Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Language Usage in the Exodus Narrative’, in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the
Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (ed. J.C. Gertz, B.M. Levinson, D.
Rom-Shiloni and K. Schmid; FAT 111; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck), 443–475.
claim is that the book of Exodus harbors two distinct linguistic registers that
allow for easy identification and quantification. The first register, mainly found
respects close to spontaneous spoken discourse. Narratives in this style form the
the Northwest Semitic epic, narrative poetry and in which the narrative in its
present, written form is anchored.1 This platform comprises the narrative of the
1
On the oral-epic platform of patriarchal narrative see my studies, “Oral Substratum,
Stylistic-Syntactic Profile and Thematic Flow in the Abraham-Jacob Narrative,” in
Contextualizing Israel’s Sacred Writings: Ancient Literacy, Orality, and Literary Production (ed.
Brian Schmidt; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature), 217-238; “Oral Platform and
2
exodus and the episode of the conclusion of the covenant at Mount Sinai in
oral narrative. Fieldwork also indicates that oral narrators and poets, the
analysis shows that Ugaritic epic texts reveals many features that are to be
Both claims are diametrically opposed to the views that dominate the
modern study of the narrative of the exodus and the conclusion of the
the tales of the patriarchs, with which they were united by a post-Priestly
redaction stratum. This view has the advantage of positing a rather synchronic
view of the book of Exodus, in which the author-redactor combines the task of
editor and creative author, whose activity consists, in the words of Jean-Louis
This view harbours an important truth, but also fails to do justice to the
variety in language usage and the sharp linguistic distinctions between the
diverse strata of the Exodus narrative. Thus the first part of the present study
will establish these stylistic distinctions and the extent of the oral-epic strand.
intervention and ways of reading. The third part will be dedicated to structural
The main argument for the idea of an oral background of the Exodus narrative
main parameters:4
3
J.-L. SKA, “A Plea on Behalf of the Biblical Redactors”, Studia Theologica 59 (2005), 4-18,
here 4.
4
This method (very much a project in progress) is developed in detail in my papers,
“Sociolinguistics, a Key to the Typology and the Social Background of Biblical Hebrew”
Hebrew Studies 47 (2006), 115-62, here 128-36, 141-51; “The Book of Samuel and the
Deuteronomist: A Syntactic-Stylistic Analysis”, in The Books of Samuel and the Deuteronomists
(ed. C. Schäfer-Lichtenberger; BWANT 188; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2010), 34-73, here
38-54.
4
This verse includes seven clauses, all of them short: five clauses contain one
explicit constituent apart from the predicate, whereas two clauses consist of
Both clauses contain 2 ELC’s, (1) a subject, ֹלהים ֱ and (2) a direct object,
ִ א,
( ֶאת־נַ ֲא ָק ָתםv. 24a), and ת־א ְב ָר ָהם ֶאת־יִ ְצ ָחק וְ ֶאת־יַ ֲעקֹב ְ ( ֶאv. 24a).
ַ ת־בּ ִריתוֹ ֶא
( יְ הוָ הlevel 1), that contains an object clause, ( ַל ֲעשׂ ֹת א ָֹתםlevel 2). One also notes
cases in which the subordinate clause contains contains more than one
constituent, apart from the predicate (and not including the relative particle),
or a noun group:
35:2 יוּמת
ָ אכה
ָ ל־הע ֶֹשׂה בוֹ ְמ ָל
ָ ָכּ
time, בוֹ.
35:32 וּבנְּ ח ֶֹשׁ
ַ וּב ֶכּ ֶסף
ַ וְ ַל ְחשׁ ֹב ַמ ַח ָשׁבֹת ַל ֲעשׂ ֹת ַבּזָּ ָהב
profile that specifies (1) the frequency of short independent clauses (0-1 ELC),
(2) of long clauses (2+ ELC), (3) of all subordinate clauses, (4) of the frequency
of noun groups (mean noun pair, MNP).5 Categories 1-3 add up to 100 % of
the entire text. For fine tuning I indicate the frequency of clauses in complex
indicates a differentiation between two kinds of style, one close to the style of
5
By the number of noun pairs I mean the number of nouns appearing in noun groups,
divided by two (mean noun pairs, MNP). The frequency of noun pairs equals 100 % when in
the mean all clauses include a noun pair (a group consisting of two nouns). When each clause
contains, in the mean, more than one noun pair, the frequency exceeds the 100 % boundary.
6
the low frequency of short clauses (around 30 % and less), as against the
groups (80 % MNP or more). This is the elaborate, intricate style (IES), instanced
2 clauses: 2 elaborate (3 ELC), with 3 noun groups (with 3, 2, and 3 nouns respectively).
This stretch includes 7 clauses: 1 short clause (1 ELC), 3 long clauses (including
groups (12 nouns, = 6 MNP). With its preference for long clauses, hypotactic
constructions and long noun phrases this stretch is a typical example for the
IES.
The distinctive features of the IES are close to the characteristics of written
6
Listing continued in 35:6–9.
7
See J. MILLER and R. WEINERT, Spontaneous Spoken Language: Syntax and Discourse
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 4-21, 80-94, 105-125, 133-149, 209-220; M.A.K.
7
identity of the speaking and acting characters, the objects involved and the
data is often presented in relative clauses, time clauses, motive clauses or final
that written texts, in particular legal contracts and official correspondence, can
be transported to different points in space and time, and thus can be divulged
The writing of such official texts requires a variety of skills that are
which students and apprentices are taught to produce well-formed texts and to
comprehend them in accordance with the accepted norms. The IES, then,
represents an education and a social framework within which these skills are
acquired and fullfil a function. Small wonder, then, that the Hebrew epigraphic
texts, most of them from the Judean monarchy, all reveal the characteristics of
HALLIDAY, Spoken and Written Language (2nd ed.; Oxford: Oxford UP, 1989), 73-75, 87, 98-100;
and see my studies, “Orality and Language Usage” (see n. 1), n. 38; F.H. POLAK, “Language
Variation, Discourse Typology, and the Socio-Cultural Background of Biblical Narrative”, in
Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew (ed. C.L. Miller-Naudé and Z. Zevit; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
2012), 301-338, here 316, nn. 21-23, and the references there.
8
the IES.8 Accordingly, texts composed in the IES reveal some kind of
(1 Kgs 3–15; 2 Kgs 11–12; 14–25), the Jeremiah vita (Jer 26; 36–43) and large
sections attributed to the Priestly source. Since these texts locate themselves in
the late Judean monarchy, I speak of the “Judean Corpus”. A similar style is
revealed by the narratives that locate themselves, by their very content, in the
Persian (or early Hellenistic) era, the Achaemenid Corpus. The distinction
corpus.9
8
See my studies, “Sociolinguistics and Social Background” (see n. 4), 137-138; F.H. POLAK,
“The Oral and the Written: Syntax, Stylistics and the Development of Biblical Prose
Narrative,” JANES 26 (1998), 59–105, here 103.
9
On Late Biblical Hebrew see now A. HURVITZ, A Concise Lexicon of late Biblical Hebrew
(VTSup 160; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 1-11; A. HORNKOHL, “Characteristically Late Spellings in
the Hebrew Bible: With Special Reference to the Plene Spelling of the o-vowel in the Qal
Infinitive Construct”, JAOS 134 (2014), 643-671; and further, the references in my study,
“Orality and Language Usage” (see n. 1), section 3.2.
9
Exodus reveal a high frequency of short clauses (0-1 ELC, around 50 %), as
groups (around 40 %). This is the lean, brisk, voiced style, VoLB, such as the tale
of Moses’ call:
Exod 4:1 (0) אמרוּ
ְ ֹ ִכּי י/( ְבּק ִֹלי1) וְ לֹא יִ ְשׁ ְמעוּ/( ִלי1) וְ ֵהן לֹא־יַ ֲא ִמינוּ/(0) אמר
ֶ ֹ וַ יּ/( מ ֶֹשׁה1) וַ יַּ ַען
v. 2 ַמ ֶטּה׃/אמר
ֶ ֹ וַ יּ/( ְביָ ֶדָך1) [ מזה ] ַמה זֶּ ה/( יְ הוָ ה2) ( ֵא ָליו1) אמר
ֶ ֹ וַ יּ
This stretch includes 10 clauses, with 8 short clauses (0-1 ELC), and 2 long
provides an extreme example for the lean, brisk style, the type-1 class of the
VoLB (48-60 % short clauses, and higher), such as Exod 4:1–17 with 79
clauses, 53 short clauses (67.09 % of all clauses in this section), and 22 mean
noun pairs (27.84 %). In this class the percentage of clauses in subordination is
A less outspoken instance of the VoLB is found in the tale of the battle at
Rephidim (17:8–16; 35 clauses), with 15 short clauses (42.86 %), and 13 mean
noun pairs (37.14 %). This is the type-2 class of the VoLB, in which the class
10
On the treatment of pronouns see my paper, “Sociolinguistics and Social Background”
(see n. 4), ; “Samuel and the Deuteronomist” (see n. 4), .
10
of short clauses contains slightly less than half of the text (39-47 %), and the
to such sparsity: the frequent use of two-clause constructions, often with a verb
of motion in the pre-clause; the use of paratactic circumstantial clauses, and the
preference for implicit indication of subject and object, when already known
from previous sections, by means of the pre- and affixes of the verbal form, by
object suffix or ellipsis. Indications concerning place and time are often
introduced by ויהי.
on the speakers’ short term memory, and does not facilitate overall planning,
nor does it allow for systematic reviewing and correction. On the other hand it
is aided by intonation, facial expression, gesture, and poise. Some of the basic
11
See MILLER and WEINERT, Spontaneous Spoken Language (see n. 7), 14-15, 22-23, 58-71;
HALLIDAY, Spoken and Written Language (see n. 7), 30-45, 61-67, 79-84, 92-101; and see my
study, “Sociolinguistics and Social background” (see n. 4), 149, nn. 95-97, and the references
there; and in particular F.H. POLAK, “Orality: Biblical Hebrew”, in Encyclopedia of Hebrew
Language and Linguistics (3 vols.; ed. G. Khan; Leiden: Brill), 2.930-937.
11
features of the VoLB fit the conditions of spoken discourse. The short
circumstances are clear to the speaking parties, and and for clarification of the
intentions the speaker may use gesture, intonation and facial expression.
Thus the VoLB reveals a close proximity to spoken discourse, and thereby
to oral narrative. This style reflects the work of writing authors who are well-
acquainted with the performance of the oral narrator, the “Singer of Tales”,
accept the art of oral narrative as prestigeous and and adhere to its ways and
norms. The close proximity to the art of the oral performer stands out in a
number of stylistic features that disappear in the Judean corpus and in Persian
era narrative, such as the tendency not to indicate the speaking characters
when their identity is clear in the context, even in case of interchange of the
speaking person. The oral performer can indicate the change of identity by
change of tone. By the same token the narrative may prefer not to indicate a
a given speaker by a second utterance of the same participant (Gen 15:5). After
all, the oral performer can indicate the silent reaction by gesture and facial
Saul-David history (1 Sam 1–4; 1 Sam 8– 2 Sam 5; 9–20; 1 Kgs 1–2), the tales
of Elijah, Elisha and other prophets from the northern kingdom (roughly 1
Kgs 17–2 Kgs 10), in parts of the tales of the heroic saviors and congeners
(Judg 3–9; 13–19), and in the scroll of Ruth. This group of texts constitutes the
“Oral-Written Corpus”.12
The contrast between IES and VoLB (types 1 and 2) is more than radical. One
may compare the opening of the book of the Covenant with the introduction
This opening includes one single noun, with a relative clause that comprises
Deuteronomic series of blessings and curses includes long noun phrases and
complex subordination:
Deut 28:69 ְ ר־צוָּ ה יְ הוָ ה ֶאת־מ ֶֹשׁה = ִל ְכר ֹת ֶא
ת־בּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ְבּ ֶא ֶרץ מוֹאָב ִ ֵא ֶלּה ִד ְב ֵרי ַה ְבּ ִרית = ֲא ֶשׁ
Even the stretch in which one may recognize the residue of a previous
12
In previous studies I used the term “classical corpus” or “medial corpus”; see my study ;
“Language Variation and Socio-Cultural Background” (see n. ), 303.
13
The relative clause includes both subject and addressee (a noun group) as
against the single לפניהםof Exod 21. The distinction between these two styles
Thus a fundamental and radical difference sets the IES apart from the VoLB.
Since the intricate style reveals the habitus and expertise of the scribal
13
Note the use of התורהas against המשפטיםin Exod 21:1.
14
this style can only originate in a context that is dominated by the scribal
royal bureaucracy which provides the education imparting the skills required
the corpus in this style is the official administration of the Judean monarchy. It
is true that the IES is likewise in use in the Persian era, but the texts originating
in this period reveal many features that indicate the dominating role of the
On the other hand, the VoLB, though used in writing, is close to the oral
aren. This style represents the activity of the author-sōfēr who is attuned to the
oral performance, adheres to its style and language usage, and thus reflects a
social context in which the oral narrator enjoys a high prestige. If the IES
represents the power, status and linguistic preferences of the scribal chancery,
the VoLB represents a context in which the writing author can prefer the
capabilities of the oral arena over the norms prevailing in and imparted by the
chancery. In other words, the socio-cultural situation is one in which the royal
administration is less dominant, less developed and less powerful than in the
considerations place the Judean corpus in the seventh and early sixth century ,
not to be excluded). The VoLB-2 style is less close to the oral arena than the
type-1 style, and thus seems to represent a world in transition from oral (and
For the type 1 style of the VoLB one may think of the ninth century, in light
view, which is far less developed in IES tales, even though some of them do
the Deuteronomic versions of the Sinai narratives has already been noticed and
An argument that has been raised against the separation of the two strata in
biblical Hebrew is the fact that in modern times many bilingual authors are
able to write in a language that is not theirs by birth.15 As I have pointed out
Stylistic research indicates that the English used by Joseph CONRAD deviates
from the English literary style(s) in vogue in his generation, and actually
14
W.M.L. DE WETTE, Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 2 vols. (Halle:
Schimmelpfennig, 1806-1807), 1.275-280.
15
H.M. BARSTAD, “Can Prophetic Texts be Dated? Amos 1–2 as an Example”, in Ahab
Agonistes (ed. L.L. Grabbe; LHB/OTS 421; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 21–39, here 23.
16
contains many expressions that are based on his native Polish or on French, the
BECKETT’s lean style in French and English is quite different from his earlier
baroque English style.17 The Latin of John MILTON is described as superb, but
some details in lexicon and metrical scansion reveal important deviations from
authentic classical Latin;18 his English style is found to lean heavily on Latin
syntax.19 These examples show that the style used by bilingual authors is
16
M. LUCAS, “Conrad’s Adjectival Eccentricity”, Style 25 (1991), 123–151; IDEM, Aspects of
Conrad’s Literary Language (Boulder: Social Science Monographs; Lublin: Maria Curie-
Slklodowska University, 2000); M. MORZINSKI, Linguistic Influence of Polish on Joseph Conrad’s
Style (New York: Columbia UP and Lublin: Marie Curie-Sklodowska University, 1994);
Conrad’s stylistic usage of such phrases are discussed by E. KUJAWSKA-LIS, “(Pseudo)Polonisms
in Joseph Conrad’s Amy Foster and Prince Roman and Their Polish Translations”, Acta
Neophilologica 14 (2012), 5-17.
17
R.N. COE, “Beckett’s English”, in Samuel Beckett: Humanistic Perspectives (ed. M. Beja, S.E.
Gontarski, and P. Astier; Columbus OH: Ohio State UP, 1983), 36-57, here 41-45; on
Beckett’s early language education and his bilingualism see M. KAGER, “Comment Dire: A
Neurolinguistic Approach to Beckett’s Bilingual Writings”, L2journal 7 (2015), 68-83
(permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9wx9s230, accessed 21.4.2015); A. BEER,
“Beckett’s Bilingualism”, in The Cambridge Companion to Beckett (ed. J. Pilling; Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 1994), 209-221.
18
J.K. HALE, Milton's Languages: The Impact of Multilingualism on Style (Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 1997), 30-31; on Milton’s use of impersonal licet as a personal verb (and his
neologisms) see IDEM, “Notes on Milton's Latin Word-Formation in the "Poemata" of 1645”,
Humanistica Lovaniensia 43 (1994), 405-410, here 406-407.
19
Sensitive distinctions are proposed by HALE, Milton’s Languages (see n. 18), 104-120,
157-179. See also E. HAAN, “ ‘Both English and Latin’: Milton’s Bilingual Muse”, Renaissance
Studies 21 (2007), 679-700.
17
between the knowledge of the second language in the modern era and such knowledge
and of compendia listing differences between the classical language and Late
Biblical or Qumran Hebrew. Such instruments are not indicated by Ben Sira,
nor have they been found among the texts from the Judean desert. By contrast,
school; BECKET held a university degree in French and Italian; CONRAD was
this area and period are entirely different from the linguistic ecology of
20
21
Of course, an extremely high level of education and a rich literary, grammatical and
lexicographic inheritance is also attested in the medieval Islam. This fact is not taken into
account in the comparison between ancient Hebrew and medieval Arabic by I. YOUNG, R.
REZETKO and M. EHRENSVÄRD, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts: An Introduction to Approaches
and Problems (2 vols.; London: Equinox, 2008), 48, in the wake of a remark by J. BLAU, “The
Structure of Biblical and Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrrew in Light of Arabic Diglossia and Middle
Arabic”, Leshonenu 60 (1996-1997), 21-32 (Hebrew, with summary in English), here 27-28.
18
modern literature.
A similar difference sets the ancient Israelite sōp̄̄ēr apart from the Roman
and Greek, mostly aristocratic, literati who had their schooling in the highly
enabled them to adopt a Greek cultural identity.23 Thus an author like Lucian
who was active around the middle of the second century C.E.,24 writing Greek
22
G. ANDERSON, The Second Sophistic: A Cultural Phenomenon in the Roman Empire (London:
Routledge, 1993), 10-40; W. SCHMID, Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern von Dionysius
von Halikarnassu bis auf den Zweiten Philostratus (5 Vols.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1887-1897),
4.577-79, 613-616, 619-635, 685-727; G. L. KIM, “The Literary Heritage as Language:
Atticism and the Second Sophistic”, in A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language (ed. E.J.
Bakker; Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 468-482, here 469-496.
23
S. GOLDHILL, “Setting an Agenda: ‘Everything is Greece to the Wise’”, in Being Greek
under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic, and the Development of Empire (ed. S.
Goldhill; Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001), 1-25. The sociohistorical context, the claims to
greatness of the prominent but largely powerless Greek and Eastern aristocracies under the
Roman empire, is studied by E.L. BOWIE, “Greeks and Their Past in the Second Sophistic”,
Past and Present 46 (1970), 3-41.
24
See H. HELM, “Lukianos”, PW XXVI, 1725-1777, here 1726-1728. Lucian (around
120/125-180 C.E.), who calls himself a Syrian. tells us that he was born of lowly parents (in
sharp contrast with the aristocratic descent of most famous rhetors) in Samosata (modern
Samsat), in Commagene, on the right bank of the Euphrat.
25
See SCHMID, Atticismus 1:216-223; S. CHABERT, L’atticisme de Lucien (Paris: Société
Française d’imprimerie et de librairie, 1897), 204-205; ANDERSON, Second Sophistic (see n. 21),
86-99; KIM, “Literary Heritage” (see n. 21), 476-78; and see n. 26 below.
26
The imitation of classical Attic from Plato, Xenophon, Thucydides, Demosthenes and
19
tertiary Greek education in Ephesus and Athens, and his intensive reading of
the literary legacy of the great authors of classical Athens and of Athenian
Wilhelm SCHMID notes that his style is very close to the best Attic texts.27
that follow the Greek koinè of the period rather than Attic.28 A significant part
poetic texts is discussed by SCHMID, Atticismus (see n. 21), 4.651-683; see also CHABERT,
L’atticisme (see n. 23), 229-234.
27
R.J. DEFERRARI, Lucian’s Atticism: The Morphology of the Verb (Princeton: Princeton UP,
1916), 80-82; SCHMID, Atticismus (see n. 21), 1.223-225; 1.428-432; But SCHMID (here, 432)
also notes that no less than 12.5% (one eighth) of Lucian’s lexical repertoire is post-classical
(see here, 352-404). DEFERRARI (Lucian, 9-13) notes instances of non-classical usage of the
augment; for other non-Attic features see here, 20-23 (verbal endings), 36-39 (γινώσκω/
classical γιγνώσκω and, less frequently γίνοµαι/classical γίγνοµαι), 61-66 (verbs -µι class); see
also CHABERT, L’atticisme (see n. 24), 102-116. DEFERRARI (here, 80) concludes that “Although
Lucian is not absolutely accurate in his use of early and late futures, aorists, and perfects, he is
nevertheless more strict than his fellow Atticists in this regard”. In his view Lucian’s
deviations from true Attic serve rhetorical purposes (such as the wish to avoid pedantry),
while many koine features were introduced in the manuscript tradition. CHABERT (L’atticisme,
102, 108, 204-205) judges that “Lucien diffère sensiblement, de l’attique d’abord, de la κοινὴ
διάλεκτος, ensuite”, but that “cependant les formes attiques sont de beaucoup les plus
nombeuses”.
28
Such features as the non-classical use of the cases (the genitive in stead of the dative; the
relative accusative; accusative instead of the nominative) are mentioned in the cautious
discussion of A. DU MESNIL, “Grammatica quam Lucianus in scriptis suis secutus est, ratio cum
antiquorum Atticorum ratione comparatur”, in Programm des städtischen Gymnasium zu Stolp
für das Schuljahr 1866-1867 (ed. H. Schütz; Stolp: Feige, 1867), 1-58, here 8-10, 27-28
(infinitive constructions), 30-40 (with prepositions). He also notes deviations in the use of the
20
of his lexical repertoire is characteristic of his own period.29 Thus Lucian, and
the Atticistic authors of the second century B.C.E., well-educated and learned
though they be, do not escape the imperfections inherent to any writing in a
language that is not in living usage. Consequently, the literature of Lucian and
the rhetorics of his period (the “Second Sophistic”) cannot serve as evidence for
imitation on the part of learned scribes from the Persian era, we have to ask
which corpus served them as example. And if one assumes that such a corpus
did exist, we have to raise the question how it is possible that this corpus was
not preserved by the scribes who used it as venerated example. Moreover, the
extant corpus in the VoLB is extremely small, much unlike, for instance,
classical Attic, could benefit from the vast literary corpus from fifth and fourth
century Athens. The extent of this corpus enabled them to detect the hidden
rules of the literary Attic dialect. Thus we have to ask ourselves how the
conjunctive and the optative (here, 15-26), and the negations οὐ/µή (here 40-48); see also
CHABERT, L’atticisme (see n. 23), 205.
29
SCHMID, Atticismus (see n. 21), 1.352-404, 432; CHABERT, L’atticisme (see n. 24), 119-123.
21
extremely small corpus of biblical narrative could have served to detect the
hidden rules of the classical language?30 Hence, the imitation hypothesis can
explain the interpolation of certain passages, but it fails to explain the creation of the
Sometimes one expresses the feeling that Judeans in exile might have
preserved the ancient language perfectly, like the more conservative strata
the Nippur region, in which exiles from Judaea appear as principals and
30
One has to take into account that according to the imitation hypothesis this small corpus
would not have included the imitating texts themselves, and thus would have been even
smaller. Unless, of course, one adopts the counterintuitive assumption, that the emulations
obliterated the venerated texts they imitated.
31
Lexical attrition is already documented in the nineteenth century, by S.S. HALDEMAN,
Pennsylvania Dutch: A Dialect of South German with an Infusion of English (London: Trübner,
1872), 28-33.
32
M.L. HUFFINES, “Pennsylvania German: convergence and change as strategies of
discourse”, in First Language Attrition (ed. Herbert W. Seliger and Robert M. Vago;
Cambridge UP, 1991), 125-137. HUFFINES notes the loss of the dative form in nouns (here,
128), the weakening of word order rules (here 133-134). On the sociocultural status of
Pennsylvania Dutch see IDEM, “Pennsylvania German: Maintenance and Shift”, International
Journal of the Sociology of Language 25 (1980), 43-57; L.V. NESS, “The Pressure of English on
the Pennsylvania German Spoken in Two West Virginia Communities”, American Speech 67
(1992), 71-82; T. ADKINS, “‘The English Effect’ on Amish Language and Literacy Practices”,
Community Literacy Journal 5 (2010-2011), 25-45.
22
including the use of Babylonian personal names within families which also use
Hebrew names.33
Both the VoLB and the IES play an important role in the book of Exodus.
The IES characterizes most of the passages attributed to the “Priestly” source:
the second tale of Moses’ call (6:2–13; 6:26–7:6);34 and parts of the tale of the
splitting of the Sea (14:1–4, 8–10*, 15–18, 22–23, 27*–29);35 of the tale of the
33
See L.E. PEARCE and C. WUNSCH, Documents of Judean Exiles and West Semites in
Babylonia in the Collection of David Sofer (CUSAS 28; Bethesda, MA: CDL Press, 2014); Y.
Bloch, “Judeans in Sippar and Susa during the First Century of the Babylonian Exile:
Assimilation and Perseverance under Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Rule”, JANEH 1
(2014), 119-172, here 124-142; L. PEARCE, “ “Judean”: A Special Status in Neo-Babylonian
and Achemenid Babylonia?”, in Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating
Identity in an International Context (ed. O. Lipschits, G.N. Knoppers and M. Oeming; Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 267-277; K. ABRAHAM, “West Semitic and Judean Brides in
Cuneiform Sources from the Sixth Century B.C.E.: New Evidence from a Marriage Contract
from Al-Yahudu”, AfO 51(2005-2006), 198–219.
34
Exod 6:2–13; 6:26–7:6 (78 clauses): 0-1 ELC 29.49 %; all hypotaxis 25.64 %; MNP 62.18
%; complex hypotaxis 18.46 %; 3+ ECL 10.26 %. The attribution of 6:6–8 to a post-priestly
expansion has been defended by J.C. GERTZ, Tradition und Redaktion in der
Exoduserzählung: Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch (FRLANT 186;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 244-248.
35
Exod 14:1–4, 8–10*, 15–18, 22–23, 27*–29 (50 clauses): 0-1 ELC 34.00 %; all hypotaxis
12.00 %; MNP 70.00 %; complex hypotaxis 4.00 %; 3+ ECL 8.00 %. For the attribution of
14:10 abα to J and bβ to P see H. HOLZINGER, Exodus (KHAT 2; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1900), 54.
23
manna (16:1–3, 6–12, 15b–21a, 22–26, 32–33);36 the section on the radiant face
note the sign of the serpents (7:8–13);40 and the plague of the boils (9:8–12).41
Priestly or the Deuteronomic corpus, but are couched in the intricate style: the
opening of the march out of Egypt (12:42; 13:3–10, 17–19, 21–22),42 the tale of
36
Exod 16:1–3, 6–12, 15b–21a, 22–26, 32–33 (109 clauses): 0-1 ELC 33.03 %; all hypotaxis
33.03 %; MNP 41.28 %; complex hypotaxis 17.43 %; 3+ ECL 12.84 %. V. 34 has not been
taken into account because of its textual difficulties (the sequence צוה אלinstead of צוה אתis
found only here; it could be viewed as a calque of ;)פקד עלv. 35 is considered a gloss. The
scholarly differences of opinion concerning various half-verses are presented by T.B.
DOZEMAN, Exodus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 376. A number of difficulties are
discussed by HOLZINGER, Exodus, 54. On the JE/redactional sections see below, n. 72.
37
Exod 34:29–35 (31 clauses): 0-1 ELC 12.90 %; all hypotaxis 41.94 %; MNP 50.00 %;
complex hypotaxis 25.81 %; 3+ ECL 9.68 %.
38
Exod 35:1–36:7 (93 clauses): 0-1 ELC 15.05 %; all hypotaxis 49.46 %; MNP 113.44 %;
complex hypotaxis 38.71 %; 3+ ECL 13.98 %.
39
Exod 12:1–14 (47 clauses): 0-1 ELC 29.79 %; all hypotaxis 21.28 %; MNP 81.91 %;
complex hypotaxis 6.39 %; 3+ ECL 4.25 %. For the internal analysis see C. BERNER, Die
Exoduserzählung: Das Literarische Werdem einer Ursprungslegende Israels (FAT 73; Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 278-283. However, the syntactic-stylistic profile does not point to
particularly late components. The shaping of v. 2 is poetic rather than pedantic.
40
Exod 7:8–13 (22 clauses, too small for analysis): 0-1 ELC 36.36 %; all hypotaxis 22.73 %;
MNP 86.36 %; complex hypotaxis 9.09 %; 3+ ECL 13.64 %.
41
Exod 9:8–12 (17 clauses, too small for analysis): 0-1 ELC 29.41 %; all hypotaxis 23.53 %;
MNP 88.24 %; complex hypotaxis 5.88 %; 3+ ECL 23.53 %. On the connection with the
7:8–13 see BERNER, Exoduserzählung (see n. 39), 191-193.
42
Exod 12:42; 13:3–10, 17–19, 21–22 (48 clauses): 0-1 ELC 12.50 %; all hypotaxis 27.08 %;
24
the meeting with Jethro (18:1–12,43 13–27);44 the Fortschreibung within the Sinai
tale (19:9b–10a,45 20–25);46 the last section of the legal and cultic instructions in
the “book of the covenant” (23:1–19),47 and the second revelation to Moses on
Mount Sinai (34:1–4, 27–28).48 This style likewise characterizes the following
sections of the plagues narrative: the pestilence of the livestock (9:1–7);49 the
first stages of the plague of the hail (9:13–21,50 22–26);51 the introduction to the
plague of the firstborn (11:1–10).52 These sections, then, represent later stages
The VoLB is found in many passages, with the clear preference for short
VoLB-1: the tales of Moses’ birth and flight (Exod 2:1–10;53 2:11–25);54 the
second part of the call tale (4:1–17;55 4:18–23);56 the hail (the closure, 9:27–
35);57 the locust (inception, 10:3–7);58 the plague of the locust (continuation,
complex hypotaxis 25.81 %; 3+ ECL 12.90 %. HOLZINGER (Exodus, 27) discusses the post-JE
character of vv. 14-17, 19-21.
51
Exod 9:22–26: (17 clauses, too small for analysis): 0-1 ELC 23.53 %; all hypotaxis 17.65
%; MNP 97.06 %; complex hypotaxis 11.76 %; 3+ ECL 17.65 %. See BERNER,
Exoduserzählung, 221-224.
52
Exod 11:1–10 (31 clauses): 0-1 ELC 25.00 %; all hypotaxis 25.00 %; MNP 121.43 %;
complex hypotaxis 14.29 %; 3+ ECL 17.86 %. Redactional stratification is suggested by
NOTH, Exodus, 92-93.
53
Exod 2:1–10 (50 clauses): 0-1 ELC 52 %; all hypotaxis 14 %; mean noun pairs (MNP) 34
%; complex hypotaxis 4.00 %, and 3+ ELC 2.00 %.
54
2:11–25 (68 clauses): 0-1 ELC 61.76 %; all hypotaxis 11.76 %; MNP 37.50 %; complex
hypotaxis and 3+ ECL: negligible.
55
Exod 4:1–17 (79 clauses): 0-1 ELC 67.09 %; all hypotaxis 11.39 %; MNP 27.84 %;
complex hypotaxis and 3+ ECL: negligible. The scene of 3:1-16 reveals a type-2 style,
whereas 3:17–22 combine VoLB and IES features.
56
Exod 4:18–23 (35 clauses): 0-1 ELC 57.14 %; all hypotaxis 17.14 %; MNP 22.86 %;
complex hypotaxis 5.71 %; 3+ ECL 5.71 %. For the scene of the nightly attack (4:24-26; 12
clauses) we have 0-1 ELC 75.00 %; all hypotaxis 8.33 %; MNP 37.50 %; complex hypotaxis
and 3+ ECL: negligible.
57
Exod 9:27–35 (38 clauses): 0-1 ELC 52.63 %; all hypotaxis 36.84 %; MNP 48.68 %;
complex hypotaxis 26.32 %; 3+ ECL 6.38 %. These data do not fit the analysis of this episode
26
10:8–20);59 and the tale of the ascent to the divine abode at Mount Sinai
(24:1–11).60 One could also add the basis of the tale of the Sea of Reeds
These sections represent, in my view, a rather ancient stage of the ESN, with
VoLB-2: the tale of Israel’s enslavement (1:1–22);62 the tale of Moses’ call
the episodes of the plague of the frogs (7:25–8:11),65 the lice (8:12–15),66 the
swarms (vv. 16–28),67 the darkness (10:21–29);68 the final plague (12:21–23,
25, 29–34);69 the tale of the defeat of Egypt at the Sea of Reeds (14:5–7,
10abc, 11–14, 19–20, 21bc, 24–25, 27b, 30–31);70 the Marah tale (15:22–
27);71 parts of the manna tale (16:4–5, 13–15a, 21b, 27–31, 34a);72 the tale of
the water from the rock and the war at Rephidim (17:1–7,73 8–16);74 the
65
Exod 7:25–8:11 (57 clauses): 0-1 ELC 42.11 %; all hypotaxis 12.28 %; MNP 48.25 %;
complex hypotaxis 7.02 %; 3+ ECL 12.28 %.
66
Exod 8:12–15 (19 clauses; too small for analysis): 0-1 ELC 52.63 %; all hypotaxis 10.53 %;
MNP 52.63 %; 3+ ECL 10.53 %.
67
Exod 8:16–28 (55 clauses): 0-1 ELC 40.00 %; all hypotaxis 20.00 %; MNP 45.45 %;
complex hypotaxis 10.91 %; 3+ ECL 9.09 %.
68
Exod 10:21–29 (39 clauses): 0-1 ELC 41.03 %; all hypotaxis 17.94 %; MNP 33.33 %;
complex hypotaxis 2,56 %; 3+ ECL 7.69 %.
69
Exod 12:21–23, 25, 29–36, 38–39 (57 clauses): 0-1 ELC 42.10 %; all hypotaxis 19.30 %;
MNP 67.54 %; complex hypotaxis 12.28 %; 3+ ECL 10.53 %.
70
14:5–7, 10abc, 11–14, 19–20, 21bc, 24–25, 27b, 30–31 (69 clauses): ELC 39.13 %; all
hypotaxis 21.74 %; MNP 42.75 %; complex hypotaxis 11.59 %; 3+ ECL 17.39 %. However,
if we take our clue from the low figure for the MNP and limit the analysis to the basis of the
tale (14:5–7, 10a, 13–14, 19–20, 24–25), excluding the themes of the complaint (vv. 11–12)
and the sea (vv. 21bc, 27b) and its continuation in vv. 30–31, we obtain a tale in the type-1
style, with 42 clauses, as noted above (n. 61).
71
Exod 15:22–27 (29 clauses): 0-1 ELC 48.28 %; all hypotaxis 24.14 %; MNP 37.93 %;
complex hypotaxis 10.34 %; 3+ ECL 13.79 %.
72
Exod 16:4–5, 13–15a, 21b, 27–31; 34a (partly JE, partly redactional/Dtr; 45 clauses): 0-1
ELC 44.44 %; all hypotaxis 20.00 %; MNP 45.46 %; complex hypotaxis 13.33 %; 3+ ECL
13.33 %. The establishment of this narrative sequence, which is a mere illustration, follows
HOLZINGER, Exodus (see n. 35), 53-54. On the sections attributable to P see above, n. 36. A
different analysis is proposed by B. BAENTSCH, Exodus, Leviticus und Numeri (HKAT I,2;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903), 145-156; NOTH, Exodus, 130-132.
73
Exod 17:1–7 (38 clauses) 0-1 ELC 39.47 %; all hypotaxis 18.42 %; MNP 32.89 %;
complex hypotaxis 13.16 %; 3+ ECL 15.79 %.
74
Exod 17:8–16 (35 clauses) 0-1 ELC 42.86 %; all hypotaxis 14.29 %; MNP 37.14 %;
complex hypotaxis and 3+ ECL: negligible.
28
Sinai tale (19:3–19; 20:18–21);75 the tales of the Golden Calf and Moses’
(34:5–10).78
This stratum is later than the rather ancient state of the VoLB-1 stales
mark the transition to the chancery style: the second part of the tale of Moses’
call (3:17–22),79 the tale of the confrontation with Pharaoh (5:1–6:1);80 the
75
Exod 19:3–8, 10–19; 20:18–21 (84 clauses): 0-1 ELC 45.23 %; all hypotaxis 14.29 %;
MNP 37.50 %; complex hypotaxis 5.95 %; 3+ ECL 10.71 % (Exod 19:20–25: IES).
76
Exod 32:1–8, 15–30 (125 clauses): 0-1 ELC 44.80 %; all hypotaxis 20.80 %; MNP 36.29
%; complex hypotaxis 7.20 %; 3+ ELC 6.40 %.
77
Exod 33:1–22 (100 clauses): 0-1 ELC 46 %; all hypotaxis 21.00 %; MNP 45.00 %;
complex hypotaxis 9.00 %; 3+ ECL 9.00 %.
78
Exod 34:5–10 (27 clauses, too small for analysis): 0-1 ELC 48.15 %; all hypotaxis 25.925
%; MNP 66.67 %; complex hypotaxis 22.22 %; 3+ ECL 7.41 %. The figures for the MNP
and and complex hypothesis are on the high side (possibly because of vv. 6–7) and may reveal
redactional intervention, to be viewed in connection with the surrounding verses 1–5, 11–28
(IES, see n. 48 above).
79
Exod 3:17–22 (24 clauses, too small for analysis): 0-1 ELC 45.83 %; all hypotaxis 20.83 %;
MNP 102.08 %; complex hypotaxis 12.50 %; 3+ ECL 4.17 %. Although the basic syntax of
this unit is close to the VoLB-2 style of 3:1–16, the high incidence of noun phrases (vv.
17.18.22) indicates IES elements (4:1–17: VoLB-1).
80
Exod 5:1–6:1 (106 clauses): 0-1 ELC 36.79 %; all hypotaxis 27.36 %; MNP 34.91 %;
complex hypotaxis 15.09 %; 3+ ECL 7.55 %. This tale is close to the IES, but the figures for
the MNP fit the VoLB-2 style. A possible LBH feature is the use of ( אשׁרrather than )כיin
Pharaoh’s question: ( ִמי יְ הוָ ה ֲא ֶשׁר ֶא ְשׁ ַמע ְבּקֹלוֹ5:3).
81
Exod 7:19–24 (27 clauses, too small for analysis): 0-1 ELC 44.44 %; all hypotaxis 18.52 %;
MNP 144.44 %; complex hypotaxis 7.41 %; 3+ ECL 7.41 %. This episode is close to the
VoLB, but the figures for the MNP fit the intricate style. However, this result may be
29
The claim that the VoLB represents an ancient layer of the Exodus
cycle.82 The scene at the nightly encampment stands out by its mythic-magic
the staff endowed with divine power, the divine maṭṭe (“staff” or “rod”) given
to Moses (ֹלהים
ִ ַמ ֵטּה ָה ֱא, 4:20; 17:5, 9) which is paralleled by the idea of Hadad’s
divine weapons that were granted to Zimri-Lim as a gift.84 One also notes the
connected to the exceptionally long noun phrase in v. 19 (attributed to “P”, together with
20a, because of the role of Aaron, which is not in keeping with v. 20b, ;)וירםsee BAENTSCH,
Exodus, 61-62; HOLZINGER, Exodus, 22-23. Discarding vv.19-20a one arrives at a VoLB-2
style: 0-1 ELC 42.11; all hypotaxis 21.05; MNP 52.63. On 7:14–18 (VoLB-2) see n. 64
above.
82
On the magical aspects of the plagues cycle see most recently G.A RENDSBURG, “Moses
the Magician”, in Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective: Text, Archaeology, Culture, and
Geoscience (ed. T.E. Levy, T. Schneider and W.H.C. Propp; Berlin: Springer, 2015), 243-258.
83
See in particular RASHBAM on Gen 32:29; Y. AVISHUR, “The Demonic Nature of the Tale
of the Bloody Husband (Exodus 4:24–26): a Fresh Look in Light of the Midrash and of
Beliefs in the Ancient Near East”, in IDEM, Studies in Biblical Narrative: Style, Structure, and the
Ancient Near Eastern Literary Background (Tel Aviv 1999), 137-158; B. EMBRY, “The
Endangerment of Moses: Towards a New Reading of Exodus 4:24–26”, VT 60 (2010),
177-196; S.A. GELLER, “The Struggle at the Jabbok”, JANES 14 (1982), 37-60, here 57-58;
F.H. POLAK, “Theophany and Mediator: The Unfolding of a Theme in the Book of Exodus”,
in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction-Reception-Interpretation (ed. M. Vervenne; BETL
126, Leuven: Leuven UP, 1996), 117-147, here 124-126.
84
On A.1968 (rev. 2’–4’) see. J.-M. DURAND, “Le mythologème du combat entre le Dieu de
l’Orage et la Mer en Mésopotamie”, MARI 7 (1993) 41-61, here 45. Allusions to this myth in
Ebla have been detected by P. Fronzarolio, “Les Combats de Hadda dans les Textes d’Ébla”,
MARI 8 (1997), 283-290. The divine maṭṭe is viewed as the residue of a divine weapon, like
mi-ṭi-šu (“his staff”) of Marduk (Enuma Elish IV 130) by S.E. LOEWENSTAMM, The Evolution of
30
writing: “The tablets were God’s work, and the writing was God’s writing,
incised upon the tablets” (32:16; see also v. 15; 31:18). Notably, the second
revelation (IES) tells about tablets carved and inscribed by Moses (34:1, 4, 27)
be read.
3. Ways of Reading
Hebrew Bible,87 strata are set apart by the criteria of source criticism, which are
the Exodus Tradition (trans. B.J. Schwartz; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992), 147-154.
85
As against the mention of human writing (34:27), the first command to Moses mentions
divine writing (v. 1), but וְ ָכ ַת ְב ִתּיmay also mean “I will let (you) write”, like ת־ה ַבּיִ ת
ַ וַ ֶיִּבן ְשֹׁלמֹה ֶא
(1 Kgs 6:14).
86
This is not the place to discuss the legal sections (largely VoLB-1) and covenant sections
(VoLB-2) of Exod 21–23. The parallels between the covenantal sections and the texts from
Mari are discussed in my study, “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. Ch. Cohen c.s.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns),
119-134.
87
The picture sketched by SKA (see n. 3) posits a radical difference between the methods of
redaction history and source analysis. However, in the field of the Hebrew Bible scholars
31
proposed as historical and objective. But which are the norms on which these
scholarly perceptions are based? How does one arrive at norms that are valid for
biblical literature? Literary and redactional criticism are not concerned with this
priori considerations. The upshot is that the presupposed norms mainly are those
of the more conservative strands of the western literary taste. As John BARTON
(1984: 28-29) puts it, “All literary studies must assume that even quite remote
cultures have some affinities with our own”.88 This kind of reasoning disregards
one point to some similar example & would one dare to impute, without proof,
to Moses a mistake which no writer has not committed ever?’90. Richard SIMON
mostly follow the critical model of M. NOTH, Exodus (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster,
1962); IDEM, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1948), 7-40. An
exception is the cautious treatment of T.B DOZEMAN, Commentary on Exodus (Eerdmans
Critical Commentary; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich., 2009); and see J. JEON, The call of
Moses and the Exodus Story: A Redactional-Critical Study in Exodus 3–4 and 5–13 (FAT: 60;
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 34-36, 43, 64-65.
88
J. BARTON, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study (London: Darton
Longman and Todd, 1984), 28-29.
89
E. VINAVER, The Rise of Romance (Oxford; Clarendon, 1971), 70-76, 85 (on brevity).
90
J. ASTRUC, Conjectures sur les mémoires originaux dont il paroit que Moyse s’est servi pour
composer le livre de la Genèse (Bruxelles: Fricx, 1753), 13: “A-t-on quelque example pareil à
32
argues that “It is probable that if onely one Authour had composed this Work he
approach, the historical, objective facade serves to hide the classicistic reader
stance that hardly allows for the literary way of a different culture. Since
include other cultures and other periods, and in particular ancient Near Eastern
critical discussion rather closely, I will refrain from frequent references, for the
sake of space.
citer, & ose-t-on bien sans preuve imputer à Moyse une faute qu’aucun Écrivain n’a jamais
commise?”. Other terms used are “de pareilles méprises”, “inexcusable”, “moins excusable”,
“choquantes”, “négligence’ (here, 16, 300-301, 359, 381). Transitions are regarded as “trop
eloignées & trop brusques’ (here, 21). In his view, one of the advantages of the documentary
hypothesis is that it “it acquits Moses of the neglects & even mistakes that one dares to impute
him, & which one bethinks to find in Genesis” (here, 431).
91
R. SIMON, A Critical History of the Old Testament (trans. anonymous; London: Davis,
1682), 37. EICHORN is not that different.
92
See in particular S.B. HEATH, Ways with Words. Language, Life, and Work in Communities
and Classrooms (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 18-57, 157-184.
33
that in Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Sumerian literary texts (and royal inscriptions)
In the tale of Moses’ call the split up of repetition patterns causes grave
difficulties. One has pointed out the doubling of the divine announcement in
Egypt. These verses, then, look like doublets. Accordingly, in the redaction-
critical analysis, the divine command to Moses to turn to the elders of Israel (v.
salvation (v. 8).95 However, contrary to this view, v. 16 does not form a perfect
93
U. CASSUTO, “Biblical and Canaanite Literatures”, in IDEM, Biblical and Oriental Studies (2
vols.; trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973-1975), 2.16-59, here 29-33; V.A.
HUROWITZ, “The Priestly Account of the Building of the Tabernacle,” JAOS 105 (1985),
21-30, here 26-28; and for Sumerian: A. BERLIN, Enmerkar and Ensuḫkešdanna: a Sumerian
Narrative Poem (Philadelphia: University Museum, 1979), 18-25; IDEM, “Shared Rhetorical
Figures in Biblical and Sumerian Literature”, JANES 10 (1978), 35-42; H.L.J. VANSTIPHOUT,
“Repetition and Structure in The Aratta Cycle: Their Relevance for the Orality Debate”, in
Mesopotamian Epic Literature: Oral or Aural? (ed. M.E. Vogelzang and H.L.J. Vanstiphout;
Lewiston: Mellen, 1992), 247-264.
94
B.W. ANDERSON, “From Analysis to Synthesis: The Interpretation of Genesis 1-11”, JBL
97 (1978), 23-39, here 35-36; R.W.L. MOBERLY, At the Mountain of God Story and Theology in
Exodus 32-34 (JSOTSup, 22; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983), 29-31.
95
BAENTSCH, Exodus, 21, 23; P. WEIMAR, Die Berufung des Mose: literaturwissenschaftliche
Analyse von Exodus 2,23-5,5 (OBO, 32; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag and Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), 124-125; M. GREENBERg, Understanding Exodus (New
York: Behrman, 1969), 101-102; GERTZ, Exoduserzählung (see n. 34), 282-290.
34
name.96 And second, the identity of the deity addressing Moses is only given as
“the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God
of Jacob” (v. 6). In v. 16 these partial identifications are replaced by full names:
“YHWH, the God of your fathers ... has appeared to me.” This proclamation
neither the speaker nor the target group are fully identified.97 The redaction-
critical reconstruction, then, creates more problems than it solves. The lacking
the divine decision in vv. 6–8 and which identify “my people” (v. 7) as “the
Israelites” (v. 9), and “my people, the Israelites” (v. 10).
the divine speech state that “my people in Egypt” ( ַע ִמּי ֲא ֶשׁר ְבּ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם, v. 7) is
96
G. FISCHER, Jahwe unser Gott: Sprache, Aufbau und Erzahltechnik in der Berufung des Mose
(Ex 3–4) (OBO, 91; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1989), 124, 127.
97
Did Moses have the knowledge necessary to identify the divine speaker and the target
group? This question is, of course, disputable. However, the parallel narrative explains that
Moses could not have known who was addressing him (6:2–3). Some cases of parallelism in
the Exodus narrative are discussed in section 3.2.
35
Israelites” ( ַע ִמּי ְבנֵ י־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל, v. 10). Thus the identity of the people to be delivered
is developed step by step, culminating in the full recognition in the final stage,
and the establishment of the close relationship to the speaking deity as “my
and his destination (Nippur, the sanctuary of Enlil, his father), which is
repeated along eight lines, covering four repetitive clauses. The construction is
mentioning the goddess’s name at the end of lines 11–12: “As a flood
descending upon (?) those foreign lands, powerful one of heaven and earth,
98
W.G.E. WATSON, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques (JSOTSup 26;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 336-337. Sumerian and Biblical “particularizing parallelism” is
discussed by BERLIN, “Shared Rhetorical Figures” (see n. 82), 35-38.
99
A.J. FERRARA, Nanna-Suen’s journey to Nippur (Studia Pohl, S.M., 2; Rome: Biblical
Institute Press, 1973), 44-45, 82-84. See also C. WILCKE, “Die Anfänge der akkadischen
Epen”, ZA 67 (1977), 153-216, here 175-77, 181-82, 187-88, 191-95.
100
t.4.07.2 in The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (Oxford: Faculty of Oriental
Studies), hyperlink: http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=c.4.07.2&display
36
In the Moses tale the structure of the delay pattern is based on repetition,
parallelism and substitution, in four steps, relating to the Israelites, the divine
speaker, and the Egyptian oppressor. At first, the distress of the Israelites is
thus are known.101 The second step states the divine decision to save the
suffering people, indicated only by pronominal suffix (ל ַה ִצּילוֹ,ְ v. 8). The third
step (v. 9) repeats the divine perception of the suffering, paralleling v. 7, but
substitutes “the Israelites” (9a) for “my people” (v. 7a). In this description two
terms are repeated: “their outcry” which has reached God (v. 9a//7bα), and the
visual perception (v. 9b//7a) which now has a concrete object: “the oppression
fourth and final stage repeats the theme of deliverance (v. 10b), but now centers
on Moses’ human role, and substitutes the full identity of the people to be
rescued: “to bring my people, the Israelites, out of Egypt”. The latter term
parallels and condenses the circumscription of step two (v. 8, “to deliver them
from the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land”).102 The
and Egyptians. Thus the opening stage highlights divine perception, whereas
the final stage specifies what is to be done; the opening stage mentions “my
people” and “its taskmasters” (v. 7), as against the full identification of “my
the identity of Moses’ interlocutor.103 The divine speech opens with the self-
presentation as “the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac,
and the God of Jacob” (v. 6), not mentioning the divine name, unlike the
divine self-presentation in Exod 6:2; Gen 15:7; 17:1; 28:13; 35:11. Thus Moses
has to ask for his interlocutor’s name.104 It would, however, be highly impolite,
of “a friend”:107 “When I come to the Israelites and say to them ‘The God of
Gen 46:4 could never form the example for Exod 3:8. The call pattern shared by Exod 3:6–12
and Gen 46:2–4 is formulaic; see my study “Orality and Language Usage” (see n. 1), section
2.2, n. 73.
103
A delay of a different kind is involved in the reference to YHWH in Gen 18:13–14.
104
As noted by FISCHER, Jahwe unser Gott (see n. 97), 146, in the context of a polytheistic
culture, the identity of the speaking deity is in need of clarification.
105
Moses’ fears are demonstrated by his hiding his face (v. 6).
106
The father: Gen 27:18, 32; the king: 2 Sam 1:8; and similarly: 1 Sam 17:58; 30:13.
38
your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what
shall I say to them?” (v. 13). The information provided in the divine response
ehyeh” (v. 14a), unlimited in its implications, but without going beyond
implication.108 The message to the Israelites comes in the second place: “Thus
shall you say to the Israelites, ‘Ehyeh has sent me to you’” (v. 14b). The
information Moses had asked for is only given in the next verse, repeating the
notion of sending: “Thus shall you speak to the Israelites: ‘YHWH, the God of
your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has
repetition and substitution: name and full title take the place of the enigmatic
eternity” (v. 15b).109 The divine answer, then, consists of three stages, the last of
107
See A. FERN, “‘I’m Asking For A Friend’: 46 Questions You Would Never Ask For
Yourself”; hyperlink: http://elitedaily.com/humor/questions-you-would-never-ask-for-
yourself/756367/, accessed 24.2.2015.
108
A semiotic analysis of this saying is offered by J.-P. SONNET, “Ehyeh asher ehyeh (Exodus
3:14): God’s “Narrative Identity” among Suspense, Curiosity, and Surprise”, Poetics Today 31
(2010), 331-351.
109
See section 3.2.
39
this configuration leads from hāyā to šālaḥ, and thus presents the divine name
as a promise of divine action,110 Ehyeh suggesting “I shall step in”.111 Only after
this gradual unfolding of the divine name and its implications does the
narrative proceed to the actual program for action (vv. 16–17), which thus
forms the fourth stage of the delay pattern. The narrative presents a step-by-
step transition from the opening of the divine proclamation (v. 8) to the
since long been recognized as a stylistic option in narrative.112 The tale of the
110
A.G. VAN DAALEN, “The Place where YHWH Showed Himself to Moses: A Study of the
Composition of Exodus 3”, in Voices From Amsterdam: A Modern Tradition of Reading Biblical
Narrative (ed. M. Kessler; SBLSS; Atlanta Scholars: Press, 1994), 133-144, here 140-141;
POLAK, “Theophany and Mediator” (see n. 83), 122-124.
111
For this interpretation, and in general, hāyā as a verb of motion, see F.H. POLAK,
“Hebrew hāyāh: Etymology, Bleaching, and Discourse Structure”, in Tradition and Innovation
in Biblical Interpretation: Studies Presented to Professor Eep Talstra on the Occasion of his Sixty-
Fifth Birthday (ed. W.Th. Van Peursen and J.W. Dyk; SSN 57; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 379-398,
here 395.
112
J.S. KSELMAN, “The Recovery of Poetic Fragments from the Pentateuchal Priestly Source”,
JBL 97 (1978), pp. 161-173, here 162-167; O. LORETZ, “Wortbericht-Vorlage und
Tatbericht- Interpretation im Schopfungsbericht Gn 1, 1–2, 4a”, UF 11 (1977), 279-287; J.L.
40
(19:3–6)114. Thus we should not disregard the tricolon in the description of the
I have marked, yes marked the plight of my people in Egypt// and have heeded their outcry
conclusion: ִכּי יָ ַד ְע ִתּי,116 as the third term of the tricolon.117 The largely poetic
KUGEL, The Idea of Biblical Poetry (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), 59-62; Verse in
Ancient Near Eastern Prose (ed. J.C. de Moor and W.G.E. Watson; AOAT, 42; Kevelaer:
Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993); F.I. ANDERSEN, “What
Biblical Scholars Might Learn from Emily Dickinson”, in Words Remembered, Texts Renewed:
Essays in Honour of J.F.A. Sawyer (ed. J. Davies et al.; JSOTSup, 156; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1995), 52-74. For the Mesha stela see: F.I. ANDERSEN, “Moabite Syntax”,
Orientalia 35 (1966), 81–120, here 85-88; J.C. DE MOOR, “Narrative Poetry in Canaan”, UF
20 (1988), 149-177.
113
See Gen 2:5–9 (cf. 7:11; 8:2); and C.A. BRIGGS, “The Poem of the Fall of Man”, Reformed
Quarterly Review 32 (1885), 311-333; F.H. POLAK, “Poetic Style and Parallelism in the
Creation Account (Gen. 1.1–2.3)”, in Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition (ed. H.
Reventlow and Y. Hoffman; JSOTSup 319; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 2-31,
here 22, 28.
114
HOLZINGER, Exodus, 64, 66-67 (modeled on Deut 32:11); NOTH, Exodus, 157.
115
In this verse כיis to be taken as deictic marker, like Ugaritic k. For ידעas “paying
attention”, see GESENIUS, Thesaurus, 2.570.
116
The triad ידע-שמע- ראהappears in Isa 6:9; Lev 5:1; Deut 29:3; Neh 6:16. The collocation
ראה- ידעfor divine perception: Ps 31:8; 138:6; and in general, in poetry: Deut 33:9; Isa 5:19;
and passim; in prose narrative: Gen 18:21; 1 Sam 12:17; 14:38; and passim. The collocation
41
use of ַמ ְכאֹב118 is in keeping with the prosody of this logos. The use of
parallelism suits the solemn tone of this proclamation, and is matched by the
By the same token one notes the tricola in the narrative description:
1:7 וַ יִּ ְרבּוּ וַ יַּ ַע ְצמוּ ִבּ ְמאֹד ְמאֹד// וּבנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ָפּרוּ וַ יִּ ְשׁ ְרצוּ
ְ
אָרץ א ָֹתם
ֶ וַ ִתּ ָמּ ֵלא ָה
But the Israelites were fertile and prolific, and multiplied and increased very greatly,119
1:12 וְ ֵכן יִ ְפר ֹץ// ֵכּן יִ ְר ֶבּה// וְ ַכ ֲא ֶשׁר יְ ַענּוּ אֹתוֹ
But the more they were oppressed, the more they increased, and the more they spread
שמע- ראהin poetry: Num 24:15; Isa 33:13; and passim. The third colon is dismissed by
WEIMAR, Berufung (see n. 95), 40-41, criticized by GERTZ, Exoduserzählung (see n. 34),
286-287.
117
On this “abc pattern” see M. WEISS, The Bible from Within: The Method of Total
Interpretation (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984), 251-255; T. COLLINS, Line-Forms in Hebrew Poetry
(Studia Pohl, S.M., 7; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978), 223-25.
118
Note Ps 32:10; 38:18; 69:27; Isa 53:3–4; Jer 30:15; 45:3; 51:8; Job 33:19; Eccl 1:8; 2:23;
Lam 1:12, 18; 2 Chr 6:29.
119
For the junction ( ַרב וְ ָעצוּםExod 1:9) see Amos 5:12; Isa 8:7 (inherently connected to the
Assyrian crisis); 53:12; Joel 2:2, 11; Mic 4:3; Zech 8:22; Ps 35:13; 135:10; Prov 7:26; and in
prose: Num 32:1; and as junction: Deut 7:1; in the inverse order: 9:14; 26:5; see E. BLUM,
“Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus”, in Abschied vom Jahwisten: die
Komposition des Hexateuch in der jungsten Diskussion (ed. J.C. Gertz et al.; BZAW 315;
Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2002), 119-156, here 148. The pair רבהand פרהis frequent in the
Creation-Flood sequence (Gen 1:22, 28; 8:17; 9:1, 7), and the El Shadday blessings (17:20;
28:3; 35:11; 48:4; and similarly 47:27); further only in Lev 26:9; Ezek 36:11; and in Jer 3:16;
23:3. The sound play suggests a poetic origin.
42
(contrast, for example 16:1). By the same token, the recurrent time indication
“on this day” is not to be compared with “that very same day”:120 it is precisely
“in front of the mountain”. These indications tie the third line to its
predecessor, with the mention of “the wilderness of Sinai”. In this line one
notes the parallelism of the contrasting verbs of motion ( וַ יָּ בֹאוּ, )וַ יִּ ְסעand the
indications of place. The mention of “the wilderness of Sinai” ties this line to
the opening (epiphora). Thus the split up into a number of strata runs counter
120
In chronological systems: Gen 7:13; Exod 12:41, 51; Ezek 2:3; 24:2; 40:1; in ritual
prescription: 17:23, 26; Exod 12:17; Exod 23:14, 21, 28–30. See also Deut 32:48; Josh 5:11;
10:27.
43
to the stylistic findings. The opening establishes the general framework, and
thus serves as “heading motto”, following which the narrative indicates the
journey and the encampment in the solemn style of repetition and parallelism.
uttered by Zipporah when warding off the divine attack against Moses.121 This
On the level of the microtext, then, the stylistic patterns of the Exodus
narrative, as in biblical prose in general, are far richer, and complex than
allowed for by the presuppositions of source, form and redaction criticism. The
121
See POLAK, “Theophany and Mediator” (see n. 83), 125-126; AVISHUR, “Demonic” (see n.
83), 153-154.
122
Another case of the expanded colon is Samson’s saying (Judg 15:16). WATSON (Traditional
Techniques, [see n. 111], 259), proposes a similar analysis for Judg 4:18.
123
Since the expression “bridegoom of blood” fails to make sense, I adhere to the derivation
from Akkadian ḫatānu “to protect”, proposed by J. BLAU, “Ḥatan Damīm”, Tarbitz 26 (1957),
1-3 (Hebrew with summary in English).
44
have been troubled by the assertion “A long time after that, the king of Egypt
died” (2.23aα), detached as it is from the sequence that speaks of the fate of the
Israelites who “were groaning under the bondage and cried out” (v. 23aβ).
WELLHAUSEN solves this problem by means of the hypothesis that the note on
the king’s death was originally connected to the command to Moses: “go back
to Egypt, for all the men who sought to kill you are dead” (4:19).124 Moreover,
Moses’ declaration that he intends to return (v. 18). However, the supposed
If the narrative would not have mentioned any divine message to Moses, the
present announcement would come out of the blue. It is true that the divine
call in the Abraham tale likewise lacks all preparations, but this case is different.
Unlike the preceding pericope concerning Abraham tale which lacks all details
apart from the family connections, the Moses narrative details the birth of the
124
J. WELLHAUSEN, Die Composition des Hexateuchs (Skizzen und Vorarbeiten 2; Berlin:
Reimer, 1885), 71; BLUM, “Literarische Verbindung” (see n. 119), 123, n. 20, with further
references. The repetition of the note on Pharaoh’s death (LXX 4:19) probably represents
secondary adaptation, like the harmonistic expansions in e.g., 6:20; 8:1–2, 12–13, 18, 28; 9:8–
9; 10:4, 6, 12; 11:3, 10.
125
One notes the criticism of BERNER, Exoduserzählung (see n. 39), 57-58. This problem has
been recognized, but not solved, by WELLHAUSEN (see n. 124).
45
hero, his exploits in Egypt, his flight to Midian and his acceptance by the
family of the Midianite priest. Thus the sudden apperance of the divine
narrative. Moreover, in this reconstruction the divine address does not include
any call to action, although action is the main point. Thus the scholarly
indispensible.
be viewed as an encouragement, since Moses did not utter any formal assent to
death which is not directly connected to any theme in its context fits a well-
(RASHBAM):126 the opening of the narrative mentions data which will not play a
anticipatory preparation, “—שלא תתמהin order that you may not wonder”.
126
J. JACOBS, “Rabbi Joseph Kara as an Exegete of Biblical Narrative: Discovering the
Phenomenon of Exposition”, JSQ 19 (2012), 73-89; G. BRIN, Studies in the Biblical Exegesis of
R. Joseph Qara (Tel Aviv: Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies, 1990), 86-90. Not all notes of
this type could be viewed as introductory exposition.
46
history. However, we are not disregard the particular stylistics and rhetorics of
complexity theory. So what can we say about the narrative concerning the
only part of the sections in the tales of the exodus and the conclusion of the
Notably, the IES is not found in the tale of the forced labor and the distress in
Egypt (Exod 1).127 In the tale of Moses’ call the IES does only appear in a
conclusion of the covenant at Mount Sinai (Exod 19:9b–10a,128 20–25), and the
second revelation to Moses (34:1–28). The IES register in the tale of the first
127
One notes the syntactic construction of 1:21, with ויהי כי, followed by a wayyiqtol. See J.
JOOSTEN, “Diachronic Aspects of Narrative wayhi in Biblical Hebrew”, JNSL 35 (2009),
43-61.
128
The repetitive resumption of v. 9a/10a was already noted by RASHBAM. In v. 9 one notes
the IES clause structure with 4 ELC’s and the complex subordination ( ְבּ ַד ְבּ ִרי- ַבּ ֲעבוּר יִ ְשׁ ַמע ָה ָעם
ִ These features come together with the epanalepsis of 9a/10a.
)ע ָמְּך.
47
complaints.129 In some these sections the role of the redaction or later narrator
has been well-known, and with regard to 5:1–6:1 a Persian era origin has
stylistic analysis is a helpful tool in diachronic-genetic study. This tool is all the
style. 7:8–13 (“P”, the introductory sign of the serpents), 9:1–12 (the pestilence
of the livestock and the boils), 9:13–26 (the first part of the plague of the hail),
particular one notes the role of the plague of the hail which, as seventh plague,
forms first high point in the series of the plagues,131 but is introduced by a
passage that points to another seventh item, the pestilence (9:14–15). One
129
See GREENBERG, Understanding Exodus (see n. 92), 148-149.
130
See GERTZ, Exoduserzählung (see n. 34), 343-344; BERNER, Exoduserzählung (see n. 39),
97, 137-149; H. UTZSCHNEIDER and W. OSWALD, Exodus 1–15 (IEKAT; Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 2013), 1590160.
131
S.E. LOEWENSTAMM, “An Observation on the Source-Criticism of the Plague-Pericope”,
VT 24 (1974), 374-378; see also IDEM, Exodus Tradition (see n. 84), 94-96, 103; S.B NOEGEL,
“The Significance of the Seventh Plague”, Bib 76 (1995), 532-539.
48
underlining of the ensuing theodicy (v. 16; 10:1–2, all IES).132 However, the
poetic tradition presents us with a pestilence as seventh and last plague (Ps
78:50),133 alongside and conflated with the death of the first-born (v. 51). This
that two other plagues are related to the pestilence: the boils, which involves
symptoms that are comparable to the pestilence though far less grievous, and
directly (v. 48, MT ל ָבּ ָרד,ַ but the lethal epidemic is indicated by Symmachus’
ֶ 134 It is highly significant, then, that the plagues preceding the hail
λοιµῷ/)ד ֶבר.
are close to the “pestilence” theme, as “pestilence on the livestock” hitting the
animals, and with the boils as less grievous emulation of the pestilence.135
Notably, the passages describing these two plagues are both couched in the
IES, which is also much in evidence in the first sections of the plague of the
132
So, for instance, NOTH, Exodus, 80.
133
LOEWENSTAMM, “Observation”.
134
In Ps 78:48 the reading λοιµῷ (Syrohexapla: lmawtānā) is matched by ל ְר ָשׁ ִפים,ָ “pestilence”,
like the parallelism in Hab 3:5 (similarly Deut 32:34), as discussed by LOEWENSTAMM, . The
reading ַל ָבּ ָרדreflects an adaptation to the description of the hail hitting both men and animals
(Exod 9:19, 22, 25; unlike Ps 105:33).
135
The pairing of the plague of “boils” (9:9, ) ְשׁ ִחין פּ ֵֹר ַח ֲא ַב ְע ֻבּעֹתand the pestilence of hte
livestock is noted by M. GREENBERG, “The Redaction of the Plague Narrative in Exodus”, in
Near Eastern Studies in Honor of W. F. Albright (ed. H. Goedicke; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
UP, 1971), 243-252, here 246.
49
hail. However, the closing section of this plague adheres to the lean, brisk style
hail plague itself, and the epiphanic fire involved (9:24). Thus the first high
activity that could hardly be covered by simple solutions in the spirit of source
criticism.
description of the inception of the march (12:38–39, 42; 13:3–10, 17–19, 21–
22), the “P” (or Dtr) sections in the episodes of, the Sea of Reeds and the
manna (12:14:1–4, 8–10*, 15–18, 22–23, 27*–29; 16:1–3, 6–12, 15b–21a, 22–
26, 32–35). in addition one notes the Jethro tale (ch. 18), part of the last
sections of the Book of the Covenant (23:1–19), and parts of the second
136
Type-2 intrusions are indicated by the strikingly large number of subordinate clauses,
including many clauses in complex subordination.
137
See n. 48 above.
50
two passages are exceptional. First, the passage of the lice, commonly ascribed
to “P” because of the parallels with the section of the serpents,138 is couched in
the VoLB type-1 style. This finding is surprising, but lacks all significance
since the unit at stake is too small for analysis (20 clauses only).
Second, earlier source criticism ascribes the tale of Jethro (Exod 18) to the
Elohistic stratum, but in light of its syntactic-stylistic profile this tale in its
tale reflects the same kind of rationalization as the Deuteronomic recast of the
appointment of the elders (Deut 1:8–17), and contrasts strongly with the
11:16–17, 24–30; VoLB-1). One could speculate that the Jethro tale in Exodus
been attributed to secondary sections reveal a style that is quite different from
the elaborate style of the redactional episodes discussed in the present section.
The VoLB style characterizes such units as the tale of the forced labor, the first
call of Moses, and the Sinai pericope which thus represent the oral-epic
platform.
138
So also GREENBERG, “Plague Narrative” (see n. 136), 245-248.
51
This is not the place for a discussion of the covenant ceremonies at Mount
embodied by the “little tablet” (ṭuppum ṣeḫrum), whereas the agreement itself is
committed to writing in the “big tablet” (ṭuppum rabûm). These documents also
ceremonies, like the doubling of the ceremonies near the Israelite camp at the
foot of the mountain (24:4–8) and in the divine abode (vv. 9–11).140
indicates that this narrative reflects an oral-epic platform, that includes all
stages of the tales of the exodus, the wanderings and the conclusion of the
139
See D. CHARPIN, “Les Representants de Mari à Babylone (I)”, ARM XXVI, 139-205, here
144 ;IDEM, “Un traité entre Zimri-Lim de Mari et Ibāl-pī-Il II d’Ešnunna,” in Marchands,
Diplomates et Empéreurs. Études sur la civilisation mésopotamienne offertes à Paul Garelli (ed. D.
Charpin and F. Joannès; Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1991) 139-166, and
my study “Covenant and Mari Texts” (see n. 86), 123-125.
140
Covenant and Mari Texts” (see n. 86), 125.
52
covenant at mount Sinai. The VoLB-2 style prevails in the episodes of the
plagues, the rescue near the Sea of Reeds, the wanderings through the desert,
own right. I do not claim authorial unity.141 On the contrary, within this
platform one recognizes the differences regarding Moses’ sons Gershom (2:22;
18:3) Eliezer (18:4 only), and the identity of the priest of Midian, Moses’
Jether (4:18).144 I do claim, however, that the tales in this style all represent one
and the same narrative platform. This platform which came into being in the
oral performance, was used by various different narrators, and in the end
provided the plot structure, and the stylistic norms, for the written
These data necessarily raise the question what it is that keeps the ESN
141
Notably, the parallel tales of Gen 12:10–20 and Gen 20 both are couched in the VoLB–2
style, and both have their place in the current plot sequence, although they ultimately
represent different versions of the same theme.
142
This name recurs in the narrative of Hobab ben Reuel (Num 10:29), in a passage which
reveals the type-1 style like 20:10–22.
143
So also 18:1–12 (IES). Notably, Jethro’s name is not written with final he, unlike שלמה
(and 2 , יריחהKgs 16:34).
144
See most recently C. BERNER, Exoduserzählung (see n. 39), 123-126; iDEM, “.”,
53
number of overarching themes, and first and formeost the theme of the
theophany, in tandem with the growth of Moses’ insight in the ways of divine
overlord.146 Both stages are indicated by the root עבד. This term appears in the
description of the forced labor, as “imposed ... labors” (1:13, )וַ יַּ ֲע ִבדוּand “harsh
labor” (v. 14, ) ַבּ ֲעב ָֹדה ָק ָשׁה, but also in the representation of the service of God:
that he may worship me (( ”)וְ יַ ַע ְב ֵדנִ י4:23).147 The transition is likewise expressed
divine acts in Egypt and the relationship to the divine overlord (19:4; 20:2–3).
geographic symbolism of the Nile and Sea of Reeds, as water, and Sinai, as
145
For the importance of this theme see J.P. FOKKELMAN, “Exodus”, in The Literary Guide to
the Bible (ed. R. Alter and F. Kermode; Cambridge MA: Belknap, 1987), 56-65, here 63.
146
J.D. LEVENSON, “Exodus and Liberation”, in IDEM, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament and
Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies (Louisville, KT: Westminster/John
Knox Press, 1993), 127-59, here 142-144.
147
So also 9:1, 13 (IES); 10:3, 8, 11, 26; 12:31 (all VoLB); as against the subjection to Egypt
(14:5, 12; 20:2, all VoLB). The phrase ( ֲע ָב ַדי ֵהםLev 25.42, 55) has been commented upon by
E.L. GREENSTEIN, “Book of Exodus”, in The HarperCollins Study Bible (ed. W.A. Meeks; San
Francisco: Harper-Collins, 1993), 86
54
The central role of water in the ESN is well-known.148 The principal issue is
the river that gives Egypt life, the Nile, into which the male babies are to be
thrown (1:22) , and from which Moses is taken by Pharaoh’s daughter (2:3–6).
The first plague turns the river which into blood (7:17–21), while in the
second plague it is the source of the frogs that cover the entire country (8:1–
2).149 A second main point is the Sea of Reeds which the fleeing Israelites have
to cross in the face of the hot pursuit by the Egyptians, who in the end are
drowned in the sea. Michael FISHBANE has pointed to the structural connection
that links this scene to the drowning of the male babies, and turns it into a
command to throw all male babies into the Nile is followed by the tale of
148
P. SABO, “Drawing out Moses: Water as a Personal Motif of the Biblical Character”, in
Thinking of Water in the Early Second Temple Period (ed. E. Ben Zi and C. Levin; BZAW 461;
Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2014), 409-436.
149
D. EDELMAN, “The Nile in Biblical Memory”, in BEN ZI and LEVIN, Thinking of Water (see
n. 148), 77-102, here 83-85.
150
See M. FISHBANE, Text and Texture (New York: Schocken, 1979), 73, 75.
55
Moses, whom his mother saves by hiding him in the reed (!) of the river, where
into a dry way through which the fugitives escape, whereas their pursuers are
drowned, the brackish water is made sweet and fit for drinking, and the rock
In my view, however, this is not the only point. The tale of Massah-and-
Meribah links the water theme to the divine mountain: “and take along the
maṭṭe with which you struck the Nile, and set out. See, I will be standing there
before you on the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock and water will issue from it, and
the people will drink” (17:5–6). As I have argued in an earlier study, water and
mountain (or rock) appear together a typical, often symbolic landscape (Jer
46:18; Ps 46:3–4; 98:8; 104:10), and thus form a thought pattern.151 The
connection is made explicit in the psalm “The sea saw them and fled, Jordan
ran backward, mountains skipped like rams, hills like sheep” (Ps 114:3–4;
echoed in vv. 5–6).152 Like the poet the narrator makes an explicit link that
151
See also Isa 54:9–10; Deut 8:7; 33:19; Isa 7:19; 10:26; 11:9; 17:13; 18:7; 25:10; 30:25; 32:2;
33:16; 57:5; Jer 18:14; Amos 9:13; Joel 4:18; Mic 1:4; 7:12; Hab 3:3, 6, 8–10; Job 22:24; Prov
30:19; Dan 11:45; as echoes of the Massah-and-Meribah tale: Num 20:8, 10–11; Deut 8:15;
Isa 48:21; Ps 105:41; Neh 9:15. For parallels in Ugaritic, Sumerian and Akkadian poetry see
my study, “Water, Rock and Wood: Structure and Thought Pattern in the Exodus
Narrative”, JANES 25 (1997), 19-42, here 34-38.
152
The same contrast figures in Exod 15: 17; Ps 78:5:14–15, 3–54; in the flood narrative:
Gen 7:19, 20; 8:4–5; and in creation poetry: Ps 104:6; Prov 8:24–25; Isa 40:12; and as
metaphor: Ps 36:7; Isa 42:15.
56
issue from it” (Exod 17:5–6). This configuration reflects an underlying thought
which takes us from the Sea of Reeds to the revelation of Mount Sinai, linking
chapters 14—15 to chapter 19. This subcycle contains two tales of thirst and
in chapter 15, vv. 22–26, and at Rephidim, ch. 17, vv. 1–7.153 The characteristic
features, the elements מטה, “staff”, water (or in the same field, יאֹר, Nile) and
צור, “rock”, form a triad that keeps recurring. I have already noted their
So he cried out to YHWH, and YHWH showed him a piece of wood; he threw it into the
The epiphora of מיםis a poetic element. The elements water and wood appear
153
The narrative of Num 20:1–13, which is not to be studied in the present framework, is
couched in the intricate style (47 clauses): 0-1 ELC 29.79 %; hypotaxis 25.53 %; MNP 60.34;
complex hypotaxis 12.77 %.
57
again in the scene at Elim, with its twelve wells and seventy psalm trees (v. 27).
pair גבעה, hill, and מטה: “Tomorrow I will station myself on the top of the hill
which was put under Moses in order to support his arms, represents the same
semantic field as the rock and the hill. One notes the dimensional contrast with
the Marah tale: Moses threw the “wooden object” into the well (15:25, )וַ יַּ ְשׁ ֵלְך,
but at Rephidim “whenever Moses held up his arm ( יָ דוֹ... )יָ ִרים, Israel prevailed”
(v. 11). The upward movement of “held up” is matched by the ascent to the
hill (v. 10, ) ָעלוּ רֹאשׁ ַהגִּ ְב ָעה. In the tales of Marah and Elim we have the pair
water and wood (15:25, 27), with a downward movement, leads on to the triad
water, staff (wood) and rock in the tale of Massah-and-Meribah, and the pair
staff and hill, with upward movement (17:10–11) in the Rephidim story. The
Rephidim, and thus forms the link that ties the three tales together in one
chain.
Elements from the triad appear likewise in the Song of Moses: the water is
mentioned, together with a verb meaning “to hurl” in the opening: “Horse and
driver he has hurled into the sea (( ”) ָר ָמה ַביָּ ם15:1; similarly vv. 4, 8, 10). The
element stone appears in the simile: They went down into the depths like a stone
58
(v. 5, cf. v. 16); in the closure one notes the mountain theme: “You brought
them and planted them in the mountain of your possession (( ”) ְבּ ַהר נַ ֲח ָל ְתָךv.
17). One also notes these elements in the parallel narrative, as Moses is ordered
to lift the staff , and to hold out his arm over the sea (14:16, similarly v. 21).
154
ָ is matched by ( יָ ִרים17:11).155
The upward movement ה ֵרם,
in the episodes of the conclusion of the covenant: “Moses, now went up ()ע ָלה
ָ
to the deity, so YHWH called to him from the mountain” (ן־ה ָהר ִ 19:3; so also v.
ָ מ,
20). And in a downward movement: “Moses came down from the mountain to
the people and warned the people to stay pure, and they washed their clothes”
(v. 14). The washing of the clothes implies the use of water or some liquid (so
also v. 10).
The scene of the ritual ceremonies contains similar elements. The liquid is
represented by the blood (24:6, 8), and the “stone” by the “twelve pillars”
was to be given (v. 12) and, most significantly, by the substance that “was the
154
It is to be admitted that these verses belong to the IES segments (see n. 35), but since
these sections continue the narrative platform, they are to be taken into account.
155
In the tale of the manna the triad is not represented, unless one counts as such the
allusions to water in the promise “I will rain down ()מ ְמ ִטיר
ַ bread for you from the sky” (16:4),
the appearance of “a fall of dew” (vv. 13–14) and the depiction of the manna as “as fine as
frost” (v. 14, ) ַדּק ַכּ ְכּפֹר.
59
likeness of a pavement of sapphire” in the divine abode (v. 10, ְכּ ַמ ֲע ֵשׂה ִל ְבנַ ת
Thus the transition from the Sea of Reeds to Mount Sinai reflect a symbolic
landscape that comprises water (sea), staff (or wood), and mountain (or stone):
element
water ים במצוֹֹלת,ים סוף מים מים — — דם
wood מטה — עץ מטה מטה — —
rock — כמו אבן צור,חרב ,גבעה ההר ָבּ ַאגָּ נֹת,מצבה
אבן
throw/lift הרם ירדו,ֻט ְבּעוּ וישלך — עלו,ירים עלה ויעל, v. 13
ירד
psalm celebrating the springs in the mountains also alludes to the trees (Ps
104:10-12).156 The element עץ, “wood” or “tree”, out of which the staff is made,
often appears in collocation with water, such as the “tree planted by streams of
water” (Ps. 1:3),157 the primeval garden (Gen 2:5–10), and the divine promise of
the exodus from Babylon (Isa 41:18–19). Wood and stone occur together in
156
Similarly 2 Kgs 19:23–24 // Isa 37:24–25; Isa 55:10–12; Ezek 47:1–2, 8–9, 12; also note
Hos 10:7–8; Ezek 17:3–5; Ps 65:10–13; 72:3–6; 148:7–9. The role of these patterns in the
Elijah-Elisha narratives and the tale of the crossing of the Jordan is touched upon in my study
“Water, Rock and Wood” (see n. 151), 41.
157
So likewise, e.g., Jer 17:7–8; 31:12; Ezek 17:5; Isa 1:29–30; 44:14.
60
the fable of the trees (Judg 9:7–13; note also the liquids wine and oil). In
addition one notes the lexical association of wood and stone (אבן// ;עץJer. 2:27;
wood in the exodus narrative: the occasion on which Moses’s staff was turned
into a divine maṭṭe, is the scene of the burning bush (Exod 3:2), likewise in the
semantic field of “wood”. Hence the entire tale of the exodus from Egypt and
wood, and rock, in a picture that opposes the Nile and the Sea of Reeds to
Mount Sinai, and in which the wood, as burning bush or as divine staff, fulfills
a mediating role. One could even construct the Ark, built out of wood after
The symbolism implied by this picture has two sides. On the one hand the
opposition that places Nile and Sea of Reeds over against the mountain of the
revelation, the צוּר, indicates the contrast between the service to Pharaoh and
the worship of God. On the other hand, the healing of the water and the
creation of the well with the help of a piece of wood or a staff connotes the
158
In poetry cf. Isa 60:17; Zech 5:4; Qoh 10:9; so also in elevated prose (2 Kgs 19:18 = Isa
37:19; Jer 3:9; Ezek 20:32; Deut 4:28; 28:36, 64; 29:16; 2 Kgs 18:1); and in “technical” prose:
2 Sam 5:11; 2 Kgs 12:13; 22:6; 1 Chron 22:15; 2 Chron 9:10; 34:11.
61
Moses”.159 This view is motiviated by the insight that the birth tale, the stories
of Moses’ first exploits in Egypt and Midian (2:11–17) and the victory over
Pharaoh and his army (11:1–15:21) belong to the sphere of heroic narrative,
like the tales of Gideon and Samson. However, the ESN highlights another
kind of activity: Moses is not sent out to deliver battle, but to confront Pharaoh
verbally, and to convey the divine command to let the Israelites go free. The
power displayed by Moses vis-à-vis Pharaoh is the power of YHWH rather than
human heroism (14:13–14; 15:7–12).160 Still, Moses’ role is not restricted to the
conveyance of the divine demand. In a functional vista, his task includes the
mediation of signs of divine power to Pharaoh and the Israelites alike, the
transmittance of divine orders to the Israelites in order to prepare then for the
exodus and the march into the desert. In the desert he mediates both divine
guidance and the ceremonies and instructions relating to the covenant on the
159
G.W. COATS, Moses, Heroic Man, Man of God (JSOT 57; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1988); J. VAN SETERS, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers
(Kampen: Pharos Kok, 1994).
160
See WEIMAR, Berufung des Mose (see n. 95), 104-105.
62
one hand, and on the other hand he transmits the Israelite messages to the
deity.
But mediation is too limited a term for the description of the role of
Moses.161 The revelation at the burning bush places him in a divine orbit, and,
limited though it be, provides him with fundamental insights into name and
salvation, entailing divine succour and commission “I-will-be with you” (אהיה
)עמךand “ I-will-be has sent me to you” ()אהיה שלחני אליכם. Thus the certainty
the divine name, rather than the name itself, are revealed to Moses.
The immense divine powers involved in the rescue of the Israelites, are
displayed in the “signs and marvels” by which Pharaoh is brought to his knees,
at the Sea of Reeds. The healing power of God, revealed in the saying “I
YHWH— your healer” (15:26).162 The events are there for all to see, but the
Sinai, where all the people witness the theophany, Moses is depicted as
conducting a dialogue with the deity (19:19b). Profound insights are granted
161
See P. MACHINIST, “The Meaning of Moses”, HDB 27 (1998), 14-15.
162
In 15:26 the term ר ְֹפ ֶאָךin all likelihood echoes ʾIlu’s epithet rpʾu in the Ugaritic hymn RS
24.252:1; see D. PARDEE, Les textes para-mythologiques de la 24e champagne (1961) (Ras
Shamra-Ougarit 4; Paris: CNSR, 1988), 76; ʾIlu’s role as healer is discussed by S.E.
LOEWENSTAMM, “On the Theology of the Keret Epic”, in IDEM, From Babylon to Canaan
(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992), 185-200, here 197-199.
63
to Moses in his intercession for the Israelites in the wake of apostasy in the
golden calf episode. Forgiveness is only one element of the revelation of “all
my goodness”, that will “pass before you” and the proclamation of “the name
YHWH, and the grace that I grant and the compassion that I show” (33:17–33).
The high point of this revelation is the proclamation of the divine attributes
stature is his request to be shown the divine kāḇōḏ (33:18), whereas at first he
Thus the education and moral growth of Moses forms a basic pattern in the
and failure.164 A first sign of this sequence is Pharaoh’s decision to oppress the
Israelites by ever increasing measures that all fail to attain their goal. His
command to kill the male babies at their birth is thwarted by the midwives
who point to the vitality of the Israelite women, who give birth before any
163
The relationship between the revelation in Exod 33–34 and the call narrative is discussed
in my “Theophany and Mediator”, 143-146.
164
See D.J.A. CLINES, The Theme of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup 10; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1978), 45-47, 106-112, 117; and my studies “Oral Substratum in the
Abraham-Jacob Narrative” (see n. 1), sections 1c-d; “Orality and Language Usage” (see n. 1),
section 1.2.
64
action is possible. The ukase to throw every male into the Nile leads to the
hiding of Moses in the place where Pharaoh’s daughter is to find and rescue
him, thus keeping him safe from her father’s commands. When Moses turns
into an independent agent, his first action is a failure: his killing of the
Egyptian compels him to flee into the desert. His first confrontation with
Pharaoh ends in disaster. When the Israelites finally leave Egypt, they wander
fir three days in the desert with nothing to drink. When the recurring
problems of shortages in water and food are resolved, and hostile attacks
repelled, the Israelites encamp in front of Mount Sinai and prepare to meet the
deity. But when Moses leads them out they retreat in face of the theophanic
revelation, and request Moses to mediate the divine commands. Initially the
Israelites initiate the worship of the golden calf. This apostasy leads to severe
punishments, at the hand of Moses and the Levites, and only arduous
mountain, although the two tablets are now made and inscribed by Moses.
Thus the overall rhythm of the narrative is based on a series of failures that
remark that the flawed achievement appears likewise in the P narrative which
leads up to the installation of the priests for service and the initiation of the
65
altar by the divine fire (Lev 8–9), but continues with the offering of “strange”,
unholy “fire” by Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, who are instantly killed
(10:1–5).
but flawed, is in a sense similar to the sequence of gain and loss in patriarchal
Though both frameworks are based in migration and journey, the tales of
Jacob and Joseph ultimately reunite the patriarchal family in Egypt, whereas
the ESN leads the Israelites out of Egypt to Mount Sinai, in order to establish
the covenant with the divine saviour which in a sense is the ocunterpart of the
promise to the patriarchs. Thus the ESN and the Abraham-Jacob narrative
form two panels of a diptych. The hinge which unites the two panels is the
narrative of Moses’ birth, flight and call to prophetic leadership (Exod 2–4).
Ron HENDEL has pointed to a large number of common features, including not
only the birth theme, the flight, the scene at the well and the marriage with the
host’s daughter, but also the role as shepherd at the host’s service, the meeting
with the brother and the dangerous encounter with the deity.165 These shared
165
R. HENDEL, The Epic of the Patriarch: The Jacob Cycle and the Narrative Traditions of Canaan
and Israel (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1987), 137-151. HENDEL (here, 163-165) places the
66
pattern. The Hoseanic diatribe confirms the connection between the two
(Hos 12:13), but also valid for Moses. A second parallel-contrast is migration
theme, which poises the way Israel was brought out of Egypt, by prophetic
leadership, over against Jacob’s flight (v. 13).167 A highly notable point is the
implied contrast between the revelation to Jacob at the Jabbok and the divine
call to Moses: “He strove with an angel and prevailed — he (the other) wept
and implored him; at Bethel he (Jacob) met him, there he talked with him”
(Hos 12:5). The contrast is heightened by the reference to the divine name,
parallels in the oral tradition, but does not consider their function in the unfolding of a large
scale narrative platform. Not all shared features are explained by the the traditional theme of
the “fugitive hero” (like Idrimi of Alalakh), for which see E.L. GREENSTEIN, “Biblical
Interpretation in the light of its ancient cultural context”, Studies in Jewish Education 9 (2004),
61-73. The thesis that the Jacob stories have influenced the Moses tales is defended by A. DE
PURY, “Situer le cycle de Jacob: quelques réflexions, vingt-cinq ans plus tard”, in Studies in the
Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History (ed. A. Wénin; BETL 155; Leuven: Leuven
University Press, 2001), 213-241; see also D.M. CARR, “Genesis in Relation to the Moses
Story: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives”, ibidem, 273-295, here, 282, n. 33.
166
See E. BLUM, “Hosea 12 und die Pentateuchüberlieferugen”, in Die Erzväter in der
biblischen Tradition. Festschrift für Matthias Köckert (ed. A.C. Hagedorn and H. Pfeiffer; BZAW
400; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2009), 291-321, here 310-318, with further references.
167
The reference to the “messenger” and the encounter at Bethel in 12:5 suggest a subtext
regarding the divine guidance promised at Beth-el (Gen 28:13–15). The radical depreciation
of Jacob is also implied by the “false balances” ()מֹאזְ נֵ י ִמ ְר ָמה, alluding to the עקב/ ִמ ְר ָמהtheme
in the Jacob narrative (note v. 4, and ְשׂ ֵדה ֲא ָרם, v. 13); one also notes the game with the
double meaning of אוןin vv. 4, 9.
67
“Yet YHWH, the God of Hosts, his name is YHWH” (v. 6).168 The use of the term
זִ ְכרוֹ, “his name”, is extremely meaningful in light of the fact that the entire
declaration from the proclamation of the divine name in Moses’ call tale.
Thus I concur with Konrad Schmid and Jan Gertz in the recognition of the
relative independence of patriarchal narrative and the ESN. Both narratives are
narratives are two panels in a diptych, with the Moses tale as hinge.
168
The divine praise in 12:6 contrasts the divine overlord with the “messenger” of v. 5 (like
the double contrast in vv. 7, 8–9, 10), and is not to be viewed as secondary.