum antiken Judentum 69. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998.
Tiede, David Lenz. The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker. Society of Biblical Litera-
ture Dissertation Series 1. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1972.
Vermes, Geza. “A Summary of the Law by Flavius Josephus.” Novum Testamentum 24
(1982): 289–303.
The Reception of the Book of
Exodus in the Book of Jubilees
Lutz Doering
The Book of Jubilees has come to be known as “the Little Genesis” (ἡ λεπτὴ
Γένεσις), so it is usually the first book of the Torah that comes to mind when
scholars examine the reception of the Pentateuch in Jubilees. Nonetheless, the
Book of Exodus plays an important role in Jubilees structurally, conceptually,
materially, and linguistically.
1 For Jubilees as a piece of “Rewritten Scripture,” see James C. VanderKam, “Recent Scholarship
on the Book of Jubilees,” cbr 6 (2008): 405–431, esp. 409–410, who speaks of “that elastic
category ‘Rewritten Scripture’” (409). Cf. the general evaluation of the category by Sidnie
White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008),
1–14, referring to recent debate, and her treatment of Jubilees at 60–83. John J. Collins, “The
Genre of the Book of Jubilees,” in A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James
C. VanderKam (ed. Eric F. Mason et al.; JSJSup 153; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 737–755, considers
Jubilees “a hybrid work” (754) and suggests viewing it “in the context both of rewritten
narrative and of apocalypses” (755).
2 E.g., Eberhard Schwarz, Identität durch Abgrenzung: Abgrenzungsprozesse in Israel im. vor-
christlichen Jahrhundert und ihre traditionsgeschichtlichen Voraussetzungen. Zugleich ein Bei-
trag zur Erforschung des Jubiläenbuches (ehs 162; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1982), 17, and litera-
ture cited at 156 n. 1.
3 The details of this future and the question of whether or not Jub. 1:27, 29 belongs to the original
composition of Jubilees are debated among scholars; see my brief discussion in Lutz Doering,
“Urzeit-Endzeit Correlation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Pseudepigrapha,” in Eschatologie—
Eschatology: The Sixth Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium. Eschatology in Old Testament,
Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Tübingen, September, 2009) (ed. Hans-Joachim Eck-
stein, Christof Landmesser, and Hermann Lichtenberger; wunt 272; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2011), 19–58, esp. 33–36.
4 The establishment of the text of, and English translations from, Jubilees follow (with slight
variations) James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (2 vols.; csco 510/511, Scriptores Aethio-
pici 87/88; Leuven: Peeters, 1989). English translations of biblical texts follow, with adapta-
tions, the nrsv.
the reception of the book of exodus in the book of jubilees 487
The glory of the Lord took up residence on 15 Then Moses went up on the mountain,
Mt. Sinai, and a cloud covered it for six and the cloud covered the mountain. 16
days. 3 When he summoned Moses into The glory of the Lord settled on Mount
the cloud on the seventh day, he saw the Sinai, and the cloud covered it for six
glory of the Lord like a fire blazing on the
days; on the seventh day he called to
summit of the mountain. Moses out of the cloud. 17 Now the
appearance of the glory of the Lord was
like a devouring fire on the top of the
4 Moses remained on the mountain for 40 mountain in the sight of the people of
days and 40 nights while the Lord showed Israel. 18 Moses entered the cloud, and
him what (had happened) beforehand as went up on the mountain. Moses was on
well as what was to come. He related to the mountain for forty days and forty
him the divisions of all the times—both of nights.
the law and of the testimony.
This passage in Jubilees provides more than mere “allusions”5 to Exod 24:12–18.
It is effectively a rewriting of the passage; it takes over some of the phraseology
from Exod 24 but at the same time rearranges, omits, and amplifies details.
Jubilees focuses the narrative on Moses and therefore leaves out references to
Joshua, the elders, Aaron, and Hur. It takes over from Exod 24 and God’s call
to Moses to come up to him on the mountain as well as his announcement
that he will give Moses the two6 tablets “of7 the law and the commandment.”
It further presents a simplified account of Moses’ coming up on the mountain,
God’s glory taking residence on the mountain, the covering of the mountain
by a cloud for six days, and Moses’ remaining on the mountain for 40 days and
nights. In Exodus, God calls to Moses “out of the cloud,” and he only then enters
the cloud. Also, the fiery appearance of God’s glory is seen only by the Israelites
in the plain. In Jubilees, however, Moses is summoned “into8 the cloud,” and
it is Moses himself who sees God’s glory “like a fire blazing on the summit of
the mountain”—the focus, again, remaining on Moses and his encounter with
God. There are also important amplifications in the Jubilees passage that will
be considered momentarily.
This setting modeled after Exod 24 suggests that God, as it were, has already
spoken the ten commandments (cf. Exod 20:2–17) when Jubilees commences.
We might regard this as an implicit reception of Exodus also. There is a further
reflection of this reception in Jubilees: the date on which Moses is called up
on the mountain is the sixteenth of the third month ( Jub. 1:1); according to
the 364-day calendar propagated in Jubilees, this is the day after shavuʿot, the
festival of weeks. Admittedly, it is only in rabbinic texts that this festival is
named the “festival of Torah giving” (b. Pes. 58b) and that the giving of the ten
commandments on this day is explicitly mentioned (S. ʿOlam Rab. 5). But some
earlier texts do associate shavuʿot with covenant renewal,9 and according to
Exod 19:1 the Israelites arrive in the desert of Sinai in the third month / on the
third new moon ( )ַבּחֹ ֶדשׁ ַהְשִּׁליִשׁיafter the exodus from Egypt. Jubilees seems to
be an early implicit witness to the giving of the ten commandments and the
covenant ceremony on shavuʿot (= the fifteenth of the third month).
A further trigger for adopting a setting modeled after Exod 24 might have
been that Exod 24:12 apparently suggests that Moses was given more laws than
merely the ten commandments:10 the Masoretic Text speaks of “the tablets of
stone and the law and the commandments, which I have written to teach them.”
Interpreting this plurality of items, a rabbinic tradition in b. Ber. 5b relates the
“tablets” to the Decalogue, the “law” to the Pentateuch, the “commandments”
to the Mishnah, the phrase “I have written” to the Prophets and Writings, and
“to teach them” to the Gemarah. Jubilees proceeds differently. It first speaks
of God’s giving to Moses “the two stone tablets of the law and the command-
ments” (Ethiopic: kelʾē ṣelāta ʾebn za-ḥegg wa-za-teʾzāz; Jub. 1:1). It seems likely
that this refers to the Torah, called “the book of the first law” (maṣḥafa ḥegg
za-qadāmi) in Jub. 6:22. Thus, at first it looks as if Jubilees had reduced the
9 Cf. Ps.-Philo, Liber Ant. Bibl. 23:2; 1qs 1:16–2:25a, a covenant renewal ceremony at the
Festival of Weeks, as suggested by Mathias Delcor, “Das Bundesfest in Qumran und das
Pfingstfest,” in Religion d’Israël et Proche Orient Ancien: Des Phéniciens aux Esséniens
(Leiden: Brill, 1976), 281–297, esp. 288–293. Cf. also the reference to an assembly of the
camps “in the third month” in 4q266 11 16–18. Cf. Sejin Park, Pentecost and Sinai: The
Festival of Weeks as a Celebration of the Sinai Event (lhbots 342; London: t&t Clark, 2008).
Jub. 6:1–22 maintains the aspect of covenant in the Festival of Weeks in the context of the
Noah narrative.
10 Cf. James L. Kugel, A Walk through Jubilees: Studies in the Book of Jubilees and the World of
its Creation (JSJSup 165; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 19–20.
the reception of the book of exodus in the book of jubilees 489
number of items given to Moses. However, Jub. 1:4 then continues to say that
God “showed” Moses “what (had happened) beforehand as well as what was to
come” and that he “related to him the divisions of all the times—both of (or:
for) the law and of (or: for) the testimony.”11 This might be seen as shorthand
for the contents of the Book of Jubilees itself.12
Thereby, Jubilees provides a solution to a well-known crux in the Book of
Exodus. While in Exodus it remains undecided whether the law is written by
God (cf. Exod 31:18; 32:16; 34:1) or by Moses (cf. Exod 34:27), Jubilees distin-
guishes two acts of writing: while God inscribed “the two tablets of the law
and the commandment,” it is Moses who is to write the contents of the Book
of Jubilees (cf. Jub. 1:7), shown to him by God (cf. Jub. 1:4) at the dictation of
the angel of presence (cf. Jub. 1:26–27).13 At first sight, this would suggest that
the Book of Jubilees ascribes to itself an authority lower than that of the two
tablets, that is, the Torah written by God. Nonetheless, the setting on Mount
11 Ethiopic: wa-la-ḥegg wa-la-semʿ. The Hebrew original behind this double expression is
תורהand תעודה. In the Hebrew text corresponding to Jub. 1:4 in 4q216 i 11, the first term is
preserved as [לתור]ה, thus without preceding waw, which could also mean “for.” In 4q216
i 12, the second term has been restored by the editors, but in 4q216 iv 4, corresponding to
Jub. 1:26, the first letters can be read: [( ולתעו]דהsee James C. VanderKam and Jozef T. Milik,
“Jubilees,” in Qumran Cave 4, viii, Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 [ed. Harold W. Attridge et al.;
djd 13; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994], 1–185, here 5, 11). The double expression goes back to Isa
8:16, 19–20.
12 There is some debate about the precise meaning of the phrase “of the law and of the
testimony.” James C. VanderKam, “Moses Trumping Moses: Making the Book of Jubilees,”
in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts (ed. Sarianna
Metso, Hindy Najman, and Eileen Schuller; stdj 92; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 25–44, appears
to refer to the second term only when he concludes that “those scholars who identify
Jubilees itself less the introductory material in the Prologue and ch. 1, as the testimony are
correct, though the book may not exhaust all that is present in the written testimony on
the heavenly tablets” (42). According to Cana Werman, “The תורהand the תעודהEngraved
on the Tablets,” dsd 9 (2002): 75–103, the bipartite phrase reflects the presence of both
halakhic materials and the “preordained march of history” in Jubilees (84–85). In contrast,
Kugel, A Walk through Jubilees, 3–4, treats “law” and “testimony” as “sources” of Jubilees
and unconvincingly posits for the latter a “Book of Warning” from which Jubilees allegedly
drew. It should be noted that the terms “first law” and “testimony” occur also with respect
to the sabbath (2:24, 33), where they relate to a single legal theme rather an entire
book.
13 VanderKam’s 1989 conjecture for Jub. 1:27 “Dictate to Moses,” based on his earlier sugges-
tion of a confusion between hifʿil and qal of ( כתבsee his “The Putative Author of the Book
of Jubilees,” jss 26 [1981]: 209–217 [esp. 213–217]), has been splendidly proven correct by
4q216 iv 6 ׄל֯הׄכתיב.
490 doering
Sinai with its close connection between the giving of the two tablets and the
disclosing of the material special to Jubilees points to an integral connection
between the two. Furthermore, as James VanderKam has suggested,14 it might
even be possible to view the contents of Jubilees as the older and fuller revela-
tion as compared with the Torah: it could be argued that Jubilees presupposes
that the first pair of stone tablets “of the law and the commandments” would
subsequently be smashed (cf. Exod 32:19). In this scenario, the Torah as trans-
mitted from Sinai and in some form available to the readers of Jubilees would
be a secondary write-up, effectively preceded by Jubilees, dictated by the angel
of the presence but also informed by divine instruction during the 40 days and
nights that Moses remained on the mountain. While the setting of Jubilees is
informed by Exod 24:1–18, we find, in fact, occasional interaction with material
from the latter parts of the Sinai pericope.15
As a consequence of the setting of Jubilees, Exodus comes into play also in the
rewriting of Genesis, notably in the presentation of creation sabbath. I have
dealt with this in detail elsewhere16 and will focus on the main points of Exodus
reception here. As is well known, Jub. 2 “envelops the creation in words about
the sabbath.”17 Thus, already the summary given in Jub. 2:1 (partly preserved in
4q216 v 1–3) refers to the sabbath: “Write all the words of the creation—how
on the sixth day the Lord God completed all his works and everything he cre-
ated and kept sabbath on the seventh day. He sanctified it for all ages and set it
as a sign for all his works.” The term “sign” here, which is not found in the sab-
bath etiology in Gen 2:2–3, clearly reflects Exod 31:13, 17. Most likely, this text
was seen as compatible with the creation narrative due to the sabbath-related
Schöpfungssummarium in Exod 31:17.
The rewriting of the creation narrative in Jubilees culminates in the detailed
account of the sabbath in Jub. 2:17–33. This account can be subdivided into
the narrative about the creation sabbath ( Jub. 2:17–24a) and the subsequent
communication of the sabbath commandment (2:24b–33).18 That is, the sab-
bath of the creation week is already presented in a halakhic perspective. This
perspective is heavily indebted to Exod 31:13–17, both in terms of contents and
phraseology. In Jub. 2:17–24a this can be seen in the references to the sab-
bath as “sign” ( Jub. 2:17, 21 / Exod 31:13, 17), the sanctity of the sabbath ( Jub.
2:19, 23–24a / Exod 31:14), and the sanctification of the people ( Jub. 2:19–21,
23–24a / Exod 31:13); both are presented as directly interrelated.19 Jubilees thus
anticipates Israel’s sabbath observance already in its narrative about creation
sabbath, although the preferred verb here seems to be שבת20 rather than שמר
( שבתso Exod 31:13, 14, 16).
In the communication of the sabbath commandment ( Jub. 2:24b–33), the
focus on sanctity (and blessing) of day and people continues ( Jub. 2:26, 27;
cf. 32). In addition, the conceptual and linguistic influence of Exod 31 can be
seen in two peculiar features: first, the placement of a Schöpfungssummarium
in Jub. 2:25, similar to Exod 31:17; and second, the adoption of the death penalty
for sabbath infringement from Exod 31:14 in Jub. 2:25b, 27.21 The latter is partic-
ularly evident when the extant Hebrew fragment from 4q218 (= 4QJubc)22 is
compared:
he admits, “logically, there is no reason why both sabbath passages could not have been
written by the same writer: no outright contradiction exists between the sabbath laws
and the original author’s discourse on the significance of the sabbath” (272). It is thus
merely the “hallmarks of the Interpolator’s style” that function as criterion. I think this is
too weak to maintain a source-critical distinction. That Jub. 2:25 states that “the Lord gave
a holy festal day to all his creation” does not, in my view, contradict the Israel-relatedness of
sabbath observance in 2:17–24a, since this is the conclusion of the Schöpfungssummarium
claiming that God crowned his creation with a festal day to all his creation. It is not stated
that all creation would be meant to observe the Sabbath laws.
22 djd 13, 37.
23 Cf. Doering, “Concept of the Sabbath,” 199. This is not reflected in the Ethiopic translation,
which has mot yemut la-ʿālam.
the reception of the book of exodus in the book of jubilees 493
The Book of Jubilees treats the sabbath twice, at the beginning of the rewriting
of its materials (ch. 2) and at the end (ch. 50). The second sabbath section is
introduced as follows: “After this law [sc. of passover ] I informed you about
the sabbath days in the wilderness of Sin26 which is between Elim and Sinai”
( Jub. 50:1). This is a highly selective reference to the Manna pericope (cf. Exod
16:1: “Israel came to the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai”): of
the entire story, only the preparation and gathering of the additional quantity
for sabbath (Exod 16:5,27 22–30) is in view. With the next section ( Jub. 50:2–5),
we arrive narratively at Sinai: “On Mt. Sinai I told you about the sabbaths of
the land and the years of jubilees in the sabbath of the years” ( Jub. 50:2). The
Book of Exodus refers to the seventh year as part of the revelation to Moses at
24 What “uprooting” (krt) means for Jubilees is not fully clear, though it is more likely that
it is a synonym for the death penalty rather than a circumscription of early or childless
death, as in the rabbinic notion of karet punishment; cf. Doering, “Concept of the Sabbath,”
199.
25 Cf. cd 10:22 ( ;)כי אם המוכןJosephus, J.W. 2:147 (παρασκευάζουσιν, about the Essenes); m.
Shab. 17:1; 24:4; Tg. Ps.-Jon. Exod 16:5; Tg. Neof. Exod 16:5; cf. Doering, Schabbat, 70–72.
26 The Ethiopic mss. here read sinā, “Sinai,” but VanderKam rightly conjectures sin (Book of
Jubilees, 2:325).
27 On the importance of Exod 16:5 for the issue of “preparation” of food, see above n. 25.
494 doering
Sinai in Exod 23:10–12. From this passage it emerges that the treatment of the
seventh year is connected with that of the seventh day—precisely as we find
it in the Book of Jubilees.28 Another passage that was apparently read together
with Exod 23:10–12 and mentions both the sabbatical year and the jubilee is Lev
25:2–12. VanderKam has persuasively argued that the reference to Sinai in Lev
25:1 suggested to ancient recipients that the laws in Lev 25–26 belonged to the
book of covenant29 thus Jubilees probably read them in close connection with
Exod 23:10–12.
Assuming from the general setting of Jubilees that the decalogue “precedes”
Jubilees (see section i above), the book gives a detailed account of only one
of the ten commandments, the sabbath commandment. In Jub. 50:6 the angel
says, “I have now written for you the sabbath commandments and all the
statutes of its laws.” Although what immediately follows is a fairly literal ren-
dering of the decalogue commandment (see below), it is unlikely that the state-
ment merely refers to what is written in the Pentateuch (as in 6:22; 30:12) both
because of the addition “and all the statutes of its laws” and because 50:8–10,
12 contain more than the sabbath commandment(s) of the Pentateuch.30 That
is, Jubilees prefaces the specification of its own sabbath law with a form of the
decalogue sabbath commandment (Exod 20:9–10; Deut 5:13–14b). It is difficult
to decide whether the Exodus or the Deuteronomy version prevails in this ren-
dering, not least because the most distinguishing portions of the versions (Exod
20:8, 11; Deut 5:12, 14c, 15) have not been included. Most likely, the form given
is a harmonistic version of the sabbath commandment and shows some affin-
ity with the Septuagint version of the commandment. In the wider context of
28 Kugel, A Walk through Jubilees, 204, 273, restates the claim made earlier by his pupil Liora
Ravid that Jub. 50:6–13, dealing with the sabbath, are a later addition (even later than
Kugel’s Interpolator); cf. Liora Ravid, “The Relationship of the Sabbath Laws in Jubilees
50:6–13 to the Rest of the Book,” Tarbiz 69 (1999/2000): 161–166. This claim has been dis-
missed in detail in Lutz Doering, “Jub 50:6–13 als Schlussabschnitt des Jubiläenbuchs—
Nachtrag aus Qumran oder ursprünglicher Bestandteil des Werks?” RevQ 79/20 (2002):
359–387; James C. VanderKam, “The End of the Matter? Jubilees 50:6–13 and the Unity
of the Book,” in Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity, and Tradition in Ancient Judaism
(ed. Lynn LiDonnici and Andrea Lieber; JSJSup 119; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 267–284.
29 Cf. VanderKam, “The End of the Matter?,” 279–280. He refers to Mek. Y. Baḥodesh 3, where
R. Ishmael associates verses from Lev 25–26 to the book of covenant.
30 For the suggestion that the Greek translation from which the Ethiopic one was made
mistook a Hebrew hifʿil (“dictate”) for a qal (“write”) here and in 50:13 (as in 1:27 [above
n. 13]; 30:21), cf. VanderKam, “Putative Author,” 213–217.
the reception of the book of exodus in the book of jubilees 495
wording seems to ban any voluntary defilement more generally. The ban on
sexual relations on sabbath is shared by the Samaritans (cf. m. Ned. 3:10, emend-
ed),34 the Karaites, and Falashas.35
It is furthermore possible that the ban on “going on a journey” (wa-za-hi
yaḥawwer mangada; Jub. 50:12) was influenced by Exod 16:29, another verse
from the Manna pericope: “each of you stay where you are; do not leave your
place on the seventh day” ()ְשׁבוּ ִאישׁ ַתְּחָתּיו ַאל־ ֵיֵצא ִאישׁ ִמְמּקֹמוֹ ַבּיּוֹם ַהְשִּׁביִעי. That
this verse was considered in the formulation of sabbath laws in Second Temple
texts can be seen in 4q251 1–2 4, where a phrase from it is adopted but slightly
modified to forbid carrying on the sabbath ()אל [יוצא איש ממקומו כל השבת,36
as well as possibly in 4q421a 12 7, where, in a sabbath context, אל יצ[א ממקומו
“ חנםhe shall not leave his place in vain” might be restored.37 Jubilees may have
understood the “place” which one is not to leave as the city.38
Martha Himmelfarb and others have observed that the phrase “a kingdom of
priests,” taken from Exod 19:6, received relatively little attention in ancient
34 Cf. for the issue of the emendation Doering, Schabbat, 81 n. 180, referring to further
literature. Some of the medieval Samaritan sources explicitly connect the ban with Exod
19:14–15, e.g., Abū ’l Ḥasan aṣ-Ṣūrī, Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabbāḫ; cf. Doering, Schabbat, 81 n. 181.
35 Cf. Doering, Schabbat, 82 with nn. 183–184.
36 Cf. Doering, Schabbat, 229–231; Erik Larson and Lawrence H. Schiffman, “4q251. 4QHa-
lakah a,” in Qumran Cave 4, xxv, Halakhic Texts (ed. Joseph M. Baumgarten et al.; djd 35;
Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 29: “an exegetical variation rather than an actual variant in the
text of Exodus.” The remarks on this by Hannah K. Harrington in her review in dsd 8 (2001):
85–89, at 86, are erroneous.
37 Thus Vered Noam and Elisha Qimron, “A Qumran Composition of Sabbath Laws and Its
Contribution to the Study of Early Halakah,” dsd 16 (2009): 55–96, esp. 61–62.
38 Pre-rabbinic use of Exod 16:29 with respect to the sabbath limit of 2000 cubit is questioned
by Shaye J.D. Cohen, “Sabbath Law and Mishnah Shabbat in Origen De Principiis,” jsq 17
(2010): 160–189 (at 171 with n. 28). However, Cohen does not prove that the prohibition
of travel as represented in Jubilees does not depend on an interpretation of the verse. In
my view, the interpretation of “ מקומוone’s place” as the city, as I assume for Jubilees, would
have later allowed the tradents of the Damascus Document and other Qumran texts to find
that to the city belonged a territory of 1000 (so cd 10:21; 4q421 13+2+8 1 par 4q264a 1 1) or
2000 cubits (so cd 11:5–6; 4q265 7 4–5), respectively, according to the double specification
in Num 35:4–5. Cf. Doering, Schabbat, 145–146.
the reception of the book of exodus in the book of jubilees 497
5 Now therefore, if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be
my treasured possession out of all the peoples ()ְס ֻגָלּה ִמָכּל־ָהַעִמּים. Indeed,
the whole earth is mine, 6 but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and
a holy nation ()ַמְמֶלֶכת כֲֹּה ִנים ְוגוֹי ָקדוֹשׁ. These are the words that you shall
speak to the Israelites.
First, in Jub. 16:17–18, Abraham is told that one of the sons of Isaac
would become holy seed and would not be numbered among the nations,
18 for he would become the share of the Most High. All his descendants
had fallen into that (share) which God owns so that they would become
for the Lord a people of “possession” out of all the nations (ḥezba ṭerit40
ʾem-kwellu ḥezb), and that they would become a kingdom and a priesthood
and a holy people (mangešta wa-kehnata wa-ḥezba qeddusa).
39 Cf. Martha Himmelfarb, A Kingdom of Priests: Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), 1: “the phrase itself does not receive
a great deal of attention in the literature of the Second Temple.” To be sure, Himmelfarb
thinks that “the idea that it expresses and the tensions it hints at” are central for Second
Temple Judaism. Cf. also Daniel R. Schwartz, “ ‘Kingdom of Priests’—a Pharisaic Slogan?”
in Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (wunt 60; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1992), 57–66, summarizing his survey of the phrase in ancient Jewish literature, “This
harvest is very unimpressive.”
40 Ethiopic mss. read tersit “ornament,” Latin has in populum sanctificatum “a sanctified
people.” For a justification of the conjecture, which goes back to Charles, cf. VanderKam,
Jubilees, 2:98 n. on 16:8.
41 Kugel, A Walk through Jubilees, 102.
498 doering
intertextual references; the phrase “people of possession from all the peoples”
( )ַעם ְס ֻגָלּה ִמכֹּל ָהַעִמּיםalso appears in Deut 7:6 (cf. 26:18). Nonetheless, the
combination of this phrase with the reference to “kingdom,” “priesthood,” and
“holy people” (note the order) shows that Exod 19:5–6 has been the model for
Jub. 16:18. The rendering of ַמְמֶלֶכת כֲֹּה ִניםwith two coordinated nouns (either
with or without “and”) is also attested in some of the versions of Exod 19:6
and other texts alluding to this passage.42 It is offset by the second passage
to be discussed momentarily, which provides a construct state, in agreement
with the mt and other versions.43 Jubilees here does not make Israel’s epithets
conditional on the obeisance of the people. Rather, it narrates an angelic
disclosure to Abraham of the chosenness of Jacob and his descendants that has
been clear to the reader since Jub. 2:19–24 and is instituted on creation sabbath.
The perspective is different in the second passage within which Exod 19:5–6
is picked up. In the context of a rewriting of the Reuben and Bilhah story, Jub.
33:20 states:
No sin is greater than the sexual impurity which they commit on the earth
because Israel is a holy people (ḥezb qeddus) for the Lord its God. It is a
nation of inheritance (wa-ḥezba rest);44 it is a priestly nation (wa-ḥezba
kehnat); it is a priestly kingdom (wa-mangešta kehnat); it is what he owns
(wa-ṭerit).
42 E.g., Exod 19:6 σ´ θ´ Peshitta Targumim; 2 Macc 2:17; Philo, Sobr. 66; Abr. 56; Rev 1:6; 5:10;
20:6. Cf. John H. Elliott, The Elect and the Holy: An Exegetical Examination of iPeter 2:4–10
and the Phrase βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα (NovTSup 12; Leiden: Brill, 1966), 50–128.
43 E.g., lxx vl Vg α’.
44 Lat: plebs sortis. VanderKam, Jubilees, 2:223 n. on 32:20, argues that both the Ethiopic and
the Latin goes back to Greek κλῆρος, which can mean “lot” or “inheritance.”
45 But see VanderKam, Jubilees, 2:223–224 n. on 32:20, for a discussion of variant readings
and of the Latin that seems “slightly corrupted” (populus sacerdotalis est et regalis et
sanctificationis). Kugel, A Walk through Jubilees, 164, takes the easy way out by simply
stating, “The rest of the sentence appears to be garbled in both Eth and Lat.”
the reception of the book of exodus in the book of jubilees 499
the book by the fact that the punishment which the holiness code reserves for a
priest’s daughter engaging in “fornication”—i.e., burning (Lev 21:9)—is applied
to any Israelite woman or girl committing this sin (see Jub. 20:4; 41:17, 28).46
46 Cf. Lutz Doering, “Purity and Impurity in the Book of Jubilees,” in Enoch and the Mosaic
Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees (ed. Gabriele Boccaccini and Giovanni Ibba; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2009), 261–275, esp. 270–271.
47 Cf. Kugel, A Walk through Jubilees, 191–192, referring to other ancient sources that fill this
gap in various ways.
500 doering
by the king in Jub. 46:13 rewrites Exod 1:9–1048 but is more compelling than
the latter:49 he does not merely fear that a strong Israelite manpower, united
with the enemy, will leave the land, but that “their mind(s) and face(s look)
toward the land of Canaan” and thus present a real threat for this king. Jubilees
46:14–16 is a rewriting of Exod 1:11–12;50 the final phrase “the Egyptians con-
sidered the Israelites detestable” (Ethiopic: wa-yāstarākweswomu; Latin: abom-
inabantur) understands Exod 1:12 similar to the Septuagint (ἐβδελύσσοντο; mt:
) ַו ָיֻּקצוּ.
There is no episode about the Hebrew midwives (Exod 1:15–21). Instead,
Moses’ birth, youth, and adolescence are narrated by the angel ( Jub. 47). In
keeping with the character of the body of the book, this is addressed, somewhat
awkwardly, to Moses himself in the second person. Jubilees 47:2 clarifies that
the Pharaoh’s decree that all male babes be thrown into the water refers only
to “them,” i.e., the Israelites (different from Exod 1:22). Here, we can describe
only a few of the specific, mostly clarifying, accents Jubilees places on the
Exodus narrative of Moses’ early life. As rationale for why Moses’ mother
could not hide him for more than three months (Exod 2:3), Jub. 47:3 states
that “they told about her.” His sister Miriam stood not only from afar briefly,
to see how he would fare (Exod 2:4), but for seven days “would come and
protect you from the birds” ( Jub. 47:4). Both the Pharaoh’s daughter and Moses’
mother are referred to by name (Tarmuth51 and Jochebed, respectively; 47:5,
8). After having been raised by Jochebed, Moses is adopted by the Pharaoh’s
daughter, but then returns to his father Amram, who teaches him the art of
writing;52 having stayed with him for three weeks of years (21 years), he is
brought into the royal court, where he stays for another three weeks of years
(47:9–10).
48 For the relation of the Ethiopic of Jub. 46:13 with the versions of Exod 1:9–10 cf. VanderKam,
Jubilees, 2:302–303.
49 Cf. Kugel, A Walk through Jubilees, 192.
50 Thus, without Exod 11:13–14.
51 Cf. Josephus, Ant. 2:224.
52 This is important for Jubilees, not least because Moses must be well versed in Hebrew to
record the dictation of the angel. Cf. the emphasis on (speaking and) writing in Hebrew in
Jub. 12:25–27 (Abram); cf. 4:17–19 (Enoch); 21:10 (Abraham’s books of his ancestors Enoch
and Noah). Cf. Karlheinz Müller, “Die hebräische Sprache der Halacha als Textur der
Schöpfung: Beobachtungen zum Verhältnis von Tora und Halacha im Buch der Jubiläen,”
in Bibel in jüdischer und christlicher Tradition: Festschrift für Johann Maier zum 60. Geburts-
tag (ed. Helmut Merklein, Karlheinz Müller, and Günter Stemberger; bbb 88; Frankfurt:
A. Hain, 1993), 157–176.
the reception of the book of exodus in the book of jubilees 501
53 Michael Segal, The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible: Redaction, Ideology and Theology
(JSJSup 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 221.
54 Thus, Midian is not mentioned at all in the Ethiopic. Latin has in terram mad, which
VanderKam, Jubilees, 2:309 deems “an explanatory replacement … under the influence
of Exod 2:15.” In contrast, Kugel, A Walk through Jubilees, 194, deems the Latin original.
55 With Ethiopic za-tanāgara laka. Latin has qui locutus est tecum, emendated to quid by
Rönsch and Charles. VanderKam, Jubilees, 2:309, seems to prefer the non-amended Latin
(“who spoke to you”) to the Ethiopic but gives no further reason. In my view, a reference to
God merely by a third person verb is tolerable; it would also be more relevant to summarize
the contents of the encounter than that it be recalled to Moses “who” spoke at Mt. Sinai.
Kugel’s claim (A Walk through Jubilees, 195) that Latin has “what was spoken to you” is
erroneous, regarding both the (non-amended) pronoun and the genus verbi.
56 Regarding the odd “fir tree,” see VanderKam, Jubilees, 2:309–310, who suggests that the
Hebrew of Jubilees here had “ באלוןat the fir three.” This might be a confusion of Exod 2:24
“ ַבָּמּלוֹןat the lodging place.”
57 Cf. Segal, Jubilees, 203–210.
58 Cf. Matthew Thiessen, Contesting Conversion: Genealogy, Circumcision, and Identity in
Ancient Judaism and Christianity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 67–86.
59 The note that “the Lord took revenge on all their gods and burned them up” ( Jub. 48:5b)
responds to the reference in Exod 12:12 (cf. Num 33:4).
502 doering
(you) and perform in front of you” ( Jub. 48:9). Jubilees emphasizes that “we”
(apparently, the angel[s]) “permitted them to do evil things, but we would not
allow healings to be performed by them” (48:10). Thus, the plagues strike the
Egyptians without remedy.
Then, Jubilees takes a great leap forward in the plot to Exod 14: During
the exodus, the angel “stood between you, the Egyptians, and the Israelites”
( Jub. 48:13; cf. Exod 14:19), rescuing the Israelites from both the prince of
Mastema and the Egyptians. Mastema continues to play a role: it is he who
encourages the Egyptians to pursue the Israelites ( Jub. 48:12). While on the 14th
to 18th day Mastema was locked up, so that he could not accuse the Israelites,
he was released on the 19th day to encourage the Egyptians to pursue the
Israelites (48:15–17a). It appears as if Mastema takes on the role of stiffening the
Egyptians’ hearts assigned to God in Exod 14:4, 8, 17, although the phrase “they
were made stubborn by the Lord our God” in Jub. 48:17b seems to attribute
this initiative to God, as does Exodus.60 While the Egyptians drown in myriads
( Jub. 48:14), the Israelites go out, and not empty-handed at that (cf. Exod
3:21). They proceed carrying a rich booty of gold, silver, and bronze (48:18–19).
According to Atar Livneh, Jub. 48, building on the understanding of the plagues
as “judgment” ( Jub. 48:3; cf. Exod 6:6; 7:4), interprets the exodus story “in terms
of revenge” against the Egyptians.61
Jubilees 49 moves back in the sequence of the plot, to Exod 12, and deals with
passover and maṣṣot. The chapter can be divided into three sections:62 (a) a
60 Segal, Jubilees, 217–222, proposes two possible explanations: (1) the author of Jubilees has
carried this on as “a vestige of the biblical text that survived in the rewritten text” (221);
(2) a later scribe added the phrase. Segal dismisses the first option because Jub. 48 is not
a close rewriting of Exodus here, and prefers the second. However, it might be the case
that Jubilees harmonizes its biblical tradition with the specific accents it brings to the
story: although the hardening is carried out by Mastema, it is nevertheless overseen by
God, who leaves Mastema some limited room for action. The blending of the “forces of
Mastema” ( Jub. 49:2) with the “forces of the Lord” (49:4; see below) seems to justify such
an approach.
61 Atar Livneh, “Judgment and Revenge: The Exodus Account in Jubilees 48,” RevQ 98/25
(2011): 161–175 (175).
62 For the following I am indebted to the literary analysis by Betsy Halpern-Amaru, “The
Festivals of Pesaḥ and Massot in the Book of Jubilees,” in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The
the reception of the book of exodus in the book of jubilees 503
remember the commandments which the Lord gave you regarding the
passover so that you may celebrate it at its time on the fourteenth of
the first month, that you may sacrifice it before evening, and so that
they may eat it at night on the evening of the fifteenth from the time of
sunset.
As a result, the times that Exod 12 assigns to slaughtering the animal (“at twi-
light”; 12:6) and to eating it (“that same night”; 12:8) are clarified and divided into
two subsequent calendar dates: sacrificing on the fourteenth “before evening”63
and eating “at night on the evening of the fifteenth.” The latter reflects harmo-
nization with passages such as Num 33:3 that suggest Israel went out of Egypt
on the fifteenth, i.e. “on the morrow of the passover [sc. sacrifice].” If this was
indeed “at night” (so Deut 16:1), then the eating must have taken place before
it, in the earlier parts of the night of the fifteenth. This is explicitly stated at
the beginning of the corroborating recollection of the Egyptian passover ( Jub.
49:2: “on this night”). This recollection goes beyond Exodus in narrating that
the Israelites were actually eating the passover when the tenth plague struck
(49:2, 6).64
Jubilees 49:2–5 then provides an intriguing take on Exod 12:23; the latter pas-
sage both states that “the Lord will pass through to strike down the Egyptians”
Evidence of Jubilees (ed. Gabriele Boccaccini and Giovanni Ibba; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2009), 309–322, despite differences in details.
63 I mention in passing that this shows that Jubilees does not accept the alternative assign-
ment of the sacrifice to the fifteenth of the month (= “the first day”) in Deut 16:4 (“on the
evening on the first day”). 11qta 17:6–7 is similarly careful to place the sacrifice “[on the
fo]urteenth of the first month … before the evening offering.”
64 Cf. Halpern-Amaru, “Festivals,” 312. Exod 12:28 merely says, “The Israelites went and did so;
just as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did.”
504 doering
65 Segal, Jubilees, 227. Kugel, A Walk through Jubilees, 198, 263–267, thinks Jub. 49:2–6 (and
7–17) come from the Interpolator. As with the sabbath above, we note that Kugel has
to admit “that the Interpolator basically agreed with the original author on the laws of
Passover” (267).
66 Both quotations from Halpern-Amaru, “Festivals,” 313. Mastema himself is bound between
the fourteenth and the eighteenth of the month ( Jub. 48:15); therefore it is not he who
takes on the role of the “Destroyer” in Jub. 49:2 but Mastema’s forces.
67 E.g., “on its day” (Lev 23:5, 37); “according to its regulation” (Num 9:14). Cf. Halpern-Amaru,
“Festivals,” 314–318.
68 Pace Halpern-Amaru, “Festivals,” 314 n. 18; I remain unconvinced that the application of
Num 9:13–14 to (the first) passover necessarily implies that Jubilees categorically does
away with pesaḥ sheni. I therefore stand by what I wrote in this respect in my “Purity
and Impurity,” 266: “the absence of certain issues may primarily be motivated by literary
concerns; Jubilees does not cover every legal detail.”
the reception of the book of exodus in the book of jubilees 505
Following this, Jub. 49:10–12 clarifies in greater detail (cf. already 49:1) the
expression “in twilight” of Exod 12:6 ( ;ֵבּין ָהַע ְרָבּ ִיםliterally, “between the two
evenings”):
49:10 The Israelites are to come and make the passover on its specific
day—on the fourteenth of the first month—between the evenings, from
the third part of the day to the third part of the night. For two parts of the
day have been given for the light and its third part for the evening. 11 This
is what the Lord commanded you—to make it between the evenings. 12
It is not to be sacrificed at any hour of the daylight but in the hour of the
boundary of the evening. They will eat it during the evening hour(s) until
the third part of the night. Any of its meat that is left over from the third
part of the night and beyond is to be burned.
Jubilees 49:11 explicitly refers to Exod 12:6 (“This is what the Lord commanded
you”). However, the problem with this verse is that it mentions only the slaugh-
tering “in twilight.” Jubilees takes a cue from Num 9:11, originally again referring
to pesaḥ sheni, which assigns both “making” and “eating” of the paschal offering
with this temporal marker. In addition, Jubilees divides the period of daylight
into three parts, of which the third part has been given “for the evening.” It
is during this time that the animal needs to be slaughtered, at “the boundary
of the evening.” However, the third part of the night, that is, the first third of
the night in which the consumption of the paschal offering is to take place,
is equally called “evening.” Thus, we have a literal yield of “two evenings” for
the whole celebration.69 In light of 49:1, the eating during the (second) evening
is already reckoned with the 15th of the month. As to the time of slaughter-
ing, Jubilees reflects a position at variance with the practice attested by Jose-
phus and later asserted by rabbinic texts, according to which the passover was
slaughtered earlier.70 As to the time until which the meat may be consumed,
69 Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael ascribes an apparently similar understanding of ֵבּין ָהַע ְרָבּ ִיםto
one Ben Bathyra: “give an evening to slaughtering it and an evening to eating it” (Mek.
Pisḥa Boʾ 5; see Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael [ed. H.S. Horovitz and I. Rabin; Jerusalem:
Bamberger and Wahrman, 1960; repr. of Frankfurt: Kauffmann, 1931], 18).
70 Josephus, J.W. 6:423, recounts that the passover animals were killed between the ninth
and the eleventh hour, thus roughly between 3 pm and 5pm. According to Mek. Pisḥa Boʾ
5 (Horovitz and Rabin, Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, 17–18); Sifra ʾEmor pereq 11:1 (105a), the
time for slaughtering the passover is from the sixth hour (noon) onward (cf. m. Pes. 5:3),
although the Mishnah states that the animals were in fact slaughtered somewhat later,
around the ninth hour, following the evening tamid at around eight thirty, except on a
sabbath eve, when both were brought forward by an hour (m. Pes. 5:1 Ms. Kaufmann).
506 doering
Exod 12:10 merely states that “you shall let none of it remain until the morning.”
Jubilees clarifies and restricts here: meat left over, beyond the first third of the
night (ending around 10pm), is to be burned.71
However, these clarifications must not hide the fact that Jubilees’ rewriting of
the command to observe passover in future generations reflects a highly selec-
tive use of the two passover passages in Exodus (Exod 12:1–28, 43–50) and a
harmonization with the passage in Deuteronomy (Deut 16:1–9). In particular,
it can be argued that, apart from the general injunction to celebrate and the
temporal clarifications just mentioned, Jubilees does not take the details of
the Egyptian passover as binding for the passover of future generations. The
Egyptian passover, as narrated in Exod 12:1–28 and rewritten by Jub. 49:2–6, is
a family celebration in residences, which served the apotropaic purpose of pro-
viding shelter against “the Destroyer,” viz. “the forces of Mastema” at the time of
celebration. The passover for future generations, in contrast, is focused on the
Temple in Jerusalem ( Jub. 49:16–21). Here, Jubilees follows the Deuteronomic
centralization of passover to “the place which the Lord will choose as a dwelling
for his name” (cf. Deut 16:2, 5–7). This is similar to much of Palestinian Judaism
in the Graeco-Roman period but with the distinctive proviso that the passover
not simply be slaughtered in the Temple but consumed there as well, as Jub.
49:16–17, 21 requires.72 Jubilees retains an apotropaic purpose of the passover
celebrated by future generations, but this has shifted from shelter at the time
of the meal to the absence of any “plague … during that year when they have
celebrated the passover” (49:15).73 Finally, Jub. 49:13–14 merges a slightly rewrit-
ten form of Exod 12:9, the prescription about roasting the complete sacrifice in
fire (“the head with its internal parts and its feet”), with Exod 12:46b, the ban
on breaking any bone in it. It is possible that Jubilees perceives an inner con-
nection between the two commands—the complete roasting keeps the bones
intact—and appends an apotropaic etiology: “because no bone of the Israelites
will be broken.”
71 Rabbinic texts set this point at midnight; cf. Mek. Pisḥa Boʾ 6 (Horovitz and Rabin,
Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, 19): in order to make a fence around the Torah; Sif. Dev.
133 (Siphre ad Deuteronomium [ed. Louis Finkelstein; Corpus Tannaiticum 3.3; Berlin:
Jüdischer Kulturbund, 1939], 190); m. Pes. 10:9.
72 Thus also the Temple Scroll, 11qta 17:8–9: “and you shall eat it at night in the courtyards of
the sanctuary.”
73 A similar extension of the apotropaic function beyond being spared from the plague of the
firstborn may be present in Ezekiel Trag. 190–191 (apud Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 9.23.13): κακῶν
γὰρ τῶνδ’ ἀπαλλαγήσεται καὶ τοῦδε μηνὸς ἔξοδον διδοῖ θεός “For there shall be deliverance
from these ills; a ‘going forth’ he’ll grant you in this month” (trans. R.G. Robertson, otp
2:816). Cf. Aharon Shemesh, “psḥ zh ʿl šwm mh?” ajsr 21 (1996): 1*–17* (2*–3*).
the reception of the book of exodus in the book of jubilees 507
Evaluating the selective Exodus reception here, one might argue that Jubi-
lees looks particularly to Exod 12:43–50, qualified by Deut 16:1–9, for the pass-
over of future generations:74 no bone should be broken, the paschal offering
should be eaten in one “house” (understood as “before” [thus Jub. 49:16] or
“in” [49:17] “the Lord’s sanctuary”), and only circumcised males are allowed to
partake in it.75 The latter apparently stands behind the requirement that only
(circumcised) male of twenty years and above be allowed to eat from the sac-
rifice.76
Finally, the instructions for maṣṣot in Jub. 49:22–23 (c) show that Jubilees,
like Exod 12:15–20; 13:6–10 but unlike Deut 16:1–9, draws a clear distinction
between maṣṣot and passover. Although the instruction about “the festival of
unleavened bread” is presented as a corollary of the passover laws (49:22: “order
the Israelites to keep the statute of the passover … so that [kama] you may
tell them its year each year … and the festival of unleavened bread”), maṣṣot is
treated as a distinct festival. It is characterized as “seven joyful days” (49:22b),
a designation that links back with Abraham’s “joyfully” celebrated seven-day
festival following the Akedah (18:18)—confirming that this festival is indeed
maṣṣot. Distinct from passover, the object of commemoration for maṣṣot is
the exodus: 49:23 refers to the “hasty” celebration of the festival “when you
were leaving Egypt until the time you crossed the sea into the wilderness of
Sur, because you completed it on the seashore.” While the motif of haste is
connected with unleavened bread in Exod 12:39 and Deut 16:3, there it is an
implication of the flight from Egypt, not of the celebration of the festival. By way
of an analogy, Jubilees may have transferred the aspect of a hasty celebration
from the context of passover (cf. Exod 12:11) to maṣṣot.77
74 Cf. Cana Werman, “Narrative in the Service of Halakha: Abraham, Prince Mastema, and the
Paschal Offering in Jubilees,” in Law and Narrative in the Bible and in Neighbouring Ancient
Cultures (ed. Klaus-Peter Adam, Friedrich Avemarie, and Nili Wazana, with Dorit Felsch;
fat 2.54; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 225–242, esp. 232–235. According to Werman, this
also explains “why the author ignored the commandment of eating the paschal offering
with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. Mentioned twice—in Exod 12:8 and in Num
9:11—this injunction is absent from the laws in Exod 12:43–49” (233).
75 Due to Jubilees’ strong focus on eighth-day circumcision (see above n. 58), there is no
consideration of the positive instructions of Exod 12:44, 48 to circumcise a foreigner in
order to allow him to participate in passover.
76 Similarly, 11qta 17:8 stipulates a minimum age of twenty, and 4q265 3 3 excludes children,
youth, and women from partaking of the passover.
77 Cf. Halpern-Amaru, “Festivals,” 321. However, Halpern-Amaru’s claim that Jubilees else-
where does not take up the “haste” ( )ְבִּחָפּזוֹןof Exod 12:11 with respect to passover, is likely
erroneous: in Jub. 49:13 “cooked with care on a fire” (so both Latin and Ethiopic), as Van-
508 doering
7 Conclusion
The Book of Jubilees exhibits various types of reception of the Book of Exodus.
Only occasionally referring to “what is written” in the second book of the Torah
and potentially presenting itself as the sole account of Moses’ original forty-day
stay on the mountain, it uses material associated with Exodus to inform its
own setting (at Sinai) and perspective (introducing legal material into the
Genesis account, as early as creation sabbath). In doing so, it takes some of
the legal pronouncements (death penalty for sabbath transgressors; cf. Exod
31:13–17) and halakhic details (especially the sabbath regulations Exod 16:5,
29; 34:21; 35:1–3) from Exodus. Moreover, it sharpens the standards of conduct
by applying a quasi-realistic notion of Israel as “holy nation” and “kingdom of
priests” (Exod 19:5–6). In addition, Jubilees rewrites and paraphrases the Moses
and exodus narratives of the Book of Exodus in a highly selective fashion. And,
finally, it extensively rewrites Exod 12–13, thereby clarifying it and harmonizing
it with other relevant scriptural passages (especially Num 9 and Deut 16), as
well as supplementing it with further legal and festal traditions in addition
to ideological concepts; in doing so, it differentiates between the Egyptian
passover and the passover for future generations and reinforces the distinction
between passover and maṣṣot.
Select Bibliography
Cohen, Shaye J.D. “Sabbath Law and Mishnah Shabbat in Origen De Principiis.” Jewish
Studies Quarterly 17 (2010): 160–189.
Collins, John J. “The Genre of the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 737–755 in A Teacher for All
Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam. Edited by Eric F. Mason, Samuel
I. Thomas, Alison Schofield, and Eugene Ulrich. Journal for the Study of Judaism in
the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period Supplement Series 153. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Crawford, Sidnie White. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2008.
Doering, Lutz. “Jub 2,24 nach 4QJuba vii,7 und der Aufbau von Jub 2,17–33.” Biblische
Notizen 84 (1996): 23–28.
derKam, Jubilees, 319, has shown, seems to render Greek μετὰ σπουδῆς, which may mean
either “with care” or “with haste” and translates ְבִּחָפּזוֹןin Exod 12:9 lxx. Thus, Jub. 49:13
appears to have originally made reference to “haste” in connection with the cooking of the
paschal offering.
the reception of the book of exodus in the book of jubilees 509
Ravid, Liora. “The Relationship of the Sabbath Laws in Jubilees 50:6–13 to the Rest of
the Book.” Tarbiz 69 (1999/2000): 161–166.
Schwartz, Daniel R. “ ‘Kingdom of Priests’—a Pharisaic Slogan?” Pages 57–66 in Studies
in the Jewish Background of Christianity. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum
Neuen Testament 60. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992.
Segal, Michael. The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible: Redaction, Ideology and Theology.
Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period
Supplement Series 117. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Shemesh, Aharon. “psḥ zh ʿl šwm mh?” Association for Jewish Studies Review 21 (1996):
1–17.
Thiessen, Matthew. Contesting Conversion: Genealogy, Circumcision, and Identity in
Ancient Judaism and Christianity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
VanderKam, James C. From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second
Temple Literature. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
. “Genesis 1 in Jubilees 2.” Dead Sea Discoveries 1 (1994): 300–321.
. “Moses Trumping Moses: Making the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 25–44 in The
Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts. Edited by Sari-
anna Metso, Hindy Najman, and Eileen Schuller. Studies on the Texts of the Desert
of Judah 92. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
. “Recent Scholarship on the Book of Jubilees.” Currents in Biblical Research 6
(2008): 405–431.
. “The End of the Matter? Jubilees 50:6–13 and the Unity of the Book.” Pages 267–
284 in Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity, and Tradition in Ancient Judaism.
Edited by Lynn LiDonnici and Andrea Lieber. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the
Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period Supplement Series 119. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
. “The Putative Author of the Book of Jubilees.” Journal of Semitic Studies 26
(1981): 209–217.
Werman, Cana. “Narrative in the Service of Halakha: Abraham, Prince Mastema, and
the Paschal Offering in Jubilees.” Pages 225–242 in Law and Narrative in the Bible
and in Neighbouring Ancient Cultures. Edited by Klaus-Peter Adam, Friedrich Ave-
marie, and Nili Wazana, with Dorit Felsch. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.54.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012.
. “The תורהand the תעודהEngraved on the Tablets.” Dead Sea Discoveries 9
(2002): 75–103.
Exodus in the Fathers
Joel C. Elowsky
Now turn from the old to the new, from the figure to the reality. There we
have Moses sent from God to Egypt; here, Christ, sent forth from his Father
into the world: there, that Moses might lead forth an afflicted people
out of Egypt; here, that Christ might rescue those who are oppressed in
the world under sin: there, the blood of a lamb was the spell against the
destroyer; here, the blood of the Lamb without blemish Jesus Christ is
made the charm to scare evil spirits: there, the tyrant was pursuing that
ancient people even to the sea; and here the daring and shameless spirit,
the author of evil, was following you even to the very streams of salvation.
The tyrant of old was drowned in the sea; and this present one disappears
in the water of salvation.
Mystagogical Lecture 1.3
When trying to understand the profound effect Exodus had on the Fathers, one
need look no further than the church’s liturgy, its preaching and its teaching.
The fact that the Lamb of God chose the fourteenth day of Nissan for his
1 E.C. Whitaker, Documents of the Baptismal Liturgy (London: spck, 1970), 24. Whitaker dis-
cusses the debate concerning whether it is Cyril or John who is the actual author of the
lectures. He favors the former.
sacrifice was no coincidence in the mind of the Fathers; it was part and parcel of
the divine oikonomia. The early Christians immediately connected the events
of the Feast of the Resurrection with the events of the Pascha. The Pascha was
the central feast of the church, encapsulating the whole history of salvation
in its narrative, from creation to parousia.2 At the Easter Vigil, chapter twelve
of the Exodus narrative was read in its entirety. The events of the Passover
and Exodus, more than any other event in the Hebrew scripture, formed the
church’s life and liturgy, shaped by the Fathers typological and allegorical
exegesis. The Passover Meal and the crossing of the Red Sea did nothing if not
point to the sacraments of the Eucharist and Baptism in the Christian church.
Much of the commentary of the Fathers on Exodus is thus found in their
liturgy, sacramental treatises, homilies, and catechetical instruction in prepa-
ration for Baptism. But all of these were informed by the exegesis found in
the commentary tradition that in turn traced its roots back to the New Tes-
tament exegesis of Paul in 1Cor 10 and 2Cor 3—not to mention the entire
book of Hebrews and the Johanine literature, especially John 6, and Revelation.
Christians also looked to the contemporaneous Jewish commentator Philo of
Alexandria for much of the extra-biblical details of the Exodus narrative and
Moses’ life.3 Already by the mid-second century, works such as Melito of Sardis’
Paschal Homily, the Epistle of Barnabas and Justin Martyr’s Dialog with Trypho
the Jew testify to a substantial body of testimonia on which they drew. Justin’s
Dialog is significant, according to Bertrand de Margerie, because it gathers
together all these disparate traditions into one place.4 “Taking them one by
one,” Justin says, “I could show that all of Moses’ other prescriptions are types
(τυποί), symbols, annunciations of what is to come to pass in Christ” (Dial. 40.1;
42.4).
Apart from testimonia and scattered homilies, the first treatment of the
whole of Exodus that we have extant occurs in the third century when Origen
composed his thirteen Homilies on Exodus. These were delivered in a three-
year liturgical cycle in the church of Caesarea sometime between 238 and 244.5
2 Raniero Cantalamessa, Easter in the Early Church: An Anthology of Jewish and Early Christian
Texts (trans. and ed. James M. Quigley and Joseph T. Lienhard; Collegeville: Liturgical, 1993), 1.
3 See Philo Judaeus, The Works of Philo Judaeus (trans. Charles Duke Yonge; London: H.G. Bohn
1854–1890), especially chs. 24–25 that deal with the Life of Moses. See also the chapter by
Gregory E. Sterling in the present volume.
4 Bertrand De Margerie, An Introduction to the History of Exegesis: Vol. 1, The Greek Fathers
(trans. Pierre De Fontnouvelle; Petersham: St. Bede’s, 1993), 33.
5 Ronald E. Heine, “The Alexandrians,” in The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature
(ed. Frances Young, Lewis Ayres, and Andrew Louth; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
exodus in the fathers 513
He also wrote Scholia, or short comments, on Exodus that are preserved in the
Catena on the Octateuch6 compiled by Procopius of Gaza (ca. 475–ca. 538). Pro-
copius is our source for many of the fragments of other Greek Fathers including
Didymus of Alexandria and the Antiochenes Diodore of Tarsus and Eusebius of
Emesa.7 Theodoret of Cyrus’ 72 Questions on Exodus is a more readily available,
and reliable, source for Antiochene exegesis on Exodus.8 Among the Cappado-
cians, Gregory of Nyssa’s Life of Moses is the most prominent study of Exodus.
After rehearsing the historical details of Moses’ life, he uses these details in the
second part of the work to outline the Christian pursuit of perfection in virtue,
following the patterns found in the Exodus narrative which culminate in the
ascent of Moses on Mount Sinai to meet with God. The other major Greek
commentator in the Alexandrian tradition besides Origen is Cyril of Alexan-
dria whose Glaphyra (elegant comments) on the Pentateuch largely follow the
exegetical patterns set by Origen on Exodus.9 Cyril’s other major work on Exo-
dus, On the Adoration and Worship of God in Spirit and in Truth,10 uses passages
from Exodus and elsewhere in the Pentateuch to show that the “shadows and
types” found there have their ultimate fulfillment in the realities of the New
Covenant.11
The chief Syriac commentator was Ephrem whose Commentary on the Exo-
dus focuses on the Christological and ecclesial interpretation of the book.
Among Latin commentators, Cyprian offers the counterpart to Justin for the
Latin writers with his Testimonia ad Quirinum. Tertullian’s Against Marcion 2–
4 and his treatise Against the Jews, are by their very nature more polemical;
his treatise On Baptism provides some of the earliest sacramental typology for
the crossing of the Red Sea. There are also later sacramental treatises by Hilary
2004), 125. Heine also provides an excellent translation of Origen’s homilies on Exodus.
See Origen: Homilies on Genesis and Exodus (trans. Ronald E. Heine; Washington, d.c.:
Catholic University of America Press, 2010).
6 pg 87:511–992 includes the whole of the Catena on the Octateuch. For a helpful guide
through the catena, see the study by Robert Devreesse, Les anciens commentateurs grecs
de l’Octateuque et des Rois (Studi e Testi 201; Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana,
1959).
7 Joseph Lécuyer, “Exodus,” in Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity. (ed. Angelo DiBerardino;
Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2014), 1:903–905.
8 The late Robert Hill offers a fresh translation of these questions. Cf. Theodoret of Cyrus,
The Questions on the Octateuch (trans. Robert Hill; lec 1; Washington, d.c.: Catholic
University of America Press, 2007).
9 pg 69:13–678.
10 pg 68:133–1126.
11 Norman Russell, Cyril of Alexandria (New York: Routledge, 2002), 10.
514 elowsky
and especially Ambrose’s two treatises On the Sacraments and On the Myster-
ies. Ambrosiaster and Augustine ask and answer various Questions on Exodus as
part of larger works on the Old Testament in the fifth century; they are followed
by Isidore of Seville’s Questions on the Old Testament in the seventh century.
Paterius, secretary of Gregory the Great, collected excerpts from Gregory’s writ-
ings and arranged them as a running commentary, including his comments on
Exodus in works such as his magnum opus Moral Interpretation of Job. At the
end of the patristic period we have Bede’s On the Tabernacle that portrays the
church as the reality towards which the tabernacle pointed.
All of these interpreters found the events of the Exodus somehow fulfilled
in Christ or the church. But there were other important issues the Fathers took
up as well. These will form the outline for the rest of the essay. The Fathers
were keenly interested in Moses, whose name is etymologically related to Jesus’
name. Moses’ encounter with God in the episode of the burning bush proved to
be foundational for the Fathers’ theology on the Godhead. The confrontation
with Pharaoh, including the chronicling of Pharaoh’s hardened heart with the
plagues, both troubled and intrigued the Fathers. The Passover and the Exodus
that concluded with the dramatic crossing of the Red Sea were, as already
mentioned, the heart of the book. The Law given on Sinai informed the church’s
catechetical instruction from its earliest days and provided guidance on many
ethical issues the Fathers faced. The details of the ceremonial laws and the
Tabernacle with its furnishings provided fertile ground for allegory largely
centered on finding their significance in the life of the church.
Moses’ birth takes place under the harsh conditions of Israel’s slavery in Egypt
under Pharaoh. The Fathers equated Pharaoh with Satan and Egypt with all
that opposes the people of God, whether it be worldly error and ignorance, the
lusts and desires of the flesh, or the devil himself who entices us into serving
him with works of clay, as Augustine puts it, “which become a burden for us
until Christ delivers us” (Tract. ev. Jo. 28.9). Clement of Alexandria followed the
pattern established by Philo in his two books On the Life of Moses,12 accepting
and expanding on Philo’s allegorical biography of Moses. Moses benefitted
12 See Philo Judaeus, The Works of Philo Judaeus (trans. Charles Duke Yonge; London: H.G.
Bohn 1854–1890), chs. 24–25. See also the chapter by Gregory E. Sterling in the present
volume.
exodus in the fathers 515
from all the education the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Chaldeans could offer.
He was brought up to be a prophet for the Hebrews, but he was also trained as
a legislator, a political philosopher, and sage who served as a model for Plato
and the Greeks and their own legislators. He accuses the Greeks of plagiarizing
from the Hebrews (Strom. 1.21–29) in much of their philosophical speculation,
especially as concerns the nature of God (cf. Exod 3:14). His purpose in all of
this is to show the superiority and priority of the Christian philosophy to the
Greek pagan philosophy. Gregory of Nyssa had quite a different purpose in his
Life of Moses. All the events in Moses’ life serve as an outline one can follow
and emulate to obtain virtue and strive toward perfection. In general, they saw
Moses as a type of Christ who not only delivers his people from slavery, but
intercedes on their behalf when they are disobedient.13
The Fathers defended Moses flight from Egypt to Midian, perhaps influenced
by their own experience of having to flee at certain times due to persecution,
although Basil says that Moses fled Egypt to go to Ethiopia where he devoted
himself for forty years to the study of creation (Exeg. Hom. 1.1). Chrysostom
believed that Moses’ flight was an act of faith, fleeing not out of fear, but out
of wise desire not to test God by staying to see if God would protect him, just
as Satan had tempted Jesus on the temple mount ( Hom. Heb. 26.5). Ambrose
believed he fled in order to preserve himself from the allure of power and from
the temptations of the palace (Fug. 4.4.18) which is why, according to Ephrem,
Moses chose the life of a shepherd over that of a prince (Hymn. Par. 6).
There are a number of issues that intrigued the Fathers in the discussion of
Exodus and the burning bush. We focus on the three that received the most
attention: (1) the identity of the Angel of the Lord who appeared in the bush;
(2) the significance of the unconsumed bush; and most importantly, (3) the
significance of the statement, “I am who I am.”
(1) The Fathers believed that God appeared as an angel in order to veil the
godhead from Moses who would otherwise die if he saw God. Augustine, in his
study On the Trinity (2.13), wonders whether the Angel might have been one of
many angels, “but by a dispensation, represented the person of the Lord”; or
was this angel a creaturely figure created and taken on by the Lord for just this
event? While they all agree that it was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
13 See discussion below on Israel and the episode of the Golden Calf.
516 elowsky
who is referenced in the text, most of the Fathers assumed that when “the Lord”
was referenced it was the second person of the Trinity, the only-begotten Son,
appearing in his pre-incarnate state. But Augustine questions this assumption
on the basis of his Trinitarian logic: when we speak of one, we speak of all three
(Trin. 2.13.23). Thus, he understood it was the Trinity itself who had to have
appeared as the Angel of the Lord.
(2) The significance of the bush itself was less controversial, but also more
variegated. The Fathers assumed the bush was a thorn bush, allowing any
number of connections with thorns—the prickly thorns of sin, but also Jesus’
crown of thorns he wore for our sin. Ephrem sees in the fire the essence of the
living God “who dwells in fire” (Comm. Exod. 3.2) while Caesarius connects the
fire with the Holy Spirit (Serm. 96.1). The fact that the fire does not consume
the bush was an indication to John of Damascus that the burning bush was a
type of Mary’s womb which held the Son of God but was not itself consumed
(Div. Imag. 20). The mystical interpretation held that Moses went to see the
bush because he wanted to move from a contemplation of worldly things to the
mystery of the divine. This is why he left behind the earthly sandals as so much
dead skin from dead animals that lead to dead works (Augustine, Serm. 101.7).
(3) From almost the very beginning, the Fathers connected the statement
“I am who I am” with Plato’s question concerning the unchangeable nature
of the First Principle in his Timaeus 27d where he asks: “What is that which
is eternally and has no becoming, and again, what is that which comes to
be but is never? The one is … ever changeless, the other … becoming and
perishing, [is] never truly existent.”14 Plato understood that what truly exists,
by its very nature is immutable. What comes into being, and has not always
existed, cannot be said to truly exist but is only derivative of that which has
always existed. The second century Cohortatio ad Graecos 22 (falsely attributed
to Justin)15 compares Plato’s statement with Moses: “For Moses said, ‘He who
is’; and Plato, ‘That which is.’” Both were seeking to establish that which truly
exists, which can only be the One who created everything. Pseudo-Justin was
convinced that Plato must have come into contact with Jeremiah in Egypt16
because his teaching on the immutability of God so closely matched that of
Moses in Exod 3:14 which, in the lxx read “ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν.”
14 Richard Dacre Archer-Hind, ed., Plato: The Timaeus of Plato (New York: MacMillan, 1888),
87.
15 See Miroslav Marcovich, Pseudo-Iustinus: Cohortatio ad Graecos; De Monarchia; Oratio ad
Graecos (pts 32; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 3, where he provides convincing proof that Justin
was not the author of this work.
16 Although Augustine shows how that would be chronologically impossible; cf. Civ. 8.11.
exodus in the fathers 517
The Fathers had to defend God and themselves against the Gnostic charge that
God advocated stealing when he told the Hebrews to take the jewelry and cloth-
ing from the Egyptians. Irenaeus used the charge as an opportunity to justify
Christian use of pagan and secular wealth in service to the church. Gregory of
Nyssa went further in saying that those who bring secular learning with them
into the church, such as Basil had done, are dedicating their “Egyptian wealth”
for the adornment of the church, the true tabernacle (Vit. Mos. 2.116).20 Not all
would have agreed with Gregory’s assessment. One need only think of Tertul-
lian’s question “What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?”21
In the mind of the Fathers, Pharaoh personified Satan and everything that is
opposed to God and his church. Nyssa describes the conflict in terms of a holy
war, with nature itself as ally: “Like an army under orders, the very elements of
the universe—earth, water, air, and fire which are seen to be in everything—
cooperated with him in this attack on the Egyptians, and changed their natural
operations to serve human purposes” (Vit. Mos. 25). Each plague demonstrates
an aspect of the Christian’s spiritual battle, with Origen’s interpretation set-
ting the pattern upon which later Fathers expanded. The water turned to blood
was fitting retribution for the Egyptian’s killing of the Hebrew firstborn males,
but also represented the erring and slippery teaching of the philosophers. The
chirping frogs of the second plague represent the beguiling and deceptive songs
of the poets. The third plague of gnats or mosquitoes brings to mind the heretics
and dialecticians who deceptively bore into souls with minute and subtle sting-
ing words; the fourth plague of flies is like the Cynics who proclaim pleasure
and lust as the highest good. The fifth plague that visited pestilence on the
livestock was chosen by God in order to attack the gods of Egypt who were
fashioned after rams and bulls and other animals. The sixth plague of boils
was given to reprove deceitful and festering sores of malice along with swelling
and inflated pride and the fever brought on by the insanity of anger and mad-
ness. The seventh plague of fierce thunder, hail and lightning is like the Word
of God that strikes like thunder, the hail that destroys the immature vices, and
lightning that consumes like fire the incentives of pleasure and passion. The
eighth plague of locusts (which have no king) represent the fickleness of human
20 See Joel Stevens Allen, The Despoliation of Egypt in Pre-Rabbinic, Rabbinic and Patristic
Traditions (VCSup 92; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 181–272.
21 See also Origen’s comments on the plagues below.
exodus in the fathers 519
nature which loves to argue. The ninth plague of darkness reproves the dark-
ened mind and those trying to peer behind dark divine mysteries who will find
such peering thwarted. The tenth and final plague, the killing of the firstborn,
like the first plague, addresses the crime perpetrated by the Egyptians against
the firstborn of the Hebrews. But Origen says it also points to a deeper mystical
meaning addressing the crime against the firstborn of heaven for those who fol-
low the Egyptians in seeking to extinguish the truth of Christ. He also offered a
rather prolix explication of the moral nature of each plague, but we turn to Gre-
gory of Nyssa’s more succinct summary of the moral battle the Christian must
fight: “The fight of the Egyptian against the Hebrew is like the fight of idolatry
against true religion, of licentiousness against self-control, of injustice against
righteousness, of arrogance against humility, and of everything against what is
perceived by its opposite” (Vit. Mos. 1.14).22
Moses is armed for the battle with the staff which turned into a serpent,
prefiguring the cross which conquered that ancient serpent, the devil. Just as
the staff brought on the ten plagues that defeated the Egyptians, the power
of the staff overcomes God’s enemies for the Christian. Moses’ hand turned
leprous as a demonstration that the disease of sin is overcome. Moses, however,
seemed a poor choice for a leader due to his speech incapacity, but Fathers
such as Cyprian used him as an example to assure those who were undergoing
persecution that God would provide them with the words to say, even as he
had done for Moses (Mart. 10). Others such as Theodoret saw a parallel with
the fact that just as God appointed fishermen, tax collectors, and cobblers to
be his teachers in the New Testament “so he confounded the Egyptian sages
with a weak voice and a slow tongue” (Quest. Ex. 11). Despite his weakness,
but because of his virtue, Moses would become a god to Pharaoh with the
signs and wonders he was given to do: “He makes him a god, fortifies him
with signs, arms him with virtues, wins wars through mere commands, grants
to him as a soldier victory gained by a mere word” (Chrysologus, Serm. 147).
Moses’ humility trumps Pharaoh’s power because the Fathers believed it was
ultimately God who was waging war on his people’s behalf, even as he does in
our spiritual battles.
22 The Fathers did also devote attention to answering some of the more puzzling historical
questions, just as their Jewish interpreters before them had done. For instance, how did
Pharaoh’s magicians find fresh water to turn into blood (Answer: they either brought in
sea water or obtained water from where the Hebrews were residing; Gregory of Nyssa held
that when the Hebrews drew the blood from the Nile, it became or was water for them
through another miracle by God’s hand [Vit. Mos. 26]).
520 elowsky
23 See also Gregory of Nyssa, Vit. Mos. 2.73, where he explicitly condemns the practice.
exodus in the fathers 521
Exodus 12:11 in the lxx reads “πασχα ἐστὶν κυρίῳ.” The Greek verb πάσχειν
means to “suffer,” while the Hebrew pesach/Aramaic pascha means “Passover.”
Due to the similarity in language, Christian Greek interpreters made a ready
identification with the suffering of Christ when they saw πασχα in the lxx text,
but they did not neglect the other aspect of the Passover which brought to mind
the journey of the Hebrews out of Egypt through the Red Sea.
In his study of Easter in the early Church, Raniero Cantalamessa24 finds
both these strands of meaning for the Passover differentiated in the Christian
tradition. The churches of Asia identified the Pascha with the πάσχειν/passio
of the Passover lamb that was ultimately realized in the sacrifice of the Lamb
of God whose body and blood Christians eat and drink in the Eucharist. In
the Alexandrian and western churches, the emphasis is on the Exodus event
itself and the transitus, the journey, the “passing over” through the Red Sea
that pointed towards baptism which is the Christian’s journey from slavery
to freedom, from shadow to reality, from a life of sin to a life of virtue, and
ultimately from death to life.
These emphases regarding the Passover carried over into a division in the
church over when to celebrate Easter, the Christian Pascha. The churches
of Asia more closely aligned themselves with the Jewish custom, following
the chronology of John’s Gospel and celebrating Easter on the fourteenth day
of Nissan; they were thus known as the Quartodecimans, from the Latin for
fourteen. The churches in Alexandria, Rome and elsewhere celebrated Easter
on the first Sunday after the vernal equinox, emphasizing the break with Jewish
customs.25 The Council of Nicea (325ce) sought to bring a uniform practice so
that all the churches should follow the churches of Rome and Alexandria, with
the bishop of Alexandria sending out an encyclical each year announcing the
date of Easter, to be determined independently of the Jewish calendar.26 Due to
the different calendars in East and West however, the celebrations continued
and continue to diverge, even up to the present day. The controversy was not
just a matter of calendar confusion, however; it reflected a deeper division over
24 Cantalamessa, Easter in the Early Church, 12–21. He also discusses the Syriac and Latin
variations on these themes.
25 For further details on the history of the Quartodeciman controversy see Vincenzo Loi’s
article on Easter, updated by B. Amata in Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity (ed. Angelo
Di Berardino; Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2014), 1:761–764.
26 See also Eusebius’ account of the Paschal Canons of Anatolius (Hist. eccl. 7.32.14–19) that
provides one of the earliest discussions on the dating of Easter using the Jewish reckoning.
522 elowsky
the extent of the break with Judaism that Christ had brought and ultimately
how the Jewish scriptures were to be interpreted.
One of the earliest surviving frescos (ca. 244–245 ce) in the early church is
in the domus ecclesia of Dura Europa depicting the crossing of the Red Sea. On
the left are the Children of Israel, with the leaders of the twelve tribes above the
people who have fish jumping at their feet. On the right half the sea is closing
on the Egyptian army who are shown flailing in the water. Moses’ outstretched
hands are above. The Fathers interpreted the wind that parted the waters as the
breath of the Holy Spirit which blew while Moses held out his staff (Ambrose,
Myst. 3.12). God could have accomplished this task without the staff of Moses,
but he had Moses raise the staff nonetheless, “so that we might know how great
was the mystery of that future wood which was prefigured by the shadow of
this staff” (Caesarius, Serm. 112.4) and the outstretched arms of the one who
won the battle at Calvary. The songs of Moses and Miriam provided numerous
opportunities for allegory. Augustine, for instance, viewed the chariot horses
driven by Pharaoh and his soldiers to be like souls that are driven by unclean
spirits who ride on our desires, like horsemen on their mounts, taking them
and us wherever the unclean spirits want (Serm. 223E.2). But these are all driven
into the sea of Baptism where they are drowned along with pride and arrogance
which Pharaoh and his army personified (Serm. 363.2).
The Fathers viewed the journey through the Red Sea as the starting point for
yet another journey towards Sinai, both in the narrative and in the Christian’s
spiritual journey. Israel was led on that journey by the pillar of fire by night
and the pillar of cloud by day. Origen, along with Paul, had already interpreted
the pillar as the Holy Spirit. The cloud and fire allegorically contradicted and
complemented one another for the Fathers: the water vapor of the cloud cools
the passions while the light of the fire enlightens darkened minds; the dread of
the fire judges, Gregory the Great preached, while the cool of the cloud brings
healing as they both seek to guide us toward the Law of God on Sinai and
ultimately to the Promised Land of spiritual rest.
On the way to Sinai Israel comes to Marah where the water is bitter until
Moses throws in the wood, which naturally again brings to mind the wood
of the cross: “For water without the preaching of the cross of the Lord is of
no avail for future salvation. But after it has been consecrated by the mys-
tery of the saving cross, it is made suitable for the use of the spiritual laver
exodus in the fathers 523
and of the cup of salvation” (Ambrose, Myst. 3.14). From Marah they moved
on to the Desert of Sin where the people start to complain. The complaints
of the Israelites allowed the Fathers to condemn not only the shortcomings
of the Jews, which they did comment on at length,27 but also of Christians
who renounced the world only to return to it again (Cassian, Conf. 3.7.6–7).
The monk John Cassian interpreted the wilderness wanderings as akin to a
spiritual pilgrimage so difficult that only two out of the 603,000 (Exod 38:26)
made it to the Promised Land. If we renounce the things of the body, but the
heart is not right, then our renunciation will ultimately be in vain and fail as
well.
In answer to Israel’s complaints, God provided manna. The name “manna”
means “what is this?”—a question which, according to Cassiodorus, Jesus him-
self answered. Christ himself had set the interpretation of the manna when he
referred to himself as the bread that came down from heaven in John 6, which
the Fathers interpreted primarily as a reference to the Eucharist. Ambrose’s
treatise On the Mysteries explored the sacramental significance of many of the
Old Testament types contained in Exodus. His treatment of the manna is typ-
ical of the Fathers attitude toward the synagogue when he asks which is more
excellent: the manna which is the bread of angels or the flesh of Christ which
is the bread of life? “That manna came from heaven, this is above the heavens;
that was of heaven, this is of the Lord of the heavens; that was liable to corrup-
tion, if kept a second day, this is far from all corruption, for whosoever shall
taste it wholly shall not be able to feel corruption” (Myst. 1.8.48).
The spiritual thirst of Israel along its desert journey at Rephidim allowed
for ruminations from the Fathers on spiritual thirst. The thirst for water in
the desert can be like the righteous who thirst for justice or the sinners who
thirst after more sin. “The just are thirsty for God; sinners for gold” (Caesarius
of Arles, Serm. 103.2). God provided water from a rock that Moses was to strike
in order to satisfy Israel’s thirst. The Fathers felt free to fill out and augment
Paul’s interpretation of this event in 1Cor 10:4. Not only was Christ the rock from
whom streams of living water would flow (John 7:38), but if he had not been
struck on the cross by the soldier’s spear, he would not have brought forth the
New Testament. As Caesarius proclaimed, “If he had not been struck, so that
water and blood flowed from his side, the whole world would have perished
through suffering thirst for the word of God” (Serm. 103.3).
27 See Novatian, Jewish Foods 4.5, for instance, where he says the Jews “deserved to bear
the brand of the slavery they had longed for, since a better food—the food of the free—
displeased them so.”
524 elowsky
The battle against Amalek immediately preceded the arrival at Sinai. Justin
Martyr reflects the testimonia before him and the commentary after him, seeing
in Moses’ extended arms not only an offer of prayer, but another prefiguring of
the cross (Dial. 90); even the stone he was sitting on pointed towards Christ.
Moses’ hands remained extended until evening just as Christ was on the cross
until evening, and then he was buried (Dial. 97). In a rather needless dig against
the Jewish interpreters, Chrysostom noted that Moses needed the help of Aaron
and Hur who held up his hands when he got tired; Christ on the other hand
“held his hands extended on the cross by his own power” (Hom. Jo. 14). Such
digs can be found multiplied many times over.
When Israel finally reaches the desert of Sinai, Moses went up on the mountain
to speak with God. Many of the Fathers, but especially those of the East such
as the Cappadocians and, later, Pseudo-Dionysius, viewed Moses’ ascent as
emblematic of the Christian’s mystical ascent to God. Gregory of Nazianzus
parallels the fear and desire with which Moses approached the mountain to
the fear and longing that accompany our ascending to God in true prayer and
worship (Theol. or. 2.2) to which, as Bede says, only the “more perfect” can
ascend (Hom. ev. 11.17). Moses was allowed to see God because of his virtue
and his meekness, Pseudo-Dionysius tells us, since only those who are meek in
heart and strong in virtue will see God (Ep. 8). Gregory of Nyssa’s Life of Moses
models the whole spiritual life of ascent on the details of the life of Moses.
After Moses had purified himself, “he boldly approached the very darkness
itself and entered the invisible things where he was no longer seen by those
watching. After he entered the inner sanctuary of the divine mystical doctrine,
there, while not being seen, he was in company with the Invisible” (Vit. Mos.
1.46). Nyssa’s apophatic conclusion is that anyone who wants to contemplate
God must not only purify himself, but must go beyond all that is visible and
sensory to what is invisible and incomprehensible where the understanding
does not reach since God is beyond our reason or understanding—what later
Pseudo-Dionysius calls the “mysterious darkness of unknowing.” In the cloud,
which the Fathers believed was the same pillar of cloud that had led Israel
through the wilderness (Eusebius, Dem. ev. 5.14.241), Moses is given the Law
of God, the Ten Commandments. Later Moses asks to see God, but the Fathers
wondered how anyone could see God and live. Therefore, they surmised that
Moses must have seen the glory of the face of the second person of the Trinity,
just as the disciples had seen Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration—an
exodus in the fathers 525
appearance they could see, but which also terrified them (Cyril of Jerusalem,
Cat. 10.7). Just like the rock at Rephidim, the cleft of the rock that shielded
Moses was the Word who was made flesh for us who shielded Moses from
his glory. God could not have appeared to Moses in His very nature, what
Nazianzus calls the unmixed nature of the Trinity (Theol. or. 2.3), or Moses
would have died (Augustine, Ep. 147.20). In On First Principles 2.3, Origen notes
that while God could not be seen since that is a property of our bodies, he
can be known by the mind and the soul when our spiritual eyes have been
trained to see him. We all long to see God’s face, if not in this life, in the life
to come. Peter Chrysologus says that the same thing that motivated Moses to
want to see God’s face is what motivates the Gentiles to fashion idols (Serm.
147). Everyone has the desire to see God, whether they acknowledge that desire
or not.
The Fathers contrasted the fear of the people under the Old Covenant ap-
proaching the place where the Law was given with the joy and exuberance of
the people of the New Covenant who received the Spirit at Pentecost (Augus-
tine, Spir. et litt. 17.29). The early Christians understood the Law itself had been
written by the finger of God, which they perceived to be the third person of the
Trinity, the Holy Spirit (Augustine, Faust. 32.12). This was confirmed for them
by the fact that the Law was written on the fiftieth day after the Passover, just
as the Holy Spirit had been given 50 days after Jesus, the Christian’s Passover
Lamb, had been sacrificed on Good Friday.
The Fathers insisted that the Ten Commandments should be part of the
basic instruction of the catechumens in the church since they provided the
basis for a “rational and godly way of living” (Augustine, Fid. op. 11.17). Many
of the Fathers had catechetical duties or oversaw them. As early as the second
century Didache, the commandments were seen as one of the components of
catechesis. The last five commandments in particular were expounded as an
expression of what the Christian life should look like among those who were
presenting themselves for baptism. Those who follow them observe the “way
of life”; those who do not obey them are following the “way of death” that leads
to destruction. Anyone presenting himself for baptism must know and be able
not only to recite but exemplify these commandments (Did. 7).
As evidenced here and also in Clement of Alexandria’s Paedagogus and
Tertullian’s ascetical treatises, early catechesis seems to have focused more
on the moral instruction, based on the commandments, than on doctrinal
526 elowsky
content.28 Stuart Hall, in fact, sees both the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas,
both of which speak of the two ways, as an indication that they both may
have been derived from Jewish proselyte instruction.29 As Richard Freund has
demonstrated, neither the early Christians nor the Jews themselves seemed
overly concerned with the order or numbering of the commandments—the
Gospels’ numbering differs from what we find in Exodus or Deuteronomy, as
does that of the Fathers, with the prohibitions against adultery, murder, and
theft receiving the most varied ordering.30
What follows is an abbreviated discussion of each of the commandments
and their significance for the Fathers. I follow the Lutheran ordering only out
of convenience:
1. Fulgentius believed that God said, “I am the Lord your God” simultaneously
as Father and Son, understanding the first commandment as proof to the
heretics that God is both Father and the Son (Ep. 8.4.9). If the Only Begotten
was not included in this command to have “no other gods before Me,” then
he cannot be considered our God (Gregory of Nyssa, Ad Simpl., de Fide).
When God speaks “as if in a second voice about another” this indicates
the mystery of the Trinity (Eusebius, Dem. ev. 5.16.243). The command not
to bow down to images was seen by Origen in the context of persecution:
when some “pretend” to worship the idols as the masses do, but don’t really
mean it, they are still worshiping the idols by the very act (Mart. 6). Origen
believed that the Jews too worshiped the supreme God who made heaven
and earth (Cels. 5.6). The plain sense, the fact that Israel was prohibited from
practicing idolatry, was also applicable to Christians. Therefore Christians
were discouraged or prohibited from attending sporting events, theater, or
other public occasions where the pagan gods might be invoked. It also often
meant shunning professions like acting or sculpting, since most sculptures
at the time were depictions of gods.31
2. The Fathers held that the prohibition concerning the misuse of God’s name
was to be obeyed since God’s personal character is conveyed by his name;
he is holy as is his name. This commandment was often discussed in the
28 Stuart George Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1992), 15–16.
29 Hall, Doctrine and Practice, 16.
30 Richard A. Freund, “The Decalogue in Early Judaism and Christianity,” in The Function of
Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition (ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders;
JSNTSup 154; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 124–141.
31 Hall, Doctrine and Practice, 17.
exodus in the fathers 527
context of the petition of the Lord’s Prayer, “Hallowed be Thy name” (Origen,
Or. 2.4.2–3). God’s name is also truth and therefore should not be mixed
up with falsehood, which meant that heresy was in disobedience to this
commandment as well. Those who deny Christ deny God’s name.
3. The Commandment to sanctify the Sabbath was spiritualized to reflect the
work the Holy Spirit does to sanctify us. The Fathers reacted against any idea
of keeping the Sabbath as the Jews do, i.e., “by a literal corporeal abstinence
from work, as the Jews observe it” (Augustine, Ep. 55). Instead the Sabbath
pointed toward a spiritual rest, “a repose of the heart,” attained by love which
is found in God alone (Caesarius of Arles, Serm. 100.4). The Sabbath was a
shadow of what was to come in Christ, but also a sign given by God pointing
towards our eternal rest. Thus, very early on as evidenced by New Testament
usage (Rev 1:10), the Christians began worshiping on the Lord’s day (Sunday),
rather than on the Sabbath (Saturday).
4. The fourth commandment was taken at face value by Christians. Children
should honor and obey their parents, including caring for them in their old
age or when they are in need (Origen, Comm. Matt. 11.9; Princ. 4.3.4; Jerome,
Ep. 123.6). They believed wealth could actually get in the way of children’s
love for their parents because the motive of the child caring for the parent
may not be filial piety, but rather greed (Augustine, Serm. 45.2). Parents, in
turn, are to ensure the spiritual formation and sanctification of their children
(Ambrose, Patr. 1.1). One can tell a lot about people’s character by how they
treat their parents. “If anyone fails to honor his parents, is there anyone he
will spare?” Augustine asks (Serm. 9.7).
5. The fifth commandment, as with the rest of the second table of the law,
are laws that have already been inscribed on our conscience as part of the
natural law, which is why there is no reason given for obeying them as
the previous commandments had been given (Chrysostom, Hom. Stat. 12.9).
According to the Fathers, the prohibition in this commandment is against
murder, not against all forms of killing, such as one who executes a just
command from one who is authorized to give that command (Augustine,
De mend. 13.23). Among the sins which this commandment forbids are:
murder, suicide (Civ. 1.20), abortion, the exposure of babies, and taking part
in the gladiatorial games of the arena, even as a spectator. Christians were
divided on whether or not serving in the military was a violation of the
commandment, although most Christians before Constantine were against
Christians being soldiers, while most after Constantine seemed to believe
being a Christian and being a soldier were not incompatible. Lactantius
demonstrates this transition when in his Divine Institutes, written in the
last days of Roman persecution of the church (304–311ce) he provides no
528 elowsky
32 See Louis J. Swift, The Early Fathers on War and Military Service (Message of the Fathers of
the Church 19; Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1983).
33 Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church, 17.
34 Freund, “The Decalogue in Early Judaism and Christianity,” 136.
exodus in the fathers 529
one and actually frees someone from bodily defilement (De mend. 25).35 In
his Questions on the text of Exodus, he often wrestles with the question of
whether lying is ever alright: for instance, when God seems to reward or
encourage lying (such as the midwives lying in order to protect the Hebrew
babies). His conclusion seems to be that lying is always wrong, but that God,
because He is God, can bring good even from evil.
9&10. Coveting was closely connected to stealing in the minds of the Fathers,
but also with bearing false witness since, as Augustine noted, coveting and
greed for sordid gain could lead one to lie in order to get what one desired
(Serm. 75.5). Coveting and the other sins of desire such as lust were, as Jesus
noted, behind the sinful acts committed. The Fathers picked up on this
theme as well, especially in their homilies on the Sermon on the Mount.
Fathers such as Augustine noted that it is not desire itself that is evil, since
God created all things good, but rather desire wrongly ordered.36
The incident of the golden calf which followed in the narrative was proof to the
Fathers that the Jews were not worthy of the covenant (Barn. 12, 14), which is
why Moses broke the tablets of the Law. Ephrem says the tablets were of no use
to a people who had exchanged the One who gave them the law with a golden
calf (Comm. Exod. 32.8.1). In this incident, the Fathers were concerned about
God’s justice, but believed his mercy was present as well. They held that the
punishment of drinking the dust was not shared by everyone, but only by the
guilty who had conceived the idea and made others do it. The purpose of God’s
judgment was to correct; the purpose of his love was to pardon (Salvian the
Presbyter, De gub. Dei. 1.11.48). They also emphasized the persistence of Moses
in prayer for the people, almost like a mother pleading for her children. He
was a type of Christ in his intercession on behalf of the people, even willing
to give up his own life as Christ did, but also as the Apostle Paul had offered
to do. The Fathers struggled with whether Moses’ prayer could change the
unchangeable God’s mind. One possible answer Augustine offered was that
when God changed his mind and decided not to destroy the people, the change
was not in God and his eternal decrees, but in how we perceive him (Civ. 14.11).
Later, after Moses’ encounter with God in the tent of meeting, Moses was to
wear a veil over his face to shield the people from God’s glory. The Fathers follow
Paul’s exegetical pattern set in 2Cor 3 where he speaks of the veil that remains
over Israel’s heart and mind when Moses is read until they recognize Christ.
Tertullian’s argument against Marcion is typical of the Fathers: Moses’ veil was
a prefiguration ( figura) of the veil over the heart of the Jewish people; the
whole dispensation (ordo) of Moses, in fact, was a prefiguration of Christ, who
is unknown to the Jews, but known to the Christians. The Christian usage of the
image of Moses’ veil against the Jews, according to Roukema, is probably one
of the reasons why, except in the Targums, it is not found in ancient rabbinical
literature.37 He also notes that while Paul expressed sorrow for his fellow
Jews “according to the flesh,” the Gentile bishops and Church Fathers often
expressed an uncharitable attitude of Christian superiority over Judaism.38 But
eventually, the veil imagery was applied not only to the Jews but to the Gentiles
as well who did not know Jesus. The Alexandrian interpreters Clement and
Origen extended the veil imagery even further to all those Christians who had
yet to be instructed on the Christian meaning of the Old Testament as well as
the deeper meaning of the New Testament. Such Christians were lacking in
true gnosis as their faces were veiled to the deeper, spiritual meaning of the
scriptures.
The early Christians held that the Sinai Covenant was fulfilled by the new and
better covenant prophesied by Jeremiah (Jer 31) and fulfilled in Christ. This also
provided them opportunity to use the Mosaic Law in order to criticize the Jews
for failing to obey that law when they worshiped the golden calf.39 The Fathers
also felt free to reject, or reinterpret the ceremonial laws and the Sabbath obser-
37 Riemer Roukema, “The Veil Over Moses’ Face in Patristic Interpretation,” in The Interpre-
tation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman (ed. Riemer Roukema; cbet 44;
Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 250.
38 Roukema, “The Veil Over Moses’ Face,” 250–251. See also Jacob of Serug, Homily on the Veil
on Moses’ Face (trans. Sebastian Brock; Piscataway: Gorgias, 2009).
39 See also the discussion in Scott M. Langston, Exodus Through the Centuries (bbc; Oxford:
Blackwell, 2006), 189–190.
exodus in the fathers 531
vance in Exodus on the basis of Peter’s vision in Acts 10 and Paul’s distinction
drawn in Col 2:9, while retaining the moral law of the Ten Commandments.
The third century Didascalia Apostolorum assumed a distinction between the
commandments God spoke to all the people (that is, the Decalogue) and those
Moses subsequently delivered in the latter part of Exodus. The “first legislation,”
it was argued, is to be maintained, while the latter, the “second legislation,” is
not.40 They felt justified in this interpretation since the Ten Commandments
said nothing about circumcision or sacrifice, although they did mention the
Sabbath law; but this law, too, was to be interpreted in the light of the new
Sabbath rest that Christ has inaugurated and that will be fully realized in the
future eternal Sabbath in heaven when we will be free from sin, pain, suffering
and death.41 Nonetheless, the early Christians did find practical uses for some
of the other legislation in Exodus that was to be found outside the Ten Com-
mandments. The Lex Talionis, for instance, was to be viewed as a law of restraint
rather than retribution so that the punishment would fit the crime rather than
exceeding it.42 The Mosaic law prohibiting the exacting of interest, or what is
known as usury, was universally held up as an example of Christian love in the
early church.43
In his On Adoration and Worship in Spirit and in Truth, Cyril of Alexandria
demonstrates how the detailed ceremonial regulations regarding the taber-
nacle and Israel’s worship are to be observed by Christians who worship not
according to the flesh as the Jews do, but according to the Spirit. As Joseph Lien-
hard notes, Cyril’s work is a veritable thesaurus of allegorical and moral truths
on the tabernacle and ceremonial laws contained in the latter half of Exodus.44
Using the interpretive lens of John’s Gospel, for which Cyril wrote an extensive
commentary,45 and the book of Hebrews, he instructs his readers that the taber-
nacle was constructed in a provisional way to begin with because it was meant
40 Christopher R. Seitz, “The Ten Commandments: Positive and Natural law and the Cove-
nants Old and New—Christian Use of the Decalogue and Moral Law,” in I am the Lord your
God: Christian Reflections on the Ten Commandments (ed. Carl E. Braaten and Christopher
R. Seitz; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 19.
41 Jerome, Jov. 2.25; Augustine, Spir. et litt. 14.23.
42 Cf. Tertullian, Marc. 2.18.1; Augustine, Serm. Dom. 1.19.56; Cyril of Alexandria, Hom. Luc. 29.
43 See the entry on “Usury” by Wharton B. Marriott in Dictionary of Christian Antiquities (ed.
William Smith and Samuel Cheetham; London: J. Murray, 1893), 2:2006–2008.
44 Lienhard, Exodus, xxii. See pages 122–137 for other Fathers’ allegorical interpretations.
45 A new complete two-volume translation is currently being published as part of Intervar-
sity Press’ Ancient Christian Texts series. The first volume is Commentary on John: Cyril of
Alexandria (trans. David Maxwell; ed. Joel Elowsky; Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2013);
volume 2 will be available in 2014.
532 elowsky
to give way to the church and its institutions. The church, in turn, is the perfect
prototype of the heavenly tabernacle which ultimately will replace both the
tabernacle and the church. Already in the earliest days of the church, Clement
of Rome had established the authority of his office as bishop by appealing to the
threefold Levitical priesthood of High Priest, Priest, and Levites (1 Clem. 40–43).
But later Fathers viewed the priesthood of the New Covenant superseding the
provisional nature of the Old Covenant priesthood since there was no longer a
temple in Jerusalem where sacrifices could be offered.
10 Conclusion
How could the Fathers justify their interpretation of Exodus when they viewed
almost every moment, every detail as having a literal, but also another deeper
meaning that somehow related to Christ and the church? First of all, we need
to realize that the ancient church was not commenting on Scripture for the
academy. They were pastors, bishops, deacons, and catechists all in the midst
of parish life. They not only preached every Sunday and administered the
sacraments in the divine liturgy; many of them preached every day. It was
not that they had no exegetical skills to examine the text closely. A careful
exegete like Origen, for instance, identified many of the textual problems that
continue to perplex modern scholarship. But that was not the ultimate point
of his exegetical enterprise. He and the other ancient Christian writers would
often make the point that if all a listener wanted to learn was the literal sense
of the text, they could probably learn that better from the Jewish rabbis (from
which the Christians ironically learned much of their exegesis). But what gave
Christians the freedom to go beyond what they termed the letter of the Jewish
interpretation to find this deeper hidden meaning in the text? They could
have appealed to the allegorical reading of Homer that had been going on for
centuries, or to Philo’s allegorical exegesis. But Origen appeals to neither of
these for authority, although he and the Fathers often did utilize their methods.
John the Baptist (John 1:29), Jesus (John 6), and Paul were their teachers who
authorized such a reading.
Origen takes the example of Paul who he believed provided the hermeneu-
tical key for how to interpret the events of the Exodus in 1 Cor 10:11 when Paul
wrote, “Now these things happened to [Israel] as a warning, but they were writ-
ten down for our instruction upon whom the end of the ages has come.” The
Exodus account and the events surrounding it were not just about relating the
literal sense of the historical record of Scripture; it was about instructing the
present and future life of the Church. As Origen writes, “Do you see how much
exodus in the fathers 533
Paul’s teaching differs from the literal meaning? What the Jews supposed to be
a crossing of the sea, Paul calls a baptism; what they supposed to be a cloud,
Paul asserts is the Holy Spirit. … Does it not seem right that we apply this kind
of rule which was delivered to us in a similar way in other passages?” (Hom.
Exod. 5.1). All of Scripture could be read in this way because Christ himself told
us that all of Scripture was about him (Luke 24:27). In his incarnated self he
inaugurated a new dispensation, a new interpretation and significance of the
events of old. Therefore the full meaning of the Exodus could only be found in
Christ and his own exodus on the cross where he leads the new Israel out of the
bondage of sin as they are buried with him through the waters of baptism only
to rise again with him to new life.
Select Bibliography
Allen, Joel Stevens. The Despoliation of Egypt in Pre-Rabbinic, Rabbinic and Patristic
Traditions. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae: Texts and Studies of Early Christian
Life and Language 92. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Cantalamessa, Raniero. Easter in the Early Church: An Anthology of Jewish and Early
Christian Texts. Edited and translated by James M. Quigley and Joseph T. Lienhard.
Collegeville: Liturgical, 1993.
De Margerie, Bertrand. An Introduction to the History of Exegesis: Vol. 1, The Greek
Fathers. Translated by Pierre De Fontnouvelle. Petersham: St. Bede’s, 1991.
Devreesse, Robert. Les anciens commentateurs grecs de l’Octateuque et des Rois. Studi e
Testi 201. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1959.
Freund, Richard A. “The Decalogue in Early Judaism and Christianity.” Pages 124–141
in The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition. Edited by Craig
A. Evans and James A. Sanders. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supple-
ment Series 154. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
Hall, Stuart George. Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1992.
Heine, Ronald E. “The Alexandrians.” Pages 117–130 in The Cambridge History of Early
Christian Literature. Edited by Frances Young, Lewis Ayres, and Andrew Louth.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Langston, Scott M. Exodus Through the Centuries. Blackwell Bible Commentaries. Ox-
ford: Blackwell, 2006.
Lécuyer, Joseph. “Exodus.” Pages 903–905 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity.
Edited by Angelo DiBerardino. 3 vols. Downers Grove, il: InterVarsity Press, 2014.
Lienhard, Joseph T. Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Ancient Christian Com-
mentary on Scripture: Old Testament 3. Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2001.
534 elowsky
Lubac, Henri de. Medieval Exegesis, Volume 1: The Four Senses of Scripture. Translated
by Mark Sebanc. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Translation of Exégêse médiévale:
les quatre sens de l’Ecriture. 4 vols. Paris: Aubier, 1959–1964.
Roukema, Riemer. “The Veil Over Moses’ Face in Patristic Interpretation.” Pages 237–
252 in The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman. Edited
by Riemer Roukema. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 44. Leuven:
Peeters, 2006.
Runia, David T. “Philo and the Early Christian Fathers.” Pages 210–230 in The Cambridge
Companion to Philo. Edited by Adam Kamesar. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2009.
Seitz, Christopher R. “The Ten Commandments: Positive and Natural Law and the
Covenants Old and New—Christian Use of the Decalogue and Moral Law.” Pages 18–
38 in I am the Lord your God: Christian Reflections on the Ten Commandments. Edited
by Carl E. Braaten and Christopher R. Seitz. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
Völker, Walter. Gregor von Nyssa als Mystiker. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1955.
Whitaker, Edward C. Documents of the Baptismal Liturgy. London: spck, 1970. Rev. ed.
2003.
Exodus in Rabbinic Interpretation
Burton L. Visotzky
1 From the Hebrew: אגדה, lit. narrative or telling. Also found as Haggadah / הגדה.
2 Hebrew: מדרש. Each of these technical terms bears further definition, for which, see the
examples adduced below, and see Burton L. Visotzky, “The Literature of the Rabbis,” in From
Mesopotamia to Modernity: Ten Introductions to Jewish History and Literature (ed. Burton
L. Visotzky and David E. Fishman; Boulder: Westview, 1999), 71–102; Visotzky, s.v. “Haggadah,”
“Halakhah,” and “Midrash,” in nidb; see also H.L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction
to the Talmud and Midrash (ed. and trans. Marcus Bockmuehl; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992).
3 From the Hebrew: הלכה, lit. walking or the Way. See Strack and Stemberger, Introduction.
4 On the “schools” of Rabbis Aqiba and Ishmael and their methods, see Azzan Yadin, Scrip-
ture as Logos: Rabbi Ishmael and the Origins of Midrash (Philadelphia: University of Penn-
sylvania Press, 2004); Yadin, “Resistance to Midrash? Midrash and Halakhah in the Halakhic
Midrashim,” in Current Trends in the Study of Midrash (ed. Carol Bakhos; JSJSup 106; Leiden:
Brill, 2006), 35–58. The seminal work on the subject is Menahem Kahana, “The Halachic
Midrashim,” in The Literature of the Sages, Second Part: Midrash and Targum Liturgy, Poetry,
Mysticism Contracts, Inscriptions, Ancient Science and the Languages of Rabbinic Literature
(ed. Shmuel Safrai et al.; crint 2.3b; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2006), 3–105, esp. 17–39 on the
“schools,” and 68–77 on the two Mekhiltas. See also, inter alia, Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality
and the Reading of Midrash (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990); Burton L. Visotzky,
“Jots and Tittles: On Scriptural Interpretation in Rabbinic and Patristic Literatures,” Proof 8
(1988): 257–269; repr. in Visotzky, Fathers of the World: Essays in Rabbinic and Patristic Litera-
tures (wunt 80; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 28–40.
5 Basic treatment of these works, their dating, editions, and such matters can be found in
Visotzky, “The Literature of the Rabbis,” or in Strack and Stemberger, Introduction.
6 All translations are by the author.
7 When we studied the Septuagint translation of Genesis with Prof. Elias Bickermann in the late
1970’s, we were still on Gen 1:1 at the midway point of the semester. I was delegated to gently
prod the professor to pick up the pace. He demurred, memorably explaining, “I, Bickermann,
teach you to read slow.”
8 ʾAbot 1:10, attributed to Shemayah. The Abot De Rabbi Nathan (arn) commentary is in arn
b, ch. 22 in a manuscript quoted by Menahem M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah (tmep; New York:
American Biblical Encyclopedia Society, 1944 [Hebrew]), at Exod 1:6 at #51. Kasher’s work,
which covers Genesis through Numbers to date, is an invaluable resource. I translate from
arn b 22 in Solomon Schechter, Aboth De Rabbi Nathan (Vienna: Lippe, 1887; repr. with
corrections, New York: Feldheim, 1967), 46. Dating of arn remains a much debated subject,
but most scholars now assume the final redaction was ca. eighth century; see Menahem
Kister, Studies in Avot de-Rabbi Nathan: Text, Redaction and Interpretation (Jerusalem: Hebrew
University and Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1998 [Hebrew]).
exodus in rabbinic interpretation 537
Authority buries those who wield it, and even the mere “dust” of authority
is hard to bear. Thus it says “So Joseph died, and all his brothers” (Exod 1:6).
Was not Joseph the youngest [and so, should have been listed after his
brothers]!? Here we learn that authority buries those who wield it, and
even the mere “dust” of authority is hard to bear.
After all, Joseph wielded his authority, took precedence over his older brothers
in this biblical verse, and was buried [as a result?]. What a keen conflation
of the worldview of a powerless rabbi, a verse of Scripture, and the urge to
commentary. In one comment Abot de-Rabbi Nathan explicates both a biblical
irregularity as well as an otherwise opaque mishnaic sentiment.
The next verse of Exodus offers the “slow reader” further occasion for reflec-
tion. It reads, “The Israelites were fertile and swarmed” (Exod 1:7). It is that
latter verb that gives pause, as it is written from the point of view of the Egyp-
tians themselves. The Hebrew root9 is associated with vermin. In fifth-century
Galilee two rabbis remarked upon the word choice:
One said, They [the Israelites] were likened to the largest of vermin, the
rat, that gives birth to six at once. The other rabbi said, to the smallest of
the vermin, the scorpion, that gives birth to sixty.10
By invoking the “ick factor,” these two rabbis emphasize the unusual word
choice and in typical rabbinic fashion subject it to dialectic. As Mandelbaum
points out in his notes to the passage (ad loc) regarding their prodigious birth-
rate, “Despite the fact that so many males died, there were yet 600,000 who left
Egypt.” Or as the much later Yemenite Midrash HaGadol says on the apparent
redundancies of the verse,
“… the Israelites were fertile, and swarmed, they multiplied, and grew very,
very mighty” (Exod 1:7)—Rabbi says, “They were fertile” like cattle, “they
swarmed” like ants, “they multiplied” like fish, and “they grew very, very
mighty” like champions.11
9 צ-ר-ש
10 Pesikta de Rav Kahana, Beshalah, 10 (ed. Bernard Mandelbaum; New York: Jewish The-
ological Seminary of America, 1962), 186 f.; cited from Kasher, Torah Shelemah, ad loc #
63.
11 Here following the emendation of Kasher who reads נמלים, ants, in lieu of גמלים, camels.
Kasher, Torah Shelemah, at Exod 1:7 #65 and his note there. See Midrash Haggadol at Exod
1:7 (ed. Mordecai Margulies; Jerusalem: Mosad Haraw Kook, 1967), 10. The attribution
538 visotzky
And if we may turn to the final clause of the verse, “and the land [of Egypt]
was filled with them” (Exod 1:7), we find an astute comment on the perils of
assimilation. It is the kind of comment one might have expected in 1930’s Ger-
many, but instead, it is quoted in the Muslim-era Tanhuma, and the narrative
line is set in the Greco-Roman era:
“And the land [of Egypt] was filled with them,” for the Israelites filled up
the seats of the theaters (teatrot) and the arenas (kirkasot). It was then
that they decreed sterilization upon the Jews, as it is said, “And the land
was filled with them.”12
Rav and Shmuel, disagreed. One said, “Literally, ‘a new Pharaoh.’” The
other said, “He renewed his harsh decrees.” So what does it mean that “he
knew not Joseph?” It means that he behaved as though he had never heard
of him!13
to Rabbi, presumably Rabbi Judah the Patriarch, is wholly pseudonymous, as this is the
earliest attestation of this tradition, a millennium after Rabbi’s demise.
12 Tanḥ. Exod 6 (Solomon Buber, ed., Midrash Tanhuma [2 vols.; Vilna: Romm, 1885; repr.,
Jerusalem: Ortsel, 1963–1964], n.p.) 2:4; cited from Kasher, Torah Shelemah, ad loc. #79.
13 B. Erubin 53a.
exodus in rabbinic interpretation 539
Why does it say this? Scripture imputes the worst to those who refuse
to acknowledge when someone has done them a good turn. Why so?
Because it is akin to denying God; for one who denies God is denying the
many good things done for him. One who denies that his colleague has
done him a favor will tomorrow deny his Creator’s favors. Indeed, unto
this very day Egyptians know of the benefits Joseph bestowed! Pharaoh
knew yet refused to acknowledge them. He denied the favors and in the
end denied the Blessed Holy One, as it is written, “I do not know God”
(Exod 5:2). Thus we see that denying favors given is akin to denying God.14
“Let us deal shrewdly with them” (Exod 1:10). “The Egyptians dealt evilly
( )וירעוwith us” (Deut. 26:6).
Rabban Gamaliel said, “Anyone who does not mention these three items
on Passover, has not fulfilled his [biblical] obligation. These are: The
paschal lamb, matzo, and bitter herbs ( ”… )מרורBitter herbs, for the
14 Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer 7 (ed. H.G. Enelow; New York: Bloch, 1934), 137.
15 Philocalia ii 3–4, Comm. In 1 Ps.
540 visotzky
To this day, Jews eat some form of bitter herb at the Passover Seder.
One final example of commentary on Exod 1 will suffice for this survey.
Exodus 1:15 reads,
“The King of Egypt said to the midwives of the Hebrews, of whom one was
named Shiphra and the second was named Puʿah.” Shiphra is Yocheved
and Puʿah is Miriam. [She was called] Shiphra for she was fruitful (she-
parah) and multiplied. Shiphra, for she made beautiful (she-meshaperet)
the baby. Shiphra, for the Israelites were fruitful (she-parah) and multi-
plied in her day. [And she was called] Puʿah, for she cried (paʿah) and
wailed for her brother, as it is said, “And his sister stood watch from afar
to know what would become of him” (Exod 2:4).16
16 Siphre d’be Rab 78 to Numbers (ed. H.S. Horovitz; Leipzig: Gustav Fock, 1917), 74–75.
17 For more on midrashic methods, see Burton L. Visotzky, Reading the Book: Making the
Bible a Timeless Text (3d ed.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2005); see also
James L. Kugel, In Potiphar’s House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts (San Francisco:
Harper Collins, 1990) esp. 247–270. For specifics on interpretation of Genesis, see Visotzky,
“Genesis in Rabbinic Interpretation,” in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and
Interpretation (ed. Craig A. Evans, Joel N. Lohr, and David L. Petersen; VTSup 152; Leiden:
Brill, 2012), 579–606.
exodus in rabbinic interpretation 541
“A man from the house of Levi went …” Rav Yehuda bar Zevina said,
“Went” where? Rather, it means he went and followed his daughter’s
advice. For when Pharaoh decreed his evil decree to kill off the male
children, Amram—who was the leader of his tribe, reasoned: shall we
labor and have children for naught? So he arose and divorced his wife,
lest they have a child who would be killed. But as it happened, she was
already pregnant two or three months.
His daughter Miriam, who was a prophet, implored him to remarry
her mother, as she said, “Mother is destined to bear a son who will be
the savior of the Israelites. And as for you, Father; Pharaoh only decreed
against the male children, while you want to uproot everything!”
So Amram went and took Yocheved [again] as his wife “and she hid
him for three months.” How so? For the Egyptians assumed she was a
newlywed and did not expect her to be pregnant so soon. So she was
able to hide the baby for a period before setting him on the Nile. Once
she set the baby on the Nile, Amram came to Miriam distraught and
542 visotzky
smacked her upside the head. “Now where is your prophesy?” he asked
her. So it is said, “And his sister stood watch from afar to know what would
become of him” (Exod 2:4). That is to say, what would become of her
prophecy.18
Marvel at how many textual itches are scratched here with one good narrative.
Now we know why Yocheved was able to hide the baby and why Exodus
neglects to mention the older children. We also learn why Scripture teaches,
“Miriam the prophet, sister of Aaron, took the timbrel in her hand …” (Exod
15:20). Why does Exodus not mention she was sister to Moses, you may wonder?
Why, says our story-teller, baby Moses had not yet been born when she made
her prophecy. In fact, it was a prophecy of his birth! And let us delight at the
psychological insight that imagines the child of parents separated by divorce
imploring them to reunite. Miriam’s endearing complaint to her father can
be found in a somewhat different form in the Passover Haggadah, where it is
said of Laban the Aramean, “Pharaoh only decreed against the male children,
while you want to uproot everything.” In truth, the kvetch seems more apposite
applied to Amram.
It is a mainstay of hagiography that the saint be “good.” So it comes as no
surprise that Exod 2:2 says of Moses, “she saw that he was good.” But rabbis can
be somewhat pedantic when reading Scripture; they want to know exactly what
the term “good” encompasses here.
“She saw that he was good,” for Moses was born circumcised. What else
could his mother have seen that made him nicer and more praiseworthy
than other men? It must be that he was born circumcised.19
This observation is found in a long listing of biblical characters who were “born
circumcised.” Whether this is an anti-Christian polemic over circumcision, or
whether an argument about the procedure for circumcision with Muslims or
18 The curious reader can find all the differing versions I have drawn upon in Kasher, Torah
Shelemah at Exod 2:1, especially in his lengthy notes #1–2. In the main, I follow b. Soṭah 12a.
See Louis Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews (7 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society,
1909–1938), 2:258–265, with Ginzberg’s notes in 5:394f. See also Hayim Nahman Bialik
and Yehoshua Hana Ravnitzky, The Book of Legends (trans. William G. Braude; New York:
Schocken, 1992), ch. 4 #13. Also, compare my “popular” treatment of this legend in Visotzky,
The Road to Redemption: Lessons from Exodus on Leadership and Community (New York:
Crown, 1998), 23–31.
19 arn a ch. 2, Schechter, Aboth De Rabbi Nathan, 12.
exodus in rabbinic interpretation 543
even Qaraites, is not clear. What is made eminently clear from this Judeo-
phallocentric world view is the ease with which rabbis “read-in” to the biblical
text.
Rabbis also read their hermeneutical principles in the text and do so at what
might seem to outside readers as unlikely junctures. Exodus 2:4 reads: “And his
sister stood watch from afar.” This provides occasion for the lesson that God
(and therefore Scripture) works on the doctrine of “measure for measure.” Just
as in the first century Jesus pronounced, “With what measure ye mete, it shall
be measured to you again”; a century or so later the Mishnah pronounces,
The rabbinic ability to read a verse of Scripture in light of other verses serves
them well in unraveling knotty texts. In the case we have just read, the rabbis
can use the interplay of two verses to establish a hermeneutic principle rather
than deal with the trial-by-ordeal the text presents on its face. In Exod 2:19, it is
Moses’ appearance that requires some rabbinic interpretation: “They said, ‘An
Egyptian man saved us from the hand of those shepherds.’ ”
20 Matt 7:2 and par. But see already Wis 11:5; m. Soṭah 1:9—the Mishnah takes the biblical
narrative of the suspect wife as a locus classicus for the principle of measure for measure
(just as she began her transgression with her thigh and then her belly, so she is punished
first her thigh and then her belly …).
21 Exod. Rab. 1:32; A. Shinan, ed., Midrash Shemot Rabbah: Parashot 1–14 (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1984),
96
544 visotzky
Here for the first time in this chapter we encounter the rabbinic use of analogy
(mashal, often translated as parable). The analogy is somewhat bizarre, and
without parallel in the rabbinic corpus, but it serves its purpose. Through
analogical thinking the rabbis construct a scenario wherein a Hebrew can be
called “an Egyptian man.” Which is to say, not that he looked like an Egyptian,
but rather by virtue of the Egyptian man whom Moses killed, he now found his
way to the tents of Jethro. As Jerome said, one verse unlocks another.
Sometimes, the rabbis turn to folk-legends when they take up their exegeses.
In the following eighth–ninth century narrative, the history of Moses’ rod
is turned into a Heilsgeschichte22 that shares a motif in common with King
Arthur’s sword, Excalibur.23
Rabbi Levi said, “The rod that was created in the twilight [at the very
end of Creation, just before the first Sabbath] was given to Adam in the
Garden of Eden. Adam gave it to Enoch, who gave it to Noah. Noah gave it
to Shem, who gave it to Abraham. Abraham gave it to Isaac, who gave it to
Jacob; and Jacob brought it down to Egypt to give to his son Joseph. When
Joseph died his house was despoiled and taken into Pharaoh’s palace.
Jethro was among Pharaoh’s court magicians. He saw the rod and the
letters upon it and coveted it in his heart. He took the rod and planted
it in his own home’s garden. Once planted, no man could draw near
it.
When Moses came to Jethro’s home he entered Jethro’s garden, saw the
rod, read the letters upon it, reached out his hand and took it.
When Jethro saw Moses do so he said, “This one will redeem Israel in
the Future.” Therefore he gave him his daughter Tzippora as a wife, as it
is said, “And Moses agreed to dwell with the man; and he gave Moses his
daughter Tzippora [as a wife]” (Exod 2:21).”24
Here the scene is set not only for the reader to understand why Jethro is inclined
to marry Moses to his daughter, but to understand the rod of Moses’ back-story,
22 This is a strong tendency in Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer (pre) that deserves a separate examina-
tion. See, e.g. pre 31, where the history of the donkey used at the binding of Isaac stretches
from the dawn of creation unto the messianic redemption.
23 But see the sensible caution of Rachel S. Mikva, Midrash VaYosha: A Medieval Midrash on
the Song at the Sea (tsmemj 28; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 294 n. 153
24 Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer (Jerusalem: Eshkol, 1973), 151–152. See the translation and notes of
Gerald Friedlander, Pirke De Rabbi Eliezer (London, 1916; repr., New York: Sepher-Hermon,
1965), 312–313, and see Eshkol, Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer, 14 n. 4.
exodus in rabbinic interpretation 545
as it were. If the rod can turn into a serpent and later part the sea,25 it must have
an impressive “lineage.”
At other times, the rabbis display a keen literary critical sensibility. When
God calls to Moses from the Burning Bush, “Moses! Moses!” the earliest rabbinic
commentary on Leviticus tersely notes,
This call to Moses was, and remains, a conundrum. In the 1998 animated fea-
ture “Prince of Egypt,” the DreamWorks team had originally recorded multiple
actors whispering God’s call from the Burning Bush. When the time came to
mix the sound, the production team was continually frustrated. Finally they
asked actor Val Kilmer, who voiced Moses in the film, to read God’s lines,
as well.27 The rabbis imagined a somewhat different process in a medieval
midrash that displays astute psychological insight:
“[God] said, I am your father’s God” (Exod 3:6). Rabbi Joshua ben Nah-
mani the priest said, When the Blessed Holy One was revealed, Moses
was a tyro at prophecy. The Blessed Holy One said, “If I reveal Myself to
him in a huge voice, I will make him shy away. And if in a low voice, he
will turn sour toward prophecy.” What did God do? God was revealed
to him in the voice of his father. Moses replied, “Here I am. What do
you desire Father?” To which God replied, “I am not your father, but the
God of your father. I came to you through this ruse so as not to frighten
you.”28
It is not just the case that the rabbis could display insights into biblical charac-
ters. They were self-conscious about their own reading processes and herme-
neutic rules. Happily, they justified themselves by pointing them out within the
biblical text itself. One of the prominent exegetical norms was reasoning from
25 See below.
26 Sifra, Nedava, 1:[12]; Louis Finkelstein, ed., Sifra on Leviticus (New York: Jewish Theological
Seminary of America, 1983), 2:13.
27 The current author worked as a paid consultant for DreamWorks on the film. The story
related above is also found on the “Prince of Egypt” trivia page on the imdb website: http://
www.imdb.com/title/tt0120794/trivia.
28 Exod. Rab. 3:1; Shinan, Shemot Rabbah, 119.
546 visotzky
minor to major, which the rabbis applied for both legal and non-legal exegetical
moments.29 In Exod 6:12 Moses complains to God,
“Lo, the Israelites do not heed me, so how will Pharaoh heed me, I who
am of uncircumcised lips?” It is taught in the school of Rabbi Ishmael,
This is one of ten instances of reasoning from minor to major written in
the Torah.30
Rabbinic reliance on their interpretive methods often gave them the confi-
dence to construct baroque narratives, of an almost Rube Goldberg plot variety.
Commenting on the biblical plague of blood, while assuming there must be
measure for measure punishment in play, the eighth–ninth century Midrash
Seder Eliyahu Rabba notes:
The Egyptians saw that the Israelite men immersed themselves when
leaving their beds [to make themselves ritually fit after a seminal emis-
sion], and that the women would immerse both after sex and after men-
struation. The Egyptians seized the waterworks so that they could not
immerse [thus rendering them ritually unfit according to the prescrip-
tions regarding menstrual blood in Leviticus] and so they could not have
sex and bear offspring (cf. Exod 1:10).
Therefore, the Blessed Holy One [punished them measure for mea-
sure] and turned their waters to blood!31
God brought so many frogs that the Egyptians would hear them croaking
in their bellies. What sound did those frogs make? Kav LaKav.32
And not only that, but when the Egyptians went to the outhouse, frogs
would leap up from the mire and bite them on their sphincters—and
there really is nothing more embarrassing than that.33
You can’t make this stuff up! The much more sober Rabbis Elazar and Aqiba
were quick to note that Exod 8:2 uses an odd verb form, what we would call a
collective. So the text could be fairly, if overly literally, translated,
“So the frog arose.” Rabbi Elazar said, “There was but one frog that
spawned enough others to fill the entire land of Egypt.” This is like the
teaching of Rabbi Aqiba who suggested, “There was one frog that [was so
huge it] filled the entire land of Egypt.”
Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him, “Aqiba! What are you doing with
aggada? Leave aside your nattering and stick to [the Mishnaic tractates
dealing with] ‘Signs of Leprosy’ and ‘Tents.’34 Rather, there was one frog
that croaked and so, brought all the others.”35
This is an apposite point to stop our brief survey of the Moses legends in rab-
binic interpretation of Exodus, as we have wandered into the details of the
Exodus narrative itself. In this segment we have sampled rabbinic texts from as
early as the late-second century (Mishnah), through the twelfth-thirteenth cen-
tury (Exodus Rabbah); and geographically from the east (Babylonian Talmud—
Iraq), to the Holy Land (Galilee—Genesis Rabbah), through the Mediterranean
basin (Seder Eliyahu, Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer, Abot de-Rabbi Nathan), unto the
West (Europe—Exodus Rabbah). We turn now to rabbinic treatment of the
exodus epic, as it is found in Exod 12–19.
Rabbi Yitzchak said, “the Torah might well have started with Exodus 12:2,
‘This month shall mark for you the beginning of months; it shall be the
first of the months of the year for you.’” For this is the first commandment
that the Israelites were commanded.36
34 Negaʿim and Ohilot, each of which deal with the obscurities of Levitical purity law.
35 B. Sanh. 67b. Perhaps all of these opinions were offered in the course of a Passover
Seder—presumably after a few cups of wine.
36 Rashi at Gen 1:1. The midrash he cites is from Tanḥ. Gen 1:1. See Robert A. Harris, “Concepts
548 visotzky
Now Rashi, and before him Rabbi Yitzchak, knew his rabbinic tradition. For
although there remains plenty of narrative plot required to get the Israelites
out of Egypt, it is as though the book of Exodus has broken into the story at
this point with an halachic “word from our Sponsor.” In fact, one of the earliest
midrashic commentaries on the Torah, the Mekhilta D’Rabbi Ishmael, begins
its commentary here, and not earlier in Exodus.37 In an impressive display of
close reading the Mekhilta comments,
“God spoke to Moses and to Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying” (Exod
12:1). I might infer from this verse that the word [of God] was [revealed]
to Moses and to Aaron both. Yet when it says, “On that day God spoke
to Moses in the land of Egypt saying” (Exod 6:1), [I conclude that in fact]
the word [was revealed only] to Moses and not to Aaron. If this is so; why
then does Scripture say, “to Moses and to Aaron?” It teaches us that just
as Moses was a vessel for revelation, so Aaron was a vessel for revelation.
So why did God not speak with Aaron? In deference to Moses’ honor. We
find that Aaron was excluded from all of the revelatory words of the Torah
but for three instances, where it could not be avoided.38
This is an incisive reading of the Scriptural text, noting the literary tendencies
of the forms of address by God to Moses and Aaron. Indeed, throughout the
Torah text, God overwhelmingly addresses commands to Moses to be spoken
to Aaron. This may also be a whiff of rabbinic anti-priestly polemic. Moses, our
rabbi, gets the commands from God—Moses and not Aaron, the priest—an
easy thing for rabbis to suggest from the hindsight of the third century, seven
score years and more after the destruction of the Second Temple and the end
of priestly dominance.
To return to Exod 12:2, “This (hazeh) month shall mark for you the beginning
of months …” The use of the indefinite article, “this” (Hebrew: zeh), which is
set off in this verse with the definite article (ha of ha-zeh), captures the rabbis’
attention. It is useful to note that in rabbinic Hebrew, the word zeh was a gesture
word—one that was accompanied by physically pointing to something.
Rabbi Ishmael said, Moses showed the new moon to the Israelites and
said, “when you see it looking like this, set the new moon for the coming
generations.” Rabbi Aqiba said, “This is one of three matters that Moses
had difficulties with and the Omnipresent pointed to them with a finger.
Similarly is the case of ‘This shall be ritually unfit for you’ (Lev 11:29).
Similarly, “This is the making of the candelabrum” (Num 8:4).”39
These types of slow reading are deeply embedded in the earliest rabbinic tra-
ditions. Indeed, it has long been observed that despite abundant halachic dif-
ferences that divide the school of Rabbi Ishmael from that of Rabbi Aqiba (see
below for examples), the two works attributed to those schools nevertheless
share a common aggadic tradition. This phenomenon suggests a narrative prac-
tice going back to the very origins of the rabbinic movement, and reflected in
many of the same aggadic traditions being found in the works of Philo and
Josephus, as well.40 This long reach carries forward as well into the Middle
Ages—that is to say that the aggadic traditions already found in the Mekiltas
also are quoted by later rabbis for centuries thereafter. This section of midrash
on the Exodus narrative will, with one exception (below), limit our survey to
the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael as representative of rabbinic interpretation of
Exod 12–19. We will attempt to take up a variety of forms of interpretation, along
with a range of issues.
Exodus 13:21 reads, “The Lord went forth before them by day …” This
teaches you that with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to
you again. Abraham accompanied the ministering angels, as it is said,
“Abraham accompanied them to send them on their way” (Gen 18:16); so
the Omnipresent accompanied his offspring in the wilderness forty years,
as it is said, “The Lord went forth before them by day …”
“The Lord went forth before them by day …” is it really possible to speak
so? Does it not already say, “Do I not fill the heaven and the earth? says the
Lord” (Jer 23:24). … What does Scripture mean when it says, “The Lord
went forth before them by day …”?
Rabbi [Judah the Patriarch] said, [The Emperor] Antoninus once was
rendering judgment upon the dais when it grew dark. His sons were there
with him in the darkness. When they left the dais, Antoninus carried a
torch to light the way for his sons. The grandees of the empire approached
him and said, “We will carry the torch to illumine the way for your sons!”
He declined explaining, “It is not because I lack someone to carry the
torch to illuminate the way for my sons, but by my doing so I make known
to you my affection for my sons, since I give them such honor.”
Thus did the Blessed Holy One make known to the nations of the
world the affection in which Israel is held, that they might also give them
honor.41
Here the Mekhilta likens the behavior of God to that of a human monarch, the
Roman Emperor Antoninus. Rabbi Judah the Patriarch is frequently depicted
either engaging with or telling stories about Antoninus.42 The analogy to An-
toninus serves to explain God’s behavior, if at the expense of God’s cosmic
grandeur. Nor should we ignore that such a comparison serves to aggrandize
the Jewish patriarch, who is depicted as a colleague of the emperor. Further,
the hermeneutic device of measure for measure, which we have already seen
as a method of aggadic reading, offers another explication for divine con-
duct.
A similar deployment of measure for measure is found in rabbinic commen-
tary on Exod 14:31,
“They [the Israelites] had faith in the Lord and in God’s servant Moses.”
Rabbi Nehemiah said, “Anyone who faithfully accepts one command-
ment is worthy that the Holy Spirit might rest upon him. For thus we
found in the case of our ancestors that as reward for the faith they dis-
played in God, they merited to have the Holy Spirit rest upon them and
they were inspired to sing the Song [at the Sea], as it is said, “They [the
Israelites] had faith in the Lord and in God’s servant Moses.” And it is said,
“Then Moses and the Israelites sang” (Exod 15:1).”
Thus you find that our ancestor Abraham inherited this world and
the next world through the merit of the faith he displayed in God, as
it is said, “And he showed faith in God and it was accounted to him
as righteousness” (Gen 15:6). And thus you find that the Israelites were
redeemed from Egypt as reward for faith, as it is said, “And the people
showed faith” (Exod 4:31).43
While the exegetical method here is the device of reading “measure for mea-
sure,” the content area is “faith.” It is not only in Christian literature that faith
gets focused attention. We turn here briefly to the question of rabbinic engage-
ment with Christian exegesis.44 This is a much studied problem and here we
can do no more than allude to some of the methodological complexities that
come with the comparison of rabbinic and church interpretations of Scrip-
ture.45 A good example of the potential morass that comes with such com-
parison may be found in rabbinic interpretation of the battle with Amalek; in
particular the verse of Exod 17:11.
“Then whenever Moses raised his hand, Israel prevailed, but when he let
down his hand, Amalek prevailed.” And do the hands of Moses then cause
Israel to prevail or cause Amalek to fail!? Rather [we should interpret this
to teach that] whenever Moses raised his hands toward [God] on High,
Israel would look and show faith in the One Who commanded Moses to
do so; and so the Blessed Holy One did miracles and mighty deeds on their
behalf.
Similarly, “The Lord said to Moses, Make a seraph …” (Num. 21:8). Does,
then, the serpent kill and give life!? Rather, whenever Israel looked at
43 Mekhilta Beshalah 6, Horovitz edition, 114–115. See, as well, Norman J. Cohen, “Analysis of
an Exegetic Tradition in the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael: The Meaning of ‘Amanah in the
Second and Third Centuries,” ajsr 9 (1984): 1–25.
44 The interests of space preclude us from addressing rabbinic exegesis of the Song at the
Sea (Exod 15). Fortunately, we are blessed with a close study of rabbinic commentary on
the Song by the late Judah Goldin and his students. See Judah Goldin, The Song at the Sea:
Being a Commentary on a Commentary in Two Parts (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1971; repr., Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990).
45 Basic bibliography may be found in the introductory chapter of Visotzky, Fathers of the
World. Updated bibliography is available in Adiel Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy,
Christianity, and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010);
and in Peter Schäfer, The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012).
552 visotzky
it and showed faith in the One Who commanded Moses to do so, the
Blessed Holy One sent them healing. Similarly, “And the blood will be a
sign for you” (Exod 12:13). And just how does the blood benefit the angel or
benefit Israel!? Rather, whenever Israel did so and put the blood on their
entryways, the Blessed Holy One pitied them, as it is said, “I will pass over
you” (Exod 12:13).46
When reading this passage through a comparative lens, one cannot help but
recall a very similar reading in the somewhat earlier Epistle of Barnabas.47
Barnabus takes up the first two of these passages and gives them a typologi-
cal reading, with the referent of the symbols of the serpent on the standard
and Moses at the battle of Amalek being, predictably, Christ upon the cross.
As I have discussed elsewhere, however, the parallel to Barnabus is not only
inexact, but fraught. Barnabus quotes interceding material from elsewhere in
Scripture, as does the passage from the Mekhilta. It really is no surprise that
rabbis and Church Fathers can use remarkably similar methods, given the
shared Greco-Roman milieu in which they were educated. This mention of the
Greco-Roman background of rabbinic interpretive methods provides essen-
tial background to any study of rabbinic hermeneutics; how much more so
when comparing it with Christian literature stemming from the same cultural
paideia.48
With this warning sounded, I wish to conclude this brief section discussing
the poetics of rabbinic interpretation of the Exodus narratives with reference
to a little studied rabbinic source: anonymous, acrostic, Aramaic poetry from
the early Byzantine/Late Antique period. These poems are found most often
in manuscripts or embedded in Aramaic Targum texts. Recently, a corpus of
this poetry has been published (in a Hebrew/Aramaic edition) that makes
the works more accessible for study.49 We take one example of this poetic
interpretation for it displays all the features of this body of literature, while also
being published from a papyrus from perhaps as early as the sixth or seventh
century.50 If the dating of this papyrus is accurate, it is among the very earliest
extant documents of rabbinic literature:51
Away then Moses! Go to the Sea/ and tell the Sea, Flee before me!
By My name shall you go and tell the Sea/ I am the messenger of the
Creator of all
Clear a path for an hour/ that through you may pass the beloved of
Kyrios52
Deep in trouble are the tribes of Jacob/ their enemies pursue them
Even before them the Sea stands closed/ while the enemy comes fast
from behind.
Finally Moses went up to the Sea/ and said to the Sea, Flee before me!
Grudgingly the Sea gave way/ for in his hand was the staff of miracles.
Heated anger overtook the Sea/ which began to argue with Moses,
It’s an error for you, son of Amram/ I shall not be vanquished by one
born of woman
Just three days older am I than you53/ so how can you hope to conquer
me?
Know that your argument, Moses replied/ is not in your interests, you
will be overcome!
Leave off opposition between you and me/ just for this hour […]
Monarch of monarchs sent me to you/ to allow His beloved to pass
through your midst.
Now Moses went down to stand at the Sea/ that did not yet wish to
submit itself.
Once and for all, said the Sea to Moses/ I shall not be conquered by one
born of woman.
Please note, replied Moses, telling the Sea/ that one younger than you
shall conquer you.
Quietly, the Sea said to Moses/ Son of Amram, do not argue!
50 Or possibly even a century earlier. See Joseph Yahalom, “Ezel Moshe according to the
Berlin Papyrus,” Tarbiz 47 (1978): 173–184.
51 There are also manuscript fragments of this work from the Cairo Geniza. See Sokoloff
and Yahalom, Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Poetry from Late Antiquity, 82–87 with the notes
there. Also, the content may be compared to the more prosaic presentation in Mekhilta
Beshalah 4, Horovitz edition, 102.
52 The Greek term for Lord, transliterated in the Aramaic text.
53 The Sea was created on day three of creation, while humanity was created on day six.
554 visotzky
If the tone of the narrative shifted at the first introduction of law Exod 12, there
is a palpable sense of shifting genre following the exodus from Egypt, initiated
when the Israelites come to Mt. Sinai to participate in the covenant ceremony
54 To the best of my knowledge this is the only English translation of the Aramaic poem in
acrostic form. I maintained the alphabetical acrostic while remaining fairly literal in my
translation. Hebrew has but 22 letters in the alphabet, so my translation stops with “V”
(and we are spared my finding an “X” word for the sake of the poem). Hebrew translations
are available in Sokoloff and Yahalom, Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Poetry; and J. Heineman,
“Remnants of Ancient Piyyutim in the Palestinian Targum Tradition,” HaSifrut 4 (1973):
362–375. Earlier English renderings are by Harry Sysling, “Go, Moses, and Stand by the Sea:
An Acrostic Poem from the Cairo Genizah to Ex. 14:30,” in The Interpretation of Exodus:
Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman (ed. Riemer Roukema; cbet 44; Leuven: Peeters,
2006), 139–154; and see Michael Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the
Pentateuch (2 vols.; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1986).
exodus in rabbinic interpretation 555
and theophany, and adumbrated in the chapters of law that follow to the end of
the biblical book. This same generic shift is mirrored in the commentaries on
the halachic material found throughout rabbinic literature, as early as the two
Mekhilta collections. In those two schools’ halakhic interpretation of Exodus
(as well as in subsequent rabbinic exegesis), hermeneutic norms vary, technical
language differs, and rabbis are more likely to engage in argumentation with
one another, rather than simply add yet another (aggadic) interpretation to
the record of tradition. In aggadah, rabbis can offer multiple interpretations
of a text. In halakhah, only one interpretation per rabbi is the norm.55
Further, if we peruse the earliest works on Exodus—the Mekhilta of Rabbi
Ishmael versus the Aqiban school’s Mekhilta of Rabbi Shimeon ben Yohai
(Aqiba’s student)—we can observe that the two works display marked pref-
erences in the halakhic material that distinguish them from one another. The
Aqiban midrash quotes students from that school who by and large use Aqiban
hermeneutic methods, while the Ishmaelean midrash regularly quotes Rabbi
Ishmael’s disciples and exegetical norms.56
We turn now to survey a few examples of biblical law in Exodus and the dif-
fering legal approaches of these formative exegetical schools. Let us begin with
the Sabbath law of the Ten Commandments, a text sure to draw the exegete’s
attention because of the variant versions found in Exod 20:8 “Remember the
Sabbath day …” and in Deut 5:12, “Observe the Sabbath day …”57
“Remember” and “Observe” were spoken in one [divine] Word. “One who
profanes [the Sabbath through forbidden labor] shall surely be put to
death” (Exod 31:15); and yet it says, “And on the Sabbath day, two yearling
lambs …” (Num 28:9)58—the two verses were spoken in one [divine]
Word. “The nakedness of your brother’s wife [you shall not uncover]” (Lev
18:16); and yet it says, “Her husband’s brother shall have intercourse with
55 See David Stern, “Midrash and Hermeneutics: Polysemy vs. Indeterminacy,” in Midrash
and Theory: Ancient Jewish Exegesis and Contemporary Literary Studies (Evanston: North-
western University Press, 1996), 15–38.
56 These latter distinctions were first suggested by David Hoffmann in Zur Einleitung in die
halachischen Midraschim (Berlin: Beilage zum Jahresbericht des Rabbiner-Seminars zu
Berlin 5647, 1886–1887). For more bibliography on the schools and their tendencies, see
above n. 4.
57 “Remember” ()זכור. “Observe” ( )שמורalso translated “keep” or “watch over.”
58 The commandment for Sabbath sacrifice in the Temple was a labor forbidden on the
Sabbath outside the Sanctuary, and therefore the two verses contradict one another.
556 visotzky
her” (Deut 25:5)59—the two verses were spoken in one [divine] Word.
“You shall not wear clothing combining wool and linen” (Deut 22:11); and
yet it says “You shall make tassels on the four corners of your garments”
(Deut 22:12)60—the two verses were spoken in one [divine] Word.
What is impossible for a human to speak, “God speaks one thing and
we hear it as two” (Ps 62:12). And it says, “Is not My word like fire?” asks
the Lord, “Like a hammer that shatters rock?!’” (Jer 23:29)61
“Remember” before hand and “Observe”62 afterward. From this they
said that one should add from mundane time to the sacred time [of the
Sabbath] … Elazar ben Hannaniah ben Hezekiah ben Hannaniah ben
Garon said, “Remember the Sabbath to sanctify it,” remember it from
Sunday onward, so if a choice tidbit comes your way, put it aside for the
Sabbath. Rabbi Yitzhak said, “Do not count the way others do, but number
your days from the Sabbath. ‘To sanctify it,’ with blessing.” From this they
said, “Sanctify it with wine at its outset.”63
This ancient commentary falls into two parts. In the first, it confronts apparent
contradictions in Scripture, of which it counts “remember” and “observe.” Here,
rather than harmonize the disparate texts, the midrash explains the them as a
paradox of divine power. God can say things that appear to humans as mutually
contradictory. While these comments are not halakhic, per se, they touch upon
the problem of mutually exclusive legal obligations. In the second half of
the commentary, halakhic interpretations are offered to attempt to determine
Sabbath ritual. Let us contrast this text with the treatment it receives in the
Mekhilta of Rabbi Shimeon ben Yohai.
This “Aqiban school” text covers similar rabbinic interpretations, but with
differing rabbinic (and in the case of Shammai, proto-rabbinic) attributions.
It reads into Scripture the notion of celebration both by day and by night.65
A more starkly clear example of the differences of interpretation between the
schools is found in their readings of “You shall not steal” (Exod 20:13). We begin
with the Mekhilta d’Rabbi Ishmael’s discussion.
Why does the text say “you shall not steal” since it says “One who kid-
naps a man … shall be put to death” (Exod 21:16)? [In the latter verse]
we learn the punishment; but where in Scripture is the warning?66 Scrip-
ture tells us, “You shall not steal.” This verse is a warning about kidnap-
ping.
Are you saying this verse is about kidnapping and not about stealing
money? When it says, “You shall not steal” (Lev 19:11), that verse is the
warning for stealing money. Thus what [does our verse here in Exodus]
teach when it says, “You shall not steal”? Scripture is speaking about
kidnapping.
But perhaps this verse is about stealing money and the other verse is
about kidnapping?! I tell you go and learn from the “Thirteen Exegetical
Norms.”67 Further you could argue that there are three commandments
in this verse (Exod 20:13), two are explicit [in their punishments] and one
is opaque. Let us infer the opaque from the explicit. Just as the explicit
commandments (“adultery” and “false witness”) each carry the penalty of
64 The phrase appears extraneous, and so must teach something new. This is a typical Aqiban
exegetical move. Mekhilta d’Rabbi Simʿon b. Jochai BaHodesh, Yitro, Ex. 20:8 (ed. Jacob
N. Epstein and Ezra Z. Melamed; Jerusalem: Mikize Nirdamim, 1955), 148–149.
65 In Late Antiquity, night-time celebrations were otherwise rare, given the dangers of dark
streets and the expenses of illumination.
66 The rabbinic presumption is that there must be a verse warning against transgression as
well as a subsequent verse indicating punishment.
67 This document is attributed to Rabbi Ishmael. Among the norms is the principle that one
must interpret according to context.
558 visotzky
death imposed by the court; so too the opaque commandment must carry
the penalty of death by the court.68
“You shall not steal” to cause discomfiture [to another], nor to repay a
double or quadruple or quintuple restitution. Ben Bag Bag says, “Do not
even take what is yours from another’s home [if they have had it for a very
long time and not returned it]; lest you look like you are stealing. Rather
‘break his teeth’69 and tell him, ‘I am taking what is mine!’ ”
Here it is a given that theft is of money or property. The only question being
answered in this reading of Exodus seems to be why the Torah needed to
command this in the first place. Is it not obvious that one cannot have civ-
ilized society unless there is a ban on theft?70 So Rabbi Ishmael seems to
stake out ground far from the plain meaning of the verse, while the Aqibans
offer a more obvious interpretation. Another instance of this tendency may
be found in their differing interpretations of Exod 22:27, “You shall not revile
God.”71
Why is this said? When it says, “Anyone who reviles his God will bear his
sin. And if he pronounces God’s name he shall surely be put to death”
(Lev 24:15–16), we have heard the punishment, yet we have not heard the
warning. Therefore it says, “You shall not revile God,” in any case. These
are the words of Rabbi Aqiba.
68 And therefore it must be the “theft of a person” or kidnapping; and not stealing money,
which is not a capital crime. The passage is from Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, BaHodesh,
Yitro 8, Horovitz edition, 232–233.
69 Insult him if you must.
70 The “Noahide commandments” that the rabbis presume apply to all humans include the
prohibition against theft.
71 Following the New Jewish Publication Society translation as well as nrsv (Exod 22:28).
exodus in rabbinic interpretation 559
“You shall not revile God” (Exod 22:27). Might it be that if one said “you
are cursed” you would then be liable? Scripture teaches, “You shall not
revile God.” It tells us that he is not liable until he specifies the Name or
by using an epithet. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yakov says, “You shall not revile
God” is a warning against cursing God’s name.73
“You shall not perform any labor [on the Sabbath]” (Exod 20:10). Rabbi
Shimon ben Menasia says, Scripture says, “You shall observe the Sabbath
for it is sanctified to you” (Exod 31:14). The Sabbath is given over to
72 But cf. njps translation, “the case of both parties shall come before God.” Our text is from
Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Mishpatim, Kaspa 19, Horovitz edition, 317.
73 Literally, “blessing” God’s name; a euphemism for cursing. Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon ben
Jochai, Mishpatim, at Exod 22:27, Epstein and Melamed edition, 213.
74 See Visotzky, “Jots and Tittles,” 32; as well as Yadin, Scripture as Logos. The Ishmael phrase
is found in the early rabbinic midrash, Sifre Numbers #112, Horovitz edition, 121.
560 visotzky
you, but you are not given over to the Sabbath.75 Rabbi Nathan says,
Lo Scripture says, “The Israelites shall observe the Sabbath, keeping the
Sabbath throughout the generations” (Exod 31:16), one can desecrate one
Sabbath [to save a life] in order to observe many Sabbaths [in the future]
…
“For I, the Lord, have sanctified you” (Exod 31:13) for the World to Come.
For instance, sanctifying the Sabbath in this world, we learn, is a foretaste
of the World to Come, and thus it says, “A psalm for the Sabbath day”
(Ps 92:1) for a world that is eternal Sabbath.76
Once again, the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael surprises with the blithe statement
that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. Therefore
one can violate the Sabbath to save a life, in order that one may observe
subsequent Sabbaths. It is almost as though once the rabbis have made their
legal pronouncement they feel the need to engage in some moral suasion on
the absolute importance of the Sabbath. Just how central is the sanctity of the
Sabbath? It is the veritable quintessence of the World to Come.77 And having
invoked that eternal Sabbath, it is time for us to rest.
75 Cf. Mark 2:27; and H.L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus
Talmud und Midrasch (4 vols.; München: Oskar Beck, 1924), 2:5.
76 There is a pun in play here. The Hebrew word “day” (le-Yom) is heard as though it were “for
a world” (Le-ʿolam).
77 My thanks to my research assistant Bernie Hodkin for bibliographic references and for her
comments on an earlier draft of this essay.
exodus in rabbinic interpretation 561
Kahana, Menahem. “The Halachic Midrashim.” Pages 3–105 in The Literature of the
Sages, Second Part: Midrash and Targum Liturgy, Poetry, Mysticism Contracts, Inscrip-
tions, Ancient Science and the Languages of Rabbinic Literature. Edited by Shmuel
Safrai, Zeev Safrai, Joshua Schwartz, and Peter J. Tomson. Compendia rerum iudai-
carum ad novum testamentum 2.3B. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2006.
Kugel, James L. In Potiphar’s House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts. San Francisco:
Harper Collins, 1990.
Strack, H.L. and Günter Stemberger. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash Edited and
translated by Marcus Bockmuehl. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
Visotzky, Burton L. “Jots and Tittles: On Scriptural Interpretation in Rabbinic and
Patristic Literatures.” Prooftexts 8 (1988): 257–269. Reprinted as “Jots and Tittles:
On Scriptural Interpretation in Rabbinic and Patristic Literatures.” Pages 28–40 in
Fathers of the World: Essays in Rabbinic and Patristic Literatures. Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 80. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995.
562 visotzky
∵
The God Who Gives Rest
Walter Brueggemann
Each of these thematic expressions has its own theological voice and its own
articulation of yhwh, the God of Israel, in a distinct way appropriate to the
intent of the theme.
On the other hand, the tradition is complex because it consists in differ-
ent materials (that heretofore have been taken variously as “documents” or
“sources”). In critical jargon the old “documentary hypothesis” reflects a dyna-
mic tradition with many layers of interpretation, each of which reflects a
particular circumstance, a particular theological need, and a particular inter-
pretive response to that need. Specifically the materials in chs. 25–31, 35–
40 are very different from those of the earlier narrative and are uniformly
assigned to the Priestly tradition that had its own theological perspective.
There is no way to fit all of these distinctive propensities into a harmonious
whole.
Given the thematic differences and layers of interpretive tradition, we are
able to see that the whole of the book is a sustained act of imagination in
which yhwh is variously rendered (imagined). There is an elemental constancy
that focuses upon yhwh; but that constancy is handled with great flexibility
and interpretive freedom. My task here is to elucidate that constancy-cum-
flexibility to see how God is rendered in the book. Because we have many fine
expositions of God in the Book of Exodus, notably by Donald Gowan and by
my friend Terry Fretheim in this volume, I do not need to cover all of those
bases.1 Thus I take the liberty of proposing and exploring a different way of read-
ing constancy-cum-flexibility. My thesis for what follows is that the God given
us in the Book of Exodus is the God who gives rest, who authorizes, permits,
and insists upon Sabbath and who wills emancipation from social arrange-
ments that refuse Sabbath. It is clear that Sabbath authorization-permission-
insistence is not reducible to a religious practice or discipline. It is rather an
icon for a socio-economic-political arrangement of social power in a distinctive
way that is critical of an alternative to other social arrangements that are autho-
rized by other gods. Sabbath thus becomes, in the tradition, a way of indicating
and enacting an alternative society the stands outside of the predatory anxiety
that requires endless production and performance. The linkage between the
God of this tradition and social practice issues in an alternative social possibility
of neighborliness that is inimical to limitless acquisitiveness.2
At the center of the Book of Exodus is the “Sinai pericope,” the narrative account
of yhwh’s and Israel’s entry into a covenant of mutuality between lord and
subject (19–24). At the center of this textual unit is the initial declaration of
yhwh that functions as a pivot point for the Book of Exodus:
I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of
the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.
20:1–2
The utterance is directly from yhwh; the speech declares the identity of yhwh
and the will of yhwh. The identity of yhwh is by way of allusion back to the
Exodus narrative of 1–15. The God who meets Israel at Sinai is the God who
delivers and emancipates:
1 Donald E. Gowan, Theology in Exodus: Biblical Theology in the Form of a Commentary (Louis-
ville: Westminster / John Knox, 1994).
2 Norman K. Gottwald nicely exposits the way in which Yahwism is a “function” of Israel’s
political community (The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel,
1250–1050 b.c. [Maryknoll: Orbis, 1979], 609).
the god who gives rest 567
I am the Lord, and I will free you from the burdens of the Egyptians and
deliver you from slavery to them. I will redeem with an outstretched arm
and with mighty acts of judgment. I will take you as my people, and I will
be your God. You shall know that I am the Lord your God, who has freed
you from the burdens of the Egyptians.
6:6–7
This God has the capacity to override the rule of Pharaoh and so to veto the
claims of Pharaoh and his gods. This God, moreover, has the will to create a
novum in human history, a people formed out of a slave company, a newness
for those who had been “no people.”
What follows in the Decalogue is a disclosure of the will of yhwh that
will serve to anticipate and organize an anti-Pharaoh community. The first
step in such newness is the contradiction of “other gods.” The other gods
are not named here and thus may refer to the many gods present in the
culture Israel faced. But reference just above to Egyptians may suggest that
the other gods are particularly the gods of Egypt, the ones who authorize the
predatory social system of Pharaoh (see Exod 12:12). Thus if Israel is to have the
anti-Pharaoh society here envisioned, it must remain free of the requirements
and penchant of the Egyptian gods for production and performance. Along
with the exclusionary religious claims of yhwh are the exclusionary social
practices that resist Pharonic social power.
The mutuality of this covenant is one of command and obedience. We
notice, moreover, that in Exod 19:8 Israel readily agrees to the commands of
yhwh, consents even before the commands are voiced or known. It surely is
the case that Israel’s consent is in the awareness and confidence that whatever
will be given as commands of yhwh given in ch. 20 are better than and
preferable to the commands of Pharaoh that concern endless production. Thus
the commands of yhwh are designed to order life outside the control of the
exploitative system.
The second and third commandments (Exod 20:4–7) voice central require-
ments for relating to yhwh. In doing so they characterize yhwh and by impli-
cation characterize the other gods who must remain expelled. The prohibi-
tion against images is in the interest of the freedom of yhwh who will not
be reduced to a manageable image. This prohibition thus suggests that the
other gods, the gods of Egypt, are indeed reducible to image, that is, are man-
ageable and can be recruited to legitimate Pharaoh’s exploitative system. The
third commandment provides that because yhwh is free and unfettered by any
such system, yhwh cannot be recruited for or harnessed to any lesser project.
yhwh’s name and identity are not “usable” because yhwh is singularly avail-
568 brueggemann
able only for yhwh’s own enterprise that is here the formation of an alternative
community of covenant. By contrast, the gods of Egypt have names (and iden-
tities) that can be readily mobilized for “reasons of state” or any other reason by
those who manipulate the image. yhwh will not be enmeshed in such human
enterprise; by contrast the gods of Egypt, expressed in image and harnessed in
utterance, can be made to be players in the exploitative system, thus an object
rather than an agent.
But it is the fourth commandment on Sabbath that concerns us. As Patrick
Miller has discerned, this commandment occupies the central position in the
Decalogue, looking back to the God who rests, and looking forward to the
neighborly community that is compelled to rest.3 The restfulness of God fore-
sees social practice in which social relationships are not reduced to “work,” to
coercive production. Indeed the remainder of the Decalogue attests to a neigh-
borly community in which respect among the neighbors in which encroach-
ment against a neighbor is limited or excluded.
“Rest” here means the regular, disciplined, public, visible stoppage of work.
It is an act that assured that the life of the community is not defined by work
or and production, but is defined by the time and space and freedom for life
apart from coerced production. The ground for such social practice, moreover,
is found in yhwh’s own life. The linkage of yhwh and Sabbath suggests that
on the one hand that yhwh is unlike the rejected gods who endlessly compete
for honor and control, for yhwh has no such compulsive anxiety. On the other
hand, the reference is quite exactly to the rest of the creator God in Gen 2:2–4a.
Thus the God who rescues and now commands Israel is the creator of heaven
and earth, the one who has not only blessed the seventh day, but who has
blessed the earth and assured its life-giving generativity. Thus a rhetorical line
is drawn to connect creation wrought by this unanxious God and deliverance
from the unbearable regime of pharaoh.
It is clear that the first four commandments are at the same time a sketch
of a God who is uninvolved in the endless anxiety of world-making by effort
and a sketch of a society (world) that is not propelled by such anxiety. The
remainder of the Decalogue delineates social relationships in a community
that is situated outside the requirements and expectations of “Egypt.” The
concluding commandment in v. 17 forbids acquisitiveness. It is impossible to
imagine a prohibition that would more frontally contradict the ways of Pharaoh
who is the great coveter and the great accumulator who is insatiable in his
needs and desires (see Gen 47:13–26). That commandment, moreover, uses the
term “neighbor” three times:
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neigh-
bor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that
belongs to your neighbor.
When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, but in the
seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt.
v. 2
570 brueggemann
The terse provision culminates with three powerful terms: “go out,” a char-
acteristic Exodus term, “free person,” a particular social identity, and “without
debt,” that is, unencumbered. The statute acknowledges that there is still slav-
ery, no doubt debt slavery for those who could not pay their debts. But the
law sets a limit on such bondage. The beginning of the statute, moreover, is
matched at the end, in v. 11, again with a cluster of intense terms, “go out,”
“unencumbered,” and “with no cash payment.” The great cost of freeing a slave
is a cost that is necessary to the maintenance of an emancipatory society, the
same cost slave-owners since Pharaoh have always experienced with such loss
of cheap labor.
At the end the corpus in 23:10–17 we are offered a festival calendar in which
the lead reference is to the Sabbath. The “six year” provision for Sabbath
matches that of the provision on slaves in 21:1. The Sabbath regulation given
here is quite remarkable:
That is, it connects Sabbath to every facet of economic life and to the entire
community; and it has in purview the well-being of all of creation. As a result,
the Sabbath connects Israel’s life and the large scope of creation, all readily at
rest.
The conclusion of v. 13 is striking. It summons Israel to attentiveness. Sabbath
compels attention! The reference to other gods—the gods of Egypt?—may
suggest that the gods of Egypt, in their zeal for accumulation, would not only
not invest in Sabbath, but would seduce Israel away from Sabbath. Because if
Sabbath can be negated, then the entire life of the community can be reshaped
according to the will of the Egyptian gods who evoke and legitimate Pharaoh’s
system, a system of acquisitiveness without limit or restraint.
Provision for the emancipation of slaves (21:1–11) and the Sabbath (23:10–
13) are the pivot points of the corpus and the entire Covenant Code is to be
read through them. We are able to see the connection of the commandment
on slavery (with an eye on 20:2) and Sabbath (with an awareness of 20:8–11),
two issues that are crucial for the covenant community. They are crucial for
the community because they are definitive for yhwh who gives the command-
ments. It is yhwh who keeps Sabbath and yhwh who frees slaves. Sabbath is
the god who gives rest 571
The God of Sinai has placed the Sabbath command at the center of the Deca-
logue, the foundation of covenantal obedience (20:8–11). The accent on Sab-
bath, moreover, has been reiterated in the first “exposition” of the Decaolgue
in 23:10–13 as the lead item in the festival calendar. The God of Sinai issues
commands quite intentionally in the wake of the Exodus. This God can vividly
recall the “house of slavery” that initially had evoked yhwh attention and
concern. Thus the first divine utterance at Sinai is with reference to the Exo-
dus:
You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’
wings and brought you to myself.
19:4
You shall no wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were aliens in the
land of Egypt.
22:21
You shall not oppress a resident alien; you know the heart of an alien, for
you were aliens in the land of Egypt.
23:9
And in the festival calendar the Exodus memory is the locus of the “festival of
unleavened bread” (23:15). Indeed, the command of yhwh cannot be under-
stood except in the wake of the Exodus.
572 brueggemann
In ch. 5, the policies of Pharaoh are given fuller expressions, albeit not in courtly
cadence, but in narrative rhythms that surely reflect the perspective of the
underlings who constitute the supply of cheap labor. We might delineate the
demands of Pharaoh in this sequence:
– Complete your work, the same daily assignment as when you were given
straw (v. 13);
– Why did you not finish the required quantity of bricks yesterday and today,
as you did before? (v. 14);
– Make bricks (v. 16);
– Go now and work (v. 18);
– You shall deliver the same number of bricks (v. 18);
– You shall not lessen the number of bricks (v. 19).
The narrative is a mix of direct quote, narrative commentary, and response, all
of which is stated in hyperbolic fashion. But the accent point is unmistakable.
The slaves are to engage in endless, demanding production of bricks that are
to satisfy the economic goals of Pharaoh. There is, in this regime, no rest, no
respite, no relief, no Sabbath. It is impossible to imagine that anyone in Egypt—
from the slaves to the taskmasters to the supervisors, even to Pharaoh—ever
had occasion for Sabbath rest.
Given the arbitrary way in which I have delineated the substance of ch. 5, it is
possible, as I have done, to divide the content of the chapter into ten units, thus
“ten commandments.” The insistent, repetitious commands of the regime thus
reduce all of life to production.4 The text is at pains to delineate the predatory
system of Pharaoh and to call attention to the cost of that system for the labor
force. Not surprisingly, such exploitative policy evokes reaction from those who
bear its costs, as such exploitative policy inevitably does. In the transition from
one king to another, we get this:
After a long time the king of Egypt died. The Israelites groaned under their
slavery and cried out.
2:23
4 Pamela Constable, Playing with Fire: Pakistan at War with Itself (New York: Random House,
2011), 23–24, vividly characterizes the work of “brick-making” as she reports on the labor of
the lowest ranking members of Pakistani society:
More than 200,000 migrant laborers work in kilns across Pakistan, earning a few hundred
rupees a day. Small children squatted beside their fathers, rolling mud bricks on the quarry
floor. Older boys loaded bricks on the little quarry donkeys, which trudged to the kilns and
then trotted back on their own. Soot-streaked men shoveled coal into underground ovens,
while chimneys overhead billowed trails of black smoke across the pale dawn sky. The kiln
families live in encampments of brick huts beside the quarries, cut off from schools and shops
… Kiln work is hot and dangerous, and many workers have old burn marks on their arms and
legs. Baksh said “… the worst part … is that I still haven’t paid off my debt.”
574 brueggemann
The cry of the Israelites was the most elemental act bringing unbearable pain
to public expression. The cry and the groan are so elemental that they are not
addressed to anyone. No surprise in that! What surprises is that the next line
tells us,
In our study of the God of the Exodus, we are bound to notice that until
this moment in the narrative, there was no appearance of yhwh in the text.
yhwh is evoked by the cry of pain (even as yhwh in the exposition of 22:21–27
promises to respond vigorously to such a cry).
Thus the narrative is designed to show that the cry from below will evoke
divine attention from above:
God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abra-
ham, Isaac, and Jacob. God looked upon the Israelites, and God took
notice of them.
vv. 24–25
And from that notice: the God evoked by human cries of injustice is moved to
make history-redefining promises:
I have observed the misery of my people who are in Egypt; I have heard
their cry on account of their taskmasters. Indeed, I know their suffer-
ings, and I have come down to deliver them from the Egyptians, and to
bring them up out of that land to a good and broad land, a land flowing
with milk and honey, to the country of the Canaanites … The cry of the
Israelites has now come to me; I have also seen how the Egyptians oppress
them.
3:7–9
So come, I will send you to Pharaoh to bring my people, the Israelites, out
of Egypt.
v. 10
the god who gives rest 575
yhwh has promised to deliver, to “bring them up out of that land” in re-
sponse to the cry. Moses is now to implement that divine resolve.
The remainder of the Exodus narrative exhibits the issue joined between
competing historical possibilities. The narrative is a life-or-death contest,
The work of emancipation is carried on by Moses and Aaron. But the narra-
tive leaves us no doubt that yhwh is the key actor in the narrative. Thus the
God who would give rest is the one who must overcome the regime of restless
productivity. The actual staging of the contest, moreover, features a massively
impressive, powerful, learned regime juxtaposed to these uncredentialed rep-
resentatives who can claim no more than, “Thus saith yhwh.”
The initial challenge together with Pharaoh’s prompt refusal is dramatically
presented in 5:1–2:
The request is to commit an act of festival and to offer a sacrifice. The proposal
is simply for “liturgical leave.” We are given no detail about the nature of the
proposed festival or sacrifice. What all parties recognized, however, is that
such a liturgical act is no innocent act of piety. It is rather a performance of
an alternative allegiance that would substantively delegitimate Pharaoh. It is
not a wonder that Pharaoh refuses the request. His alternative to festival and
sacrifice is more work. As such a festival and sacrifice would have credited
yhwh; oppressive and demanding work is the totem of Pharaoh’s authority.
Thus the contrast between festival and work! The appeal of Moses and Aaron,
throughout the narrative, is variously, “Let them serve (worship) me,” or “Let
576 brueggemann
them make a festival to me.” The point of the two variant statements is the same.
Let them embrace yhwh and reject Pharaoh!
The narrative shows that yhwh has a commitment to defeat Pharaoh that
serves two purposes. On the one hand, the defeat of Pharaoh is in order that “I
may gain glory over Pharaoh” (14:4, 17). It is all about yhwh’s glory that can be
established only by the wholesale defeat of the regime of Pharaoh. The narra-
tive that follows concerns the glorification and enhancement of yhwh, slowly,
scene by scene, together with the diminishment of Pharaoh. On the other hand,
the only way in which yhwh can assert such glory is by the emancipation of
Israel. Thus yhwh’s positive commitment to the slave community is affirmed
(see 14:14, 25, 30–31). It is conventional to accent the freedom won for Israel
through this narrative. We should not, however, neglect that the victorious per-
formance is for the glorification of yhwh. yhwh’s glory is tied to the freedom of
Israel!
The force of the narrative serves to exhibit the impotence of Pharaoh’s sys-
tem and therefore it lack of legitimacy. This narrative rendering of that impo-
tence reaches its pivot point in 8:18 in the report that the Egyptian technolog-
ical apparatus (the magicians) is unable to match the performance of Moses
and Aaron in the production of gnats. In that instant the mighty kingdom
of Pharaoh reaches its technological limit and is outflanked by the agents
of yhwh. The denouement of the narrative is reached in the final exchange
between Pharaoh and Moses in which Pharaoh is reduced to helplessness and
pleads with Moses to depart before more deathly troubles is performed against
the empire. The pathos of Pharaoh’s petition to Moses is voiced in his final
words, “Bring a blessing on me too!” (12:32). In that moment Pharaoh con-
cedes that yhwh, via Moses, presides over the power for life and blessing, and
Pharaoh has been reduced to a needy suppliant.
The victory song of Moses in 15:1–18 manages to hold together, in doxological
exuberance, the two accent points of the narrative. On the one hand, the
emancipated people are led in triumph through the territory of the enemies
until they are “planted” in their own land, the land anticipated already in 3:7–9.
But on the other hand, the song is one of praise to glorify yhwh. It is all about
yhwh’s massive defeat of Pharaoh and Pharaoh’s production apparatus. The
poem pauses at mid-point to celebrate the incomparability of yhwh (v. 11).
There is no god-like yhwh, certainly not among the Egyptian gods! The poem
culminates with a formula of divine enthronement:
The God who sent out to get glory has now gotten glory, precisely over
Pharaoh!
The narrative makes clear that yhwh is the determined, effective opponent
of a predatory system of labor, and intends to provide an alternative to the
predatory system. This is of course the narrative of Israel and the narrators take
deliberate steps to connect this narrative to the durable promises of Genesis. At
the same time, however, the narrative allows that the company of slaves set on
its way out of Egypt en route to Sinai was no definable ethnic community, but
rather was a “mixed crowd” of suffering people. This is first of all a narrative of
Israel, and yet it is a narrative out beyond Israel for other suffering captives.
yhwh is first of all the God of Israel, but then is God out beyond Israel to
be the God of suffering people beyond Israel. Israel is invited by yhwh to an
alternative way in the world; and then out beyond Israel others are invited to
that same alternative way in the world.
It is no wonder that the God who commands at Sinai does so with vivid
recall of the Exodus and the groans emitted from the “house of slavery.” It
is no wonder, moreover, that this God has set the Sabbath at the center of
new covenantal obedience, for Sabbath becomes the icon of contradiction
that contradicts the predatory economy of production and performance that
defines Pharaoh. Sabbath, moreover, becomes the icon of contradiction against
every predatory regime and every predatory arrangement of power.
But we may notice, in the wake of Pharaoh, an odd fact about the Sabbath
commandment in Exod 20. Unlike its counterpart in Deut 5:12–15, the Sabbath
commandment in Exod 20 makes no mention of the Exodus. Rather, it alludes
to yhwh’s rest on the seventh day of creation (Gen 2:2–4a). This rootage of Sab-
bath in creation permits us a second glimpse into the Exodus narrative. Terence
Fretheim has detailed the way in which Pharaoh is the great de-constructor of
creation.5 Fretheim has noted how the narrative repeatedly employs the term
“all” to stress the lethal reach of Pharaoh as a destroyer of all of creation. Thus
not only does the Sabbath-giving God contradict the historical-economic prac-
tice of enslavement. yhwh also contradicts the creation-destroying impulse
of Pharaoh. The Sabbath is not only rest for slaves; it is rest for creation given
by the creator as an alternative to Pharaoh’s exploitation of creation. It is for
that reason, perhaps, that in the exposition of 23:10–13, before the seventh day
is mentioned that is for “rest” and “relief,” the seventh year is mentioned for
the land to “rest and lie fallow.” The God of Sinai makes provision that will
5 Terence E. Fretheim, “The Plagues as Ecological Signs of Historical Disaster,” jbl 110 (1991):
385–396. See also his contribution to the present volume.
578 brueggemann
My Nile is my own;
I made it for myself.
Ezek 29:23
This lord of the Sabbath disrupts the story of predation; rest must disrupt
the exploitation of creation. This is the God of rest who has wrested both
the historical economy and creation away from the restlessness of Pharaoh.
Thus the move of the narrative from Egyptian oppression in the interest of
production to covanantal commandments is a manifestation of a new reality:
Once there was no Sabbath/Now there is Sabbath rest!6
The Exodus deliverance from a “no Sabbath” milieu (1–15) and the Sinai cove-
nant with its Sabbath command (19–24) are intimately and intentionally con-
nected to each other as contrasting models of human community. But the Book
of Exodus does not move directly from Egypt to Sinai. It pauses in chs. 16–18 for
narratives in the wilderness that is portrayed as a “no man’s land” that must
be traversed before Israel can come to the mountain to make covenant with
yhwh. The “wilderness” is presented as a place without viable life-support sys-
tems. In the narrative rendering of Israel it turns out, surprisingly, that even in
such a context yhwh counters its barrenness with a readiness and a capacity
to provide for Israel meat (16:13), bread (16:14) and water (17:1–7)—all of the
staples of life.
For our purposes the manna narrative of Exod 16 may claim our attention.
In addition to the wonder of “bread from heaven,” three matters in the narra-
tive require consideration. At the very outset of the narrative, in 16:2–3, only
two verses into the wilderness, Israel resists its wilderness context and wants
to return to Egypt. In their desire to return, Israel does not remember the
hard labor required in Egypt, but only the capacity to eat “our fill” there. But
6 I have reference to 1 Pet 2:10, “Once you were no people, now you are God’s people.” Becoming
God’s people, I suggest, requires keeping Sabbath.
the god who gives rest 579
See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt. Removing his signet ring from
his hand, Pharaoh put it on Joseph’s hand; he arrayed him in garments
of fine linen, and put a gold chain around his neck. He had him ride in
the chariot of his second-in-command; and they cried out in front of him,
“Bow the knee!” Thus he set him over all the land of Egypt.
Gen 41:41–43
In our narrative, however, as they reluctantly moved into the wilderness, per-
haps backing in as they kept a wistful eye on the glory of Pharaoh and his “no
Sabbath” society, they eventually had to turn to face the wilderness. And then,
we are told,
They looked toward the wilderness, and the glory of the Lord appeared in
the cloud.
16:10
The double reference to “glory” and “cloud” bespeaks a settled, nearly pas-
sive cultic divine presence that will be more central in later Exodus texts that
we will consider.7 The narrative witnesses that the awesome, sovereign splen-
dor of yhwh is on exhibit in the wilderness, exactly where it would be least
anticipated. Such a presence attests that the wilderness is not what Israel had
thought it was; it is now occupied and governed by the Sabbath-authorizing
7 See George E. Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradition (Balti-
more: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973), 32–66.
580 brueggemann
God who overpowered the glory of Pharaoh. yhwh had resolved to “get glory
over Pharaoh,” and now this newly won glory is on exhibit as the defining reality
of the wilderness. I understand very well that the glory sought by yhwh in Exod
14:4, 17 and the glory witnessed in the wilderness in 16:10 are two very different
matters. The former has to do with a dramatic victory that established yhwh
as the “winner” over Pharaoh. The latter is a cultic presence that is more or less
static. Except that these usages of the same term suggest a continuity between
the two. The God who has been victorious in defeating the “no Sabbath” system
is now an abiding presence in Israel that transforms Israel’s bereft wilderness
into a matrix for life.
The testimony to yhwh’s glory in 16:10 is abruptly followed in vv. 11–12 with
a dramatic promise of meat and bread. The transition from v. 10 to vv. 11–12 has
evoked a scholarly conclusion that we are dealing with distinctive interpretive
voices (“sources”). Perhaps so. But now they run continuously from the one to
the other. It is the God who abides in splendor who will guarantee sustenance
for life in a place seemingly without sustenance. It is the presence of yhwh’s
glory that transforms the circumstance of Israel.
Then follows the narrative of bread from heaven. The bread was given inex-
plicably. The Israelites responded in wonder and uncertainty: “What is it?” The
answer from Moses is:
His answer is terse and explains nothing. The narrative that follows includes
four notes about the inexplicable bread given by yhwh:
The Israelites, not surprisingly, did not trust the gift of bread; they tried to
secure their own bread supply. In doing so, they replicated the bread policies
of Pharaoh, attempting to accumulate and so secure themselves. The bread of
heaven is unlike the bread of Pharaoh: Pharaoh’s bread is all about surplus and
storage, whereas the bread of heaven is about faithfulness and trust. Israel is
not permitted to look beyond the needs of the day.
the god who gives rest 581
Given that defining plot-line about bread, we are scarcely prepared for the
surprising turn in the narrative. Special allowance is made by yhwh for the
Sabbath, allowance that leads to a departure from (violation of) the one-day-
at-a-time limit. Now, because of pending Sabbath, Israel is permitted to gather
an extra day’s worth of bread so that it can eat without gathering (working) on
the Sabbath:
Not only is Israel not to gather on the Sabbath. No bread will be given, perhaps
suggesting that the creator God will not do the work of providing bread on that
day. Both parties take a Sabbath break from supplying bread, yhwh from giving
it and Israel from gathering it.
But as they disobeyed in v. 20 by seeking a surplus of bread for themselves,
so now on Sabbath day some disobeyed and refused the Sabbath provision:
On the seventh day some of the people went out to gather, and they
found none. The Lord said to Moses, “How long will you refuse to keep
my commandments and instructions? See! The Lord has given you the
Sabbath, therefore on the sixth day he gives you food for two days; each
of you stay where you are; do not leave your place on the seventh day.”
vv. 27–29
They did not practice Sabbath; they did not trust the Sabbath supply; they did
not rely on the Sabbath-supplying God. Their mistrust is bespoken by their
readiness to work on the Sabbath day; proposing that work rather than rest
could secure their lives.
This matter of Sabbath provision and mistrust of Sabbath provision voices
an astonishing narrative disclosure. Because wilderness is a place of scarcity,
one will have taken it as necessary to keep gathering food every day. Of course!
This is what the Israelites thought. But because of yhwh’s will for Sabbath rest,
even in this most barren of circumstances, Sabbath prevails. It prevails because
yhwh provides what is needed. It prevails because trusting Israel counts on
the bread of heaven and does not try to secure its own supply of bread. There is,
582 brueggemann
then, no circumstance of scarcity in which Israel will not keep Sabbath, because
there is no circumstance in which yhwh will not provide what is needed. It is
rest that is the supreme enterprise for yhwh, the very reason for the Exodus
deliverance in the first place!
This claim is so perfectly counter-intuitive that some in Israel could not
believe it; they thought it worth violating Sabbath to secure their own bread
supply. Clearly those who take such Sabbath-violating action imitate what
they had learned in Egypt from Pharaoh. They were unwilling or unable to
trust the God who would give them rest. They were inured to the restless
system of self-securing that had no time or energy for Sabbath keeping. As
much as they could, they would distort a Sabbath-governed wilderness into
the commodity pursuit of Pharaoh. As Sabbath contradicts the ideology of
Pharaoh, so the relentless gatherers now contradict the command to trust the
Sabbath-governing, rest-giving God whose glory transposes the wilderness.
The Sinai pericope ends in 24:9–18 with accounts of visions of yhwh upon Mt.
Sinai. After the appearance of yhwh to the seventy elders (vv. 9–11), Moses goes
further into the cloud (see 16:10) where there was an appearance of yhwh’s
glory “like a devouring fire.” Here the narrative ends. The text moves from nar-
rative to instruction in the form of divine command. In chs. 25–31, an extended
instruction, yhwh authorizes Moses to design, construct, and decorate the
holy place that will be a suitable habitat for yhwh’s glory. By reference to the
“cloud” in 24:16, as in 16:10, it is clear that the glory won over Pharaoh is now
transposed into a cultic presence. Thus these chapters concern hosting the God
of Exodus as an abiding cultic presence. Concerning these chapters we may
notice three matters that pertain to our theme.
First, it is noticed by scholars that yhwh’s address to Moses is divided into
seven speeches, each of which has an introductory formula, “The Lord said to
Moses” (25:1; 30:11, 17, 22, 34; 31:1, 12).8 Though the first of these speeches is by
far the longest, the full complement of seven is important. The text concerns
much detail about cultic furniture and arrangement and the priesthood that
is qualified to manage the new place, but the force of the text is in the sum
of the parts. In the liturgic imagination of Israel, the temple in Jerusalem is
an imitation of the heavenly temple. In the tradition of Exodus, moreover, the
8 See Peter J. Kearney, “Creation and Liturgy: The p Redaction of Ex 25–40,” zaw 89 (1977):
375–387.
the god who gives rest 583
Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day will be put to death.
v. 15
584 brueggemann
Sabbath has become a rigorous norm for membership in the covenant com-
munity of Israel. We may hunch that this text reflects times when Israelite-
Jewish identity was in jeopardy, as members of the community easily slid into
conventional cultural practices of production and performance, that is, back
into Pharonic modes of existence.
c) The concluding note is astonishing: On Sabbath yhwh is “refreshed”! The
reflexive verb is from the noun nephesh, “self, soul.” In Sabbath rest yhwh’s
depleted self—exhausted from the work of creation?—is replenished. As with
yhwh, so with Israelites who keep Sabbath. Their depleted selves can be
restored. Their diminished Jewish identity can be recovered. The intent of this
alternatively imagined world is rest that is shared by yhwh and yhwh’s people,
rest that draws a line against any ideology of production and performance that
recruits persons into bondage.
The third matter we notice is that this extended text is not in any intense way
connected to the Exodus tradition, and likely was formulated in a very different
context. In one reference, however, the connection of this dwelling God to the
Exodus tradition is made explicit:
a) The text reiterates the “covenant formula” in v. 45 that will be much used
in the exilic period by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. This is the God who made
covenant with Israel at Sinai. It is this God who rest and summons to rest
(29:45).
b) The God who speaks here is a God manifested in “glory” who “dwells” among
the Israelites (v. 43).
c) The God who dwells in glory is as a covenant-maker is the God of the
Exodus:
And they shall know that I am the Lord their God, who brought them out
of the land of Egypt, that I might dwell among them. I am the Lord their
God.
v. 46
The purpose of the Exodus is for this dwelling presence! The formula is not
unlike the introductory formula of the Decaolgue in 20:2. Thus even in this act
of intense liturgical imagination, this is the God who triumphed over Pharaoh
in order to end enslavement. In long term cultic practice, keeping Sabbath
is a disciplined act of rest, enacted even by yhwh as a protest against Pha-
ronic enslavement and as a deliberate summons to an alternative. While there
is no doubt that this priestly material arose out of a very different sphere,
it is astonishing that it continues to connect this core discipline of the De-
the god who gives rest 585
When the narrative of 24:15–18 resumes in 32–34, Moses is still on the moun-
tain. He is the protector and guarantor of the covenant that was a demanding
alternative to Pharonic life. In his absence, Israel was again seduced into a life
of commoditization. The calf of gold “produced” by Aaron reenacted all of the
false assumptions and practices of a commodity-oriented enterprise:
He took the gold from them, formed it in a mold, and cast an image of a
calf.
v. 4
Aaron violated the second commandment of Sinai, and fashioned a god who is
object and not subject. More than that, he assigned to his “produced” god credit
and agency for the Exodus deliverance:
These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!
v. 5
The crisis instigated by Aaron consists in the offer of a domesticated god who
was produced and controlled, lacking in freedom, power, sovereignty, or agency,
surely lacking in glory. This Ersatz god will never “get glory” by performing
any emancipatory wonder. The act of Aaron and the uncritical response of
Israel (see v. 6) constitute a total misconstrual, violation, and rejection of the
covenant of Sinai and the God who initiated it. For due cause the Sinai covenant
is terminated!
Then follows the anguished way in which the broken covenant is reconsti-
tuted as yhwh and Israel (via Moses) walk back into covenantal fidelity. In
ch. 33, yhwh and Moses choreograph a delicate negotiation. This turns var-
iously on the divine glory, the divine goodness, the divine name, the divine
586 brueggemann
face, culminating with the divine mercy (33:17–34). Moses wants to see the
glory of yhwh (v. 18). The narrative turns on the tricky readiness of yhwh to
be seen and the insistence of yhwh on remaining hidden. Thus seen and hid-
den! Perhaps Moses wanted to see the glory in order to assure that the God with
whom he deals is the one who got glory over Pharaoh and who transformed the
wilderness. By the end of the narrative, yhwh’s glory does pass by. This is still
the God who is free, faithful, powerful, and transformative. But only the back
side!
In the crucial text of 34:6–7, that seen, hidden God is further exposited in
the generous, rigorous categories of covenant. The glory is voiced in relational
terms. From that relational self-giving, Moses submits (34:8–9) and yhwh
grants renewed covenant (34:10). The God who recommits to Israel promises
to do “marvels” and an “awesome thing,” terms that are reminiscent of the Exo-
dus deliverance. yhwh will do in time to come what yhwh has done!
Then follows, as in Exod 20, a new set of commandments that some regard as
a second version of the Decaolgue (34:11–26). Care is taken to distinguish Israel
from the other peoples (vv. 12–16). The “making of gods” is “prohibited” (v. 17).
And finally in the festal calendar Sabbath stands as an abiding requirement of
covenant:
Six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even in
plowing time and in harvest time you shall rest.
v. 21
The final section of the Book of Exodus, chs. 35–40, reports on the obedience
of Moses to the commands of yhwh in chs. 25–31, with the construction of an
adequate dwelling place for yhwh’s glory. Two matters claim our attention in
this text that is largely a reiteration of the materials of 25–31.
the god who gives rest 587
Interpreters have noticed that the use of the verb “finish” in both cases closely
parallels the “finish” of creation in Gen 2:1.9 As creation is “finished” in Genesis,
so the tabernacle as new creation is completed according to the specifications
of the holy God. The parallel to and an echo of the creation text is unmistakable.
This ending of the narrative asserts that the entire project is a new creation of
order, beauty, and most especially divine presence, a creation not scarred by
the anti-creation efforts of Pharaoh.
As a result, the glory of yhwh in the cloud is now able to occupy the
tabernacle; the dwelling of yhwh is with Israel (see Ezekiel 37:27). If we trace
the a parallels between the command of 25–31 and the enactment of 35–40,
we are able to notice that we have no exact parallel to the seventh speech of
yhwh in 31:12–12 concerning Sabbath. Instead of a parallel we have the entry
of the glory of yhwh into the tabernacle. That now takes the place of Sabbath
rest, or offers a new form of Sabbath rest. Now the glory of God rests securely
and abidingly in the tabernacle as emblem and assurance of a new ordered
creation. We are able to see the completion of the journey of yhwh’s glory all
the way from the Exodus contest (14:4, 17) through the wilderness (16:10) to the
mountain (24:16–17), into the negotiation for renewed covenant (33:17–23), and
now to be at rest. yhwh’s glory at rest is no longer in a struggle with Pharaoh but
has prevailed. That restfulness of yhwh then is a counterpoint to the Sabbath
rest of Israel commanded in 31:12–17. This is not a God or a people in a world
9 Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The Structure of p,” cbq 38 (1976): 275–292, has observed this connec-
tion. He has gone further to suggest that the use of the same term in Josh 19:51 with reference
to the completion of the division of the land is an intentional parallel. To that might also be
added the victorious cry of Jesus from the cross in John 19:30. Reference might also be made
the to the final verse of the great hymn of Charles Wesley, “Love Divine, All Loves Excelling”:
“Finish then, Thy new creation,/Pure and spotless let us be;/Let us see Thy great salvation/Per-
fectly restored in Thee;/Changed from glory into glory,/Till in heaven we take our place,/Till
we cast our crowns before Thee,/Lost in wonder, love, and praise.”
588 brueggemann
Theological exposition of biblical texts must, I believe, send out lines of con-
temporary connectedness. For that reason I finish with three observations:
1. When the Exodus tradition is carried toward the Christian New Testament,
perhaps the most poignant text is the teaching of Jesus in Matt 11:28–30:
Come to me, all you that weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will
give you rest.
v. 28
Jesus contrasts his way of life in obedience to God with the heavy “yoke”
imposed by the world, perhaps here the “yoke” of Roman taxation or the “yoke”
of demanding religious performance. Either yoke was a burden of production
and performance. It is not happenstance that this teaching is followed, in the
sequence of Matthew, by a teaching reflection on the Sabbath. In Matthew
12:1–8, Jesus is said to be “the lord of the Sabbath” (v. 8). That is why he can
declare that “my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (11:30). This teaching only
makes sense when seen in the context of the ancient alternative that Sabbath
is to every Pharaoh.
2. Charles Ferguson has recently published his analysis of the us economic
“meltdown” of 2008. He has knowingly entitled his analysis, Predator Nation.10
His title of course refers to the aggressive greed of the financial community in
collusion with the government that is managed by the same cast of charac-
ters who constitute an unrestrained oligarchy. The wake of the meltdown of
course has resulted in huge suffering for the economically vulnerable while the
alliance of corporation and government protects only the interests of the 1%.
It requires no imagination at all to see that this contemporary practice of
“legitimated” predation is a strong parallel to the predatory policies of Pharaoh
in the ancient narrative. In ancient and contemporary form, the acquisitive
(coveting) society enacts lethal costs on the politically marinated and the eco-
10 Charles Ferguson, Predator Nation: Corporate Criminals, Political Corruption, and the Hi-
jacking of America (New York: Crown Business, 2012).
the god who gives rest 589
trains the mind to move from the habitude of action to the ultimate
borders of imaginable immensity, where one can only put oneself in mind
of a reality altogether exceeding normal activities and objects. This reality,
as we may imagine it, is a realm of conjunctive interaction, where the
actuality of all possibilities embraces in the loving heart of God.12
It is exactly that divestment that was the work of the Exodus when Israel, with
yhwh, departed the “normal activities and objects” of Pharonic society. The
alternative of “some supernal balance or repose” is evident in the settled glory
of yhwh in the tabernacle (40:34–38).13 When one considers our predatory
nation with its mindlessness, the alternative of Sabbath is an acute summons.
The “glory” of Pharaoh, now as then, is only disrupted when the divine com-
mand is humanly uttered in the face of such predation, “Let my people go.”
Select Bibliography
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “The Structure of P.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38 (1976): 275–292.
Constable, Pamela. Playing with Fire: Pakistan at War with Itself. New York: Random
House, 2011.
Ferguson, Charles. Predator Nation: Corporate Criminals, Political Corruption, and the
Hijacking of America. New York: Crown Business, 2012.
Fishbane, Michael. Sacred Attunement: A Jewish Theology. Chicago: University of Chica-
go Press, 2008.
1 See Terence E. Fretheim, Jeremiah (shbc; Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2002), 35–41. This point
of view is dependent on my earlier study: “The Character of God in Jeremiah,” in Character
and Scripture: Moral Formation, Community, and Biblical Interpretation (ed. William P. Brown;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 211–230.
2 Among many examples: God is sole subject in Jer 13:14: “I will not pity (hml) or spare (hus) or
have compassion (rhm) when I destroy them”; Nebuchadnezzar is the sole subject of the same
verbs in Jer 21:7. My preliminary list includes some twenty verbs that are used in different parts
of Jeremiah with both God and Nebuchadnezzar as sole subjects.
From start to finish yhwh controls what is happening … Even his [Pha-
raoh’s] absurd conduct is yhwh’s doing … The reader must be made
deeply aware that the freeing of Israel is not the work of man but is solely
yhwh’s doing … [It is God] who engaged Egypt in battle. Israel did not
have to lift a finger … No human being can take any credit, however min-
imal, for having made a contribution to Israel’s liberation.6
3 On issues of divine dependence on the human, see Terence E. Fretheim, “Divine Dependence
on the Human: An Old Testament Perspective,” ExAud 13 (1997): 1–13.
4 Jeremiah 51:11 may contain another direction for reflection: God ‘stirred up (‘ur) the spirit of
the kings of the Medes’ (cf. Zech 1:14; Jer 6:22; 25:32; 50:9, 41; 51:1).
5 See discussion in Terence E. Fretheim, The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective
(obt; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 5–12.
6 Cornelis Houtman, Exodus: Volume 2 (hcot; Kampen: kok Publishing House, 1993), 9–10, 230.
issues of agency in exodus 593
The strategy of the drama depends on the complete obedience and daring
of Moses and Aaron … the critics of liberation theology are not correct in
their insistence that the exodus is done by God and not by human initia-
tive. In this and in the following narratives, all that is visible in the ongoing
confrontation is human courage and human claims of authority. Behind
that human action are certainly the references, claims, and allusions to
the power and purpose of Yahweh, but they function primarily to give
authorization and legitimacy to the human actors.7
Or, summarily, Brueggemann claims: “The two themes of divine resolve for
transformation and a human vocation of liberation converge to assert something
decisive about the public, human process … Both elements matter decisively.”8
3. John Goldingay lifts up several issues in addressing the question:9 “How does
God act in bringing Israel out of Egypt?”10 “In Exodus, God has several ways of
working, and it seems unwise to reduce them to different ways of describing the
same way. God does work by human instincts. When that is ineffective, God
works via signs and wonders in nature. When that is ineffective, God works
supernaturally.”11
Some further notes from Goldingay’s discussion: When God works through
ordinary people, the work of God can be frustrated. From another angle: “polit-
ical events affect the way God acts in the world. Sometimes they provide the
means whereby God brings about calamity, sometimes the means whereby God
brings about deliverance, sometimes the circumstances that press God to act.”12
Or, God works via nature (without specific argument, he claims that there is no
“‘natural’ link between human acts and divinely brought disaster”).13 Another
formulation: “God works through supernatural force and violence, as well as
earthly force and violence.”14
Goldingay takes the “supernatural” direction with respect to the interpreta-
tion of the tenth plague in particular:15
It is yhwh in person who strikes all the firstborn sons of Egypt (Ex 12:29).
yhwh sends neither heavenly aide nor epidemic nor human executioner
… the deaths do not come from a mysterious disease; diseases do not
confine themselves to firstborn. They come by God’s act. … There is much
violence in the exodus and Red Sea story, but God undertakes it all,
without using human agents.
11 Goldingay, 314.
12 Goldingay, 308.
13 Goldingay states that “Nature is a means of God’s making a point. … Negatively, it involves
nature running to excess—nature goes ballistic, becomes ‘hypernatural’” (317).
14 Goldingay, 655. Similarly, Dozeman, Exodus: “Israel is repeatedly rescued from crises
through miracles” (47).
15 Goldingay, 318–319.
16 Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (otl; Philadel-
phia: Westminster, 1974).
issues of agency in exodus 595
of natural events, and that the later writer sought to articulate the theologi-
cal meaning of this event by extending the imagery into the supernatural.”17
But, for Childs, the divine plan and “Moses as the human agent [of] the execu-
tion of the wonderful elements” have been linked at both stages of the redac-
tion.
Yet, for Childs, there is no apparent effective nondivine agency in this situ-
ation, for his use of language conveys the idea that God has done it all. “The
tradition is unanimous in stressing that the rescue [from Egypt] was accom-
plished through the intervention of God and God alone.”18 At the same time,
he states that God’s deliverance “was effected by a combination of the wonder-
ful and the ordinary. The waters were split by the rod of Moses, but a strong
wind blew all night and laid bare the sea bed. … There never was a time when
the event is only understood as ordinary, nor was there a time when the super-
natural absorbed the natural. But Israel saw the mighty hand of God at work
in both the ordinary and the wonderful.”19 While the final form of the text is
critical of any effort to divide the text into natural and supernatural elements,
Childs seems, finally, to claim that God is the only agent of consequence.
1 Agency in Exodus
In moving through the text, I would like to commend the major emphases in
Brueggemann’s interpretation and move through key texts that both support
and expand upon such an understanding of agency in Exodus.
activity of agents dominates; yet, what these agents do counts, as God’s positive
response is explicitly cited (Exod 1:20–21). What kind of God is this who works
in and through non-divine means, even vulnerable means? I would claim that
this opening of Exodus sets this divine way of working in place for the balance
of the book. That is, these chapters constitute a theological grid through which
the God of the balance of the book is to be read, even when the activity of God
seems to dominate the narrative.
Initially, the testimony is made: “The Israelites were fruitful and prolific; they
multiplied and grew exceedingly strong, so that the land was filled with them”
(Exod 1:7). And not a word about God! But the agents are active indeed in the
fulfillment of God’s ancient promises. This word is a profound witness to the
activity of human agents and their success.
This way of telling the story continues in Exod 1:15. Two midwives introduce
the stories of five lowly women who act in such a way as to undercut the evil
of their world and to shape a positive future for this people. Ironically, they
prove to be highly effective agents against ruthless forms of human power.22
They make a difference, not only to Israel, but to God! These women create
possibilities for God’s way into the future with this people that might not have
been there otherwise. God is finally introduced in Exod 1:20–21, but notably
the word about God is a word about how God responded to what the women
did; God responds positively to the work of the human agents. Only when the
effect of their work is clear, is there a statement about God’s creative work in the
growth of their families (Exod 1:20–21). It is notable that the civil disobedience
of the midwives is an agency that is viewed positively.
In the story of the birth and childhood of Moses (Exod 2:1–10) further efforts
by women to save Moses are portrayed. The agency of Moses’ mother (2:1–3) is
presented in a positive way and the activity of the daughter of the Pharaoh is
made parallel to that of God with Israel (2:5–10). She “comes down,” “sees” the
boy, “hears” his cry, takes pity on him, draws him out of the water, and provides
for his daily needs.23 Notably, such human values as compassion, justice, and
courage are present outside of the people of God; you do not have to be justified
that the future will be shaped only by what God will do. God too awaits a future where
human activity, both negative and positive, will have an effect on God’s own possibilities”
(Terence E. Fretheim, Exodus [ibc; Louisville: John Knox Press, 1991], 35–36).
22 There are several excellent studies of the key role of women in these opening chapters of
Exodus. One important example is the commentary of Carol Meyers, Exodus (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2005). See especially her extended comments about the place
of women at 36–38, 40–42, 117–119, 122–123, 195–199, 276–277, and 279–280.
23 For detail, see Fretheim, Exodus, 38–39.
issues of agency in exodus 597
24 Compare Joel N. Lohr, “An Unchosen Figure Who Saves a People (Exodus 2:1–10),” in Cho-
sen and Unchosen: Conceptions of Election in the Pentateuch and Jewish-Christian Interpre-
tation (Siphrut 2; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 115–124.
25 See Fretheim, Exodus, 42–43, on the parallels between what Moses does and what God
later does. The agent models the way into the future, even for God.
26 Contra Houtman, “According to 2:23, the change in Israel’s fate is entirely due to God’s
initiative” (Exodus, 330).
27 This apparent single-agent claim is also made in other texts (e.g., Exod 12:51: “That very
day the Lord brought the Israelites out of the land of Egypt”).
28 To use Brueggemann’s language: “The grand intention of God has become a specific
human responsibility, human obligation, and human vocation. It is Moses who will do
598 fretheim
God has come to deliver the Israelites, but chooses not to do this saving work
alone; God enlists an agent to accomplish this task. And so, this text speaks of
both God and Moses as agents in bringing Israel out of Egypt. This text could
function as a paradigm for understanding agency in the rest of Exodus.29 Moses
is another example of such a vulnerable move for God. Both God and Moses are
considered subjects of the exodus (see Exod 3:8, 10; cf. 6:13, 26–27).
Following God’s opening words to Moses (Exod 3:1–12), an extensive ex-
change between them is reported.30 In this exchange, Moses’ ongoing re-
sponses to God generate a changing shape to the emerging future. Moses artic-
ulates eight objections to the divine call (Exod 3:11, 13; 4:1, 10, 13; 5:22–23; 6:12,
30), to each of which God responds. Moses engages in repeated question-full
responses to God, with one point of resistance to the call after another. God’s
responses are shaped by the actions of the human agent.31 It is ironic that
Moses’ persistent questioning of God leads to a greater fullness in the divine
revelation to him. God honors the interactions with Moses as important ingre-
dients for the shaping of his calling. God’s way into Israel’s future is not dictated
solely by God’s will and way, for God takes the relationship with Moses seri-
what Yahweh said, and Moses who will run the risks that Yahweh seemed ready to take …
After the massive intrusion of God, the exodus has suddenly become a human enterprise.
It is Moses (not God) who will ‘bring out’ … ‘my people.’ It is Moses who acts in God’s place
to save God’s people” (Exodus, 713).
29 See Fretheim: “God depends on Moses in carrying out the tasks involved and hence must
work in and through Moses’ frailties as well as strengths. This means that God gives up
total control of the ensuing events; this is for God a risky venture, fraught with negative
possibilities” (Exodus, 17).
30 See the discussion in Fretheim, Exodus, 52–53. From another angle on the issue of agency,
God appears to Moses in bodily form (Exod 3:1–6; see also 24:9–11). It is important to
recognize that the (human) body is an agent that God uses. God appears to Moses in such
a way that God can carry on a conversation with him and Moses can say things to God that
occasion a genuine interaction between them.
31 Houtman claims otherwise: “Moses’ insistence that he is incompetent and God’s reaction
to it stamp the entire mission as God’s undertaking: it is not due to human initiative and
willingness that the liberation of Israel gets underway, but only due to God’s intervention
and persistence” (Exodus, 325). Again, in contrast, Brueggemann states: “As becomes
characteristic in the Bible, God’s action in the world is undertaken by human agents who
are summoned into Yahweh’s dangerous service. The book of Exodus is a statement that
establishes and celebrates the authority of Moses as the founder and generator of all things
Israelite, including Israel’s faith and freedom” (Exodus, 690). See also Meyers: Moses is
“hardly a passive recipient of the divine mandate; rather he is a person responding to a
daunting challenge with human doubt” (Exodus, 55).
issues of agency in exodus 599
ously.32 Victor Hamilton speaks in a helpful way about this interaction: “God is
going to send Moses to be the agent through whom God will do his work. Pre-
sumably the Lord has the resources and ability to act independently, to deliver
Israel by himself, without Moses’ assistance. Seldom in Scripture, however, does
God act so unilaterally. The scriptural pattern seems to be God’s using people
to reach people.”33
Perhaps most strikingly (Exod 4:10–17), in the face of Moses’ continued resis-
tance, God adjusts the plan and chooses Aaron to be a co-leader rather than
insisting on the original terms of the call or overpowering Moses. One might say
that, in the face of Moses’ resistance, God “resorts to plan b,” calling Aaron to
be Moses’ voice.34 The text makes clear that this is an option God would prefer
to have avoided. God is angry at Moses because of this development (see Exod
4:14), demonstrating that God’s will and work is resistible. Yet, God decides to
move into the future with what is possible. God does not attempt to strong-arm
Moses into following the divinely preferred track. In view of the response of the
agent, God chooses to work with options that are less than the best (see Aaron’s
later failure in Exod 32). God works with what is available; God will now have
to work in and through Moses’ frailties as well as strengths. This means that
God’s effectiveness will be less than what would have been the case had God
chosen to use power alone. Hence, God is not in total control of the ensuing
events.
The agency of Moses is immediately evident in God’s charge to Moses in
Exod 4:21: “see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders that I have
put in your power.” These were “wonders” that God was going to do according
to Exod 3:20; God here draws an agent into that responsibility. Moreover, it is
notable that, while God has gifted Moses with power, Moses’ decision with
32 See the helpful comments regarding Moses’ call by Childs: “the point of the call description
lies in showing that there remains a human initiative and will which, far from being
crushed, remains a constitutive element of the one who is being sent … The prophet of
God is not just a vehicle of communication in the Old Testament. Exodus 3 offers a classic
description of the office of one which, even though initiated fully by God, incorporates a
genuine human personality. The one called can drag his feet, even elicit a compromise in
the divine plan (4.14), but finally he will speak for God in spite of himself (4.15ff.)” (Exodus,
73). Whether Childs understands the final phrases to entail, finally, divine irresistibility is
not clear to this reader.
33 Victor P. Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary (hcot; Grand Rapids: Baker Aca-
demic, 2011), 58. One might ask whether God ever acts so unilaterally.
34 See Fretheim, Exodus, 53, 73. Brueggemann joins me in the use of this language (Exodus,
716).
600 fretheim
regard to the use of that power is crucial for developments. God’s charge to
him in Exod 4:21, “see that you perform,” makes sense only in view of differing
possibilities of response on Moses’ part. Moses does perform them before the
elders of Israel in Exod 4:29–31. Notably, Ps 105:27 reports that Moses and Aaron
“performed his signs among them [the Egyptians], and miracles in the land of
Ham.”35
After an initial failure, God “spoke to Moses and Aaron and gave them orders
regarding the Israelites and Pharaoh king of Egypt, charging them to free the
Israelites from the land of Egypt” (Exod 6:13). The agents are to set the Israelites
“free.” The point is developed in Exod 6:26–27: “It was this same Aaron and
Moses to whom the Lord said, ‘Bring the Israelites out of the land of Egypt,
company by company.’ It was they who spoke to Pharaoh king of Egypt to bring
the Israelites out of Egypt, the same Moses and Aaron.” Brueggemann’s com-
ment about agency in this context states the point well: “The entire operation
intended by Yahweh, that brings the future to political reality, depends on this
human agent. And this human agent can doubt and refuse (vv. 12, 30). The
intended emancipation … fully depends on the capability and willingness of
Moses. … God’s resolve awaits human readiness.”36
In the wake of Moses’ hesitance (Exod 6:30), God reassures Moses (7:1): “See
I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your
prophet.” God continues (7:5–6), “‘The Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord,
when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out from
among them.’ Moses and Aaron did so.” The report of Moses and Aaron doing
what God commanded is emphasized (7:6, 10, 20); that they act positively in
the wake of the divine word is considered an important testimony. What they
actually do as agents of God counts!
only God will be the subject of the hardening (see above).41 As it turns out, God
will harden, but so will Pharaoh.
Sometimes, in reflecting on the tenth plague, it is thought that God killed
each of the firstborn directly, one by one (see introductory discussion). But the
text makes no such claim. The text uses various words to speak of a non-divine
agent: Exod 11:1 speaks of negaʾ (“plague”), a word often used for diseases; 12:13
speaks of negep (“plague”), a word commonly used for pestilence or blow; in 9:15
deber (“pestilence”) is used, as in 9:3 for the cattle epidemic; mashit (“destroyer”
nrsv) occurs in 12:23, a word associated with destruction and pestilence (see
2Sam 24:15–16; Isa 37:36). In sum, it is best to think of the tenth plague as
a pestilence that kills quickly. In other words, the tenth plague is an agent
used by God.42 While Exod 12:29 attributes the attack directly to yhwh, it is
important to recall the point that for God to be the sole subject of a verb does
not necessarily omit God’s use of agents.
41 For Meyers, hardening is “the inevitable outcome ordained by God” (Exodus, 71).
42 See Fretheim, Exodus, 141.
43 See Fretheim, Exodus, 150; quoted with approval by Hamilton, Exodus, 207.
issues of agency in exodus 603
importance of Moses in that they believe in him as well as God. That’s some
stature! Moses is given a central place as agent in the saving work of God, which
later tradition recognizes (Isa 63:12). This dual involvement was announced
initially by God (Exod 3:8, 10) and is recognized as such by the community on
the far side of the event (Exod 14:31).44 It might be noted that Exod 14:21 speaks
of Moses executing the command to raise his arm and split the sea, but God is
the one who drove the sea back by a strong east wind (note that it took God “all
night”!). And then Moses’ response to God’s command to stretch out his hand
completed the task of returning the sea to its normal depth (Exod 14:26–27).
God also acts in and through natural entities, including clouds and darkness
and a strong east wind blowing all night long and its effect on the waters. And so
God works in and through the agency of both human and nonhuman powers
to accomplish the divine purpose. Divine agency is not the only agency that
counts! In addition, the text notes the agency of “the angel of God” (Exod 14:19)
and the pillar of fire and cloud in which God was believed to be present (see
Exod 14:24). The latter is probably one pillar, perhaps an unusual natural event,
showing up differently by day and by night. The presence of God is associated
with some kind of natural agent, providing a tangible assurance for the people.
Such texts clearly recognize that God does not work alone in these events.
In both opening up the sea and in closing it down, in both judgment and
salvation, God works in and through human and natural agents (see Exod 14:16,
21, 26–29).45 The textual witness that not one of the Egyptians was left alive
(Exod 14:28) makes it clear that hyperbole is also used in this text, as does the
over fifty instances of “all” (kol) in the plague stories, including in the report of
the death of the firstborn, 12:29–30. One wonders how often that is the case!
44 As we have noted above, this point does not stand at odds with the tradition that speaks
solely of the dividing of the waters as the work of God (see Ps 78:13; Neh 9:11).
45 Bruckner puts it this way: “Yahweh did not choose to act alone to fight for Israel … God
instead allowed Moses’ leadership to be maintained and strengthened in the midst of the
salvation of the people. Moses was necessary at every stage of their deliverance” (Exodus,
134).
604 fretheim
46 See, e.g., Dozeman (Exodus, 382–383), who emphasizes the “supernatural character of the
food” and “the miraculous character of the food.” So also Meyers, Exodus, 131.
47 For a natural description of the manna, see Childs, Exodus, 182.
48 For a discussion of agency in this text, see Fretheim, Exodus, 193–195.
49 For discussions of the wilderness provisions as integral to God’s creative work, see Fret-
heim, Exodus, 177–178, 181–182, 191. Goldingay reads more into the text: “Often God solves
a problem in nature by means of the resources of nature. Yet God hardly just points Moses
to resources that were present but unrecognized, such as the restorative potential of cer-
tain plants or purify water or the water resources within a rock. Manna and quails belong
issues of agency in exodus 605
Moses administers the law with the help of Jethro in Exod 18. The people
seek to discern the will of God in and through consultation with Moses, but
questions are raised and Jethro is consulted. God uses the wisdom, insight,
imagination, and common sense of Jethro to make the divine will known.
The specific revelation of God at Sinai, now to be presented (Exod 20–23), is
shown to stand in fundamental continuity with the insights revealed in and
through Jethro in Exod 18 and the discernment of the will of God in and through
common human experience. This revealing of the divine law in and through the
work of agent Jethro takes place at the “mountain of God” (Exod 18:5, 19). It is
also important to remember that the law given at Sinai is not unmediated, first
in the use of human language by God and then the words of Moses.
naturally to the area, but their quantity does not … yhwh uses natural resources, but
heightens their potential or capacity or significance. The people are invited to look to the
natural but to expect God to do something supernatural through it” (Israel’s Gospel, 456–
457). Goldingay apparently understands these details in a literal way.
50 See my discussion of this text in Fretheim, Exodus, 283–287.
51 Michael Widmer, Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer: A Study of Exodus
32–34 and Numbers 13–14 (fat 2.8; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 348. Widmer also speaks
of “human participation in the divine decision-making process” (4).
52 An important article that gathers key aspects of the divine repentance theme is Jean-Pierre
Sonnet, “God’s Repentance and ‘False Starts’ in Biblical History (Genesis 6–9; Exodus
32–34; 1Samuel 15 and 2 Samuel 7),” in Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007 (ed. André Lemaire;
Leiden: Brill, 2010), 469–494.
606 fretheim
the context into account in making decisions and charting directions, taking
human agency seriously into account (see at Exod 13:17–21; 2:23–25).
53 See Zech 1:15, where God says: “I am extremely angry with the nations that are at ease, for
while I was only a little angry, they made the disaster worse.”
issues of agency in exodus 607
for God. The agents retain the power to make decisions and execute policies
that fly in the face of the will of God; the God active in these events is not all-
controlling (the use of the ambiguous word “control” can confuse the issue54).
In some sense God risks what the agents will do with the mandate they have
been given. One element of that risk is that God’s name will become associated
with the violence, indeed the excessive violence, of the conflict.55
d. So, God may confer a negative value on the work of God’s own agents.
Many prophetic texts speak of divine judgment on those nations that have
been agents of God (Jer 25:12–14; 27:6–7; 50–51; Isa 10:12–19; 47:1–15; Zech 1:15).56
Notably, God assumes a share of the responsibility for that violence and will
take on a certain blame for the use of such agents (see Jer 42:10: “I am sorry for
the disaster that I brought upon you”).57 It appears that this divine response
carries with it the sense of genuine regret; the judgment and its painful effects
proved to be more severe than God had intended, or even thought they would
be (see, e.g., Jer 3:19–20).
e. Human beings, then or now, do not have a perfect perception of how they
are to serve as God’s agents in the world. They are sinful and finite creatures.
While it is difficult to evaluate the agents’ perception, it is important to note
that the role of divine agents is often expressed in terms of the direct speech of
God. Should we understand such direct divine speech in the Old Testament
(rare in the New Testament) in less than literal terms? Israel may have put
into direct divine speech understandings they had gained through study and
reflection rather than an actual hearing of God’s words. And might we say that
Israel did not always fully understand?
In sum, these perspectives regarding agency are testimony to a fundamen-
tally relational understanding of the way in which God acts in the world. Both
54 One thinks of the difference between, say, “mind control” and “crowd control.”
55 For a comprehensive statement on divine risk-taking, see John Sanders, The God Who
Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1998).
56 God’s relationship to Babylon changes in view of its conduct as the agent of judgment.
By its excessively destructive behaviors it opens itself up to reaping what it has sown (Jer
50:29; 51:24). God turns against God’s own agent on the basis of issues of justice (even
Israel; see Exod 22:21–24). Such texts (cf. the oracles against the nations) assume that
moral standards are known by the nations, to which they are held accountable.
57 The translation of niham is difficult (nrsv, “be sorry”; nab, “regret”; niv/neb, “grieve”).
Each of these translations carries the sense of a pained divine response to God’s own
actions. See the discussion of William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
Jeremiah (Edinburgh: t&t Clark, 1986), 2:1033. For an earlier treatment of this and other
related texts, see Terence E. Fretheim, “ ‘I was only a little angry’: Divine Violence in the
Prophets,” Int 58 (2004): 365–375.
608 fretheim
God and agents have crucial roles to play, and their spheres of activity are inter-
related in terms of function and effect. God is not only independent and the
agents involved only dependent. God has so shaped the created order that
there are overlapping spheres of interdependence and genuine responsibility
is shared with human and nonhuman beings. And God has determined not to
“intervene” to make sure every little thing is done according to the will of God.
There is an ordered freedom in the creation, a degree of openness and unpre-
dictability, wherein God leaves room for genuine creaturely decisions as agents
exercise their God-given power. Even more, God gives them such powers and
responsibilities in a way that commits God to a certain kind of ongoing relation-
ship with them, whatever developments may emerge.
These Exodus texts are testimony to a kind of divine activity that gives power
over to the created for the sake of a relationship of integrity. At the same time,
this way of relating to people, not least the use of agents, reveals a divine
vulnerability, for God opens the divine self to suffering and critique should
things not go according to the divine will. But God so values the relationship,
and so binds the divine self to that relationship, that it will continue in and
through whatever suffering may come along—for both God and agents.
Select Bibliography
Bruckner, James. Exodus. New International Biblical Commentary on the Old Testa-
ment 2. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2008.
Brueggemann, Walter. “The Book of Exodus: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflec-
tions.” Pages 675–981 in vol. 1 of The New Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by Leander
E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994.
Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. The Old
Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974.
Dozeman, Thomas B. Commentary on Exodus. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
Durham, John. Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco: Word, 1987.
Fretheim, Terence E. Exodus. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and
Preaching. Louisville: John Knox, 1991.
. “The Plagues as Ecological Signs of Historical Disaster.” Journal of Biblical
Literature 110 (1991): 385–396.
Goldingay, John. Israel’s Gospel: Old Testament Theology I. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity,
2003.
Gowan, Donald E. Theology in Exodus: Biblical Theology in the Form of a Commentary.
Louisville: Westminster / John Knox, 1994.
issues of agency in exodus 609
∵
Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings
Old Testament
1:5 34, 187, 428 2:15 93, 106, 380, 426, 432,
1:6 134, 499, 536–537 501
1:7 34, 187, 383–384, 2:16 357
537–538, 596 2:19 350, 358, 543
1:8–11 21 2:21–22 427
1:8–10 134 2:21 427, 544
1:8 42–43, 157, 428, 499, 2:22–24 355
538 2:22 156, 364, 428
1:9–34:32 157 2:23–25 20, 93, 127, 129–132,
1:9–10 500 597, 602, 606
1:9 22, 428 2:23 93–94, 130, 132,
1:10 539, 546 356, 426–428, 432,
1:11–14 428, 436 573–574
1:11–12 500 2:24–25 57, 427, 574
1:11 22, 70, 77, 108, 351, 2:24 131–133, 427, 501
376, 427–428, 572 2:25 130, 132, 138
1:12 500 3–14 501
1:13–14 34, 572 3:1–7:7 597
1:13 132, 427 3–4 56–57, 95, 129–131
1:14 132, 428, 539 3:1–4:19 501
1:15–21 318, 500 3:1–4:17 56
1:15 375–376, 429, 540, 3 56, 131–132, 146, 177,
596 599
1:16 365 3:1–4:18 93–94, 129–130
1:17 355, 426–427 3:1–4:17 93
1:19 361, 429 3:1–12 598
1:20–21 355, 596 3:1–6 446, 598
1:20 353, 426 3:1 22, 93, 130, 182, 357,
1:21 426, 429 402, 427–428, 431, 473
1:22 318, 500 3:2–4 182, 318
2–11 535, 541 3:2 184, 355, 431, 473
2 41, 44–45, 56 3:3 361
2:1–10 44, 108, 241, 596–597 3:4 545
2:1–3 596 3:5 22, 473
2:1–2 541 3:6–7 182
2:1 44, 542 3:6 55–56, 431, 446, 448,
2:2 384, 542 545
2:3 413, 428, 500 3:7–10 95, 597
2:4 500, 540, 542–543 3:7–9 94, 574, 576
2:5–10 596 3:7–8 95
2:5 413 3:7 57, 94–95, 130, 241,
2:6 428 356, 359–360
2:10 428 3:8 94, 598, 603
2:11–22 597 3:9–14 93
2:11 350, 364, 426 3:9 57, 94–95, 241, 356,
2:12 426, 472 426
2:13 597 3:10–13 182
2:14–23 94 3:10 94–95, 432, 574, 597,
2:15–23 93 603
616 index of scripture and other ancient writings
Joshua Judges
1:1–9 23 2:1–7 241
2:8–11 28 2:1–5 23, 116
3 23 2:1 28
3:4 379 2:11 28
3:6 239 2:20–23 241
4:19 124 4:5 379
5:1 28 4:14 239
5:10–12 124 4:15 117
5:13–15 240 4:17 379
5:15 22 5:2–31 311
6:7 239 5:4 239
7:12 378 5:23 240
8:9 112, 379 6:8–9 28
8:11–12 379 6:22–23 178
8:13 112 7:20 112
8:26 378 9:23 379
index of scripture and other ancient writings 637
Micah Malachi
2:2 24, 203 2:14 379
3:12 184 2:15 447
6:4 61 3:1 239
7:15 61 3:18 379
New Testament
1Corinthians Hebrews
1:2 461 8:1–5 418
1:28–31 456 8:4–5 418
5:1–5 452
5:6 452 James
5:7–8 451 1:15 423
5:8 452
8–9 452 1 Peter
10 452, 512 2:10 578
index of scripture and other ancient writings 643
Qumran
cd 11:4–5 495
5:17–19 443 11:5–6 496
5:18–19 443 15:7–10 450
6:19 450 19:33 450
10:21 496 20:12 450
10:22 493
index of scripture and other ancient writings 645
1qs 4q271
1:6–7 450 1,1 443
1:16–2:25 488
4q365
1q29 5,1–2 310
2,2 320 6,ii,6 310
6,ii,1–7 311
1QpHab
2:3 450 4q368
1–2 319
2q21 1,i 319
1,1 320 1,ii 319
1,4 320
4q374
4q158 2,i,7 319
1–2,3–13 307
1–2,14–15 307 4q376
1–2,16–19 308 1,ii,1–2 320
4,2 308
4,3–4 308 4q421
4,6–8 308 12,7 496
5,10–12 307 13+2+8,1 496
6–8 309
7 310 4q422
14 310 1–9 317
10 317
4q216 10,1–2 317
1:11 489 10,2 318
1:12 489 10,3–12 318
4:4 489 10,4 318
4:6 489 10,6–7 318
4:8 491 10,7–12 318
4q218 4q542
1,3–4 492 1,i,9 315
1,ii,3–5 315
4q251 1,ii,6–8 315
1–2,4 496 1,ii,9 315
1,ii,12 315
4q264a
1,1 496 4q543
1,1 316
4q265 1,2–3 316
3,3 507 1,5–6 316
7,4–5 496 5–9,2–3 316
5–9,4–5 316
4q266 5–9,6–8 316
3,ii,5–7 443
3,ii,16–18 488
646 index of scripture and other ancient writings
4q544 6q15
1,6–8 316 3,1–2 443
1,12–13 316
1,14 316 11q19
2,13 316 2,1 312
2,2–7 313
4q545 2,7–11 313
1,i,1 316 2,12–15 313
1,i,2–3 316 3–12 313
1,i,5–6 316 3,2–9 313
4,15–19 317 3,10–13 314
7,10–12 314
4q546 9,2–13 314
1,3–4 316–317 17:6–7 503
17:8–9 506
4q547 17:8 507
1–2,iii,5–8 316 30–44 313
1–2,iii,11–12 316
1–2,iii,12–13 316
Philo Decal.
Abr. 1 406
1–6 406 36 419
2–5 408 44–49 416
50–55 447 51 419
56 498 96 419
121 419 98 419
Agr. 106 419
80 420 118 419
82 420 121 419
Cher. 142–153 422
27 419 142 419
Conf. 153 423
21–22 422 154 419
96 420 158 419
99 420 162 420
160 419–420 165 419
Congr. 168 419
84 414 173–174 422
120 419 173 419, 423
161 419 175 419
Contempl. Deo
85 420 4 419
87 420 5 419–420
index of scripture and other ancient writings 647
Arrian Plato
Anab. Theat.
1.26 477 176a–b 422
176c 422
Diodorus Siculus Tim.
34.1–2 415 27d 420, 516
69e 423
Herodotus
2.158 72 Pliny the Elder
Nat. Hist.
Justinus 30.1.11 443
Hist. Phil.
36 415 Plutarch
E Delph.
Numenius 393a–c 421
Frags.
2 421 Strabo
3 421 Geog.
4a 421 14.3.9.666–667 477
5 421
6 421 Tacitus
7 421 Hist.
8 421 5.3.1 415
Ambrose Augustine
Ep. Civ.
55 517 1.20 527
Fug. 8.11 516–517
4.4.18 515 14.11 530
Myst. De mend.
1.8.48 523 3 528
3.12 522 13.23 527
3.14 523 25 529
Patr. Doct. chr.
1.1 527 1.32.35 517
2.16 370
Apostolic Constitutions Ep.
8.12.37 449 55 527
147.20 525
Athanasius Faust.
Letter African Bishops 32.12 525
4 517 Fid. op.
11.17 525
656 index of scripture and other ancient writings
Cassian Ephrem
Conf. Comm. Exod.
3.7.6–7 523 3.2 516
20.2 529
32.8.1 529
index of scripture and other ancient writings 657
Hurvitz, A. 139, 150, 181 Knauf, E.A. 32, 35, 64, 82–83, 86, 124, 145, 147,
Hutzli, J. 144 148
Knohl, I. 296–298, 300
Ibba, G. 499, 503, 509 Knoppers, G.N. 26, 36, 45, 54, 138, 147, 186
Köckert, M. 32–33, 45–46, 53–54, 58–59, 108,
Jackson, B.S. 222, 244 126, 135, 148, 182, 219, 248, 251, 265
Jacob, B. 196, 273, 277–278, 288, 300 Koester, M.D. 368
Janowski, B. 36, 283–284, 292, 300 Kohata, F. 91, 97, 113–114, 119, 129, 149
Jansma, T. 368 Kohl, M. 92
Janzen, J.G. 609 Konkel, M. 4, 8, 54, 179, 250, 253–254, 257,
Janzen, W. 609 263–265
Jenner, K.D. 367 Koster, M.D. 349, 352, 357
Jeremias, J. 134 Kottsieper, I. 55
Johnstone, W. 3, 7, 14, 20, 22, 25–26 Krahmalkov, C.R. 78
Jones, S. 404 Kratz, G. 23
Joosten, J. 350, 368 Kratz, R.G. 30–31, 33, 37–38, 43, 45–46, 52,
Juckel, A. 349–351, 368 57–59, 95–96, 108, 120, 126, 134, 139, 146,
Jügensen, A. 273 148–149, 185
Jülicher, A. 92 Kraus, M. 385
Junod, É. 437 Kraus, W. 323
Krauss, M. 372
Kahana, M. 535, 561 Kreuzer, S. 385
Kamesar, A. 373, 385, 406, 438, 517, 534 Kries, D. 373
Kamin, S. 385 Krüger, T. 38, 97, 101–102, 105, 110, 113–114, 120,
Kampen, J. 374 145–146, 148–149
Kapelrud, A.S. 279 Kugel, J.L. 424, 439, 488–489, 491, 494,
Kartveit, M. 306 497–501, 504, 509, 540, 561
Kasher, M.M. 536–538, 560 Kugler, R.A. 37
Katzoff, R. 475, 483 Kupfer, C. 50, 154, 167
Kaufman, S.A. 391
Kaufmann, Y. 296 Landmesser, C. 486, 509
Kearney, P.J. 582, 590 Lange, A. 143, 147, 490, 509
Keck, L.E. 593, 608 Langston, S.M. 530, 533
Kedar-Kopfstein, B. 370, 373–374, 378, 381, Larsen, T. 340, 348
385 Larson, E. 496
Keel, O. 279, 284, 287–288, 300 Lauinger, J. 242
Kegler, J. 130, 148 Lauterbach, J.Z. 402, 560
Kellerman, J.A. 442 Leahy, A. 64
Kelly, J.N.D. 373, 378, 385 Le Boulluec, A. 130, 149
Kennedy, A.R.S. 272, 277, 300 Lécuyer, J. 513, 533
Kessler, E. 388 LeDéaut, R. 388, 403
Kessler, R. 130, 148 Leisegang, I. 437
Kiraz, G.A. 350, 355, 368 Lemaire, A. 26, 605
Kister, M. 536 Lemche, N.P. 66
Kitchen, K.A. 65–66, 71–72, 74, 86 Lemmon, J.M. 97, 120
Klein, M.L. 391–392, 554 Leonhard, C. 403
Klein, R.W. 134 Lesko, L.H. 63–64, 77, 85, 87
Klein, S. 385 Levi, G. 337, 339, 345, 348
Klutz, T.E. 139 Lévi, I. 388
index of modern authors 665