The Sea Narrative Revisited

The Sea Narrative Revisited
Author(s): Marc Vervenne

Source: Biblica , 1994, Vol. 75, No. 1 (1994), pp. 80-98
Published by: Peeters Publishers
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42611365
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42611365?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Peeters Publishers is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Biblica
This content downloaded from

216.165.95.173 on Wed, 16 Nov 2022 19:58:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
RES BIBLIOGRAPHICAE
The Sea Narrative Revisited
Uwe Bauer's study of the Sea narrative, as it is found in Exodus

13,17-14,31, resulted from his doctoral research at the University of
Amsterdam under the supervision of Prof. Karel Deurloof1). In the
introduction to the book, the 'Amsterdam' focus is clearly expressed in the
dual object of the survey. Firstly, the author aims at a critical description of
the emergence and development of the so-called 'Amsterdam School'
(hereafter abbreviated as AS). This exegetical school, which is characteristic
of the Netherlands, elaborates the dogmatic-hermeneutical and biblical-
theological principles of J. Calvin, K. Barth and H. K. Miskotte. Moreover,
it applies the exegetical principles of M. Buber and F. Rosenzweig. Among
Dutch biblical scholars who are related to the AS, mention should be made
of the late J.L. Palache (1886-1944) and M. A. Beek (1909-1987), and the
current main representatives F. Breukelman and K. Deurloo. Secondly,
U.B. attempts in his study to demonstrate the particular 'Amsterdam'
approach by means of an exegetical analysis of the Sea Narrative.
In this review article I will first define, in a more general way, the
status of U.B.'s study as against three other analyses of the Sea Narrative.
A second section will briefly summarize the principal ideas used in the
'Amsterdam' approach to Old Testament texts as presented in the first main
part of the book. In addition, a few critical comments will be made. The
final section will concentrate on the author's analysis of the Sea Narrative
which he has worked out in the second part of his book, and, more
particularly, I will make a series of critical observations on some points.
In a recent article on the nature of the so-called 'Priestly' tradition in

the Pentateuch, I drew attention to the striking fact that monographs
dealing with the Sea Narrative were completely lacking before 1985 f2).
Especially in the second half of the eighties three detailed studies were
written independently and at the same time, viz. by Peter Weimar (1985),
Jean Louis Ska (1986) and Marc Vervenne (1986) P). The fairly extensive
analysis made by U.B. may now be added to this list of works.
0) U. F. W. Bauer, ròxn Dnain Vd All diese Worte. Impulse zur Schriftaus-

legung aus Amsterdam. Expliziert an der Schilfmeererzählung in Exodus 13,17-14,31
(Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe 23, Theologie 442). Bern - New York -
Frankfurt am Main - Paris, Peter Lang, 1992, 378 p. 15 x 21. DM89, - .
P) M. Vervenne, "The 'P' Tradition in the Pentateuch: Document and/or Re-
daction? The 4 Sea Narrative' (Ex 13,17-14,31) as a Test Case", Pentateuchal and Deu -
teronomistic Studies (ed. C. Brekelmans-J. Lust) (BETL 94; Leuven 1990) 77, n. 28.
P) P. Weimar, Die Meerwunder er Zählung. Eine redaktionskritische Analyse von

216.165.95.173 on Wed, 16 Nov 2022 19:58:44 UTC
The Sea Narrative Revisited 81
The aforementioned studies pertaining to the

13,17-14,31 have this in common: all four exam
theological crux which this composition certainly is
methodological approach, however, one should d
diachronically orientated inquiries and those wh
orientated. Generally speaking, P. Weimar and M. V
with the literary history of the Sea Narrative (diac
and U.B. describe its final 'state', disregarding wh
have taken place during the process of growth (
articulated description, however, is necessary, since such a general
classification does not do justice to the distinctiveness of each approach.
P. Weimar's starting point in characterizing the Sea Narrative as an
artificial literary unit is the recognition of the evidence of disunity and
inconsistency in the text. This implies that a sound analysis of the narrative
should seriously take account of its complex nature and, more particularly,
aim at discovering the process by which the text reached its present form.
To that end Weimar does not resort to an oversimplified source-critical
approach, as is found in the majority of classical studies on the Sea
Narrative, but makes an extraordinarily detailed redaction-critical analysis
of the pericope. According to him, the Sea Narrative results from the
creative redactional work of incorporating new materials and existing
traditions into larger units. More particularly, he claims that Exod
13,17-14,31 took shape in a series of stages in which a number of redactors
have fashioned and adapted two distinct narrative threads before they were
dovetailed together to form a single artificial composition. In a more
general way, Weimar characterises these two self-contained narrative strata
as a nicht-priester schriftliche and a priesterschriftliche Erzählfaden respect-
ively (4).
Ex 13,17-14,31 (Ägypten und Altes Testament 9; Wiesbaden 1985); J. L. Ska, Le

passage de la Mer. Etude de la construction, du style et de la symbolique d'Ex 14,1-31
(AnBib 109; Rome 1986) [doctoral dissertation 1984]; M. Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal
(Exodus 13,17-14,31). Een literaire studie (Leuven 1986) [doctoral dissertation; a
limited number of typewritten copies are still available]. The list of other recent
contributions and articles specifically dealing with the Sea Narrative which I offered in
"The 'P' Tradition", 77, n. 28 should be updated with C. Houtman, Exodus
vertaald en verklaard (Commentaar op het Oude Testament; Kampen 1989) 203-251;
E. Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; Berlin-New York
1990) 9-43, 256-262; L. Schmidt, Studien zur Priester schrift (BZAW 214; Berlin-New
York 1993) 19-34; H. Lamberty-Zielinski, Das »Schilfmeer«. Herkunft, Bedeutung
und Funktion eines alttestamentlichen Exodusbegriffs (BBB 78; Frankfurt am Main
1993) 57-134.
(4) Weimar, Die Meerwunder er Zählung, 41-42, 61-67. A synoptic overview of
the reconstructed literary layers ( Textschichten ) in the Sea Narrative is offered in the
appendix (269-274). In this outline Weimar displays four self-contained narrative
strata together with their redactional expansions: Pre-J + J (= i); RJE + Dtr (= n);
Pre-P + P« ( = in); Rp (= iv). - Pre-J: 14,5a.9aa.l0ba* (only *tnd wn).
13aa.l4.24aßb.25a.27b.28b.30a* (minus x-.nn ova)- 3 laß. - J redaction: 14,10ba*
(minus *Txn ixti)- 25b.30b. - Rje redaction (eine grundlegende Neubearbeitung)'.
13,1 7aa. 19; 14,5b.6.1 laa* (mtío Vk nnxi)- llb.21aß.24aa.27aß.31b(+ 15,20.21). -
Dtr 4 updating ' {punktuelle Bearbeitung des vorgegebenen Erzählzusammenhangs)

216.165.95.173 on Wed, 16 Nov 2022 19:58:44 UTC
82 Marc Vervenne
Weimar assumes that neither

original literary unit, since both
redactional characteristics. In his
underlies Exod 13,17-14,31 in its pr
It opens the non-Priestly narr
identifiable form of the Sea Narrative which could be attributed to
Northern prophetic circles in the time of Solomon. In addition, Weimar
portrays it as a Jahwekriegserzählung , which, however, disparages war and
violence ( anti-Krieg ). He also claims that this original prototype of the Sea
Narrative has been expanded in the course of three successive redactional
revisions. A first, limited expansion was made by the so-called Yahwist (J).
Weimar is of the opinion that J, who wrote in Judah shortly after the
decline of the Davidic-Solomonic kingdom, has inserted the existing Sea
Narrative in his own Exodus account and, more particularly, connected it
with a collection of three plagues (Exod 9,13-35; 10,1-20; 11,1-10).
Moreover, he has linked it with the "primeval" judgment of the Flood
(Gen 6-8*) as well as with the judgment on Sodom (Gen 19*).
Consequently, the J redactor transformed the Sea Narrative into a
theophany story, in which it is said that YHWH judges Egypt. A second,
more elaborate redaction is ascribed by Weimar to RJe. This 'school', which
was very active at the end of the 8th century, has thoroughly revised the
existing account (proto-J + J) of the sea event within the scope of the
political and religious crisis rooted in the Assyrian invasion. According to
Weimar, RJe refashioned the Sea Narrative to form a coherent composition
in which the incomparability of YHWH is highlighted and the status of
Moses legitimated. This is especially revealed by way of a variety of literary
and thematic cross-references to other Pentateuchal (Hexateuchal)
traditions, such as the Abraham and Jacob narratives (Gen 15 and 32
respectively), the mission of Moses (Exod 3-4), the Plagues (Exod 7-11)
and the murmuring or protest scenes of the Wilderness tradition. Finally,
before its combination with the Priestly Sea Narrative the (non-Priestly) RJe
account has undergone a limited, but theologically speaking important,
update by a 6th century deuteronomistic redactor. Dtr has recomposed the
Sea Narrative as a programmatic prelude to the Wilderness complex by
adding the topic of the pillar of cloud and fire. In addition, with the
RJe: 13,21a.22; 14,19b.20ayb.24ay. - Pre-P or Priestly Vorlage : 1 4,8b. 15aa.l6aß. 16b.

21aa.21b.22.23aa.23b.26aba.27aa.28a*(minus nsne V»n bob a-Bhsn n ki win m)- 29.
-P&: 14,1.2a.4.8aa*ß.l0bß.l5b.l6aa.l7aba.l8a.28a* (nsnD Vn bzb D-Tzhsn nxi 33-jn nx).
- RP: 1 3, 1 7aßb. 18.20.21b; 14,2b.3.7aa.7b.8aa* tanso 9aß* (minus sdì).
9b.lla* (minus rrato viax-n). 12.13aßb.l5aß.l7bß.l8b.l9a.20aa.23aßy.26bß.30a*
(Kinn ava). 31aa. - Glosses: 14,7aß.9aß* (only aan). 20aß.
It is noteworthy that P. Weimar's book has hardly been reviewed at all. I am
only aware of a short Buchschau by H.-C. Schmitt in Z AW 99 (1987) 476-477 and a
more elaborate critical review by W. Groß in TQ 166 (1986) 146-148. See also a dis-
cussion on Weimar's approach in Vervenne, "The 4P' Tradition", 80-85 and
Blum, Studien , 259.

216.165.95.173 on Wed, 16 Nov 2022 19:58:44 UTC
insertion of the -jdV -ļVn motif he tied in a conne

Landnahme traditions. Against the background of
unfaithfulness of the wilderness episode serves, m
justify the loss of the promised land.
Though the second main thread in the Sea N
characterised as Priestly, like the non-Priestly nar
above, it is also multi-layered. Weimar first disting
which in his opinion arose during the Babylon
related to the Second-Isaiah Wegtheologie as found
particularly in 43,16 and 51,10. In line with thi
event as narrated in the pre-P part of Exod 14* dem
the word of YHWH. The divine action is metaphor
through the water which destroys the enemy.
Priestly writer (P&) revised his Vorlage in the ligh
within the post-exilic community. In following th
judgment, P* transformed the Sea Narrative of th
of the execution of YHWH's judgement against
this with the " Day of YHWH " theology as presen
also connected Exod 14* to the Creation (Gen 1-
traditions, as well as with the Sinai account. He conceived the Sea
Narrative, moreover, as the climax to the Exodus tradition, whereas, in his
conception, the Plagues function as a prelude to the Sea event. Finally,
Weimar holds that a closing large-scale Priestly redaction of the Sea
Narrative would have taken place in the Late Persian era. Around that
time, the final redactor of the Pentateuch (Rp) combined the Priestly (P*)
version with the non-Priestly one in order to create a new story. Even
though the existing Priestly narrative was the basis of this last redaction, Rp
achieved his work in such a way that the theological tendencies of the
non-Priestly parts were decisive for the narrative as a whole. Both the
divine action against Egypt ('YHWH war') and the creating of a new Israel
('Creation') are approached from an eschatological perspective. According
to Weimar, the final edition of the Sea Narrative was subsequently slightly
glossed, without, however, modifying Rp's theological composition.
Weimar's procedure in approaching the text is to restore the redaction
history of the finished composition, based on the study of its linguistic
characteristics, as a well-structured genre, together with the style and
theology of the authors. Though his method does not completely
correspond to the analysis of style according to the standards of current
linguistics, we may define this procedure as 'literary stylistics' (5). Concern
for a meticulous literary critical analysis, despite its hypothetical and
complex results, is certainly the strength of Weimar's approach. His
treatment, however, definitely remains within the boundaries of classical
biblical literary criticism which too suddenly jumps from literary analysis to
source- and redaction-criticism. Furthermore, in hastening to discover the
(5) For a detailed discussion on the discipline of stylistics see R. Carter-R. D.

Cureton, "Style", International Encyclopedia of Linguistics IV (New York -
Oxford 1992) 79-86.

216.165.95.173 on Wed, 16 Nov 2022 19:58:44 UTC
84 Marc Vervenne
redaction history of the perico

careful syntactic study of the text
Whereas Weimar's literary analysis of the Sea Narrative is
predominantly diachronic, my own study aims at harmonising
synchronics with diachronics f7). The focal point of my analysis lies first in
examining the linguistic form of Exod 13,17-14,31 independently of its
literary growth^). Such an extensive investigation, which especially
concentrates on syntactic structures, is the basis on which the literary
criticism (synchronics) and redaction criticism (diachronics) of the
narrative are successively performed. The procedure obviously differs
from the one developed by W. Richter, since he holds the opinion that
form criticism, as the study of the linguistic form of a text, always follows
on diachronically orientated literary criticism which tries to reconstruct
originally autonomous units within a final composition C9). Apart from
the fact that I do not completely share Richter's understanding of literary
criticism (10), I am more and more convinced that linguistic analysis of the
so-called final form as such is the only reliable foundation for solid
synchronic and diachronic literary studies, since this final text is not only
the most perceptible point of departure but also a significant composition
that resulted from intentional writing Í11).
Ultimately, a linguistically based literary critical analysis of the Sea
Narrative shows a well-structured account composed of two narrative
layers, which in terms of redaction criticism represent two different but
(6) Cf. W. Grob, TQ 166 (1986) 146.

O See Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal. Parts of this study have been thoroughly
revised for publication: cf. ETL 63 (1987) 257-271; UF 19 (1987) 355-373; Bijdragen
49 (1988) 402-409; "The 'P' Tradition in the Pentateuch" (supra, n. 2).
(®) Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal , 185-854. With regard to the expression 'lingui-
stic form', see, for example, D. Crystal, A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics
(Oxford 3 1991) 140: "(form) refers to the phonological/grammatical/lexical charac-
teristics of linguistic units, such as sentences, morphemes, lexemes, nouns, etc., these
being referred to as linguistic forms ".
H W. Richter, Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft (Göttingen 1971) 74.
Q°) Cf. my definition of 'literary criticism' in Vervenne, "The 'P'
Tradition", 77, n. 29: "the analysis of the text according to procedures of current
general literature, i.e. the study of how the text is put together". See also M.
Vervenne, " Literaire kritiek ", Inleiding in het Oude Testament (ed. H. Jagersma -
M. Vervenne) (Kampen 1992) 65-71. An interesting instance which demonstrates
redaction criticism based on linguistic analysis is to be found in Gen 2,4-7. In line
with classical literary critical argumentation, most modern translations and
commentaries split v. 4 into two parts, considering 4a as the conclusion of the
"Seventh Day" unit and 4b as the beginning of the "Eden" unit. The classical
approach, however, does not rely on a careful stylistic and syntactic analysis of w.
2-5. In my view, there is a lot to be said for taking Gen 2,4 as a stylistic and syntactic
unit, whereas Gen 2,5-7 constitutes another unit. On this, see A. Niccacci, The
Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose (JSOTSS 86; Sheffield 1990) 39 and
200-201, n. 26; W. Grob, Die Pendenskonstruktion im Biblischen Hebräisch (ATS AT
27; St. Ottilien 1987) 53-55; T. Stordalen, "Genesis 2,4: Restudying a locus
classicus ", ZAW 104 (1992) 163-177. With regard to the Sea Narrative, see the
discussion on the syntactic structure of the passage Exod 14,8-10 in Vervenne,
"The 'P' Tradition", 83-84.
O1) Cf. Vervenne, "The 'P' Tradition", 87-90.

216.165.95.173 on Wed, 16 Nov 2022 19:58:44 UTC
interrelated theological redactions of the sea even

first redaction, which constitutes a relatively aut
from a proto-Deuteronomic redactional rewor
materials C2). This school of writers who launched
end of the 8th century BC, the language, style an
traditions seems to have composed a didactic s
convincing the readers/listeners of divine power ac
enemy. To that end they simulated the theme of YHWH war. War,
however, is only a staged event, since the Israelites are portrayed as an
army at rest while the Egyptians fight windmills. The narrative, moreover,
is mainly aligned with the Wilderness tradition. The JE redaction, in its
turn, served as a source for the second redaction, which should be
characterised as Priestly (P)03). In my opinion, the P portion of the Sea
Narrative cannot be read as an independent and coherent unit but should
be typified as a redactional reworking based on the existing JE
narrative O4). The Priestly redactors, more particularly, inserted their
stereotypical pattern of YHWH speech and execution, as well as revised
and rewrote various parts of the JE account. Furthermore, they adjusted
the Sea Narrative to the Plagues tradition, as well as to Creation and
Flood. Consequently, the warlike JE story is transformed into a divine
judgment story which primarily concerns Egypt but finally serves as a
warning addressed to Israel to remain faithful.
My analysis of the redaction history of Exod 13,17-14,31 corresponds
with Weimar's hypothesis in that neither the non-Priestly nor the Priestly
redactional layer is considered as an original literary unit. This implies that
I accept the artificial nature of both redactions, particularly the JE
narrative which undeniably resulted from reworking existing traditions.
Contrary to Weimar, however, I do not believe that the process of growth
of this narrative thread can be entirely reconstructed. Since the JE redactors
appear to have creatively reworked various heterogeneous materials in such
a radical way, it is no longer possible to disentangle the original form of the
source texts or traditions which were used. In this connection, it should be
stated again that solid literary analysis ought to rest on discernible
significant texts, rather than to develop from reconstructed source-texts all
kinds of hypotheses about what the first beginnings of the text (or stratum)
might have beenf15). Concerning the Sea Narrative, this means that the
reconstruction of an underlying, self-contained, non-Priestly narrative as
well as of the patterned Priestly portions should not move away from the
final Hebrew composition.
(*2) Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 770-773, 790-818, 818-830; "The 'P' Tradition",
77-79: 13, 17-19.21-22; 14,5-7.8c.9ab*.10b-e. 11-12*. 13-14. 19-20.21bc*.24-25. 27b-d*.
28c.30.31 (the letters a, b, c, etc. mark clause boundaries).
P3) Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal , 766-769, 784-790, 830-842; "The 'P Tra-
dition", 79-87: 1 3, 20; 14, l-4.8ab.9b*. 10a. 1 1-12*. 1 5-18. 21a.21bc*.21d. 22-23. 26.27a.
27b-d*. 28ab.29.31*.
i14) See especially Vervenne, The P Iradition , öI-ö / and compare witn
Blum, Studien , 260. Schmidt, Studien , 23-26 disagrees with both Blum and
Vervenne.
(") Compare also with Blum, Studien , 259.

216.165.95.173 on Wed, 16 Nov 2022 19:58:44 UTC
86 Marc Vervenne
From the outset, the present text of Exod 13,17-14,31, not its
redaction history, is the absolute point of reference in the analyses of J. L.
Ska and U.B. Both scholars, however, evaluate this text in a different way.
Ska describes the final text as "l'ensemble du texte, avec tous ses éléments
de diverses provenances " i16). This implies that he recognises that the final
text reveals a history, though it is always greater than the sum of its parts.
Ska clearly states that a synchronic approach does not necessarily compete
with the historical critical one. On the contrary, he considers the approved
diachronically orientated methods of research essential for the analysis and
interpretation of the text as we have it now i17). His own study, then, can be
characterised as a narrative analysis applying procedures of both
"Rhetorical Criticism" and "Reader Response Theory". However, one
should note that Ska's synchronic analysis entails a diachronic approach,
since he concentrates on how the various narrative components are
combined in the final text to make one whole composition. In interpreting
or completing the available source-texts the 'narrator' {le narrateur)
creates a ' narration ' (i une narration ), i.e. " le texte dans sa forme
définitive " O8). This narrator is not an historical person but only a function
or role. Consequently, he cannot be identified with the real author (J/E/P)
or redactor (Rp).
U.B., on the other hand, takes the final text for granted. In his
opinion, biblical studies should aim at clarifying "weshalb der Text so
dasteht, wie es dasteht" (209). The author of the Sea Narrative has created
a work of art which shows no traces of a process of growth in the sense of
classical literary critical theories. In line with the Amsterdam approach,
which has a profound distrust of these theories, U.B. seems to admit that
Exod 13,17-14,31 is a post-exilic composition, although it should be said
that he also points to the fact that it is premature to think of the post-exilic
character of the Old Testament as proven. For his rejection of the classical
approach to the Sea Narrative he has found support in my assessment of
the still prevailing methodology within diachronic research into
Pentateuchal texts. However, I should immediately point out, in passing,
that U.B.'s interpretation of this view does not do justice to my approach as
described above. This is not to say, however, that he is writing in defence of
synchronics against diachronics. U.B. acknowledges that current biblical
scholarship is casting doubt on the diachronic study of the Pentateuch.
During this transitional stage his study aims at contributing to the
development of new analytical procedures for explaining and understanding
biblical texts. U.B. is aware that his approach is not innovative. As
n Ska, Le passage de la Mer , 20. Of the more than twenty reviews published
on Ska's Le passage de la Mer , mention should be made of W. Vogels, CBQ 50
(1988) 123-124, S.M. Olyan, JBL 107 (1988) 509-510, and J. Loza, RB 96 (1989)
297-300.
O7) Ska, Le passage de la Mer , 9.
(*8) Ska, Le passage de la Mer , 25, n. 7, and see also 44-45, n. 7. See, moreover,
J. L. Ska, " Our Fathers Have Told Us". Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew
Narratives (SubBib 13; Rome 1990).

216.165.95.173 on Wed, 16 Nov 2022 19:58:44 UTC
is clearly demonstrated in the first part of h

4 Amsterdam ' tradition of Palache, Beek, Deurlo
also knows that in the late fifties and early sixtie
the way for 'New Criticism' as applied in Ams
U.B. and Ska have in common is that their 'Sc
the work of the 'founding fathers' Beek and
connection, it is the more remarkable that U.B., e
the Sea Narrative, scarcely refers to Ska's analysis
The study of the structure of the Sea com
important issue by Ska. Exod 13,17-22 bridges th
and serves as a prelude to the Sea Narrative for w
relating that Israel has broken off with Egyp
world. This passage is depicted in ch. 14. Ref
D. J. McCarthy and following the Masoretic divi
petûhôt , in line with U.B., Ska subdivides the na
parts, each of them introduced with word
governed by a typical verb of movement: 14,1-14 ("Devant la
mer"; iti), 15-25 ("Au milieu de la mer"; Nia), 26-31 ("De l'autre
côté de la mer "; nutf) O9). He also relies on the unity of time, space and
action in these scenes, whereas less attention is payed to the actors or
stylistic devices (e.g., inclusions, chiasms, concentric structures) p0). The
narrative develops by means of a variety of motifs and symbols, such as
the hardening of the heart, the staff of Moses, the divine judgment, the
walls of water, etc., to end up in a significant whole which is tied together
by its components. Ska asserts that the literary type of this narration is
more than the sum of the various genres which are incorporated in the
final text. Consequently, the Sea Narrative is neither a war story nor a
judgment epiphany nor a miracle story. Ska proposes that we characterise
the narration as the "plebiscite" of a chief (YHWH), the investiture of a
human leader (Moses) and, finally, the birth of Israel which becomes the
people of God.
II
It was stated at the beginning of the preceding section that the analysis
U.B. has made of Exod 13,17-14,31 may be added to the list of works
treating the Sea Narrative. This is not to say, however, that one should not
take account of its particular character, since U.B.'s examination serves
first and foremost as a paradigm of the ' Amsterdam approach ' to biblical
texts.
(19) Ska, Le passage de la Mer , 20-41, 179-180 and compare with Bauer, All
diese Worte , 229-231 (Part A: Prelude: 13,17-22 / Part B: 14,1-14 / Part C: 14,15-25 /
Part D: 14,26-31); Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal , 188-202 (Exposition: 13,17-22 / Panel
I: 14,1-14 I Panel II: 14,15-31); Weimar, Die Meerwunder er Zählung, 21-28 (Part I:
13,20-14,9 / Part II: 14,10-18 / Part III: 14,19-29).
P0) Cf. W. Vogels, CBQ 50 (1988) 123.

216.165.95.173 on Wed, 16 Nov 2022 19:58:44 UTC
88 Marc Vervenne
In the first part (25-195) of his

complete picture of the so-call
know, U.B. is the very first to
exegetical approach to an intern
noteworthy that his study is wri
Fischer's inquiry into Exod 3-4,
analysis is not very common am
Fischer could contribute to introd
The same may be said of the wor
of articles published by B.J. D
Amsterdam tradition, the approa
among German-speaking scholars.
both Bauer and Fischer will be
'Schools' which without doubt hav
in critical scholarship.
In his description of the AS U.B
presuppositions and background.
within the development of this tr
theological and dogmatic-hermene
of Scripture) and moving to K.
(the role of Israel and Judaism), M
the Bible) to finish with F. Br
interpres "). Secondly, the ling
represented by J. Palache (nar
Deurloo (text-centred approach). T
line with the Marxist ideology as
liturgical line emphasises that litu
Scripture.
From these lines U.B. deduces the impetus which, in his view, is given
to develop a typical Amsterdam exegesis {Impulse zur Schriftauslegung aus
Amsterdam) (190-194). I confine myself to mentioning its most striking
elements: Scripture is the unity of Old and New Testament, but the Old
Testament comes first; Jewish exegesis and hermeneutics are extremely
important, since the Old Testament is Scripture in the true sense of the
word; the pre-eminence of the Masoretic text against the Septuagint; the
Reformation's principles of sola scriptura and sacra scriptura sui ipsius
P1) For a meticulous description and critical study of the 4 Amsterdam Tra-
dition', see especially R. Oost, Omstreden bijbeluitleg. Aspecten en achtergron-
den van de hermeneutische discussie rondom de exegese van het Oude Testament
in Nederland. Een bijdrage tot gesprek (Kampen 1986) (English summary:
117-121). An English 'expanded abstract' of the first part of Bauer's book is to
be found in Amsterdamse cahiers voor exegese en bijbelse theologie 11 (1992)
142-147 (M. Kessler).
(*2) A comprehensive English survey on the 'Amsterdam tradition' will appear
in the summer of 1993: Voices from Amsterdam. A Modern Tradition of Reading
Biblical Narratives (ed. M. Kessler) (Semeia Studies).
e3) Bib 72 (1991) 404-410 [G. Fischer, Jahwe unser Gott (OBO 91; Göttingen
1989)1.
Í24) See DBAT 10 (1975) 41-47, 48-62; 25 (1988) 5-13; SAK 11 (1984) 595-630.

216.165.95.173 on Wed, 16 Nov 2022 19:58:44 UTC
interpres as theological presuppositions underly

Amsterdam hermeneutics are directed against the a
lays claim to the text for his or her own purposes;
is the main goal of the Amsterdam approach, sh
norma normans ; Amsterdam exegesis is not di
chronically orientated; only literal biblical translatio
Within the scope of this review article it is not
length the theological presuppositions of the AS
the same time, however, it is necessary to comment
aspects mentioned above, as well as on some oth
author p5).
To begin with, it should be said that there is a good deal of confusion
about what the label "Amsterdam School" involves. Two aspects which
U.B. does not take into consideration could be raised here. A first point
concerns the terminology. In his 1968 survey of Bible and Theology in the
Netherlands (1850-1914), S.J. De Vries makes use of the expression
'Amsterdam School' to designate a group of radical 19th-century biblical
scholars who adopted a 'modernist' viewpoint in denying the divine,
transcendent element altogether p6). In is interesting to note that several of
them were faculty members of the municipal University of Amsterdam,
which is the birthplace of the AS U.B. deals with.
A second important aspect pertains to the originality of the present-
day AS. Its approach to biblical writings seems to display the mark of the
so-called 4 Merlyn Circle ' influence. This group of literary critics, to which
belonged, among others, J.J. Oversteegen, K. Fens and H.U. Jessurun
d'Oliveira, edited the Dutch periodical Merlyn from 1963 to 1967. Unlike
those who adopt an external approach, which studies literary works in their
biographical and social situation, the Merlyn group practised the so-called
'close reading', i.e. the analysis of the text as an autonomous and
self-contained entity. Consequently, their literary criticism concentrated on
form and structure, style and symbolism. The influence of this 'Amsterdam
Literary School' is noticeable in M.A. Beek's founding article f27). Beek
makes use of the 'close reading' terminology, such as 'New Criticism',
p5) As a conclusion to the description of the 'Amsterdam School', Bauer

himself addresses three critical questions to it (194-195): 1. Scripture as norma
normans must also be criticized, especially those texts which are ideologically
committed to a patriarchal society model. 2. The characterisation of the Old
Testament as a (post-)exilic theological composition requires more elaborate
investigations. 3. When dealing with the unity of Scripture as Old and New
Testament one should take account of the influence the so-called intertestamental
traditions and the Septuagint have had on the New Testament writers. U.B. claims,
moreover, that the question of the unity should be reconsidered in view of the shoa.
(26) s.J. De Vries, Bible and Theology in the Netherlands . Dutch Old lestament
Criticism under Modernist and Conservative Auspices, 1850 to World War 1
(Wageningen 1968) 50, 53-55, 81-82, 84-86, 113, 121, 141. I did not have the 1989
second edition at my disposal.
p7) M.A. Beek, " Verzadigingspunten en onvoltooide lijnen in net onaer-
zoeken van de oudtestamentische literatuur ", Vox Theologica 38 (1968) 1-14, esp.
7-13 [ET in Voices from Amsterdam , 1993 (forthcoming)].

216.165.95.173 on Wed, 16 Nov 2022 19:58:44 UTC
90 Marc Vervenne
4 Werkinterpretation 'Werkschu
approach is even more obvious in t
other hand, one should not for
Criticism' in biblical studies wa
scholars. Both Beek and Van Uc
published in the early sixties by
Schökel and M. Weiss.
A significant characteristic of the Amsterdam approach concerns the
nature of the Hebrew text. The leading protagonists of this school prefer
the Masoretic text to other Hebrew and non-Hebrew textual forms. U.B.
initially gives the impression of following me when he affirms that the
Masoretic text of the Sea Narrative is only one text among other texts and,
consequently, should be text-critically evaluated p9). He then switches,
however, to the acceptance of the supremacy of MT. This radical change is
bridged, with some tension, by the statement "Ganz ähnlich wie Tov
äussert sich Frans Breukelman" (210), referring to an oral communication
made by the latter. E. Tov says that the appropriateness (regarding both
language and content) of a reading in its context (immediate and remote) is
the most pertinent criterion in evaluating variants i30). Breukelman, on the
other hand, claims that exegetes should become so familiar with the text
that they can arrive at the original intention of its author, since the original
meaning of the text is the only valid criterion in evaluating the originality of
a variant reading. Text-criticism is here replaced with text-analysis, which
definitely proves MT to be the best text. The pre-eminence of MT,
notwithstanding the questionable notion of "the original meaning of the
texf'P1) as well as the methodological shift made by Breukelman and
U.B., is problematic, since MT reflects exegesis, as any other biblical text
does. Moreover, MT does not show the "original text" of the Hebrew
Bible. Tov rightly states that "even were we to surmise that M reflects the
' original ' form of the Bible, we would still have to decide which Masoretic
Text reflects this 'original text', since the Masoretic Text is not a uniform
textual unit, but is itself represented by many witnesses " P2). In other
words, the Tiberian "Masoretic Text", to which most scholars refer
P8) Cf. N. A. van Uchelen, " Bijbelexegese en literaire kritiek. Verslag van een
verkenning Vox Theologica 38 (1968) 14-26, esp. 18-21. In this article (see 19, n. 1
and 21, n. 1), Van Uchelen refers inter alia to R. Wellek-A. Warren, Theory of
Literature (London 1963) and J.J. Oversteegen," Analyse en oordeel Merlyn 3
(1965) 161-180, 268-276, 476-502.
p9) For an exhaustive text-critical analysis of Exod 13,17-14,31, see Vervenne,
Het Zeeverhaal , 60-184. U.B.'s brief dealings with text-criticism completely rely on
the introductory chapter to my analysis (60-65), as he mentions en passant.
r°) E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research
(Jerusalem Biblical Studies 3; Jerusalem 1981) 288-289.
P1) Cf. J. F. A. Sawyer, "The «Original Meaning of the Text» and Other
Legitimate Subjects for Semantic Description", Questions disputées d'Ancien
Testament. Méthode et théologie - Continuing Questions in Old Testament Method
and Theology. Revised and Enlarged Edition (ed. C. Brekelmans-M. Vervenne)
(BETL 33; Leuven 1989) 63-70, 210-213.
P2) E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis-Assen-
Maastricht 1992) 11.

216.165.95.173 on Wed, 16 Nov 2022 19:58:44 UTC
when using the label MT, is only one text am

belonging to the MT group. Furthermore, the Ti
the consonantal text is not necessarily identical wi
author, but reflects ancient exegetical traditions
and linguistic interpretation of the Masoretes.
MT into open (parasiyyôt petûhôt) and closed {
also results from content exegesis. One should
absolute truth of these facts in order to trace the
Finally, it should also be noted that in the proces
is a "transition zone" where it is hard to distinguish between the
composition and literary growth of a text (literary and redaction criticism)
on the one hand and its copying and transmission on the other (text
criticism). Early editions of biblical books were copied and distributed as
"final" texts, whereas later editors - or "author-scribes" as Tov says -
still revised these editions in order to replace the earlier ones P3). This again
gives evidence that the concept of the " final text " provides some scope for
flexibility. It seems to me that the Amsterdam approach, however, tends
toward making "the" final (i.e. Masoretic) text theologically absolute, or
"salus extra textům receptům non est", as Cyprian would perhaps have
said.
The strong Amsterdam preference for MT also reveals close affinities
with judaizing tendencies within Christian biblical scholarship. This new
interest in Judaism, and more particularly in (early) Rabbinic literature, can
only be welcomed. On the other hand, there is a danger that basic
assumptions are treated with a naïveté which is blind to the complexities of
the issue i34). Theological premises may then prevail over fundamental
hermeneutic questions, especially those regarding the reading and
interpretation of works received from former times. A naïve judaizing
approach can induce an ahistorical interpretation "in which documents
make no difference, and knowledge of the particular time and place and
condition of a given authorship contributes in no way to our understanding
of the genre in all its specificity " ^5). In connection with this, the
relationship between Old and New Testament deserves special mention P6).
Following the view of H. K. Miskotte that the Old Testament is Scripture,
U.B. defines this relationship by means of a christological dependence,
viz. participation model (" Dependenz/Partizipationsmodell "). Contrary
to other models (christological interpretation; substitution; typology;
illustration; subsumption), this model implies that the New Testament is
subordinated to the Old, and, through Jesus, Christians would participate
in a new manner in God's covenant with Israel and, consequently, read the
P3) Cf. Tov, Textual Criticism , 313-349.

(*) In this connection, reference could be made to the debate concerning the
introduction of midrash into current approaches to the Biblical writings: see, for
example, the careful analysis in J. Neusner, Midrash as Literature. The Primacy of
Documentary Discourse (Studies in Judaism; Lanham-New York-London 1987).
ř35) Neusner, Midrash , ix.
(*6) Cf. Bauer, All diese Worte , 32-36 (and passim).

216.165.95.173 on Wed, 16 Nov 2022 19:58:44 UTC
92 Marc Vervenne
Jewish Bible together with Israe

perspective the Old Testament
subordinated to the New Testam
in its own right and should be in
Testament partly relies on the O
express and interpret the nature
Christian theological hermeneut
as a Jewish conception. The Ol
und Wirkungsgeschichte " (*7). B
Scripture is Old and New Test
Testament diminishes the New T
of the Old Testament ends in blu
Testament.
Ill
In the second main part of his book (198-348), U.B. offers an inquiry
into the Sea Narrative (Exod 13,17-14,31), so as to put the exegetical
theory of the AS into practice. The introductory paragraph briefly sum-
marizes the different ways of dealing with this central composition P8). In
this section, the author distinguishes between diachronic (" literarkritische/
formgeschichtliche/traditionsgeschichtliche/redaktionsgeschichtliche For-
schung ") and synchronic approaches (" Andere wissenschaftliche
Ansätze"). Though U.B. does not deny that classical diachronic studies of
the Sea Narrative have made a valid contribution to the understanding of
the text, he obviously sympathizes with those scholars who cast doubt on
both the method and results of the so-called historical-critical analysis in
order to emphasize the value of " das Werk selbst ", which is characterized
as a "Meisterwerk" (207). The (post-)exilic origin of the book of Exodus
as well as of the rest of the Pentateuch is stressed and, consequently, its
Jewish character taken for granted. The first task of an exegete, then, is to
explain the text "wie er dasteht" (209). In this connection, it is striking
that U.B. deals only very succinctly with the work of J. L. Ska, for whom
he presumes "eine gewisse Nähe zur alttestamentlich-wissenschaftlichen
Linie der 'Amsterdamer Schule'" (208). Ska's narrative analysis deserves
particular attention, since it is the first exhaustive synchronic study of the
P7) R. Rendtorff, "Die jüdische Bibel und ihre antijüdische Auslegung",

Auschwitz - Krise der christlichen Theologie. Eine Vortragsreihe (ed. R. Rendtorff-
E. Stegemann) (Abhandlungen zum christlich-jüdische Dialog 10; München 1980)
115. On the relationship between Old and New Testament, see, for example, the still
instructive contribution by A.A. van Ruler, Die christliche Kirche und das Alte
Testament (Beiträge zur evangelische Theologie 23; München 1955). See, also, H.
Graf Reventlow, Hauptprobleme der Biblischen Theologie im 20. Jahrhundert
(Darmstadt 1983) 11-137. U.B. does not refer to these works.
P8) It is remarkable that U.B. does not refer to the critical assessment of
Pentateuchal studies as made by C. Houtman and R.N. Whybray: cf. C. Houtman,
Inleiding in de Pentateuch (Kampen 1980); id., "The Pentateuch", The World of the
Bible (ed. A. S. van der Woude) (Bible Handbook, II; Grand Rapids, MI 1989)
165-205; R.N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch. A Methodological Study
(JSOTSS 53; Sheffield 1987).

216.165.95.173 on Wed, 16 Nov 2022 19:58:44 UTC
Sea Narrative and, as such, is in line with U.B

however, does not dissociate himself from classic
which he assumes the results to be proven. U
blames 19th-century historical critics, especially Wellhausen, for
anti-Judaic tendencies ( antijudaistisches Denkmodell ), since they judged
the written Law, created by the post-exilic community, to be legalistic and
contrary to the religion of early Israel which was liberating and
dynamic (39). U.B.'s assessment of Wellhausen's approach gives the
impression of being a dogmatizing statement, which needs nuancing. In a
well-documented survey of Wellhausen's writings and letters - which,
unfortunately, is not mentioned by U.B. - R. Smend found that this
scholar, though he shared the religious sentiments of his own time, was
not anti-Semitic nor did he display in his scholarly work any intentional
anti-Jewish attitude - a tendency which would, in fact, have been
common among 19th-century German Protestant theologians i40). Finally,
it is interesting to learn from Smend that Buber felt esteem for
Wellhausen: "Als ich Buber im Frühjahr 1960 in Jerusalem nach seinem
Verhältnis zu Wellhausen fragte, antwortete er: »Ich brauche nicht zu
sagen, wie viel ich dem Mann verdanke. Sein Irrtum war, daß er annahm,
die Anfänge Israels seien profan gewesen «"(41). Smend also quotes from
a letter F. Rosenzweig wrote to Gertrud Oppenheim in August 1927:
" Das Grundbuch der heutigen Wissenschaft ist noch immer Wellhausens
israelitische und jüdische Geschichte, ein kurzes und prachtvoll zu
lesendes Buch, eine der literarische Leistungen der deutschen Wissenschaft
des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts " (42).
Following on this brief outline of how to deal with the Sea Narrative,
U.B. presents the text of Exod 13,17-14,31. Besides a few text-critical
issues, which I have already commented on above, the author offers
successively a colometric arrangement of the Hebrew text of codex L, its
syntactic hierarchy, the colometrically ordered German translation by M.
Buber - F. Rosenzweig and, inspired by the latter, his own literal rendering
of the pericope i43). Starting from the Amsterdam principle that form and
content constitute a unity, U.B. attaches much importance to the
P9) With regard to this critical appraisal of Wellhausen and other German
scholars, U.B. should have referred to R. Rendtorff, "Die jüdische Bibel", 99-116.
Í40) R. Smend, "Wellhausen und das Judentum", Zìa 79 (1982) 1 =
Epochen der Bibelkritik. Gesammelte Studien Band 3 (BEvT 109; München 1991)
186-215]. See, on the other hand, L. H. Silberman, "Wellhausen and Judaism",
Semeia 25 (1982) 75-82 (Wellhausen was no vulgar anti-Semite, but, in line with
19th-century German scholarship, the Prolegomena is an anti-Jewish work).
(41) Smend, "Wellhausen", 211-212.
(42) Smend, "Wellhausen 210.
(43) With regard to the rendenng of the name for bgypt in modern translations,
U.B. says that, as far as he knows, only S.R. Hirsch {Der Pentateuch II, 1986)
transliterates the Hebrew name ansa (" Mizrajim "). One should add, however, the
translation of A. Chouraqui in the series L'univers de la Bible. Tome I (Paris 1982)
(" Misraîm "). Finally, according to U.B. the morpheme in the verbal form viox-i
in the first clause of Exod 14,11 is as far as he knows only adversatively rendered in
Buber-Rosenzweig. The Dutch Willibrord vertaling (1975), however, translates in the
same manner (" maar ").

216.165.95.173 on Wed, 16 Nov 2022 19:58:44 UTC
94 Marc Vervenne
colometry, i.e. the structuring of

Breukelman, he emphasizes that b
and heard. As a consequence, he c
the text is more significant than
colometry of Exod 13,17-14,31, U.B. relies on Buber-Rosenzweig's
Verdeutschung , as if it were the most reliable model for doing the literary
analysis of the biblical text. Despite the great value of this translation, one
would expect a more thorough treatment of the question of the colometric
arrangement as well as how to make a colometrical division of a narrative
text. In this respect, the work done by the so-called 'Kampen School', to
which J. C. de Moor and P. van der Lugt belong, should be mentioned and
could be very useful f14). The Kampen approach aims at describing and
interpreting functions and meanings of the whole range of formal linguistic
data which constitute a text (syntax, style, structure). On the other hand, it
should be stressed that, in my view, colometry is not the one and only
method - the conditio sine qua non , as U.B. says - of discovering how a
text is constructed and organized in order to allow appropriate
interpretation by readers or hearers. Of equal importance is the
grammatical study of the way in which meaning is systematically expressed
by combination of constituents into sentences and sentences into larger
linguistic units with a definable communicative function. This is in stark
contrast to the opinion of U.B., who says that the syntactic arrangement of
the text is of restricted importance to its interpretation, since " der Text ist
auf das Hören hin konzipiert, d.h. kolometrische Gliederungskriterien
fallen für sein Verständnis mehr ins Gewicht als syntaktische" (211)(45).
In addition to the presentation of text and translation of the Sea
Narrative, U.B. offers a linguistic and literary analysis of the composition.
For that purpose my own study of Exod 13,17-14,31 receives ample
treatment, to such an extent that U.B.'s examination is in large measure a
summary, if not to say a close paraphrase, of my original analysis i40). In
places he updates it or adds his own comments, especially where he differs
from me. The last part of this review article will briefly discuss some of
these.
1. U.B. argues that Exod 1,1-15,21 constitutes a coherent literary

composition (227-228, 292, 310, 345). One of the arguments he puts
forward is the apparent inclusion of the narrative finale 15,20-21 in the
Exodus complex. More particularly, he points to the occurrence in this
section of the motif of "Miriam" which would form a Ringkomposition
with " the sister of Moses " in Exod 2,4.7. Even though he recognizes that
i44) For a recent description of the Kampen methodology, see, for example, J.
Kim, The Structure of the Samson Cycle (Kampen 1993) 118-127.
(45) For a differently arranged syntactic hierarchy of Exod 13,17-14,31, see
Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal , 189-193 and W. Richter, Biblia Hebraica transcripta. 2.
Exodus, Leviticus (Arbeiten zur Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 33/2; St.
Ottilien 1991) 121-133.
As a rule, U.B. caretully mentions what is taken from my Zeeverhaal. I
noted, however, a series of instances where no reference is made to the source text,
though the wording is recognisable as mine.

216.165.95.173 on Wed, 16 Nov 2022 19:58:44 UTC
the sister mentioned in chapter 2 is not explicitly

as Miriam. Moreover, he finds a connection betwe
1-2 and those of 15,20-21. In my view, it is hard to
have deliberately created such an awkward relation
contexts (47). Within the Pentateuch traditions, M
name in Exod 15,20 and, more particularly, as ]
other hand, we only hear about Moses' sister as
perspective, Miriam is as absent from Moses' Birth
Aaron is from the Sea Narrative (Exod 13,17-14,31
remarkable if we take account of the leading pa
plays in the Plagues Tradition (Exod 7-11). His abse
shows the distinct character of the Sea Narrat
various connections this narrative has with the
consequently, its climactic position within the com
should also refer to the explicit link with the Wil
followsi48). Although U.B. closely relates Exod 1
and Plagues, it seems to me that the Sea Narrat
connecting the complexes of Exodus and Wilderne
end, motifs of both traditions are merged into one
hardening of the heart / protest).
2. As noted above, U.B. subdivides Exod 14 i
(v. 1-14/15-25/26-31), each of which is introdu
(v. 1-4/15-18/26). In his opinion, a division into tw
such as is found in my study, is not convincing. He
rhythmic point of view, the identical statement on YHWH the
warrior (onbi mm) in 14,14a/25e and the stereotyped introductory formula
(ntfo bx mm -idn-i) following on these in 14,15a/26a permit us "to hear" a
new beginning in v. 26. Moreover, in v. 26 the content of the narrative has
changed, since Israel is on the other side of the sea.
This argument against the bipartite structuring of the Sea Narrative is
compelling but not convincing. Firstly, the identical introductory formulae
in 14,15a/26a (compare this with 14,1a: ntfö Vk mm "iriTi), as well as the
corresponding structure and vocabulary of the divine command (v. 16) in
14,15-18 and 14,26 respectively bind v. 15-31 together. On the other hand,
the wordplay with aitf which U.B. (264) thinks is recognisable in 14,3/26 is
far-fetched. Secondly, the YHWH speeches in 14,1-4 and 14,15-18 are
clearly related to one another, whereas the promise of YHWH's help
(14,13-14) and its execution (14,30-31) constitute a pattern which is bridged
by the nnbi motif in v.25e. The function of this pattern seems to be to
show the contrast between unbelief and distrust on the one hand and belief
(47) The same could be said of the inclusions U.B. sees between the phrase
«ļio cr in Exod 13,18; 15,22 and the word *]io in 2,3.5 (All diese Worte , 243), the
word ma in 2,15 and 14,5 (272), and the name of YHWH in 6,6; 7,5 and 15,12
(302).
i48) A list of connections of the Sea Narrative with its context can be found in
Vervenne, "The Protest Motif in the Sea Narrative (Ex 14,11-12): Form and
Structure of a Pentateuchal Pattern", ETL 63 (1987) 268, n. 1.

216.165.95.173 on Wed, 16 Nov 2022 19:58:44 UTC
96 Marc Vervenne
and trust in God and Moses on t

(ypm noi) and reversing comman
ively functions very well within
It should be recognized, after al
narratives is a hypothetical unde
search for logical structuring than
The making of the Sea Narrative, d
help of a limited number of key-w
definitely gave rise to a 'structure
from a creative process of writing
of a numerical structure which U
concerns, more particularly, the
subjects in the phrase srriT /pav-
the subjects YHWH, Aaron, Mo
M-M-M-Y, i.e. 2-5-10-1, or co
2x5= 10 and 10 x 1 = 10! He seems to understand these data as
indicating the compositional unity of Exod 1,1-15,21, which, in my
ignores the imagination of the authors who created this literary work.
3. It has struck me that U.B., instead of entering into discussion
current scholarship, quite often exclusively relies on what one migh
conservative (e.g. U. Cassuto) and even extravagant (e.g. E. Hirs
scholars. As a result, he tends to oversimplify complicated ma
especially those which need to be treated in a more differentiat
Suffice it to discuss three obvious instances here.
With regard to the interpretation of the ma motif in Exod 14,5 as
against nbtf in the preceding narrative sections, U.B. (272-273) seems to
depend on E. Hirsch, a German Lutheran theologian who dealt in a
neo-Marcionite manner with the nature of the Old Testament and the
Christian use of it i49). U.B. follows Hirsch where he says that ma in fact,
does not refer to a flight but simply reflects Pharaoh's misinterpretation of
the Israelites turning back at Baal-zephon. The problem of the function and
meaning of 14,5, however, is much more complicated than this naïve
exegesis may suggest. Many scholars assume that the Old Testament texts
contain different conceptions of the exodus from Egypt. M. Noth and R. de
Vaux, in particular, held the opinion that there are at least two apparent
presentations of the exodus, i.e. the "Exodus Flight" and the "Exodus
Expulsion". The idea that the Israelites flee under the guidance of Moses is
based on the brief statement in Exod 14,5 (aan ma -»a ans» ļVaV in). The
point is, however, that the flight motif only occurs here. I have attempted to
i49) U.B. refers to p. 139 of E. Hirsch, Das Alte Testament und die Predigt des
Evangeliums (Tübingen 1936), though this work only comprises 87 pages. On
Hirsch's Das Alte Testament , see, for example, critical reviews in JBL 55 (1936) 324
(W. F. Albright: " This is a violent neo-Marcionite attack on the value of the Old
Testament for Christians".) and The Journal of Religion 18 (1938) 228-230 (M.
Burrows: "Hirsch came to the conclusion that the religion of the Old Testament
was essentially the religion of the law, and therefore opposed in principle to the
gospel".). See, moreover, H. Graf Reventlow, Problems of Old Testament
Theology in the Twentieth Century (London 1985) 36-40.

216.165.95.173 on Wed, 16 Nov 2022 19:58:44 UTC
prove that this element does not reflect an independe

exodus (50). The introduction of the ma of the Isr
place determined by the context of the Sea Narrative, and, more
particularly, where it is said that the people of Israel are pursued by the
Egyptian armies. This means that the use of the flight motif in Exod 14,5
depends on the description of this pursuit, even though it functions
perfectly within the broader context of the narratives which deal with the
conflict between Pharaoh and Israel (Exod 7-11). In this respect, the
comparison of the structure and vocabulary of Exod 14,5-10 with those of
Gen 31,22-25 is very helpful.
It is generally agreed that the question pys n no in Exod 14,15a
faces us with a difficulty. At first sight, this peculiar utterance has no clear
connection with the preceding context. U.B. (298-299) lists various
solutions to explain this compositional gap. Ultimately, he follows U.
Cassuto's suggestion that the interrogative pronoun n» may have a
negative connotation, so that piren na could be rendered as "Do not
cry to me". Cassuto also proposes that we assume that Moses took part in
the "prayer mentioned in v. 10". According to U.B., YHWH's question
expresses indignation at what is regarded as senseless crying for which
Moses, in his capacity as a mediator, is personally responsible. This
psychological explanation of 14,15a, however, is not satisfactory, since it
does not take account of the complexity of the composition (51). In my
opinion, YHWH's objection cannot be considered as a reply to the cry of
the Israelites in v. 10, but rather seems to allude to their protest in v. 11-12.
The complaint, however, is formulated in the second person and, more
especially, addressed to Moses. In Exod 14,11-12.15 the scheme "Protest of
the Israelites and Cry of Moses to YHWH", which explicitly occurs in
Exod 15,24-25 as well as 17,3-4, is apparently present. What distinguishes
the form of this pattern in the Sea Narrative from that in the other texts, is
that 14,13-14 interfere with it. Furthermore, it is not stated that Moses, in
fact, cries to YHWH in favour of the protesting Israelites. In Exod 14,15,
Moses' lament is not part of the narration but directly reported in what
YHWH says. In the Sea Narrative, the pattern "Protest of the People and
Complaint of the Mediator" is probably used and modified in a special
way. Exod 14, 10- 15b as a whole seems to be a compositional piece showing
a certain roughness caused by the redactional interweaving of different
materials and schemes. Sound exegesis of this text should certainly be done
synchronically (literary criticism) and diachronically (redaction criticism) as
well.
(50) Cf. Vervenne, "De uittocht uit Egypte: 4 verdrijving ' en 'vlucht'?",
Bijdragen 49 (1988) 402-409. Following on this article, mention should be made
of M. Dijkstra, "Verdreven, vrijgelaten of gevlucht? De overlevering van de
exodus in nieuw historisch perspectief Nederlands theologisch tijdschrift 45
(1991) 1-15.
(51) Cf. Vervenne, "The Protest Motif", 260-261, 267-269. Though this article
is part of the bibliography on p. 370, U.B. does not refer to it in his discussion of
Exod 14,5a, ignoring the more fundamental problems with regard to this passage.
See also Vervenne, "The 'P' Tradition", 86-87.

216.165.95.173 on Wed, 16 Nov 2022 19:58:44 UTC
98 Marc Vervenne
Discussion of redactional pro

approach. Apart from the pass
also evident from the discussi
w. 21 and 27. In my view, both
activity (52). Firstly, 14,21bc up
The "splitting" (21d) of the sea
said that the sea "is made dry la
v. 27a and 28ab. The " returning
it has been stated that the sea "r
either case framed the existing
which are in complete agreemen
this, however, by saying that fr
("erzähltechnisch") a text can e
original unity of the text is aga
fact, irrelevant statement about
a presumed numerical structure
unity of V.21 is demonstrated b
two consonants in each of the ve
that 3 X 72 = 216, or the numbe
concludes: "Es wäre naiv, hier einen Zufall anzunehmen"! I have
sufficiently commented on such a naïve " counting frame " approach
above.
*
* *
In conclusion, U.B.'s study of the Sea N

to the exegesis of this pericope inasmuch
of the text as a literary work of art of w
be made clear to present-day readers and
so-called 'Amsterdam approach' as we
13,17-14,31 are also problematical. It
approach, which ignores the redactional,
the story. Its main concern is " Biblical T
There is a great danger, however, o
Verdeutschung of Buber-Rosenzweig is p
text. Colometry and literal translation are
interpreting the text. Historical critical e
anti-Jewish. Instead of the biblical text b
needs careful linguistic and literary analy
taken over by the pulpit.
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Marc Vervenne

Faculteit Godgeleerdheid
Sint-Michielsstraat 6, B-3000 Leuven
(52) Cf. Vervenne, "The 'P' Tradition", 87.

(53) Cf. Bauer, All diese Worte , 319 and n. 47. Of the Jewish exegetes, U.B. men-
tions Ibn Esra, U. Cassuto, and, strangely enough, also C. Houtman, Exodus II, 245!

216.165.95.173 on Wed, 16 Nov 2022 19:58:44 UTC

The Sea Narrative Revisited

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Sea Narrative Revisited

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Sea Narrative Revisited

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Sea Narrative Revisited

Author(s): Marc Vervenne

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42611365

This content downloaded from