George W. Coats Moses Heroic Man, Man of God JSOT Supplement Series 1987 PDF
George W. Coats Moses Heroic Man, Man of God JSOT Supplement Series 1987 PDF
George W. Coats Moses Heroic Man, Man of God JSOT Supplement Series 1987 PDF
SUPPLEMENT SERIES
57
Editors
David J A Clines
Philip R Davies
JSOT Press
Sheffield
MOSES
Heroic Man, Man of God
George W. Coats
CONTENTS
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 2
THE BIRTH TALE AND THE
MOSES-MIDIANITE TRADITION
43
Chapter 3
THE VOCATION TALES: EXODUS 3.1-4.31; 6.2-7.7
57
Chapter 4
MOSES' DEALINGS WITH THE PHARAOH:
EXODUS 5.1-12.36
81
Chapter 5
GOD'S AID TO ISRAEL IN THE WILDERNESS
109
Chapter 6
MOSAIC LEGENDS
125
Chapter 7
MOSES IN THE SINAI TRADITIONS: EXODUS 19-34
129
Chapter 8
THE MOSES DEATH TRADITIONS
145
Chapter 9
HEROIC MAN AND MAN OF GOD
155
Excursus A:
EPITHETS FOR THE MOSAIC FIGURE
179
Excursus B:
MOSES PARAPHERNALIA
186
Chapter 10
SETTING AND INTENTION FOR THE SAGA
193
Chapter 11
THE MOSES TRADITIONS BEYOND THE SAGA
201
Chapter 12
CONCLUSION
213
Notes
Index of Biblical References
Index of Authors
215
243
249
MOSES
Heroic Man, Man of God
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
According to Old Testament traditions, Moses led his people from
the oppression of their slavery in Egypt to the edge of the promised
land. Indeed, his stature dominates the entire collection of narratives
from Exodus through Deuteronomy. In these narratives, the exodus
event itself, the wanderings through the wilderness, the gift of the
law at Sinai, and even the conquest of land in Transjordan stand in
some measure under the shadow of his hand. Given the gigantic
dimensions of his role in the Hexateuch, it is surprising that his
position in the remaining parts of the Old Testament demands
relatively little space. It is true, nonetheless, that despite the obvious
dwarfing of Moses outside the Hexateuch, his figure still rises at key
points, in both the Old Testament and the New. The following texts
illustrate the point: Hos. 12.14 does not refer to Moses by name but
nonetheless makes a clear allusion to his leadership: 'By a prophet
the Lord brought Israel up from Egypt, and by a prophet he was
preserved'. In Neh. 1.8, a prayer petitions God to 'remember the
word which you commanded Moses your servant...' And in the
Gospel of Matthew, 17.1-8, Jesus' transfiguration occurs in the
presence of Moses and Elijah.1
The sheer magnitude of Moses' influence on the world cannot
emerge, however, simply by reference to his role in biblical tradition.
In ancient literature, Philo wrote a 'Life of Moses'. In the world of
medieval art, Michelangelo made the strength of the horned Moses a
masterpiece of intense beauty. And in the modern period, Karen
Laub-Novak captured the twin roles of Moses' leadership and his
dependency on God in a painting of perceptive quality. Moreover, as
in the Old Testament, Ezra 7.6 for example, so in our time, the name
of Moses has become a symbol for religious authority. The Torah has
10
special authority for the life of both synagogue and church at least in
part because tradition invests it with Mosaic origin.
Yet, why should Moses hold such a creative role in the history of
the world's culture? The answer to that question resides in the
biblical tradition itself, for no other source from the time of Moses to
the time of the Babylonian exile tells us anything about this giant.
The purpose for this book, then, is to explore the character of the
Moses traditions in the Old Testament in order to see the more
clearly why they have influenced the world as much as they have.
Yet, caution must prevail. The task is, unfortunately, not as simple as
would be suggested by this statement of purpose. In the allusions to
Moses cited above, the image does not appear to be consistently
formulated. In one text, he is labeled explicitly a prophet. But he does
not deliver an oracle of God to the people, prefaced by a messenger
formula, as we might expect from a prophet. Rather, he leads his
people as a shepherd might lead his sheep. The image appears
particularly strong in Hos. 12.14. The verb 'preserved', or better,
'kept', nismdr, suggests that the prophet leader of the people does the
work of a shepherd (compare Gen. 30.31, where the same verb
denotes the work of a shepherd). In the second text, Moses is lawgiver, the one who commands his people in the name of God, and
they obey. In the Gospel text, where a primary facet of the tradition
focuses on the issues of authority, Moses attends the transfiguration
of Jesus. Thus, to explore the biblical tradition about Moses means to
clarify the patterns of images associated with this figure. Who,
according to the tradition, was Moses?
It would be presumptuous, however, to suggest that this task has
never been undertaken. The artistic pieces representing Moses reach
a wide section of the population. Moreover, hi our own day,
Hollywood and television movies project images of Moses into the
intimate circles of many families. It cannot be surprising, then, that
the bibliography for Mosaic studies is enormous. Artists of all
generations reveal their fascination with this giant. And in like
manner, so have Old Testament scholars. At least three different
methods provide significant insight into the Moses traditions: (1)
historical, (2) sociological, and (3) literary. I should emphasize here
that while the three methods are distinct, they are by no means
independent. Each contributes its own position of the question and
its own perception to a total picture of the giant. And as each makes
its distinctive contribution, the other two demand supportive
hearing. In the following probe, I propose to explore the Moses
1. Introduction
11
Blight's optimism about the historical Moses gains support from the
work of W.F. Albright.4 Like Bright, Albright carries out his
historical studies of Moses under the assumption that Moses was a
figure of historical importance and thus requires no historical
verification. Albright's concern is rather to paint in the background
of culture and national or international history for the period when
Moses obviously lived and worked. His skill in composing such a
background picture cannot be surpassed. Moses doubtlessly lived in
the thirteenth century before the common era and, in fact, facilitated
introduction of Egyptian influence into the traditions that became
Israel's life blood. Under Albright's pen, the thirteenth century
comes alive in great depth and variety. And he concludes, in a
manner that supports Bright's assertion: 'Moses, probably born in
the late fourteenth century BC and died about the middle of the
thirteenth, was founder of ancient Israel'.5
But in none of these data, either archaeological or literary, does
Moses himself appear as a figure in the process of history. Albright,
like Bright, must simply assume that Moses was a historical figure
12
1. Introduction
13
14
1. Introduction
15
16
But the critics of von Rad's approach to Israel's history and Old
Testament literature miss an important point. The methodology does
not suggest that there are two realities available for investigation, the
facts of history and the literary documents from ancient people of
faith. It suggests that there are two ways for looking at one single
reality: the methods of modern historical criticism, and the methods
of ancient literary artisans who depicted their history as an
expression of their faith in God, and whose insights can be recovered
with the methods of literary criticism.
Moreover, all seem to agree that both methods have only the
documents of the Old Testament to serve as source for the facts of
history. The issue, then, is whether those documents of faith can
yield the brutafacta of history. Certainly, they must be investigated
1. Introduction
17
for what they are, documents of faith, before bruta facta can be
squeezed from them. And in this process, it will be necessary to
recognize that the documents are not simplistic records of Israelite
history, from which an accurate account of the life of Moses springs
to life, ready for the television cameras. Rather, they are another way
of looking at those bruta facta that composed Israel's past. To imply,
as does Kaiser, that historico-critical research can abstract the true
history void of interpretations, and that that true history must serve
as the basis of faith is to ground faith on a Utopian construct.
A far more judicious evaluation of the Moses tradition appears in
the work of Roland de Vaux. As an historian, addressing the task of
constructing a picture of the early history of Israel, de Vaux
nevertheless evaluates the traditions for what they are: the stories of
the folk. And he does so with sensitivity to their literary characteristics.
Thus, for example, de Vaux recognizes in the traditions two ways for
describing the exodus from Egypt. One suggests that when Moses
petitions the Pharaoh for permission to go on a three-day journey
into the wilderness for sacrifice, his negotiations fail. 'The matter is
closed, the Israelites know that they cannot leave freely, and they can
only flee. This is precisely what they do.'21 The other describes the
exodus more closely associated with the Passover. 'The Pharaoh
drives the Israelites out.'22 Then on the basis of the tradition history
de Vaux offers his historical interpretation. 'The solution to this
problem may perhaps be more easily found if we look in a different
direction. Just as there were several entries into Egypt, so too is it
possible that there were several exoduses, some groups being
expelled, others fleeing from Egypt.'23 The point here, however, is
not to express approval of a particular conclusion but rather to
highlight the method. Historical conclusions rest on a careful
evaluation of the literature. James S. Ackerman thus captures the
necessary element of a methodology:
The Bible is certainly teeming with data very important to the
historian, but concentrating exclusively on them will not bring the
reader closer to an understanding of the text. The teacher of
literature should not use the Bible to elucidate the 'history of
Israel'. The history and culture of the ancient Near East are
subsidiary concerns, important only as they provide the background
out of which the Exodus 1-2 portrait will emerge.24
18
1. Introduction
19
tot and bleibt tot.'27 Koch's concern is then to explore other evidence
for the rise of Israelite religion, noting little more about the
importance of Moses in the process than his role in a special complex
of traditions tied to the oasis in Kadesh.28 His procedure places
Israelite religion into the context of the society in Israel's environment. Her religion must have arisen in a fashion similar to the
religion of her neighbors. But that process does not allow us simply
to posit the existence of Moses as the founder of the faith.
Koch's description of the rise of Israelite religion apart from Moses
depends on Moth's analysis of the themes in the Moses traditions.
That analysis has not gone unchallenged. Yet, even should the
analysis stand the test of critical evaluation and Koch's review of the
history of Israelite religion apart from Moses as the founder of the
faith be substantially correct, still the investigation of Moses
traditions must address the present form of the narratives with
Moses given a dominant role in all four of the relevant themes.
Would that fact not suggest, quite apart from a proper resolution of
Koch's question about the origin of Israelite religion and.whatever
unique quality may have been embedded there from the beginning,
that somewhere in the history of the Moses traditions Moses gained
all-inclusive stature denied him by Koch? And would that not mean
that, even though the idea of a Religionsstifter might have been dead
at the beginning of Israel's religion, it gained new life at some later
point? So the question is put not so much as a part of historical
investigation, but rather in terms of the literature. Does tradition not
conceive Moses as the founder of the faith? Particularly in the postexile period, for the priestly source of the Pentateuch or for Ezra,
would this point not apply? How else would the reference to Moses
in Ezra 3.2 carry weight? 'They built the altar of the God of Israel, to
offer burnt offerings upon it, as it is written in the law of Moses, the
man of God.'
J.R. Porter explores the Moses traditions in order to clarify a
hypothesis that Moses functioned as a model for the monarchy.
From early times, the clue to understanding the figure of Moses
has been sought in viewing him as the typical representative of
some religious and social category, for example, the classic king,
high-priest, legislator, and the prophet of Philo. Of all the
categories that have been proposed, the most inclusive and the one
that best explains most features in the Pentateuchal picture of
Moses would seem to be that of the Israelite king, more specifically
the David monarch of the pre-exilic period.29
20
His argument is not that Moses was a king, although he comes very
close to that. The term melek (king) never appears as an appellative
for Moses. An exception to this observation may be found in Deut.
33.5, a text translated by the RSV as follows: Thus, the Lord became
king in Jeshurun, when the heads of the people were gathered, all the
tribes of Israel together'. But the Masoretic Text (the Hebrew text)
does not have 'the Lord'. And the previous antecedent is Moses, the
lawgiver. 'Thus, he [Moses?] became long in Jeshurun...' Yet the
text is ambiguous. Moses appears here as the lawgiver. And there is
some obvious parallel between the lawgiver and the king, as the
famous Hammurabi and his code would suggest.30 But the subject of
the description in w. 2-4 is the Lord, not Moses. The text seems at
best, then, to be inconclusive.
Porter develops various terms in the tradition as further evidence
for his assertion. These terms suggest that the images used to
describe Moses were images drawn from the monarchy and that
therefore the Moses traditions show formative influence from the
institution of the kingship. A case in point is the description of Moses
as a 'meek' man, more so than any other person on the face of the
earth, in Num. 12.3. The crucial term, 'andw, describes a person who
shows professional integrity in the execution of his official duties.31
This term, according to Porter, and the related tern, 'ani, derive from
the repertoire of virtues characteristic for the king (so, Zech. 9.9).32
Yet, is the virtue exclusive enough to limit the Moses traditions, even
this particular Moses text, to a setting in the institution of the
monarchy? Would it even suggest influence from the royal institution
on the traditions? Or must we consider a suggestion that the term,
'dndw, as well as 'am, is a more general term, used for describing
leaders of various offices? The use of the term in later stages of
development to refer to a general group of'meek' shows clearly that
the term invites such connotations.33 Is that not the case for 'anaw in
Num. 12.3? Is the concern not to present Moses in ideal form as the
model for a special leader, whatever the office?34
It must be clear, however, that Porter's argument rests on more
than his exegesis of Num. 12.3. He collects several items from the
Moses traditions which may be understood as royal in character.
Among these is the important role for Moses as 'lawgiver'. This point
will appear in my discussion in greater detail below. Suffice for the
moment to observe that law-giving does not override the clear
conception in the tradition that the law is older than the institution
of the monarchy and that, indeed, the Davidic king stands in conflict
1. Introduction
21
with the law.35 Moreover, a key part of Porter's argument asserts that
the royal dimension of the Moses traditions had its inception in
Jerusalem. Yet, remarkably, none of the sources for describing the
royal tradition in Jerusalem refers to Moses (see, for example, the
prophet Isaiah). Indeed, it is possible that an anti-Moses tradition
held the seat of honor there.36 In the light of Trent Butler's argument
for such a conclusion, it would be difficult to defend Porter's view
that the Moses traditions represent a pro-Moses, monarchy tradition
from Jerusalem.37 In view of these objections, then, would the
suggestion that a common tradition lies behind both the Moses
narratives and the royal element not carry greater weight? The
precise character of the connection between the Moses traditions and
the traditions about the monarchy would require careful attention.
Brevard S. Childs integrates his precise literary analysis with
observations about the sociological context for the Mosaic office.38
His discussion of the evidence opens with a depiction of Moses as
covenant mediator as suggested by Deut. 5.5 (see also Exod. 20) and
the conflicting picture that sees the covenant addressed immediately
to the people in Deut. 5.4. The issue, in contrast to Noth's hypothesis
that Moses must be understood traditio-historically as related to the
conquest theme, suggests exploring the relationship between the
office of Moses and the Sinai theme. 'What then can one say in
respect to the Mosaic office, particularly in relation to his [Moses']
role as mediator of the law at Sinai?'39 He concludes: 'A large
consensus has emerged which agrees that more than simply a literary
narrative is involved, but that the text reflects an ongoing religious
institution of covenant renewal going back far into Israel's early premonarchial history'.40 But even with this observation, a double factor
in the tradition calls for some attention. One factor presents Moses as
the mediator who stood in the gap between God and people following
the terror that broke when the people heard the voice of God (so,
Exod. 20.18-20). The other factor suggests that Moses' special role as
mediator derives not from the terrified request of the people, but
rather from God's design. (So, Exod. 19.19. Compare Exodus 34,
where the commandments and the covenant come to Moses alone.
The people simply hear of the new relationship or share in it through
Moses.) These two offices do not derive from two different
Pentateuchal sources, the one from E, the other from J, but rather
from the combination of two distinct traditions about Moses, both
lying behind the literary sources. And what image of Moses appears
here? (1) Moses appears as covenant mediator in a covenant renewal
22
The results of his study, however, are not simply historical but rather
sociological. According to Smend, Moses belonged, not to the
conquest of Transjordan, as Noth concluded, but rather to the
exodus tradition as a leader in the institution of Yahweh war.43 Part
of the consequence in this exposition of Moses is recognition of the
political as well as the religious dimension of the image. And it
suggests a broad image, crossing various institutional settings.
Perhaps the historical 'office' most nearly related to the image is the
'judge' who leads his people into holy war. And in this sense, Smend
notes the intimate connection between Moses and the Ark of the
Covenant. But still the Moses traditions describe a leader that
integrates various offices, rather than isolating one particular office.
Smend expresses this overarching character of the Moses image in
this way: 'The sequence of narratives [including Exod. 5.3-19] can be
1. Introduction
23
24
1. Introduction
25
26
distinct from Kadesh.60 And the context for this verse suggests that
the Mosaic line had some linkage to Levitical tradition. The point
here is, thus, that although evidence for tying Moses to a priestly
group is thin, there is nevertheless some evidence there. Yet, the
evidence does not underwrite a clear picture. It is complex and
ambiguous. And it points in more than one direction. It suggests at
most that among various priestly groups more than one laid claim to
Mosaic authority.
It is remarkably clear, therefore, that sociological questions have
not produced a consistent and singular picture of Moses. To the
contrary, the observation by Walther Eichrodt seems appropriate:
It is characteristic of Moses that it should be impossible to classify
him in any of the ordinary categories applicable to a leader of a
nation; he is neither a king, nor a commander of an army, nor a
tribal chieftain, nor a priest, nor an inspired seer and medicine
man. To some extent he belongs to all these categories; but none of
them adequately explains his position.61
1. Introduction
27
28
1. Introduction
29
30
and thus, I might add, the wilderness theme enters the discussion.
But the fallacy in all of these observations about the history of the
tradition is that none provides a perspective for an examination of
the Moses traditions as a whole. If Noth's assumption that all four
themes were originally independent, and that therefore Moses could
have been at home in only one, should prove to be incorrect, then the
judgment that Moses was only a secondary bracket would rest on
sand.75 The governing question, then, is not whether Moses appears
in only one theme; thus, which theme accounts for the beginning of
the tradition? It is rather whether the relationship among the themes
can be explained more adequately than would be the case on the
basis of Noth's hypothesis. Is Moses simply a bracket that binds the
themes together secondarily? Or can Moses be removed from the
various themes only by doing violence to the traditions?76
Gerhard von Rad uses his tools of form criticism and tradition
history not only to evaluate the Moses material for its contribution to
a history of Israel but even more directly to determine the value of
that tradition for an Old Testament theology. In his major work on
Old Testament theology he constructs a description of Moses images
in the major sources of the Pentateuch/Hexateuch. He does not
attempt to trace the history of the Moses traditions to their origins in
the life history of Moses. 'We can no longer look on it as possible to
write a history of the tradition attaching to Moses, and of where it
was at home.'77 Part of the reason for this conclusion lies in Noth's
position about the role of the Moses tradition in the various themes
of the Pentateuch. 'Not the least of the difficulties in this connexion
consists in the fact that the figure of Moses is only a secondary
accretion in many of the traditions.'78 But he does describe the Moses
portrait for each of the sources. In the Yahwist, the Moses figure
recedes behind the dominant role of Yahweh in the redemption of the
people. But that emphasis leaves the door open for a particular
construction. 'What then, in J's view, was Moses? He was no worker
of miracles, no founder of a religion, and no military leader. He was
an inspired shepherd whom Jahweh used to make his will known to
men.'79 This designation of imagery for the Moses figure loses the
precision of a definition that would type Moses as a prophet, a priest,
or a king. There is no clear institutional office that calls for a
professional who might be called an 'inspired shepherd'. The image
suggests, rather, a folk category, a romantic figure whose characteristics evoke the processes of the storyteller rather than those of an
administrative or religious office.
1. Introduction
31
32
The stories about Moses are not really about the man, but rather
they focus on the God who stands behind the man. And in that
process, the assertions of the tradition about what this man was like
lose their force. But it is not necessary to reduce the role played by
the man Moses in these stories in order to emphasize the role of God
for the weight of the narration. Indeed, it is precisely in the dialectic
established by these two poles that the strongest dynamic in the
Moses stories appears. It is the task of this project to describe and
evaluate that dynamic.
Frank Schnutenhaus builds on the foundation laid by Gressmann,
Noth, and von Rad. And while he speaks to crucial issues of history
and sociology, his primary contribution to the discussion about
Moses rests on a careful literary analysis, in the manner of his
mentors. He does not tie down a formal, institutional office that will
account for the Moses traditions. Rather, he writes of configurations
that belong more naturally to literary portraits. 'Mose wird so als
Mensch gesehen und gleichzeitig als Sprecher Gottes; er wird nicht
mythologisiert.'86 Moreover, this depiction of Moses in a very human
role is complemented by a pattern in the literature, fundamental for
the author's major thesis. Moses appears in a three-corner construct
as a messenger: Godmessengerpeople. Moses as messenger
cannot be understood apart from the God who sent him or the people
who heard him. The kernel of the Moses tradition is thus the
theological affirmation: 'Yahweh led Israel out of Egypt'. Moses did
the leading. He was the redeemer' (Retter). The credo confessions
presuppose that fact. But the articles confess that God acted in these
mighty deeds. They never mention Moses by name.
It is just at this point that one of the major issues in evaluating the
Moses traditions returns to the surface. What are the consequences
of the unique relationship between Moses and God, so central for the
presentation of Moses in the traditions? Must we assume from the
formulation of the credo articles that the Moses traditions are not
really about Moses after all, but rather about God? Schnutenhaus
makes his contribution to this issue particularly in his comments on
Exodus 14. In this pericope, he argues, God acts decisively to save
the people. Moses does nothing except in response to God's
1. Introduction
33
34
1. Introduction
35
problems arise when one attempts to define the procedure for those
methods. Polzin isolates three criteria for determining the temporal
relationship among stages in the history of the tradition used by von
Rad for his evaluation of the credo: (1) brevity, (2) simplicity in
content, and (3) a setting in the life of the people that accounts for the
character of the tradition.93 Polzin then raises important objections
about all three criteria. It is a weak step in constructing the history of
a tradition to assume that the shortest or simplest example of the
tradition is the oldest. It may still be the case in any particular
example that the shortest or simplest piece among various witnesses
to a tradition will be the oldest. But the fact of brevity or simplicity
cannot be the decisive factor in such a conclusion. Moreover, the
definition of setting can easily become hypothetical, difficult to
control with precision. A subjective reconstruction of setting can
easily replace a carefully controlled procedure.
The points are well taken. But again one must be careful. Even if
all three points in the critique are granted as telling categories, the
value of von Rad's method remains high for probing a text with its
critical tradition. The ability of the form critic to establish a tradition
history for the content of a pericope or a form history for its genre
might be weakened by the critique. Yet, if some impression of the
development in the tradition or the genre could be established, it
would provide an invaluable control for defining the significance of
the tradition or the genre at each critical stage. The tradition is
obviously not of uniform character at all occasions of its appearance.
To establish a control for placing the changes in some order of
development obviously would help define the significance of the
tradition's character along the way and, indeed, contribute to an
evaluation of the changes.
But von Rad's method is not only diachronic. It also has critical
value for defining the synchronic dimensions of a pericope, both for
the analysis of structure and for the definition of genre. Moreover, it
does not necessarily leave the pericope disintegrated. To describe the
structure of the Pentateuch on the analogy of the credo, even if the
credo should prove not to be ancient, even if the analogy does not
prove a cultic origin for the Pentateuch, still would illumine the
structure of the Pentateuch. And the value of the analysis is high for
describing the nature of the unity in the whole, not simply for pulling
the pieces apart and declaring them to be originally independent.
The method does not require reconstruction of the original tradition
in order to prove its value for interpreting the Moses images.
36
The primary goal for this book does not call for reconstruction of
an original Moses tradition. My concern is to describe the various
images used by various texts in the Old Testament for depicting the
characteristics of this giant. The pursuit is thus properly synchronic.
It asks about the shape of Moses imagery in the received text. But
there is also a diachronic dimension for my work. If in the effort to
describe how the tradition depicts Moses some competing images
arise, it is an appropriate task to inquire about the relationship
among those competing images. And that question can at least
potentially open windows of diachronic relationships. An answer to
the controlling question about the imagery for painting the portrait
of Moses may be constructed simply as an observation about the
dominant shape of the Moses story, not the original shape of the
story. And yet, if the shape cannot be contested by evidence from
early witnesses to the Moses tradition, one might ask why the
dominant picture would not demand such an exalted status. It is
nonetheless perhaps too much to claim that the clue for defining
'original' is uncontested dominance. The argument still depends on
dating pieces of evidence. And that pursuit is currently under
attack.
An assumption in the work that follows is that the Yahwist is older
than Deuteronomy or the priestly source. And in those places where
E appears, the source is an expansion of J, thus dependent on J.94
Moreover, the priestly source represents the latest stage in the
development of the literature, with Deuteronomy the middle term.
But even these clues now stand under attack.951 am not concerned in
the scope of this book with an absolute dating of the sources that
would place the Yahwist in the court of David or Solomon. The
issues are critical and demand attention. But my concern here is for
relative relationships in the definition of the growth of the Pentateuch.
The assumption of my work is that the classical definition of order in
the relationships of the sources holds even in the face of challenges.
But at key points the position will be argued rather than simply
assumed.96
The Moses Narratives as Heroic Saga
In order to develop an analysis of the Moses traditions, I propose the
following working hypothesis: The Moses narratives can be understood,
bracketed together, as heroic saga.97
Several problems threaten the stability of this thesis:
1. Introduction
37
38
1. Introduction
39
or goes to his future kingdom. (11) After a victory over a king and/or
a giant, a dragon, or wild beast, (12) he marries a princess, often the
daughter of his predecessor, and (13) becomes king. (14) For a time
he reigns uneventfully, and (15) prescribes laws, but (16) later he
loses favor with the gods and/or his subjects, and (17) is driven from
the throne and his city. (18) He meets with a mysterious death, (19)
often at the top of a hill. (20) His children, if any, do not succeed him.
(21) His body is not buried, but nevertheless (22) he has one or more
holy sepulchers.104
The list should be used with caution. It has obvious contact with
the Moses traditions, since one of the eighteen 'heroic' stories used to
compile the list was the story of Moses. Lord Raglan apparently felt
no necessity to prove that the Moses story was heroic before using it
as material for the list or a definition of 'heroic' apart from the
composite structure of the list. Yet, the list is useful precisely because
it is a composite of eighteen distinct traditions and not dependent on
the Moses story alone. Moreover, it suggests a distinction in the term
'hero' between the principal figure in a historical event, such as the
'hero' in the siege at Valley Forge, and the principal figure that
gathers folkloristic traditions, such as the 'hero' of the Nibelungenlied.
A more recent study by a Dutch folklorist, Jan de Vries, offers a
balance to the work of Lord Raglan. His list derives from medieval
heroic tales and thus does not present an obvious dependency on the
Moses tradition, although certainly he has been influenced by the
study of Lord Raglan. The list includes the following: (1) The hero is
begotten; (2) he is born; (3) his youth is threatened; (4) he is brought
up; (5) he often acquires invulnerability; (6) he fights with the dragon
or other monsters; (7) he wins a maiden, usually after overcoming
great dangers; (8) he makes an expedition to the underworld; (9) he
returns to the land from which he was once banished and conquers
his enemies; (10) he dies.105
Again, the list should not be embraced simply as the necessary
paradigm for any given heroic story. One or more elements may take
on altered form or drop out altogether. The list is useful, rather, as an
index for a recognizable structure that characterizes a particular type
of story. It gives evidence of the structure, moreover, apart from the
Biblical tradition, apart from Semitic literature and the period of
literary history that produced the Moses traditions. It suggests not
literary dependency or some kind of easy identification of types
between the medieval hero and the Moses stories, but rather a typical
story pattern that facilitates a definition of hero from evidence
40
1. Introduction
41
victory over Israel's enemy. The giant can be no hero, not even an
effective anti-hero for folk tradition unless he is hero for the people.
Even the Christian hermit cannot be a saint unless he is a saint for
his people. His heroic quality makes sense only insofar as it serves
the edification of the community.
One final problem in the composition of heroic tradition deserves
some attention. There is some recurring tendency in heroic tradition
to move the celebration of the deeds and virtues of the hero as a
human being, committed to the health and peace of his own people,
to a celebration of the hero as a god.109 Hercules was a man. But at
the moment of his entry to Olympus, he leaves his humanity behind
and becomes one among the gods in the pantheon. Heroic tradition,
then, balances the central figure between two natures. And the
interplay of the human nature with the potential of its divine
counterpart creates some of the tension in the dynamic of the
tradition. Particularly in Hellenistic Judaism this dynamic effects the
shape of the Moses traditions.
For Philo..., Moses is the epitome of ideal humanity, reconciler
and mediator between God and man, and revealer of the changeless
law which existed with God before the creation of the world.
Hellenistic Judaism views Moses in terms of its own ideals as a
superhuman figure, a divine man (Geio? dvnp).110
42
Chapter 2
THE BIRTH TALE
AND THE MOSES-MIDIANITE TRADITION
44
2 reports only that the mother hid the child. Verses 3-4 carry this
sense of danger to the point of tragedy. When the child could no
longer be hidden, he must be committed to his fate. He must be
exposed to the whims of the river, or better, as the reader knows, to
the hands of God.3
The exposure motifs open the door to the second element in the
unit. The child does not die by exposure. The royal princess
discovers his ark in the river during an excursion with her
attendants. Tension in the plot increases with the discovery. The
princess recognizes immediately that the child belongs to the
Hebrews, and the contrast between the royal Egyptians and the
common Hebrews raises the level of anxiety marked by the opening
element. Yet, at just this point of tension, the story teller foreshadows
the outcome of the tale. 'She took pity on him...' The verb,
wattahmol, can mean simply 'to spare from death'. But it also
connotes the intimate relationship between a parent and a child: 'I
will take pity on them as a man takes pity on his son who serves him'
(Mai. 3.17).
The tension breaks hi the third element of this tale, just as the
foreshadowing suggested. The child becomes a part of the Pharaoh's
house by virtue of the princess's move to adopt him as her own son.
It is significant that the structure particularly in the last element
reveals stereotyped patterns formed by legal procedures for adoption
as well as hiring a wet nurse.4 The focus of the tale, then, does not
highlight the birth of the child, although the report of birth is
obviously a part of the unit. The focus is rather on the adoption of
the child by the Pharaoh's daughter.
What, then, is the intention of such a pericope? It provides the
occasion to introduce the Egyptian name of the child, a fact that lies
hidden behind an explanation of the name as if it were derived from
Hebrew.5 But the intention of the pericope as a unit is not simply to
give a name to the boy. The tale places Moses in an Egyptian culture.
Moses would spend his childhood, at least from his weaning to his
passage into manhood, in the Egyptian court. This observation does
not support a conclusion that, as a matter of historical fact, Moses
was really an Egyptian. It does set up an irony in that the figure that
facilitates the victory of the Israelites and the exodus from Egypt
comes from within the walls of the Pharaoh's own court. The irony is
heightened by the description of the real mother of the child, hired by
the Pharaoh's daughter as a wet nurse, responsible for the early years
of Moses' nurture. The intention of the unit, however, does not
45
46
have been to create the context for the birth of Moses explicitly in the
oppressive policies of the Pharaoh. And it would heighten the irony
of the narrative yet another step. The child adopted into the
Pharaoh's house and subsequently the leader of the Israelites who
engineered the defeat of the Egyptians should have died in the
Pharaoh's pogrom. But instead, he escaped by the hand of the
Pharaoh's own daughter.7
Moreover, the midwives' tale provides an additional bridge
between the birth and adoption of Moses and the introduction of the
oppression leitmotif in 1.1-14. In 1.1-14 the 'people' of Israel appear
for the first time, the product of fruitful increase given them by God.
But the increase leads directly to a policy from the Pharaoh to submit
the slaves to oppressive hard labor (see 1.11 |J] and 1.13-14 [P]). The
oppression leitmotif, however, does not mesh well with the pogrom
scene or the birth-adoption tale.8 Why would the Pharaoh kill off his
labor force? Yet, it is not necessary to resolve this element of disunity
by reconstructing the narrative in a more harmonious fashion. The
disunity derives not from two different literary sources, but from the
association of two distinct functional structures in the narrative: the
Moses tale and the exposition for the exodus theme.
It would be relevant to ask here whether and in what manner the
birth-adoption tale contributes to an interpretation of the Moses
tradition as heroic. In order to address the question, I suggest first a
comparison of the tale with the narrative about the birth of Sargon of
Akkad:
Sargon, the mighty king, king of Agade, am I.
My mother was a changeling, my father I knew not.
The brotherfs] of my father loved the hills.
My city is Azupiranu, which is situated on the banks of the
Euphrates.
My changeling mother conceived me, in secret she bore me.
She set me in a basket of rushes, with bitumen she sealed my lid.
She cast me into the river which rose not (over) me.
The river bore me up and carried me to Akki, the drawer of
water.
Akki, the drawer of water, lifted me out as he dipped his e[w]er.
Akki, the drawer of water, [took me] as his son (and) reared me.
Akki, the drawer of water, appointed me as his gardener.
While I was a gardener, Ishtar granted me (her) love,
And for four and [...] years I exercised kingship.. .9
47
It has long been recognized that the accounts have some important
parallels. The baby was exposed to his fate in a basket of rushes. His
discovery introduces him into a family as an adopted son. And from
that advantage he matures to become a leader of his people. In both
cases, particularly if one considers Exod. 2.1-10 apart from the
context, it is not clear why the baby was exposed. But in both cases,
the exposure leads to adoption. Yet, despite the obvious similarities,
the differences seem more significant. (1) Nothing is known of
Sargon's father, and little is known of his mother. In contrast, Moses'
parentage is clearly set forward.10 Names for the parents are not
given in this tale. But it is clear that Moses belonged to the Israelites,
born to a family of Levites. Moreover, a sister watches over him and
seizes the opportunity to bring the real mother to the princess as a
wet nurse. The family of Moses is fully present. (2) If the intention of
the Sargon tale is to introduce a blessing oracle which would
determine the future by binding it to the past,11 the Moses tale seems
to move in a slightly different direction. It does introduce Moses into
the royal Egyptian court. And it does establish Moses' past in a way
that colors his future career. But the Moses birth tale seems even
more intent on showing the connections between the baby and his
own people. And in this direction, the heroic quality of the birth tale
emerges. Threatened by the foreign king, as all male children among
his people were, Moses survives by virtue of the protection given him
in the Pharaoh's own house. But this past does not determine the
future. That role belongs to the pericope in 3.1-4.23. (3) If Sargon can
be described as hero, he is hero in this tale for the people who adopt
him, the people he eventually rules as king. Moses is not hero for the
Egyptians. In fact, the context shows Moses under threat from the
host people. Rather, Moses is hero for the people of his birth. His
elevation in the court of the Pharaoh plays no other role in this tale
than as a contrast to the life that in fact is his. (4) Thus, the Sargon
tale has no developed element for the adoption, no report of hiring a
wet nurse. The interest of the narrative is not to account for the real
origin of the child, from which he was taken by legal means. It is to
show the important entry of the child into a royal position as the
leader of his new people. Thus, the Moses birth-adoption tale
qualifies as heroic in contrast to the Sargon piece because of its
identification of the child with his own people.
I would argue second that the tale is heroic because of the mood of
anxiety that threatens the birth of the child, a mood broken only by
the careful planning of the child's family and, of course, the stroke of
48
fortune which the audience can understand as the hand of God. The
hero begins his life in the face of a contrast between Hebrews and
Egyptians. And the contrast foreshadows the total scope of his
career. A birth that foreshadows the conflict at the center of the hero's
life work typifies the structure of heroic saga.
It is significant to note here that the priestly source has no claim to
this tradition. In the first chapter of Exodus, P describes the plight of
the people as a result of their fruitful increase. But the unit sets up
the action of God, not the birth of Moses. The birth-adoption tale
belongs rather to J, or with 1.15-21 to JE. To identify 2.1-10 as J and
1.15-21 as E might clarify the structure of the pericope. In that case E
would provide significant context for the birth story, even though the
present form of the text would preserve no trace of E's birth story
narration itself. Yet, it seems probable to me that these two traditions
circulated initially not as items in distinct literary sources, but rather
as elements in the oral tradition that lies behind the written form of
the tales. Their union reflects a combination of traditional elements
that occurred before the material reached written form.12
If that conclusion is justified, then in what manner would the
narrative motif, 'fear of God', enter the story? Does it not mark the
work of the Elohist?13 Would it then be a sign of the redactional
revision of the Elohist, designed to bring the midwives tale into the
scope of the narration about the exodus? The 'fear of God' belongs
particularly to the midwives, not simply to the process of the story as
a means for arriving at some other point. It accounts for the
midwives' courage in combating the Pharaoh's instructions. Without
it the plot that leads to victory over the Pharaoh's plan has no clear
motivation. And the foundation for the reward given these women
for bravery vanishes. So, v. 21: 'Because the midwives feared God, he
gave them families (made houses for them)'. Would the 'fear of God'
not constitute an intrinsic part of the story, not an item created ad
hoc by the Elohist? At least it is not clear that the motif marks the
story simply as a redactional element used only by the Elohist as a
means for giving expression to the oppression leitmotif. And
certainly it is not possible to conclude anything from this story about
the Elohist's use of heroic tradition for the beginning of the Moses
story.14
49
2. Moses-Midianite Tradition
a. The Marriage Tale: Exod. 2.11-22
This pericope comprises two subunits of structure, each built with
essentially the same element: w. ll-15a and w. 15b-22. In the first
element, the narrative depicts a point of tension. Moses, now a grown
man, saw his people ('ehdyw\ working under the burden of Egyptian
oppression (v. 11 a). It is important to recognize that all Egyptian
connections for Moses must be assumed for this verse. The explicit
affirmation of the story here identifies Moses not with the Egyptians,
but with the Hebrews. So, v. lib: 'He saw an Egyptian beating a
Hebrew, one of his people (me'ehdyw)\ The point of tension in the
scene thus emerges with clarity. One of his people suffers under the
oppressive hand of his opposition. Indeed, the verb 'beating'
(makkeh) connotes not simply physical oppression, but killing. In
this situation of oppression and in the light of the emphasis the text
places on the identification between Moses and his people by calling
the people his brothers twice, the tale has created the fundamental
tension of the plot. What will Moses do?
The second part of this story features a resolution of the tension by
describing Moses' intervention on behalf of the oppressed brother.
Verse 12 represents the intervention with irony. Moses killed the
Egyptian who had been killing the Hebrew brother. The verb used
for the Egyptian's act of 'beating' now describes Moses' act of
'killing'. And the final result of the 'killing' stands out clearly in the
reference to Moses' burial of his victim. This segment of the story
demands careful attention. Moses' act of violence does not deserve
denigration by interpreters as an act of 'murder'.15 The text does
suggest that Moses understands the risk of his act. Thus, it depicts
him as initially cautious. 'He turned this way and that, and seeing no
one he killed the Egyptian.' But his caution does not mean that he
plans an act of'murder' that would be a sin in the eyes of the Israelite
God. Obviously, the oppressed Hebrew whom Moses defends would
be a witness to the deed. And presumably he would have received the
deed as an act of deliverance, not a crime of violence. The text
represents the act, then, as a 'murder' only for the eyes of any
Egyptian who might witness the event or hear about it from some
primary source. For the Hebrew, for his own people, the act should
be seen as heroic defense, a risk of his own life for the sake of
protecting his brother.
But, we might object, Moses had not yet received God's commission
50
to deliver his people. Would this act of violence not appear premature
and thus inappropriate?16 In no way! It is true that the call cannot
justify the deed. But the call does not function to justify acts of
violence anyway. If the deed were 'murder' in the eyes of the
storyteller, it would still be murder even in the context of the call.
Rather than justifying random acts of violence, the call commissions
Moses for a very explicit responsibility. Here, that responsibility has
not yet entered the picture. But this act foreshadows it.
The scene does not end with Moses' heroic intervention on behalf
of his Hebrew brother. It develops a corollary element. Verse 13
places the hero among the Hebrews again, significantly in this case
not explicitly called his brothers. When Moses sees two of them
struggling (not the same verb as in the first element of the pericope)
he intervenes against the one in the wrong. Moses attends not only to
his own people against the Egyptians, but also to the cause of right,
the opposite of the named opponent from among his own people. The
guilty party responds, however, not with an apology and acquiescence
to justice, but with an accusation of his own: 'Who made you a prince
and a judge over us? Do you speak in order to kill me as you killed
the Egyptian?' Moses might have explained that he killed the
Egyptian in defense of his own people. But the tragedy of the scene is
that the accusation comes from the Hebrews, not from the
Egyptians, from the one oppressed by the enemy, for whom Moses
risked the violent intervention. The accusation suggests rejection of
the hero by the very one he claimed for his own. And even more, the
public knowledge of the intervention from the previous day signals a
violation of confidence from the man he rescued. The rejection
comes not just from the people at large, but from the single person
who benefitted from the intervention. Moreover, the public knowledge
spells danger from Egypt. 'When Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought
to kill Moses.'
The tragic scene of Moses' rejection sets a new scene in w. 15b-22.
In a fashion typical for the heroic pattern, Moses flees from his own
people to a strange land (compare the NibelungenliecT). In Midian, a
new incident of oppression occurs. At a well, a site for public meeting
(see Gen. 24; 29), a site ripe for romance in the folk tradition of
Israel, Moses stops to rest. Seven daughters of the Midianite priest
arrive in order to draw water for their sheep. And this task they did.
But then shepherds come and drive them away. In the same fashion
of his first intervention for the sake of oppressed people, so Moses
now arises to defend the oppressed. He drives the attacking shepherds
51
away and waters the women's flock. And by virtue of the heroic
intervention, Moses wins an invitation to the household of the priest
and eventually the right to marry one of the daughters. The heroic
tale of individual victory with the result of marriage into the clan's
leading family thus characterizes this stage of the Moses tradition.
Yet, some caution must again control judgment. Martin Noth felt
that the tale should not be considered a distinct tradition, but simply
an introduction to the call narrative in Exodus 3-4.17 If that
judgment were correct, the marriage tale could not count as evidence
of a heroic pattern apart from judgment about heroic or non-heroic
elements in the call tradition. To call the marriage tale merely an
introduction to the call tradition does not, however, appear to me to
be sound. The marriage tradition cannot be simply subordinated to
the call, even in the received text. Rather, it represents a distinct unit
of Moses tradition in its own right.18 And in its own field of meaning,
it has distinctive heroic intention: (1) intervention for the sake of the
oppressed, who happen to be the daughters of a Midianite priest, and
(2) marriage to one of the women defended by his strength.
Still, one might object. The account is hardly a model for medieval
romantic heroes. Moses saves the maiden in distress and thus wins
her hand in marriage. But in fact, he saves all seven women. And no
report of romance between Moses and his bride leads to an
announcement of the wedding. Rather, the text gives only the barest
of details, leaving the impression that the marriage was arranged by
Moses and the father of the woman. Indeed, it would be possible to
conclude that the intention of the tradition is to account for Moses'
relationship with his father-in-law rather than the romantic
relationship with his wife.19 And this conclusion is supported by the
tale in Exod. 18.1-8. Moses had sent his wife and her two sons away.
And the father-in-law here brings them back. After the interval of
absence, however, when Moses hears the news of their return, he
runs to embrace and kiss, not the wife whom he missed as a romantic
hero would, or even his sons, but the father-in-law. Verse 7b then
paints a picture at odds with the image of a romantic hero. It is not
his wife, newly restored to her husband, whom Moses takes into the
tent for a time of intimate conversation. It is the father-in-law. The
story may account for Moses' marriage to the priest's daughter. But
it appears to be more of a Moses-Reuel tradition than a MosesZipporah one.20 Indeed, if one asks whether the figure, Zipporah, was
rooted traditio-historically in this pericope, the answer would
necessarily be qualified.21 Zipporah is, of course, named as the wife
52
of Moses. And she bears him a son. But the name gives no distinctive
quality to the development of the tale; even the birth report for
Gershom constructs Moses as the active agent in giving the child a
name. The search for a tradition that might feature Zipporah as a
primary character would thus have to move beyond 2.11-22, in all
probability to 4.24-26.
But if the marriage story cannot be described as a Moses-Zipporah
tradition, in what sense is it genuinely heroic?22 (1) It does feature
Moses as a hero concerned for the oppressed, parallel to the hero who
intervenes for his own brothers in w. 11-12. Indeed, the two scenes
stand much more tightly bound than the midwives and the birth of
the baby. Thus, for this particular tradition, the heroic emerges from
Moses' identification with his people; both his own brothers and the
Midianite family become his own. (2) It fits into a general convention
in Old Testament tradition that treats marriage as an event that
establishes functional, familial relationships between the son-in-law
and the father-in-law (so, compare Gen. 29-31). (3) While Moses
remains with his father-in-law as a shepherd, he does so under the
stamp of a foreigner, away from his own people. Thus, he names his
son Gershom, and the tradition interprets the name by reference to
the Hebrew word ger, stranger or foreigner. Verse 22b makes the
point: 'Because he said, "I am ager in a foreign land"'. And when he
requests his father-in-law's permission to return to Egypt, he does so
in order to make contact with his brothers in Egypt ('ahay ^serbemirayim). The heroic dimension which sets Moses in relationship
to his own people thus looms through the marriage tale as the
controlling orientation of the narrative. The tradition may intend to
account for the relationship between Moses and Reuel, a relationship
that returns to center stage in Exodus 18 (with the name of the
father-in-law now Jethro). And it may offer a traditional element in a
heroic pattern, accounting in a typical fashion for the marriage of the
hero. But it does not lose contact with the focal emphasis in this
heroic tradition for the relationship between Moses and his people.23
The entire pericope derives from the J source, with 2.23-25 a
redactional piece designed to tie the marriage tale into the call
narrative.24 These verses would not be part of the major narrative
tradition, but the work of the redactor who joined the Moses tales of
Exodus 1-2 with the vocation tradition of Exodus 3. This piece may
reflect influence from the cultic liturgy for lamentation.25 But it is
not now a cultic piece; its setting cannot be defined simply as cult.
Rather, it is redactional hi function. Its setting is the literary
53
54
mighty acts. But it also sets up the response of the Midianite to the
account of the mighty acts, reported in w. 9-12. Jethro rejoiced over
the account. And the rejoicing leads to the confession of vv. 10-11
and the sacrifice described in v. 12. These elements have served
suggestions that Jethro must have been a priest of Yahweh and that
Moses introduced Yahwism into Israel's religious experience as a
result of influence from his father-in-law.27
The extent of Midianite influence on Mosaic Israel also constitutes
the subject of the second element in the pericope, w. 13-27. Here the
father-in-law makes a recommendation concerning the organization
of the people. The background of the organization may be dominated
by the patterns of the military.28 In this pericope, however, the
organization has to do with Mosaic leadership. Moses holds the right
to resolve civic disputes among the people. But the case load proves
to be so time-consuming that Moses could do nothing else (v. 14).
The father-in-law then poses a pattern of organization among the
people that would relieve the burden on Moses by investing
authority to assistants who could resolve minor cases. Significantly,
the text does not make a point of the authority of these assistants as
derivative from Moses (contrast Num. 11.17), Moses retains the
superior power. That power places Moses as the representative of the
people before God. And in return Moses must represent God to the
people, teaching them the proper way of life. The lower judges would
accomplish their part of the system as an extension of the Mosaic
position. But no explicit point confirms this relationship. Moreover,
the assistants must be men of integrity (8.21). But their qualification
for the office derives from the integrity, not by extension from Moses.
Thus, while Moses remains the leader of the people, and while he
receives the serious cases which the assistants cannot handle, the
intention of the unit is not to magnify Moses as leader, but rather to
describe the organization recommended by the Midianite father-inlaw. The organization does not derive from Moses' heroic leadership.
It does not derive from God's direction. It comes rather from the
Midianites.
This text, which has no apparent role for the heroic image of
Moses, has been commonly assigned to the Elohist. My impression is
that it would be methodologically unsound to conclude that E is nonheroic in its depiction of Moses, while the heroic belongs to J. The
problem is rather one of tradition history. The tradition here belongs
more directly to a strand of Midianite tradition which happens to
include Moses. It may be intimately linked to Exodus 2. But the
55
heroic form of Moses in this link has faded. This non-heroic element
is not peculiar to E but rather to the Midianite tradition.
c. The Midianites and Baal Pear: Num. 25.1-18; 31.1-54
The positive attitude toward the Midianites, assumed by the
tradition in Exodus 2 and 18, stands in sharp contrast to the text in
Num. 25.6-18 and its sequel in Numbers 31. The apostasy at Baal
Peor occupies center stage for w. 1-5 in ch. 25. By the seduction of
Moabite women, the Israelites attached themselves to Baal of Peor.
And as a consequence Moses pronounced execution for all those
involved. The execution itself, however, does not appear as an
explicit part of the narration. The tradition shifts in mid-stream at
v. 6 to a particular incident involving one Israelite man and a
Midianite woman. When these two persons were ritually executed by
Phineas, the son of Aaron, the plague of God's anger stopped. Verse 9
may then assume some connection with the Baal-Peor incident, for
here the narrator reports the death of 24,000 people because of the
plague. Would this dimension not assume the guilt of the people as
a whole for the violation? But it may be simply that the guilt of the
individual jeopardizes the entire community (cf. Josh. 7.1). Verses
10-13 then use the tradition as grounds for a covenant with Phineas
for a perpetual priesthood. And w. 14-15 name the guilty couple
executed by Phineas. The point of relevance for our consideration
comes in w. 16-18. Here the shift from the Moabites to the
Midianites as the principals in the Baal Peor apostasy has been
completed. And the impact of the shift is expressed in terms of a
harsh, anti-Midianite saying: 'Harass the Midianites and smite them,
for they harassed you with their plot which they planned against you
in the matter of Peor'.
This anti-Midianite tradition also appears in Numbers 31. A
speech from the Lord to Moses calls for war against the Midianites
specifically to avenge the Israelites. The war brings victory, including
the death of Balaam, the son of Peor, by the sword in the battle. The
comment apparently assumes a connection between Balaam and the
apostasy of Israel at Peor, a connection made explicit in v. 16. In
these verses Moses remains the leader of the people and the
spokesman for God. But the focus of the narrative is not on Moses.
Rather, other elements of the community advance to center stage,
such as Eleazar, the priest. Thus, the contribution of the narrative to
a discussion of Moses traditions is not in terms of the Moses figure
but rather in terms of the Midianites. Here the Midianites are the
56
Chapter 3
THE VOCATION TALES: EXODUS 3.1-4.31; 6.2-7.7
The accounts that set out Moses' call to a vocation hold a key for any
definition of the tradition generally or for a description of the Moses
figure in particular.
1. Exod. 3.1-4.31
This pericope requires no new structural analysis. The pattern
features a combination of (1) a commission for the one called by a
superior, (2) an objection to the commission by the one called, (3) the
superior's reassurance for a successful execution of the commission,
designed primarily to meet the objection, and (4) some indication of
acceptance and even successful execution of the commission. These
elements may appear in a variety of repetitions and even with other
distinctive items, such as an opening theophany or a description of
'signs'. Yet, in all the variations and repetitions, the governing
structural focus shines through. A figure receives a call, and despite
his objections, he accepts it with his superior's reassurances and
carries through on it to some kind of recognizable conclusion.1
Parallels for the form appear in Gen. 24.1-67; Judg. 6.11-24; Isa. 6.113; Jer. 1.1-10, among others. And in each the same structural focus
controls the presentation of the material.
The Moses pericope from the Yahwist begins with an account of
theophany. Moses, the shepherd for his father-in-law in Midian,
witnesses a phenomenon unique in the physical world: a bush burns
without being consumed. Typical for the theophany are an account of
unusual quality in nature or a natural event and some description of
that quality in relationship to fire.2 But the burning bush should not
blind the eyes of the exegete to the dominant element in the
structure. The fire serves only to attract the attention of the
58
59
60
are the Lord and his people. Element b (w. 9-10), however, softens
the first-person announcement by shifting the first statement to a
participial clause: 'Now, behold, the cry of the Israelites is coming to
me...' But of more importance, the intention is no longer to
announce God's act for the salvation of the people, a direct
intervention which he accomplishes for the sake of his people, but
rather to announce his commission of Moses: 'I send you to
Pharaoh...' And the goal of the commission now projects Moses'
decisive contribution to the event: 'You bring my people the Israelites
from Egypt'. The two elements, so it seems to me, have quite distinct
functions, complementary to each other, but not identical. The
relationship between the two can more appropriately be understood,
therefore, in terms of the working hypothesis. Element a emphasizes
God's mighty act to save his people, while element b is fundamental
for the heroic tradition since it establishes Moses' vocational identity
with the people. The people are still the people of God: 'my people'
('arnmi). But Moses' vocation stands in intrinsic relationship to those
people. He does not roam around as a lone giant, free to do whatever
comes his way without consideration of the people. He must do
whatever he does for the sake of the people. And what he must do is
bring the Israelites out of Egypt. There is no way to understand a
Mosaic office or even the Moses of literature apart from the people.
But also, for this text, there is no way to understand the exodus apart
from Moses.
This point is also apparent in w. 11-12. Moses objects to the
commission with a self-abasement.5 And God's response promises
divine presence. Indeed, the sign in v. 12 serves to validate Moses'
office. 'I shall be with you [singular]. And this shall be a sign for you
[singular] that I have sent you [singular]. When you [singular] bring
the people out from Egypt...' It would appear here that God's
presence in the exodus event is predicated on Moses' leadership, and
that in itself might well stand as a dimension of the heroic. But the
identity between heroic man and his people follows close on the heels
of the image. 'You [plural] shall serve God on this mountain.' Moses
and the people together will worship. Moses does not worship alone.
He does not mediate the service to the people as something he
experienced alone and now shares with them. He leads them. But he
does not do so apart from them. In this case, the service involves both
Moses and people. Moses is primus inter pares.
The sign, however, calls for more consideration. Moses does what
he does in relationship to the people. But it is specifically Moses who
61
62
refer back to earlier parts of the pericope, rather than forward. But its
reference is to the immediate context rather than a distant context. It
is a part of the very speech that contains the demonstrative: 'I shall
be with you, and this is a sign for you that I have sent you'. God's
presence is fundamental for Moses' vocation. And the reality of it
validates the vocation. Could it not be the sign that confirms his
authority? Childs rejects this alternative because (1) the clause with
its demonstrative pronoun connects to the preceding promise for
presence with a waw conjunction, but to the following infinitive
asyndetically, and (2) the sterotype 'I will be with you' does not
function elsewhere as a sign. The first point would be a problem with
any interpretation that looks backward for the antecedent rather
than forward to the asyndeton. The second assumes a certain rigidity
in the pattern. Would it be necessary to conclude that the stereotype
cannot be the sign here because it does not appear so elsewhere?
The observation is important, however, and the construction of
the verse is telling. Particularly, the parallel in Judges 5 provides
helpful data. Again, the sign serves as a guarantee for the commission.
The promise for presence is not the sign. It is a reassurance in the
face of Gideon's objection. But the sign follows the promise and
secures both the promise for presence and the promise-instruction in
the body of the commission. Thus, the fulfillment of the promise is
not the sign, as Childs suggests. In Exod. 3.12, a promise appears in
the stereotype: 'I will be with you'. And that promise speaks to the
crisis raised by Moses' objection. The fulfillment of the promise
would thus be evidence for God's having been present.
But what, then, could be the sign? The text is ambiguous just here
and does not spell out how God's presence might be made known.
Could such a nebulous item function as a sign particularly when it
never does so at other points in parallel texts? Moreover, it seems to
imply a sign associated with successful completion. In that case, the
sign would appear to me to be the event described in the clause of
v. 12b. The construction in 1 Sam. 2.34 is exactly the same. The
promise is that posterity for the house of Eli shall die. The fulfillment
will be the death of the house. The sign occurs as a guarantee for the
validity of the promise. Still, the objection remains. If the sign is
worship on the mountain, in what manner can it relate to the
promise for God's presence in the commission of Moses, to be
fulfilled in the exodus? Child's objection to this alternative makes
sense if we assume that the exodus is independent of Sinai. The
exodus occurred, and then the event at the mountain occurred.
63
Indeed, they may have occurred for two completely different groups
of people. And in that case, the event at the mountain could have
nothing to do with a sign for the validation of Moses in the exodus.8
But if this text should not assume such a distinction, if it should
assume on the contrary that exodus and Sinai and even conquest all
constitute the evidence of fulfillment in the promise, then the
objection collapses. Coming out of Egypt is not the end of'exodus' as
God has promised it, and as a consequence the validation of Mosaic
authority does not apply simply to an escape from Egyptian
oppression. Rather, the authority of Moses continues (all the way to
the land? so, v. 8), and its validation occurs in the sight of the people,
not privately, when Moses and people together worship God at the
mountain. The fact that the sign occurs after departure from Egypt
but before completion of the wilderness wanderingseems no more
a handicap than does the death of the two sons of Eli as a sign that
participates in the reality of the promise to eliminate all posterity
from the family. And the fulfillment of the promise, a reality the sign
already marks as a prolepsis, continues beyond the sign until its full
scope reaches maturity. This conclusion does not undercut the thesis
that exodus, wilderness wanderings, Sinai, and conquest are distinct
themes. But it does weaken the argument that they were all
independent. Especially, evidence for associating exodus and Sinai at
a basic level seems to me to be present here.9
Verses 13-15 contain the classical center for discussion of this text,
the revelation of the divine name in conjunction with the idem per
idem formula. The objection Moses raises is that if the people should
ask him the name of his superior, he would have nothing to tell them.
God's response, v. 14, contains the formula: 'I am who I am'. It has
long been correctly noticed that the formula contains a word play on
the verb 'to be' (hayah). It is, moreover, a common explanation that
the word play emphasizes God's promise to Moses for his presence.10
I would support that interpretation with an observation that the
word play represents a functional part in the structure of the
pericope, rather than an external assertion. It is one in the series of
reassurances addressed to Moses in the light of his objections to the
commission. It seems unlikely to me that the play represents an
abstraction of the verb in an effort to say that the Lord is the one who
exists, or even the one who causes the creatures to exist.11 Rather, I
would suggest that the repetition of the form, 'ehyeh, thus, 'ehyeh
**ser 'ehyeh, plays on the same verbal form in v. 12, 'ehyeh 'immak.
This point seems the more likely to me in view of the fact that the
64
65
66
67
68
therefore, with the question about the original form and function of
the Aaron tradition.18
An additional complication also demands some attention. Part of
the pattern of evidence for the question is the description of the rod
as the rod of God. Exod. 4.20 and 17.9 illustrate the combination.
And in both cases, the collocation serves to emphasize the peculiar
relationship between God and Moses. The rod symbolizes Moses'
power to act on behalf of his people. The action is not limited to
sacral acts. To the contrary, political events dominate. But the rod
carries the name of God and points to the source of authority and
power for the act as God. Moses acts with the rod, therefore, by
virtue of the authority of God that is expressed in the symbol of the
rod. Moreover, the term, matteh, appears in parallel with the hands
of Moses. So, in 9.22, the Lord instructs Moses to stretch forth his
hand. But the notice of execution for the instruction describes the
event as stretching forth the rod (see also 10.12,13). And in 10.21-22
the same kind of event occurs, but in this case the hand of Moses has
completely replaced the rod. Thus, it would appear to me that the
instrument is not simply the magician's rod, but rather the symbol of
Moses' personal authority. In this one symbol, the heroic man who
acts for the benefit of his people and the man who functions as the
representative of God merge. Reference to the rod as the rod of God
does not suggest that traditio-historically the rod belongs originally
to either of the two figures who led Israel. It points rather to the
theological dimension in the tradition.
In contrast to this representation of the authority of Moses, 4.1017 presents the next round of objections and reassurance. Moses
complains that he is not a man of words, that in fact he has a 'heavy'
mouth and a 'heavy' tongue. But this objection does not mean
necessarily that the man Moses suffered from a physical handicap. It
does not mean that for the literature, a stammering tongue was
Moses' heroic flaw.19 To the contrary, the description must be
evaluated in the light of the stereotyped pattern. The stereotype
demands the objection in order to set up a reassurance related to the
mouth of the subject. Thus, Isaiah objects that he is a man of unclean
lips. And the reassurance has one of the seraphim touch his mouth
with a burning coal (Isa. 6.5-7). The second servant poem avers that
the Lord who called the servant from the womb made his mouth like
a sharp sword (Isa. 49.2). Jeremiah complains that he cannot speak
because he is only a youth. And the Lord reassures him by 'touching
his mouth' (Jer. 1.9). And for Ezekiel, the Word of God becomes
69
sweet as honey in his mouth (Ezek. 3.3). Moses' objection that he has
a heavy mouth and no words should not be taken as a sign of literal
physical handicap, or even as an element in a non-heroic or antiheroic picture in the literature, but rather as a marker that sets up
the reassurance. Thus, in 4.12: 'Now go, and I shall be ('ehyeh) with
your mouth and I will teach you what you shall say'. Moreover, it is
particularly in this context that we can see the promise for presence
as a uniquely personal promise to Moses. But the personal character
of this promise lies not so much in the promise for presence with a
part of Moses' body. It is more deeply rooted in his vocation, in what
Moses must do. God's presence underwrites Moses' mission and
authority. And it is out of that presence that his heroic relationship
with his people is possible.
The objection in v. 13 relates to the complaint about a heavy
mouth and a heavy tongue: 'I pray, O Lord, send by the hand of the
one you will send' (RSV: 'send some other person'). The objection
provokes God's anger. And with the anger God introduces Aaron as
a means for meeting Moses' objection. Aaron can speak well (dabber
fdabber hit*). But again, the stereotype should be recognized. Moses
objects, a typical element in the vocation scene. The objection does
not suggest that a handicap belabored the work of Moses. Nor does it
suggest a literary construct designed to highlight Moses' heroic flaw.
Rather, it is a literary construct that introduces Aaronic tradition
into the Moses story. That tradition appears to me to be clearly a
secondary insertion into the Moses complex. And the process,
especially in v. 16, clearly subordinates Aaron to Moses. 'He shall
speak to the people for you. He shall be a mouth for you. And you
shall be God for him'. One must be cautious here. The tradition does
not elevate Moses to the status of God, a feature that does appear
commonly in the patterns of heroic tradition,20 but never emerges in
the Old Testament tradition about Moses. The statement does not
suggest that the hero Moses becomes God. Rather, it establishes an
analogy. To the extent that Aaron functions as a mouth for Moses, to
that extent Moses functions as god for Aaron. Moses does not become
god for all of his people. He does not even become god for Aaron
except in terms of functional relationships. When Aaron, who is not
literally Moses' mouth, functions as a mouth for Moses, saying the
words Moses gives him to say in the way that a person gives his own
mouth words to say, then Moses functions as a god for Aaron, and
only for Aaron, giving him words to speak. This relationship is
confirmed by the parallel in Exod. 7.1. In that text, Moses stands as
70
god to the Pharaoh. And Aaron will be the prophet. 'God to the
Pharaoh' suggests an image that demands obedience. But the crucial
part of the picture for the discussion of the Exodus 3-4 text is the
relationship between Moses and Aaron. Aaron, Moses' prophet, will
speak the words Moses gives him to say. And that relationship
confirms the pattern in Exodus 4.
Verses 18-20 break the dialogic structure of the commission with
its responses of objection and reassurance for a narrative report of
the conclusion. Moses returns to his father-in-law in order to ask
permission to return to Egypt. Jethro grants his leave and Moses
packs his family for the trip. The functional role these verses play for
the unit does not focus, however, on the relationship between Moses
and Jethro, as it does in ch. 2. It is rather to report the execution of
the commission to Moses. Moses heard the Lord, sending him back to
Egypt. Now he goes. Thus, v. 20: 'So Moses took his wife and her
sons, and he made them ride on the ass. And he returned to the land
of Egypt. And Moses took the rod of God in his hand'. Verses 21-23
also belong to the pericope. But they are not a primary part of the
structure. Rather, they represent an addition to the conclusion that
associates the plagues to be established by Moses (thus, the reference
to the rod in v. 20) to the Passover. But the relationship appears to
me to be clearly secondary. These verses represent an extension of
the basic exodus tradition in order to make room for the Passover
tradition (see the comments on the Passover below). Two important
motifs for the plagues also appear here: (1) the Pharaoh with the
hardened heart, and (2) an appeal to the Pharaoh to release the
Israelites for service to the Lord. But in both cases, the motifs derive
from the plague tradition. They do not constitute primary elements
for the vocation tale or for the Passover tradition.
Verses 24-26 have nothing to do with the vocation tradition.
Indeed, it is not clear to me that this little unit can in any manner be
assigned a primary role in the Moses traditions at all. The principal
figure is Zipporah. The context identifies the passive figure as Moses.
Verse 20 notes that Moses takes his family with him on the journey
back to Egypt. Yet the unit in w. 24-26 makes no reference to Moses
by name. The RSV inserts Moses into v. 25 in order to clarify the
antecedent for the unnamed passive male in the narrative. But the
MT has no name, no allusion that would identify this figure. And in
fact the male is relatively unimportant. The primary principal is
Zipporah. Indeed, the unit may represent the original locus for
Zipporah in the traditions of the Pentateuch. Moreover, the
71
72
Moses saga. Vocation tale sets up the narrative pattern for the larger
saga. How will Moses execute the instructions in the divine
commission? What lengths will be necessary to fulfill the whole scope
of the call? The vocation tale plays a key role for the entire exodus
theme: Everything that follows is in some sense execution of the
divine commission. For the final form of the text, the pericope does
not end until Exod. 12.36.
The vocation tradition thus makes an important contribution to
the pattern of the Moses traditions as heroic saga. It describes Moses'
vocation in relationship to the people. Moses becomes the one who
will lead the people. But the point is not so much to describe him in
terms of the shepherd. It is to establish his authority as leader of the
people. His authority raises the question of obedience to Moses, both
from the people and from the Pharaoh. In what manner will the
people or the Pharaoh recognize the unique position Moses holds?
Moreover, it is important to ask how this pattern of authority for
Moses effects the narrative image. Who, according to the literature
focused on the topic of Mosaic authority, was Moses? It is clear that
the authority is not simply resident in the person of Moses. Moses
derives his unique position from God. There is, then, a sense in
which Moses functions as a mediator for the authority of God. This
point can be seen in the fact that while the rod belongs in a special
way to Moses, it is still on occasion called the rod of God. Yet, Moses
is not simply an instrument for mediating God's authority to the
people. The focal concern of ch. 4, indeed, the intention of the signs
in ch. 4, is to enable the people, or at least the elders, to believe in
Moses. Moses, according to the tradition, was the heroic leader of the
people, the one to whom the people committed their loyalty.
But can this image of Moses be defined with more precision? Hugo
Gressmann suggests that the pericope builds on an early level of
tradition derived from a hieros logos for a sanctuary.22 The burning
bush tradition accounts for the original discovery of a holy place.
And the account involved a Midianite hero whose name is no longer
preserved.23 The setting would thus be cultic. But this stage would
not reflect influence from the Moses traditions or anything about the
image of the Moses figure that carries the narrative. The local
tradition, should the hypothesis be correct, would have been
appropriated as exposition for the Moses tale. And certainly any
guesses about the character of the hypothetical Midianite hero would
offer no controls for evaluation of the guiding questions about
Moses.
73
But prophets were not the only figures who raised some kind of
objection or expressed some form of doubt or hesitation about being
sent on a mission. In Gen. 24.5, the servant of Abraham responds to
74
75
76
Moses narrative. And in this text is the word play on the name of
God, a play that emphasizes the promise for God's presence with
Moses. If this text is properly E, it would suggest that at least a part
of the heroic traditions appears in E and is thus perhaps a part of G,
the basic tradition that lies behind both J and E. Yet, the critic cannot
simply slice these verses away from the Yahwistic narrative without
suggesting something similar from J for the parallel, for these verses
carry a key element in the structure of the whole. If they are E, they
must be taken not as evidence for an independent Elohistic narrative,
but as an expansion of the Yahwistic structure. E would thus not
represent an independent witness to the heroic tradition about
Moses, but rather a witness that depends on the basic Yahwistic
narrative. And the evidence for reconstructing a basic level G source
would disappear. In ch. 4 the same kind of caution would be
required. Noth suggests that v. 17 belongs to E.31 The reason is that
the rod, the only constitutive motif hi the verse, corresponds to the
rod of God in v. 20. But again, the problem is not a source-critical
one, but a traditio-historical one. A traditional designation of the rod
is matteh ha^lohim. In Exod. 17.9 the point is clear. But such a
technical combination, so it seems to me, would belong more nearly
to the tradition about the rod than to the peculiar vocabulary of one
source for referring to the rod. It would at best be weak evidence for
designating w. 17 and 20 as E. I am inclined to conclude, then, that
while the Elohist is doutblessly present in this pericope, it cannot be
defined as an independent source and thus as an independent witness
to the heroic tradition. It is more likely that E is an expansion of J
and thus draws its perspective about Moses, the recipient of the
promise for God's presence, from J. The intention of the E
expansions would thus be to comment on the character of the
tradition in J by giving a significant interpretation of the name of
God.
2. Exod. 6.2-7.7
This pericope constitutes a doublet of Exod. 3.1-4.31. It is not simply
a repetition of the structure and content of the JE counterpart. It has
its own peculiarities. But the functional pattern of structure is the
same. And the variations in content can be explained as the result of
the peculiar interest of the source.32
The character of the tradition as a tale in the Moses narrative
suffers a compromising alteration in the first element of structure,
however. There is no clearly defined exposition for the narrative, no
77
78
79
here recede behind the dominating form of God. And they function
simply as instruments in the hands of God. The unit belongs,
according to a scholarly consensus, to the priestly source. But the
impact of that observation is not simply that P employs non-heroic
tradition, while J or JE uses heroic images. Rather, the point of the
observation is that P apparently intentionally rejects the heroic
dimension. It seems likely that P knew the J tradition. The selfrevelation of God, the witness to Israel's moaning because of the
Egyptian oppression, indeed, the announcement of God's intention
to bring Israel out all point to such a conclusion. The shift to nonheroic images would emphasize the fact of tradition, already present
in J, that depicts God's mighty acts. But the point of importance
would be that the shift represents a distinctive element for priestly
theology. For P, so we may now anticipate, all these stories about
Moses or Moses and Aaron are not really stories about the human
leadership of Israel in the exodus. They are stories about God. The
image of Moses that carries the tradition, now shared with the image
of Aaron, is one that represents these figures, not as creative leaders,
but simply as messengers, instruments in the hands of God. Not even
the charismatic dimension remains. They do not inspire loyalty
among the people to follow their leadership. They inspire loyalty to
God.
Some more systematic attention to the impact of Aaron on the
Moses traditions would be in order just at this point. In the priestly
narrative Aaron appears rather forcefully as the founder of the
priestly group, the brother of Moses and spokesman to the Pharaoh.
Noth observes: 'As the brother and the closest associate of Moses,
Aaron was especially well suited for the important office of priest.
Moses himself held a position that was too all-embracing for him to
undertake one single office, even if it were the office of the highpriesthood, which was central for P'.34 Thus, even for P, Aaron
would not represent a figure whose leadership would have detracted
from Moses. For the older tradition, the Aaron figure is more
problematic. Noth finds the evidence ambiguous for determining the
origin of the tradition. Many appearances of Aaron are simply
secondary. But even in the ones that are not, the image of Aaron
remains ambiguous.
Just as there is no true substantive agreement among these
passages..., so there is no discernible way to move from them to
the view of Aaron in one instance as the instigator of the cult of the
80
Chapter 4
MOSES' DEALINGS WITH THE PHARAOH:
EXODUS 5.1-12.36
82
83
84
85
Moses, "Now you shall see what I shall do to the Pharaoh, for with a
strong hand he shall send them away and with a strong hand he shall
drive them from this land".' The strong vocabulary includes the
verbs 'to send' (salah) and 'to drive out' (garas). The Passover scene
in 12.29-33 fits such a pattern. In 12.33, the text uses a similar
picture: 'The Egyptians pressed the people to hurry, in order to send
them out from the land...' The verb here is salah (FsalFham). And
in Exod. 12.39: 'They baked dough which they brought from Egypt,
unleavened cakes, because it was not leavened because they were
driven from Egypt...' The verb here is garas (go^su).
Again, therefore, the question arises: Does this unit not represent
an anti-heroic image of Moses? Moses and Aaron await the results of
the negotiations when the foremen of the people leave their efforts
with the Pharaoh. Does this picture not undercut the image of Moses
as leader of the people (and of Aaron as his assistant)? Martin Noth
argues this case:
In this section Moses recedes completely into the background and
the Israelite overseers negotiate alone with the Pharaoh while
Moses, as it surprisingly turns out in v. 20, waits outside!...
Manifestly, in Exod. 5.3-19 we come upon the fossil remains of a
stage in the history of tradition when the figure of Moses had not
yet been incorporated into the theme 'guidance out of Egypt' and
when the elders of the Israelites still acted as spokesmen to the
Egyptians.5
His point of view would suggest, moreover, that not only was Moses
not a pan of the exodus theme at this stage and thus not the heroic
leader of the people, but also that this stage of the tradition originally
prefaced the plague cycle. Indeed, one might explore whether this
'fossil' preserves the traditio-historical roots of the exodus-plague
tradition. If that should be the case, then in the primary form of the
tradition, the plagues would not be the execution of the vocation tale
but tradition of independent importance. A critical evaluation of this
hypothesis must wait examination of the cycle of narratives about
Moses' dealings with the Pharaoh hi Exodus 7-12, and indeed, the
completion of the discussion about this pericope.
Yet, we must remain cautious in concluding simply with Noth that
this fossil removes Moses from the picture in the exodus traditions.
The text as it now stands does not represent the foremen as
negotiating for the release of the Israelites for a festival celebration in
the wilderness. They negotiate for reduction of the work burden,
86
87
I would conclude, then, that while this unit may not contribute new
material to the image of Moses as a hero, it does not detract from the
thesis. Indeed, if Smend's observation has merit, it supports the
thesis in a very particular way. Moreover, it would appear to me that
failure in the negotiations process would not detract from the heroic
image. Rather, it introduces a particular kind of challenge to the
hero. If the Pharaoh refuses to let the people leave as a result of the
formal negotiations, how will the hero accomplish his goals? This
problem cannot be answered on the basis of this chapter. Insofar as
this unit is concerned, the commission remains unfulfilled, and the
unit points beyond itself to a conclusion in coming narration.
But if that opinion is correct, can we find in chapter 5 the fossil of
ancient tradition that gives us a handle on the original shape of the
negotiations narrative and Moses' role in it? Smend argues effectively
that this pericope does not constitute convincing evidence for
excluding Moses from the exodus theme. If it does contain a fossil of
ancient tradition, Moses would be a part of it. The subject of the
negotiations seems to me to argue for the same point. The foremen
negotiate only a reduction in the work requirements, not the release
of the people. Moses is intimately connected to all negotiations for
release. And if we hypothesize about an original form of the tradition
that had the foremen seeking the release of the people, we must deal
with the weakness of the hypothesis, for no evidence in the text
supports the picture. It would seem to me, therefore, to be clear that
this fossil preserves the role of Moses in the negotiations process. At
this early level, Moses is the charismatic hero of the Israelites whose
work makes possible God's redemption of the people from their
bondage. Would this image be compromised by Aaron? That does not
appear to me to be the case. The text always relates Aaron to Moses.
88
89
2. Exod. 7.8-12.36
The received text of Exodus seems to suggest that the execution of
the commission of Moses unfolds through a series of signs and
wonders that culminates in the Passover, with the Pharaoh expelling
the Israelites in a desperate response to the death of the firstborn.
The structure of the series would appear to support this assumption.
A succession of episodes pits Moses and Aaron against the Pharaoh
in dogged negotiations for the release of the people. Regularly, each
scene begins with a speech from the Lord, addressed to Moses or
Moses and Aaron together. Regularly, the speech specifies instructions
for establishing a sign. Commonly, but not on every occasion, the
instructions send Moses or Moses and Aaron to the Pharaoh in order
to negotiate for permission to leave the land with the people. Motifs
from Exodus 5 recur at just this interval. Thus, Moses appeals for
permission to take the people into the wilderness to 'serve' the Lord
(7.15, 25 [RSV 8.1]; 8.15; 9.1,13; 10.30). But regularly, the Pharaoh
hardens his heart or the Lord hardens his heart for him. To be sure, a
series of concessions appears. But the hard-hearted Pharaoh so limits
his concessions that Moses will not accept the condition. But the
reason for the Pharaoh's obstinacy is not simply the hard heart; it is
his impression that Moses plans to deceive him. So, in 10.10, he
rejects the concession Moses wants: 'See, you have some evil purpose
in mind'. Thus, regularly, each scene suggests that the negotiations
or the demonstrations of power fail. The series thus moves from one
sign to the next. And the Passover sign stands at the conclusion.
Narration of the Passover sign occurs in the same sequence and
clearly appears as the continuation of the series. It is the sign that
finally exerts enough pressure against the Pharaoh to secure release
of the people. So, in 12.31-32: 'He summoned Moses and Aaron by
night. And he said, "Rise, go out from the midst of my people, both
you and the Israelites. Go and serve the Lord as you said. And take
your flock and your herd just as you said. Go and bless me also"'.
Moreover, the construction of the scene shows clearly that the
Passover episode is one more in the series: The Lord instructs Moses
(not Aaron) to anticipate one more plague, despite the explicit break
in the negotiations represented by 10.28. And while no commission
sends Moses to the Pharaoh to warn him of the plague and negotiate
for the release of the people, the scene apparently assumes such a
warning. Thus, the speech in v. 4 announces the plague to the
Pharaoh in advance of the event itself. Verse 8b shows clearly that
90
the announcement occurred before the Pharaoh and that the event led
again to frustration. So, in the present form of the text, the climax of
the negotiations, with increasing physical and political/religious
pressure developed to support the appeal, appears in Exodus 12. In
w. 29-32 the Pharaoh accedes to the appeal of the Israelites. And
v. 32 marks the climax: 'Take both your flocks and your herds just as
you said, and go. And bless me also'. Then vv. 33-36 narrrate the
execution of those instructions.
It is important to note that in this configuration, the exodus occurs
not as a consequence of the negotiations of Moses, but rather as a
consequence of the proper celebration of the Passover ritual. Verse 28
makes this point explicit: 'The Israelites went and did just as the
Lord commanded Moses and Aaron; thus they did'. This formulaic
report of execution for instructions established by some previous
speech sets up the event that marks the climax to the series. And the
parallel to it in w. 50-51 shows the connection clearly: 'All the
Israelites did just as the Lord commanded Moses and Aaron; thus
they did. And on that very day, the Lord brought the Israelites out
from the land of Egypt according to their hosts'. Thus, if we ask this
text how the exodus occurred, the answer must be that it happened
when Israel kept the ritual in a proper manner. It was a cultic event.
And though Moses and Aaron played a role in it, it was not their
deed. The Passover tradition, then, does not appear to me to be a part
of the heroic saga material that belongs to the Moses narratives. It
affirms rather that God acted to save his people when they kept faith
in the ritual.
It seems to be clear, then, that there is some kind of relationship
between the series of plagues and the Passover episode. Martin Moth
describes that relationship in terms of the primary position of the
Passover in the history of the tradition:
Substantively, the plague story is intimately connected with the
narrative of the celebration of the Passover at the time of the
exodus from Egypt. In fact, it results precisely in a validation of the
passover rite since the last plague, in which the divine pressure
brought to bear upon the Pharaoh and the Egyptians reaches its
greatest intensity, occasions the very first performance of the
annually recurring Passover... Therefore, there is scarcely any
other possibility than that the development of the narrative of the
Egyptian plagues had its beginning in the Passover.8
91
that the plague series has nothing to add to the picture of Moses as
heroic man. The Passover tradition does not appear to represent
Moses as heroic. And if the plagues developed out of the Passover,
they would theoretically share the same kind of non-heroic picture
for the leadership of Moses.
There is, however, another facet of the tradition. Exod. 11.10
suggests that the signs were the work of Moses and Aaron. And Deut.
34.10-12 glorifies Moses precisely for the signs in the series:
And no prophet like Moses has arisen in Israel since then, whom
the Lord knew face to face, for all the signs and wonders which the
Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt before the Pharaoh and all
his servants and all his land, and for all the strong power and for all
the great and terrible deeds which Moses did before the eyes of all
Israel.
But the important point to note in this description of the plague units
is that the Passover plague also does not fit into the symmetry. The
series begins with the commission to change the water to blood, and
92
it ends with the darkness so thick that it could be felt. The Passover
stands apart from this group. If, then, the Passover does not
constitute the climax of the series insofar as this structure is
concerned, what does it do? And what does the problem suggest
about the original independence of the plagues? Moreover, what
would have constituted the climax for the structure of the plagues?
These questions are the more pressing in light of the fact that
Greenberg's analysis depends on the received text, a combination of
the literary sources that produced the final version of the narrative.
In the present form of the text, how are we to understand the proper
climax to the plague sequence? But equally important, how does the
tradition's history cast the climax of the story?
Dennis J. McCarthy analyzes the structure of the narrative in a
different way, yet with remarkably similar results.10 In his construction, the pattern of the story appears as a chiasm. The first
scene corresponds in structure to the tenth scene, the second to the
ninth, the third to the eighth, the forth to the seventh, and the fifth to
the sixth. This description of the plague series assumes that the first
episode is not the water to blood scene, but rather the rod to serpent
one. But some would suggest eliminating the serpent episode from
the sequence. An initial point might be that the identification of the
event as a plague is weak, for the event is little more than a
magician's trick and hardly deserves a place beside the grievous
challenges posed by the remaining signs. Indeed, Childs observes:
'The miracle which he performs was in no sense a plague and even in
its structure lay outside the sequence of the ten ensuing disasters'.11
Yet, a key motif for the plague sequence begins here: Moses and
Aaron confront the Egyptian magicians who challenge their authority
to make demands on the Pharaoh. Moreover, the concluding
formula, so regularly a part of one plague structure, appears for the
first time in the sequence here. And the internal structure of the
episode certainly follows the pattern of the following scenes. I cannot
therefore see the cogency of the argument that the scene lies outside
the sequence of the other episodes particularly in its structure. All of
the appropriate elements of structure are there. And the magician's
motif requires that this scene be taken together with the following
ones.
The following diagram illustrates the pattern, with the words in
italics corresponding to an element in the parallel member.
X. Darkness 10.21-29
A. Lord to M
1. Instructions to M
2. No warning
B. Execution of sign
1. In Egypt
2. Not in Goshen
C. Negotiations
1. Ph concessions
2. M conditions
D. Hardened heart (hzq\ NLPG
IX. Locusts, 10.1-20
A. Lord to M
1. Hard heart (kbd)
2. Catechism
B. MA to Pharaoh, a warning
C. Pleas of servants
D. Negotiations
1. Ph concessions
2. M conditions
3. Ph rejections
E. Execution of the sign
F. Concession and stopping
the sign
G. Hardened heart (hzq\
NLPG
93
94
95
96
and flies discomfort the people. But death of the cattle introduces a
more severe threat. Boils then attack the physical health of the
population. Hail and rain, then the locusts interrupt the fertility of
the land, a matter of concern for the economic health of the
Egyptians. And the darkness shifts the scene of activity to a realm
controlled by the gods. Thus, all the more is it necessary to ask where
the conclusion to the series might be.
In the structure of the plague story, as well as in the history of the
tradition, the most outstanding characteristic of the narration is the
depiction of the negotiations ending in failure. The hardened heart
motif clearly emphasizes the failure. And the opening round of
negotiations set forth in Exodus 5 shows the result of the negotiation
with painful clarity. Indeed, ch. 5 may well offer the most basic level
of the tradition's history.12 And if so, then the negotiations tradition
would from the beginning represent the results of Moses' efforts in
dealing with the Pharaoh as failure. This point gains weight in light
of the concluding scene in 10.28-29. These verses stand apart from
the stereotyped structure of the series. And they express the final
break in a negotiations pattern. If Moses presents himself before the
Pharaoh again in order to pursue the negotiations, he will die. And
Moses accepts the closure. Moreover, the renewal in ch. 11 seems
somewhat artificial in the face of the closure. Thus, the Lord
instructs Moses concerning one more plague. The formulation is
peculiar in the series: 'Yet one more plague...' ('6d nega' 'ehdd). The
brittle relationship seems to me to confirm the conclusion that the
series moved originally to some other kind of climax than a renewal
of the negotiations.
I would suggest that the series originally depicted the exodus event
as an alternative to a negotiated release of the people. When the
negotiations failed, according to the tradition, Moses urged his
people to leave Egypt anyway, in haste, without the Pharaoh's
permission or even his knowledge. This original conclusion to the
series would then have been overshadowed by the Passover story.
But is there positive evidence for such an original conclusion? The
answer can be established first by the history of the Israelite cult. It
seems to be clear that in the course of history, the Passover
celebration assimilated to its structures the traditions and means for
celebration from an originally quite distinct festival, the Festival of
Unleavened Bread.13 And, indeed, the Passover itself overshadowed
the festival of Unleavened Bread, leaving it simply as a skeleton
around the rituals for the Passover meal. Moreover, the unleavened
97
bread symbol fits more cogently into the story of departure from
Egypt in haste than an account of extensive preparation for the
Passover event. Departure in haste would constitute the event of the
exodus for the traditions of the Unleavened Bread Festival, just as
departure by proper execution of the ritual constitutes the exodus
event for the Passover.
But is there anything more to fill in the edges of the tradition about
a departure in haste? And what role would Moses have played in the
picture? The textual evidence for the tradition, preserved in
fragmented pieces by the exodus narratives, depicts the departure as
an escape without the knowledge of the Egyptians or the Pharaoh,
but with spoil taken by deception from unsuspecting slave owners.14
It is crucial, in order to understand this tradition, not to interpret the
event as a moment of unguarded good will from the Egyptians, as
though the Egyptians were giving gifts to their departing friends.15
Nor does the text represent this event as a proper, legal payment to
slaves dismissed from their slavery in good standing.16 Rather, the
image of the tradition is of a slave people who trick their masters and
by virtue of their wit win the spoils of war which their cunning
victory deserves.
But why, one might ask, would the Egyptians be so gullible as to
give away the spoil without suspecting the true intentions of the
Israelites, especially in view of the Pharaoh's constant vigil against
the plans of Moses to deceive him? The text does not give us an
historical answer to the question. We cannot expect an answer that
would resolve the incredulity of the modern historian. Rather, the
text supplies a theological answer. In 11.3, an explicit response
appears: 'The Lord gave the people favor in the eyes of the
Egyptians'. But at the same time, the text combines its theological
answer with a heroic one: 'Also, the man Moses was very great in the
land of Egypt, in the eyes of the servants of Pharaoh, as well as the
eyes of the (Israelite) people'. The despoiling occurred, then, because
God intervened and made it possible, but also because Moses had a
reputation in the land that made it possible. The two poles go hand in
hand.
Thus, 12.34-36 responds to the question about the exodus. When
did the exodus occur?
The people took their dough before it was leavened, their kneeding
bowls bound in their mantels on their shoulders, for the Israelites
had done according to the word of Moses. They had asked from
Egyptians the vessels of silver and vessels of gold and clothing. So
98
99
100
God (see Exod. 17.9). It is a part of the same duality, the heroic man
coupled with the acts of God, noted in the principal thesis for this
entire investigation.19
The structure of the plague sequence and, incidentally, the
tradition's history emerge more clearly when the characteristics of
the literary sources enter the discussion. The youngest of the sources,
P, appears in 7.8-13, 19, 20aa, 21b-22; 8.1-3, llapb-15 (RSV 8.5-7,
15afib-19); 9.8-12, 22, 23aa, 35; 10.12-13aa, 20-22.20 The Mowing
outline illustrates the pattern:
I. Rod to Serpent
A. Lord to M and A
1. Commission to A
2. Rod to serpent
B. Execution of the sign (N.B. Aaron's rod)
C. Magicians
D. Hardened heart (hzq\ NL, AYS
II. Blood to water
A. Lord to M
1. Commission to A
2. Rod over the water
B. Execution of the sign
C. Magicians
D. Hardened heart (hzq\ NL, AYS
III. Frogs
A. Lord to M
1. Commission to A
2. Rod over the water
B. Execution of the sign
C. Magicians
D. Hardened heart (hzq\ NL, AYS
IV. Gnats
A. Lord to M
1. Commission to A
2. Rod over the dust
B. Execution of the sign
C. Magicians fail
D. Hardened heart (hzq) NL, AYS
V. Boils
A. Lord to M and A
B. Execution of signs
C. Magicians expelled
D. Hardened heart (faq) NL, AYS
101
VI. Hail
A. Lord to M
1. No reference to A
2. Moses' hand
B. Execution of signrod
C. Hardened heart (faq) NLPG
VII. Locusts
A. Lord to M
1. No reference to A
2. Moses' hand
B. Execution of signrod
C. Hardened heart (hzq) NLPG
Vin. Darkness
A. Lord to M
1. No reference to A
2. Moses' hand
B. Execution of signhand
C. Hardened heart (hzq) NLPG
102
consecutive Pi'el imperfect of the verb hzq with the Lord as the
subject, the conclusion repeats the refrain. The Pharaoh's heart was
hardened, or the Lord hardened the heart of the Pharaoh. And
regularly, the refrain concludes that the Pharaoh would not listen,
just as the Lord said.
It is possible, moreover, that P originally reported three more
signs: the hail, locusts, and the darkness. Evidence for this hypothesis
resides in the conclusion to each of the three relevant scenes. In a
context that may belong primarily to J, these conclusions employ the
distinctive verb from the P source for reporting the hardened heart
motif. Once the verb is Qal, twice Pi'el. The remaining part of the
concluding formula shifts from the notion that the Pharaoh did not
listen as the Lord had said to a note that he did not let the people go
(compare the J scenes for the flies and the cattle murrain). The static
pattern appears in all three scenes with no reference to Aaron or to
the magicians and no marker for movement in tension. Thus, in the
P sequence, the one element of drama focuses on the defeat of the
Egyptian magicians. And the victory belongs explicitly to Moses. In
9.11, the point is clear: 'The magicians were not able to stand before
Moses because of the boils'. It would appear, then, that something of
the heroic victory of Moses in a face to face encounter with the
Egyptians belongs to P. This tradition is perhaps weakened by 8.15,
for in that moment the Egyptians confess that the struggle belongs to
God. Yet, still, an important heroic motif surfaces here in the priestly
narrative. It may reflect simply the influence of early tradition on P,
or even immediate influence from J. But it does suggest that the
heroic element is not simply limited to J. It is a part of the tradition
which both J and P inherit. But significantly, P does not do much
with the tradition. It stands like a signal from the past, no longer
instrumental in the construction of the narrative, perhaps not even
clearly understood in its complementary relationship with 8.15.
But in addition to the element of movement in the conflict with
the Egyptians, the text also reveals the problem of identifying the
final climax of the sequence. The structure of the preserved scenes
moves in a linear fashion to embrace some final occasion of
confrontation. For P this final scene must be the Passover. The
Passover in P, however, does not appear as a new occasion for
negotiations with the Pharaoh. 11.9-10 marks a conclusion to the
negotiations, just as 10.28-29 does for J. Moreover, it suggests that
for P the negotiations end in failure. Verses 9-10 constitute a general
conclusion to the sequence. And they feature the key priestly verb for
103
104
I. Rod to Serpent
(***?)
II. Water to Blood
A. Lord to M
1. Hardened heart (kbd)
2. Instructions, go to Ph
3. Warning
B. Execution of sign
C. Conclusion (hzq?)
III. Frogs
A. Lord to M
1. Instructions, go to Ph
2. Warning
B. Plea for intercession
C. Conclusion (kbd) NL/AYS
IV. Flies
A. Lord to M
1. Instructions, go to Ph
2. Warning
3. Separation, Israel from
Egypt
B. Execution of the sign
C. Negotiations
D. Hardened heart (kbd) NLPG
VIII. Darkness
A. Lord to M
1. Instructions
2. No warning
B. Execution of the sign
1. In Egypt
2. Not in Goshen
C. Negotiations
1. Ph concessions
2. M conditions
D. Conclusion (hzq?)
VII. Locusts
A. Lord to M
Instructions, go to Ph
2. Hardened heart (kbd)
B. MA to Ph: Warning
C. Pleas of servants
D. Negotiations
1. Ph concessions
2. M conditions
3. Ph rejections
E. Execution of sign
F. Plea for intercession
G. Conclusion (hzq?)
VI. Hail
A. Lord to M
1. Instructions, go to Ph
2. Warning
B. Lord to M: commission to
execute the sign
C. Execution of sign
D. Negotiations
E. Conclusion (kbd) NL/AYS
V. Murrain on the cattle
A. Lord to M
1. Instructions, go to Ph
2. Warning
3. Separation, Israel from
Egypt
B. Execution of the sign
C. Hardened heart (kbd) NLPG
105
106
But then the question must be: What criteria enable the E fragments
to be identified?
Georg Fohrer is a key critic for consideration of this question. He
argues for three distinct formal patterns within the narration of the
plague sequence, each the product of one of the principal sources.25
All three employ a structure comprising three basic elements: (1)
Preparations for the sign. (2) Execution of the sign. (3) Results. The
distinctions among the sources emerge in the development of each
element.
Thus, in the first pattern, (a) preparation involves a command to
Moses to deliver a message to the Pharaoh. The message will contain
(i) a demand to release the Israelites, (ii) an announcement of the
plague, in case the Pharaoh refuses the demand, and (iii) a special
motif about exemption from the plague for the Israelites. The second
element will be (b) a report that the instructions given to Moses have
been executed. Execution of the sign involves simply a report that
the plague occurred by the hand of the Lord and some narration of
the details. And then (c) the results of the plague are set out.
The second pattern develops the three principal elements in the
following way: (a) Preparation embraces (i) a command to Moses to
stretch out his hand or his rod over a particular area or to a
particular area, and thereby to institute the plague, and then (ii) the
details of the plague, (b) Execution of the sign will involve (i) a
notation that Moses followed the instructions, and (ii) details of the
event, (c) Then the results follow.
The third pattern has a slight modification in the first element.
(a) Preparation involves (i) a command to Moses, to be delivered to
Aaron, who should stretch out his hand with the rod over the
affected area, and (ii) the details of the event, (b) The second element
reports (i) execution of the command by Moses or by Aaron, (ii) the
details of the event, and (iii) the special motif of the magicians.
The first of these patterns belongs to J, the second to E, and the third
to P. Moreover, J presents the plagues as punishment according to
Fohrer, with a marked pedagogical goal. The Pharaoh might respond
to the pressure of the punishment and change his policy. E and P, on
the other hand, have nothing of the pedagogical character. For them,
the event is strictly a demonstration of miraculous power and
authority. As such, the plague is limited in time, quite apart from the
Pharaoh's reaction.
Fohrer observes, however, that the sequence and the different
traditions in the sequence derive from the redaction of the sources by
107
108
Chapter 5
GOD'S AID TO ISRAEL IN THE WILDERNESS
A series of tales in Exodus and Numbers recounts God's aid to Israel
in the face of particular crises experienced by the people in the
wilderness. Beginning with Exodus 14, these tales describe problems
such as attacks by various enemies (Exod. 14; 17; Num. 21), thirst
(Exod. 15; 17; Num. 20), and starvation (Exod. 16; Num. 11). In
addition, the spy story (Num. 13-14) sets out an account of Israel's
initial foray into Canaan. In each of these tales the murmuring of the
people against Moses or Moses and Aaron together dominates the
received text.1 This motif recounts Israel's rebellion, an act that
challenges Moses' position as leader of the people in the exodus from
Egypt. The pattern of the murmuring stories includes: (1) some
account of the crisis confronting the Israelites; (2) the response of the
people to it as a challenge to the validity of Mosaic leadership; (3) an
explicit goal announced by the people to return to Egypt or an
implicit wish expressed as an accusation against Moses or Moses and
Aaron for their role in facilitating the exodus, thus an element that
would reverse the exodus. (4) Some tales include the response of
Moses or Moses and Aaron and, on occasion, the response of God,
either by defending the issue challenged or by punishing the people
as rebels.
Typical vocabulary for this stage includes the verb, 'to murmur' or,
better, 'to rebel', 'to complain' (luri), and a series of synonyms. The
murmuring tradition, so it seems to me, is a relatively late narrative
revision of an older tradition, converting an originally positive
account of Israel's life under Mosaic leadership to a negative account
of rebellion. The reason for the conversion is still a subject for
debate. It is probable, nevertheless, that a polemical redaction from
the interests of the Jerusalem court and the Davidic king shifts the
110
111
hero nevertheless defends his people against the plan of the Lord to
execute them.4 And in the process he risks his own position before
God and, indeed, his own life. In Num. 14.11-25, the Lord announces
his intention to destroy the people. Moses responds with an appeal to
the Lord's reputation with the nations who know of the promise to
give Israel the land, to his character as a God of great loyalty (kegodel
hasdeka), and to his oath in the exodus event itself. On the basis of
the intercession, the Lord changes his plan. The rebels will not die
immediately. But they lose their right to inherit the land. Divine
punishment remains a part of the pattern. But the degree of
punishment drops.
It would be in order to consider here the scene of rebellion and its
consequences in Exodus 32-34. This act of rebellion cannot be
simply equated with the murmuring scenes. The murmuring motif
regularly involves the leadership of Moses. But it centers in the
exodus tradition with a reversal of the escape from Egypt as well as
the theological significance that goes with it. In contrast, for Exodus
32 the issue is explicitly the absence of Mosaic leadership. Since
Moses is no longer physically present, the people look for a
replacement. The concern is not to replace God. Moses was the
leader of the exodus. And the gods to be created by Aaron and his
people would replace him in order to carry on the exodus. 'Up, make
us gods who will go before us, for this Moses, the man who brought
us up from the land of Egyptwe do not know what happened to
him.' The rebellion leads God to announce to Moses that his
intention to slay the entire group and start over with Moses and his
descendants will solve the problem. The response in 32.11-13 is again
intercession. Moses appeals again to the reputation of the Lord in the
eyes of the Egyptians, as well as the Lord's promise to the patriarchs.
Another scene of intercession appears in vv. 31-32. And in this case,
Moses who is innocent of the people's apostasy, identifies himself
completely with his apostate people. 'Now, if you will forgive their
sin... But if not, wipe me out from your book which you have
written.' Moreover, Moses' intercession for the people begins with
some distinction between the two. In 32.33-34, Moses remains aloof
from the people's sin. But the results of the sin spell the Lord's
absence from the people. And that prospect affects Moses. Thus, in
33.16: 'In what shall it be known then that I have found favor in your
sight, / and your people? Is it not when you go with us that we are set
apart, / and your people, from all the people who are on the face of
the land?'
112
Thus, Moses as the intercessor stands for his people before God, and
even offers to share the fate of his people. And the power of his
intercession, rooted in the past traditions of God's acts, but also in
the stature he himself holds with God, succeeds in winning the
concession from God for his continued presence in the exodus. In
33.14, the Lord promises: 'My presence shall go, and I shall give you
rest'. And again in v. 17: 'This word also which you speak I shall do,
because you have found favor in my eyes, and I know you by
name'.
In contrast to the murmuring stage in the history of the wilderness
traditions, an earlier, pre-murmuring stage still leaves its mark in the
received text. This stage of the tradition recounts the same groupings
of narratives according to distinctive elements of content: crisis
posed by enemies, thirst, and hunger. But in this case, the
relationship between people and Moses, and thus between people
and God, is positive.5 In Ps. 105.40-41, this tradition appears
forcefully: 'He asked and he brought forth quail. With bread from
heaven he satisfied them. He opened a rock, and water flowed. It
moved in the desert like a river'. The third person masculine singular
verb in v. 40, sd'al, may have the people in view as the subject. But
the construction is ambiguous, as the variants in the manuscripts and
the Septuagint seem to suggest. Could we not think, therefore, that
113
114
115
116
117
118
people. And as a result, God shows him a resolution for the crisis. It
is the same image, Moses the heroic leader of the people who
intercedes with the Lord and wins the power to meet the crisis. And
as in Exodus 14, so here that image belongs to J.
In Exod. 17.1-7 again the same pattern of tradition history emerges
from the text. The final form of the text features the murmuring
motif with its question of rebellion in v. 3. And the question
presented by Moses to the Lord in v. 4 reflects the hostile
confrontation: 'What shall I do for this people. In a little while, they
will stone me'. But in addition to the hostile content of the
murmuring stage, there is also a layer in the tradition's history that is
positive. The assumption of this position is that the verb, rib, in v. 2
is not necessarily negative and hostile. It can have hostile connotations,
as would be suggested by Gen. 13.7 where the noun form of the root
connotes strife. But there is no strife in the request controlled by the
verb in v. 2. To the contrary, the request is functionally equivalent to
the question in 15.24. Its selection here signifies no greater variance
in the form of the tradition than an adjustment to meet the etiology
for the place name. And accordingly, Moses' response in v. 4 is
introduced with the same key verb for the positive tradition about
intercession: wayyis'aq moseh 'el-^donay. It seems to me, therefore,
to beg the question about the tradition if the rib element should be
translated with the RSV as 'finding fault'. Moreover, the response of
God supports the interpretation that would see a positive dimension
in this tale. God gives Moses instructions that will resolve the crisis.
He is to take his rod (matfka) and strike the rock in Meribah in order
to produce water. This is the rod of the exodus traditions. But in this
case, it seems to be clear that the rod cannot be defined as an exodus
motif, but must be understood as an item of the Moses traditions.11
With his rod Moses follows the instructions of God and thus provides
water to meet the crisis.
This pericope with its traditions of murmuring and aid derives
from J. The observation should apply to both w. 2 and 3. The
parallel in the priestly source appears in Numbers 20. The tradition
is essentially the same. A crisis confronts Israel. The people respond
with the murmuring question, although the verb lun does not appear.
Then Moses and Aaron together present the case to the Lord at the
Tent of Meeting. And God's instructions follow. Moses, with Aaron,
should take the rod, just as in the J counterpart. But then the text
reports that God instructs Moses to tell the rock to yield its water.
The remaining part of the pericope unfolds as in the parallel, at least
119
120
tradition history. But the seams in the narrative have been less
carefully polished over. The murmuring stage dominates the
received text, although again the verb lun is not used. Verse 4a
remembers a problem resident in only a portion of the people. And
this element leads to the etiology in v. 34. Verse 4b places the
problem with the people of Israel again, with their act defined by the
verb 'to weep' (wayyibku). 'Weeping' can be an equivalent to the 'cry'
for help. Thus, in Judg. 14.16-17, the wife of Samson wept as she
petitioned her husband for aid. The weeping is thus not necessarily
negative but rather only an intense presentation of a petition. In
Numbers 11, the content of the weeping is a wish, similar or even
identical to a petition for meat. And the wish is heightened by the
memory of meat in Egypt and the stultifying manna in the
wilderness. Moses responds in this case not with intercession for the
sake of the people, but in anger (v. lOb). But his speech is nonetheless
directed to God. And it looks like a classic complaint. Verses 11-12
give in a negative cast a vision of Moses' positive role with the
people.
Why have you done ill to your servant5 And why have I not found
favor in your eyes to place the burden of all this people on me? Did
I conceive all this people? Did I give birth to them that you should
say to me, 'Carry them in your bosom, just as a nurse carries the
suckling child, to the land which I swore to their fathers'?13
Moreover, just here, the content of the people's weeping comes clear.
In v. 13: 'For they weep to me saying, "Give us meat, that we may
eat"'. This request is formally identical to the request in 17.2: 'Give
us water, that we may drink'. And neither one is in itself negative.
Verse 18 constitutes the response to the request, a response now cast
in a negative light, but originally, in all probability, positive in
content. Thus, the play on abundance in w. 18-20 makes a
punishment out of too much of a good thing. The murmuring stage
of the tradition thus influences the shape of the received text. But the
primary content of the story is positive and depends on the positive
stature of Moses' leadership. The final element in the pericope,
w. 31-34, confirms this point. The local etiology in w. 33-34
connects with v. 1 as a frame around the unit. In contrast, w. 31-32
depict a positive scene. God provides food for all the camp in
sufficient abundance. This element corresponds to Exod. 16.18. Each
family gathered in abundance according to the needs of the
family.14
121
The spy story in Numbers 13-14 rounds off the scope of the
murmuring stories. In this tale, Moses delegates a member from each
tribe to enter the promised land and determine (a) the fortification
protecting the land and (b) the quality of the land. Thus, 13.17-20
contains the commission: 'Go up into the Negeb yonder, and go up
into the hill country, and see what the land is, and whether the
people who dwell in it are strong or weak, whether they are few or
many'. The spies return with a positive report about the quality of
the land. Thus, 13.23 reports that the men 'cut down from there a
branch with a single cluster of grapes, and they carried it on a pole
between the two of them'. The point is that the land was so fertile
that it produced giant fruit. This motif is confirmed by the formulaic
epithet in v. 27: 'We came to the land to which you sent us. It flows
with milk and honey. And this is its fruit'.
But the spy report also contains a negative account of the land's
fortifications. So, in v. 28, the people of the land appear to be almost
as large as the fruit. 'The people who dwell in the land are strong and
the cities are fortified and very large, and besides, we saw the
descendants of Anak there.' Moreover, after Caleb reassures the
people that victory lies within their reach, the other spies emphasize
the contrary point. 'The land... is a land that devours its inhabitants
and all the people that we saw in it are men of great stature. And
there we saw the Niphilim... and we seemed to ourselves like
grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.' A land that devours its
inhabitants is a land caught in the destruction of war.15 And that
would mean that the Canaanites would be prepared for attack. The
inhabitants are so large, the cities so well fortified that Israel would
have no hope for taking the land.
Chapter 14 describes the response of the people. 'All the
congregation raised a cry and lifted their voices, and the people wept
that night. And all the Israelites murmured against Moses and
Aaron'. The pattern for the murmuring motif is, however, broken
here, in comparison to all the other instances that feature the
murmuring as an overlay on tales about God's aid in the wilderness.
(1) The murmuring does not come here as a response to an explicit
crisis in the wilderness. To the contrary, it comes in anticipation of a
crisis yet to be faced in the land. (2) It does not appear to be a
reinterpretation of a tradition about aid to the Israelites. There is no
sign of the typical verb from the aid tradition. In fact, at the point in
the narration where the appeal for aid might have been expected, the
verb is rather 'to cry out' (bdkd). The event is thus parallel to the
122
cry in Num. 11.4b. That verb may belong to the aid pattern. Yet, if
such a tradition does in fact lie behind the murmuring, it is masked
by the almost total domination of the narrative by the murmuring
itself.
Verse 2 sets the dominant theme of the murmuring. Death in
Egypt would have been better than the death they now face. Or even
death in the wilderness would be preferable to meeting the
Canaanites. Thus, the anti-Exodus orientation sounds clearly in the
scene.15 Verse 4 then relates this theme explicitly to the leadership of
Moses. 'Let us take a leader, so that we may return to Egypt.'
Murmuring means displacement of Moses. Indeed, in the face of
efforts to reassure, the people announce their intention to stone those
who oppose the rebellion. Thus, the opposition to Moses' leadership
reaches its most intense point. And it can be broken only by
intervention from the Lord himself. That intervention comes in the
form of an appearance of the glory (kdbod) of the Lord at the Tent of
Meeting. The divine speech constitutes a complete and immediate
rejection of the people with an announcement of intention to start all
over with Moses as the father of the new people. Verses 13-19 contain
Moses' intercession. The warrant for Moses' appeal lies in the
character of God. (1) God now has a reputation with the people of
Egypt. If the people die in the wilderness, God's reputation with the
Egyptians will suffer. (2) The attributes of God for steadfast love
(hesed) and forgiveness undergird the appeal to forgive. On the basis
of this intercession, God grants pardon and does not slay the people
immediately. But the judgment condemns all but Caleb (or, in P,
Caleb and Joshua) to die in the wilderness, not in the promised
land.
Thus, in this pericope, the heroic dimension of the text remains
apparent, even though the level of tradition about Yahweh's aid does
not emerge as clearly as in the other items. Indeed, intercession here
comes to meet a crisis posed not by the privations of the wilderness
or by Israel's enemies, but by God himself. The reflective character
of this intercession, w. 18-19, suggests that this stage depends on the
older form of intercession as an appeal for aid. But in either case, the
point remains. Moses leads his people through various stages of
wilderness life and enables them to endure despite threats that might
spell the end of their experience.
In this pericope, J and P have been integrated, with the dominant
structure of the unit provided by J. Thus, J appears in 13.17b-20,2224, 26-31; 14.1b, 4, 11-25, 39-45.16 Some of this material may be
123
124
Chapter 6
MOSAIC LEGENDS
In contrast to the heroic tales considered to this point, two legends
also present an image of the heroic Moses relevant for this
evaluation. By legend, I mean a narrative that emphasizes a
particular virtue characteristic for the hero rather than an event
accomplished by the hero.1 The legend is far more static than the
tale, lacking a moment of complication or an arc of tension as the
center of a plot. And its structure accommodates this focus of
intention by constructing points of emphasis on the virtue at one or
more key positions in the pericope. The intention of the legend
would, under normal circumstances, be the edification of the
audience. The virtue characteristic for the hero might become the
virtue characteristic for all the audience willing to imitate the model.
The legend lends itself to heroic tradition by virtue of its focus on the
character of the hero. The heroic tale declares what the hero has
done. The heroic legend describes who the hero is. Yet not all legends
would fall automatically into the category of the heroic. Again,
definitive for the heroic dimension would be the tendency of the
narrative to identify the principal with his people and thus to show
that the hero serves the best interest of the people. A heroic legend
would, then, depict the characteristic virtue of a figure that marks
him as a hero for the people.
1. Exod. 17.8-13
One of the principal areas typical for heroic legend is the military
conflict.2 The pericope in Exod. 17.8-13 describes a military conflict.
But significantly, its structural focus does not highlight the battle. It
is not a battle report. To the contrary, v. 8 notes that the battle
occurred in quite general terms:' Amalek came and fought with Israel
126
6. Mosaic Legends
127
128
Chapter 7
MOSES IN THE SINAI TRADITIONS: EXODUS 19-34
In the present form of the Moses saga, the Sinai traditions do not
represent a distinct segment of narrative tradition. It is possible, for
example, to recognize a narrative shift from the theme of the exodus
out of Egypt to the theme of the wanderings in the wilderness
specifically at 13.17. But the narrative in ch. 19 does not shift from
the theme of the wilderness. To the contrary, it is introduced by an
itinerary formula in v. 2 and a precise date in v. 1. Both serve to bind
the following unit of narrative into the structure of the wilderness
theme. I do not intend to say that there is no traditio-historical
distinction between the wilderness theme and the Sinai traditions. I
mean only to observe that in the present narrative, the Sinai pericope
beginning in ch. 19 is considered as one of the elements embraced by
the wilderness itinerary.1
The pericope itself has stimulated extensive discussion in the
circles of Old Testament scholarship.2 Part of the problem can be
identified by a brief discription of structure. Following the itinerary
and date, the narrative begins without exposition as a report of
Moses' journey up to the mountain of God. Then a divine speech
presents an introduction for the people as a whole to the relationship
with God characterized explicitly as 'covenant'. Verse 4 contains the
precondition for the relationship. God has already acted in the
exodus and the wilderness. It is perhaps significant to note the image
of the eagle's wings as a symbol of God's protective care for his
people in the wilderness (cf. Deut. 32.11-14).
Verses 5-6 then connect the past events with conditions for the
covenant. Verse 6b seems to be an introduction to specific laws:
'These are the words...' The laws would be cast as stipulations for
maintaining a relationship with God already established by his
130
131
132
133
134
the people may hear when I speak to you and may believe you
forever'. A similar collocation occurs in Exod. 14.31. In that text an
explicit duplicity appears in the tradition. The event occurs in order
that the people might believe in the Lord and in Moses. And that act
means that the people would follow the leadership of both in
obedience and trust. In this text the act is directed explicitly toward
Moses and is designed to secure the obedience of the people to
Moses' leadership forever. It is appropriate, also, to connect this
tradition to the legitimation of Moses with the shining face in Exodus
34 as well as the Mosaic role of intercession for the people. Moses
exercises the authority bestowed on him by God when he leads his
people under the stamp of this validation.
20.18-20, on the other hand, is controlled by a different perspective.
The difference, however, is not qualified primarily by the people's
initiative but rather by the goal of the task Moses must face. 'Speak
to us and we will obey. But do not let God speak to us, lest we die.'
Moses still stands in a relationship of authority-obedience to the
people. But the result of the relationship will not secure the people's
belief, i.e. obedience to Moses. Rather, Moses places the people into
the experience of 'fear of the Lord'. And his task is to elicit an
obedience from the people to God. 'Moses said to the people: "Do
not fear; for God has come to test you, that the fear of him may be
before your eyes, that you may not sin".' Here the primary focus is
on the relationship between people and God. And Moses facilitates
the relationship. I submit, therefore, that the two images are
complementary, not contradictory. The one relates a goal for
securing the belief of the people in Moses. The other seeks to
establish their 'fear' of God. The terms are parallel, just as in Exod.
14.31 the terms are parallel and complementary.
Moreover, the one image appears harmonious with the heroic
tradition of Moses, while the other gives expression to the tradition
of God's mighty acts. It should be clear now that the tradition is not
simply a matter of Moses' acts vis a vis God's acts but a matter of
Moses' position as leader of his people vis a vis Moses' position as
representative of God to the people. That tradition which focuses on
God's mighty acts on Israel's behalf contributes to the Moses image
by painting Moses as a mediate authority for the affairs of the
Israelites. Indeed, it is just in this position that the traditional
function of Moses as lawgiver comes most to the fore. Moses requires
obedience from the people. And the law is the law of Moses. But the
law derives from God. Thus, the two cannot be separated into
135
isolated offices. Both the heroic man with his own personal authority
calling for belief of the people in him and the mediator for God with
the authority of God to call for obedience from the people to God
constitute the shape of the Moses image in the Pentateuch.9 That
shape is also the structure of Exodus 19-34. The double image of
Moses appears to be fundamental for this section of the Sinai
tradition.
Deut. 5.4-5 is a critical text for controlling the adequacy of any
hypothesis regarding the image of Moses in Exodus 19-34. Childs
describes the linguistic characteristics of these two verses, then poses
his formulation of the issue presented by them.
Verse 4 speaks of Yahweh's direct communication of the Decalogue
to the people. The phrase 'face to face' emphasizes especially the
lack of any mediation, whereas v. 5 suggests just the opposite.
Moses acted as mediator. Moreover, the motivation clause in v. 5b
supplies the reason for Moses' role by recalling the people's plea
from Exodus 20.18ff.10
There can be no doubt that some kind of tension emerges from the
juxtaposition of these two verses. In the one God and people speak
face to face. And Moses has no apparent role. In the other Moses
stands between God and people in order to resolve the break-down
among the people in the face of the fire on the mountain. Indeed,
Exod. 33.11, a text related to the complex of traditions about Moses,
suggests that the 'face to face' relationship describes the YahwehMoses bond rather than the Yahweh-people bond. Now, the question
must be whether these two apparently contradictory representations
do in fact reflect competing images and, ultimately, competing
institutions, or whether they stand in some kind of complementary
relationship. My hypothesis is that the perspectives of Exod. 19.9 and
20.18-20 facilitate an interpretation. In the one facet of the tradition,
the text affirms that the Lord acted so that the people would believe
(and obey) him. This facet relates to Deut. 5.4. The other side of the
tradition suggests that the events occurred in order to secure belief in
Moses. And here Deut. 5.5 finds its point of contact. The two facets
would thus function as complements in accord with an extensive
portion of Pentateuchal tradition, not as indications of opposing
images and institutions.
This explanation of the relationship between two images of
tradition regarding people, Moses, and God leaves at least one major
problem unattended. The two facets can be represented as images of
136
137
138
Joshua 24, Moses' successor does what he does as leader of the people
in a unique event.
The issue at stake, however, is not whether there was a cultic
prophet or an office of covenant mediator. It is not even whether
Moses mediates the covenant to the people. It is whether a standing
office has influenced the shape of the Moses traditions. Is a cultic
office of covenant mediator the proper Sitz im Leben for this facet of
the Moses tradition? Or was the tradition shaped basically by a
popular literary process as a narrative convention for depicting the
leader with at best only tangential contacts with the cult?
The same question must be raised about the office of intercessor at
the Tent of Meeting.15 Exod. 33.7-11, and even more 34.34, do indeed
describe habitual action. Childs's remarks about the character of
these texts as indicators of a Mosaic office are effective.16 Yet, the
question must be whether they describe action which an official in
the cult regularly performed, patterned then as a typical function of
Moses. Or do they intend simply to describe the regular, habitual
action of Moses? Moses wears the veil following his address to the
people because his face shines with the transfiguration effected by
God's presence. In what manner is that symbol a symbol of an office
that might lie behind the unique work of Moses described in these
texts?17 Is the symbol not peculiar to the Moses image? Does not the
fact that the word Veil' (masweti) appears only in this pericope
suggest a special Mosaic symbol, not the symbol of an office? The
heroic man transfigured by the presence of God, the man whose face
shines with the light of God's presence, is uniquely the man of God.
The tradition that depicts the shining face, indeed, that emphasizes
the veil as a symbol of the hero, presents the hero as a person with
divine authority to lead the people (cf. Mt. 17.1-8 and parallels). But
that depiction does not arise from a standing office in the cult, just as
the image of the transfigured Jesus does not reflect a standing office
in the cult. The concern of the transfiguration scene, whether in the
Moses tradition or in the Jesus tradition, is to paint a picture of the
leader who carries the authority of God for his community.18 Thus,
the question again is not so much whether an office in the institution
of the Tent of Meeting existed or whether it exerted influence on the
shape of the Moses image. It is rather whether the Sitz im Leben for
the Moses tradition is the Tent of Meeting as a cultic institution. My
impression is that these two facets are not properly to be attributed
to two distinct cultic offices as different Sitze im Leben, as competing
facets, but rather that they should be taken as complementary poles
139
140
141
142
This point is clear for the early levels of legal tradition. For the
Covenant Code, for example, Moses receives the law and addresses it
to the people. But it is the law of God, and the first person
formulation (Exod. 20.22) is the first person of God. Moses speaks
the word of Yahweh. Moreover, key terms in the tradition, such as
miswd or hoq, tie directly to Yahweh (Exod. 18.16; Deut. 8.1,2). Yet,
the identification of the law suggests a double character. Particularly
in the later stages of the tradition, the term tord reveals the double
character of the law. It is constructed most often in a dependent bond
with Yahweh or Elohim (Exod. 13.1; Josh. 24.26; Isa. 5.24; Hos. 4.6;
Amos 2.4; Neh. 8.8; et a/.). But the important role of Moses stands
close at hand (see Neh. 8.18; 9.3; 10.29; 2 Chron. 34.14; et a/.).
Indeed, on at least fifteen occasions, the word is also constructed in a
dependent bond with the name Moses. In some of these texts, the
relationship between the Torah of Moses and the authority of
Yahweh is tautological. The Torah of Moses has authority precisely
because it is the Lord's Torah (2 Kgs 14.6; 23.25; Neh. 8.1,14; Ezra
7.6). But on other occasions, the Torah of Moses clearly has authority
because it comes from the mouth of Moses (Josh. 8.31, 32). Thus the
collocation, tdrat moseh, becomes an expression for the law itself, the
law identified by the contribution, indeed, the creation of Moses
Qosh. 23.6; 1 Kgs 2.3; 2 Kgs 14.6; 23.25; Mai. 3.22; 2 Chron. 23.18;
30.16; Ezra 3.2; 7.6; Neh. 8.1, 14; Dan. 9.11, 13). And in a parallel
fashion, miszvat moseh^ in 2 Chron. 8.13 suggests an origin from the
lips of Moses. Thus, the two-fold nature of the Moses traditions
seems confirmed by the traditional designation of the law, at least in
the later stages of tradition elements. Moses the lawgiver mediates
the Lord's words to the people. But at the same time tradition
remembers the words as distinctively the work of Moses.
In what manner is this double element characteristic for the earlier
tradition about Moses? And in what manner can it be related to the
heroic image? The answer to this question cannot be formulated as
neatly as the answer to the question posed to the Deuteronomistic or
later stages of the tradition. The double form of the traditional image
about Moses seems more subtly mixed, if not simply cast without
reference to Moses as lawgiver. Thus, in Hos. 4.6, the prophet indicts
the people for forgetting tdrat ^lohekd. And in Amos 2.4, the
indictment condemns Judah for rejecting tdrat '"dondy. It is possible
to argue that the intermediate position of Moses is nonetheless
present. In Exodus 24, Moses gives the law to his people by oral
address. And Moses' act facilitates the obedient response to God by
143
Chapter 8
THE MOSES DEATH TRADITIONS
It seems to me to be an established fact that the figure of Moses
cannot be removed from the exodus theme or the wilderness theme
as a secondary insertion into the narratives about God's mighty acts.
The exodus theme recounts God's redemption of the people from
oppressive bondage to the Egyptians. But while some argument
might be mounted that the earliest traditions knew no figure such as
Moses who effected the event substantially, the argument does not
seem to be convincing. At least from the earliest narrative form,
Moses is there. And in the same manner, the wilderness tales reflect
significant involvement of Moses the leader of the people in
relationship to God's care and aid for his people. The Sinai traditions
as a part of the wilderness theme would also show this double edge as
a distinctive means for describing the critical event. And even if one
should agree that at an earlier level in the tradition's history, the
Sinai traditions must have represented a distinct theme in the
structure of the early traditions of Israel, still it would be difficult to
eliminate the Moses figure from the essential composition of the
narrative. Moses is the lawgiver. And the law draws its authority not
only from God but also from its original character as Mosaic. The
Moses figure is the common bond that holds all of these together and
shows that from the beginning they were distinct but not independent.
There is, however, another theme of tradition that rounds off the
complex unity of Israel's early confessions. In the patriarchal theme,
God promised to give his people the land. But that promise is not
fulfilled until the Israelites return from Egypt and occupy the land in
the place of the Canaanites. The arc of tension from the promise to
its fulfillment marks the structure of the Hexateuch with its peculiar
146
147
Moab, following the key traditions about conquest of the transjordanian territory. On the basis of this observation, he concludes
that the Moses tradition must have been rooted in the theme of the
conquest originally. What firmer location for the tradition can be
found than the memory of the death of the leader? Indeed, this firm
rootage provides some key for Moth's historical concern. The firm
historical memory about Moses is that he died. And as a consequence,
tradition about his death reveals the point of entry for Moses
traditions into the Pentateuchal themes.
An examination of the texts, however, fails to support Noth's
thesis. It is true that conquest traditions appear within the structure
of the wilderness theme. Thus, Num. 21 recounts the conquest of
territory from Sihon and Og. Num. 22-24 report events associated
with the conquest but focused on the Moabite side of the struggle.
And with Num. 25, a sequence of tradition begins. These traditions,
especially Num. 21, are associated in one degree with the conquest of
land. But the role of Moses in them is extraneous (Num. 25) or nonexistent (Num. 21-24). Indeed, the conquest story in Num. 21.21-30
parallels the story in Num. 20 rather closely. In the Num. 20 story,
Moses does not lead the people in conquest but moves around the
territory in question, avoiding the conflict. In the Num. 21 Sihon
story, Israel does not move around the conflict but rather enters the
battle and takes the land. But Moses does not lead (cf. w. 21,23, 24,
25). It is as if Moses is intentionally withheld from the conquest
story.8
There is an exception to this observation. In Num. 27, Moses
functions as judge, responsible for deciding a legal question of
inheritance procedures. Num. 30 presents a similar legal problem,
although it does not concern the distribution of land. In Num. 32, the
issue is more directly a matter of conquest, concerned specifically
with the question of land distribution in the transjordanian territory.
And Moses decides the matter in a way that is binding on the tribes
involved. In Num. 34, it is Moses who determines the territory to be
given to each of the tribes even in Carman. And finally, in Num. 35,
Moses defines the territory for Levi and the cities of refuge in
Canaan. This material may be primarily late, although Noth
suggests some older traditions in the earliest sources. 'There can be
no doubt that the old sources culminated with the narration in one
way or another of the occupation of the preeminently important land
west of the Jordan.'9 The tradition here is at best fragmentary. And
contribution to the image of the Moses figure must remain tenuous.
148
149
150
normal flow, thus comes sharply to the front as an artistic symbol for
the hero. The suggestion of Moses as shepherd contrasts significantly
with the definition of Moses in Exod. 3.1, at the beginning of the
vocation account, as shepherd. The full range of this image comes to
light in detail in Ezekiel 34, although at that point the image is
applied in a negative way to David. Thus, the leader feeds the sheep,
heals them, defends the weak and crippled, seeks out the lost, and
rules them with care, not with harsh oppression. The Lord
announces that he will himself become Israel's shepherd. Then he
will bring out his people, an allusion to the exile rather than the
exodus although certainly the imagery derives from exodus language.
He will feed his sheep, make them lie down in security, bind the
crippled, strengthen the weak, watch over the strong, and give them
justice. Verse 28 defines the human shepherd for these duties as
David. But the imagery is also relevant to the configurations in a
portrait of Moses. Is it not possible just here to see the use of the
image in a traditional definition of leadership, formed not by a
particular office in an institution, but by popular conception of
traditional leaders?11
In response to Moses' plea for a successor, the Lord instructs
Moses to ordain Joshua. The symbol represented by the act of laying
hands on the successor is explicitly an act of validation in the office
(v. 19). But it seems important to me to observe that the validation
involves transfer of authority. It is explicitly the Mosaic dimension of
authority given to Joshua that facilitates the obedience of the
congregation to the new leader (cf. Josh. 1.16-17). But still this
tradition stands within the structure of the heroic Moses. Verse 20
affirms explicitly that only a part of the authority of Moses will
validate the leadership of Joshua: vfndtattd mehod'ka 'dldyw lema'an
yisnf'u kol-^dat beneyisrd'el. The partitive mem with the noun hod is
crucial. The successor cannot carry all of the authority of the hero.
The same pattern appears in the account of the succession of Elisha
to the position of leadership occupied by Elijah in 2 Kgs 2.9. Is this
request more properly understood as a petition for a fraction rather
than a multiple of Elijah's spirit?12 The same sense of succession is
apparent in Num. 11.17, 25. The intention is to lighten the load on
Moses. Yahweh took part of Moses' spirit. Again a partitive min
controls the image: wayyd'fel min-hdntah ^ser 'dldyw. And that part
served to authorize seventy elders. Moreover, that same spirit
promoted ecstatic prophecy among the elders and even extended
beyond them to Eldad and Medad in the camp. The spirit of Moses is
151
greater than the total of all who work as his successors. But,
nonetheless, Num. 27.21 makes it clear that Joshua will give to the
people the same kind of leadership fulfilled by Moses. At his behest,
the people will be able to carry on their regular activity. They will go
out and come in. Thus, the Joshua image shares a heroic dimension
with the Moses traditions. Verses 22-23 then complete the transfer of
authority to Joshua. And the pericope comes to its end without a
report of Moses' death. The initial structural direction of the unit
fades into the account of Joshua's ordination. It is clear that the final
redaction of the unit presupposes the priestly account of Moses' sin
at Meribah, Num. 20.1-13. And the Moses' sin tradition is not
consistent with the heroic image, or, I might add, the authority of
Moses depicted by v. 20. Yet, it seems likely that behind the allusion
to Numbers 20 represented in this unit by v. 14 and perhaps the
universal perspective about Yahweh in v. 15, or the references to
Eleazer the priest in w. 21 and 22, older tradition about Moses
dominates the unit. I do not want to deny the pericope in its present
form to P, a source that tends to gloss over the heroic dimension in
the Moses tradition. I simply want to recognize that the priestly
source commonly preserves older tradition. And in this case,
contrary to the general tendency hi P, some heroic elements of the
older tradition remain. Moses is the leader who has authority to
facilitate the life of the people. And the authority is passed down to
Joshua.
b. In Deuteronomy 34, the image of Moses is a remarkable
complement to the one in Numbers 27. It begins in exactly the same
fashion as Numbers 27. The land to be taken by Israel in conquest
lies before the eyes of Moses who stands on the top of a mountain.
But as in Num. 27.13, so here in v. 4, Moses is denied entry into the
promise. Verse 14 of the Numbers text explains the denial by
reference to the sin of Moses and Aaron at Meribah, an allusion that
demonstrates the position of the text in the final form of the
Pentateuch, if not also in P. In the Deuteronomy text, no explanation
for the denial to Moses is given. There is no allusion to P and thus no
fundamental reason to attribute this text to P. The assumption of the
unit is simply that Moses now has reached the time of his death. And
he must necessarily obey that time. Verses 5-8 then move beyond the
Numbers complement with an explicit death report. Moses died in
accord with the word of Yahweh.
Verse 6 is crucial for the heroic dimension of the report. Moses
152
died alone, apart from his people. No person would know the place of
his burial. But the isolation was not absolute. The antecedent for the
subject of the verb in v. 6, wayyiqbor, must be Yahweh. Yahweh alone
attended the death of this hero. And Yahweh alone buried him. This
presence of God at the death of the hero confirms the life and
ministry as acceptance for God. This hero belonged to God in life.
And in his death he also belongs to God. At this critical point in the
heroic story, intimacy between the hero and God is apparent. But in
the death away from the people, intimacy between hero and people is
broken. In the past he also belonged to his people. Now his people are
absent. The death of the hero is thus typically tragic: 'No man knows
the place of his burial to this day'. Verse 7 heightens the tragedy.
Moses was one hundred twenty years old. That age is the time for
death (contrast Deut. 31.1). But for Moses the vigor of his heroic life
remained. 'His eye was not dim, nor his vigor abated.' He could have
continued his leadership. He was in physical form if not in
chronological age a young man. And he left his people when he
would have still been able to lead them.12
c. In contrast, Deuteronomy 31 depicts Moses at the point of his
death as an old man, one hundred and twenty years but no longer
able to lead. Thus, in v. 2, Moses confesses that he cannot go out and
come in. Justification for the death of Moses before the completion of
his leadership for his people to the land is thus in part chronological
age, debilitating loss of vigor.
In addition to this non-heroic image, v. 2b refers to the word of the
Lord, almost an exact parallel to Deut. 34.4. Moses will not go over
the Jordan. But then in a fashion parallel with Numbers 27, the
narration shifts to the question of leadership for the people after the
Jordan crossing. The first affirmation is in keeping with the two-fold
character of the Moses traditions generally: Now God himself will
lead the people. And it will be his leadership that gives victory over
the Canaanites. But this divine deed will be translated into practical
forms of community leadership by Joshua. Verse 7 makes this point
explicit: 'You shall go with this people into the land which the Lord
has sworn to their fathers to give them. And you shall cause them to
inherit it' (we'attd tanhilennd 'otam) Verse 14 returns to Joshua as
the successor of Moses. But in this case, contrary to Num. 27.23, it is
the Lord who ordains Joshua. It would appear to me, then, that this
succession story, non-heroic in its depiction of Moses, is in fact a
Joshua tradition. And it opens the door to heroic construction for the
Joshua figure.
153
One final point must be made about the Moses death tradition.
Num. 27.14 explains the necessity for the death of Moses before
entry into the land by reference to his sin. Deut. 34.4 and 31.2
explain the untimely death of Moses, not by reference to sin for
which the death is a punishment, but by reference to age. The death
is thus in some sense a tragedy.14 There is one further explanation in
the history of the tradition. In Deut. 1.37 and 3.26, as well as Ps.
106.32, the tradition avers that Moses fails to enter the land because
of the people. This collocation does not suggest that Moses suffers
exclusion in the place of his people who then may be free of their
guilt and enter the land. But it does suggest that Moses suffers
exclusion because of the sin of his people. The preposition in
Deuteronomy, lema'an, appears also in Genesis 18 as indicator of
agency. For the sake of fifty righteous, Sodom would not be
destroyed. A second preposition also enters this tradition field. In
Deut. 1.37, the text avers: 'Against me also the Lord was angry on
your account' (biglalekem). In Gen. 39.5, the same preposition
suggests that Potiphar's house was blessed for the sake of Joseph.
And in Ps. 106.32, the tradition observes that it went ill for Moses on
their account (ba^burdm). In Gen. 3.17, the same preposition
connotes agency: 'The ground is cursed for your sake'. Thus, in the
tradition, as an indicator of agency, the prepositions affirm that for
the sake of the people, Moses must remain outside the land. This is
not yet a vicarious death, although it may be moving in that
direction.14 The vicarious suffering of the servant in Second Isaiah is
different from this expression only by virtue of its affirmation that
the suffering of the servant for his people effected healing. But the
real point of this tradition lies in the identification of Moses with his
people. The parallel in older sources, though not related to the death
tradition, is in the intercession of Moses, especially Exod. 32.32.
The tradition about Moses' death thus sets the stage for Moses'
successor, an element which in itself can have heroic overtones. But
the heroic dimension comes the more sharply to the fore in the
emphasis of this topos on leadership with vigor and ability even at an
advanced age, on the death while his leadership was still vigorous,
and on the explanation of the death by reference to the people.
Because of the people, Moses died. And even though no healing
occurs as a result of this death, the door is open to the vicarious tones
of the Servant in the second Isaiah.
Chapter 9
HEROIC MAN AND MAN OF GOD
The working hypothesis for this probe of the Moses traditions
suggests that two complementary structures representing two
complementary bodies of tradition merge in order to form the
present Hexateuch: the heroic saga of Moses and the confessional
themes about God's mighty acts. Moreover, the contrast between
Hexateuch and Pentateuch can most adequately be explained by
recognizing that one of these, the structure for the Moses traditions,
accounts for the Pentateuch, while the other, the structure for the
themes about God's mighty acts, accounts for the Hexateuch. The
one body about Moses appears now as heroic saga, featuring
narratives about the mighty deeds of Moses in his leadership of the
people and the people's response in faith (or rebellion) to that
leadership. The other body affirms the importance, both theologically
and in the history of the tradition, of God's mighty acts on behalf of
his people. At times this body of tradition complements the heroic
accounts of Moses' mighty deeds, and at times it conflicts with those
accounts.
In this part of my probe of the Moses traditions, I intend to
examine the facet of the Pentateuchal narratives embracing the
confessions of God's acts. I do not intend, however, to explore the
tradition history of the various themes in this structure. Such a task
would move too far afield, for although issues such as the relationship
between the patriarchs in Canaan and Moses in Egypt are certainly
relevant to a history of the Moses traditions, they involve problems
of wider concern than the one at the heart of this monograph. The
task of this part of my probe is therefore limited to a definition of the
contribution the traditions about God's mighty acts make to the
Moses image. In what way do the confessions about God's care for
156
157
158
159
160
161
escape, the double edge is clear. Ps. 105.37, for example, depicts this
tradition as Yahweh's act: 'He [Yahweh: see v. 7] brought them out
with silver and gold'. Exod. 11.3a relates the foundation for this
event to the act of God: 'The Lord gave the people favor in the eyes
of the Egyptians'. But v. 3b combines God's act with the stature of
Moses: 'Also the man Moses was very great in the eyes of the
servants of the Pharaoh and in the eyes of the people'. The exodus
occurred because God gave the people favor in the eyes of their
captors. But it also occurred because the man Moses commanded the
respect of the Egyptians. By the time of the priestly description of the
exodus as the central Passover event, this combination has been lost.
Moses is simply the speaker for the ritual. But for the early tradition,
the exodus tradition appears with two natures bound together in a
unique balance.
2. The Wilderness Theme: Moses, the Shepherd
The wilderness theme is secondary to the central confessions about
Yahweh's mighty acts in the exodus and his gift to Israel of the
promised land.5 This conception of the wilderness traditions
organized into some kind of systematic presentation assumes the
overarching thesis that exodus theme, conquest theme, patriarchal
theme, and especially the Sinai theme were originally independent
confessions, each hiding its own tradition history and its own peculiar
origin. The thesis does not provide an adequate control, however, for
the position of the Moses traditions that cut through all of the topics.
If the wilderness theme had its origin in a secondary combination of
the exodus and the conquest, in what manner does the Moses figure
enter the picture?
The history of the wilderness theme resembles the pattern
described for the exodus theine. Some of the earliest witnesses to the
event of the wilderness allude to God's acts on behalf of his people.
And there is no role in these allusions for the figure of Moses.
Particularly in the earlier tradition, the topic about the event at the
Sea belongs to the general structure and theology of the theme.6 Its
tradition makes sense only in terms of the confessions associated
with God's acts in the wilderness. The hymn of praise called the
Song of Miriam thus provides an early celebration of the keystone in
the theme: 'Sing to the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously. Horse
and chariotry he has thrown into the sea'. This hymn, which
certainly has its setting in the early cult, describes Yahweh's victory
162
over the enemy at the sea in mythopoeic terms.7 Moses has no role in
the event at all. Indeed, the later expansion of the poem in the hymn
of praise called the Song of the Sea recites the details of the event
without reference to Moses.8 In both cases, this key event in the
series organized under the theme of Yahweh's leadership and
protection glorifies the event as an act of God. It was God's
intervention that protected the people that day at the Sea from the
threat of death represented by the horse and chariotry.
The same perspective can be documented at various stages in the
history of the wilderness traditions. Thus, in Ps. 78.13, the poem
remembers the event at the Sea as God's event. But then a broad
scope of wilderness events composes the period, each cast as God's
event. Ps. 74.12-17 uses the same kind of mythopoeic language to
describe the event at the Sea. And again the image functions as
descriptive patterns for the entire range of wilderness traditions:
food, water, protection. Ps. 77.16 personifies the Sea, so that it
responds to God as if itself the enemy. Ps. 114.1-8 features the same
personification. And in both cases, the event is cast entirely as God's
mighty act. Creation, represented by the Sea, responds to God. And
in the response, the tradition of Israel's early history comes to
expression. The second Isaiah alludes to the event at the Sea as
God's event without reference to Moses (Isa. 51.9-11) and even the
recitation of the tradition in Neh. 9.9-12 makes the same point. It was
God who saved his people at the Sea. In the narrative, Exod. 14.25
ties into the same mythopoeic conception of God's act in the
wilderness for the sake of his people. The event occurs because the
Lord fights for Israel.
Other elements in the wilderness theme seem to reveal the same
kind of tradition history. Thus Ps. 78.14-16 and 23-29 describe the
events of aid for Israel in the wilderness without reference to Moses
who interceded in the face of the crisis and facilitated the rescue of
the people. Pss. 105.37-41, 106.7-15, and Neh. 9.9-22 fit the same
pattern. But perhaps the most significant text to depict God's act in
the wilderness is the Song of Moses, Deut. 32.1-43, a poem that
recalls Yahweh's special act of election as an act that occurred not in
the exodus from Egypt but in the protection and aid of the
wilderness. Indeed, the assumption is that the relationship between
Israel and Yahweh began when Yahweh 'found' his people in the
wilderness: 'He found him in the land of the wilderness; in the
howling waste, he was nourished. He encircled him and cared for
him and guarded him like the center of his eye'.9 God established his
163
164
tradition's history. The appeal goes first to God, then to Moses. But
does the problem not belong to the double edge in the tradition noted
above? To appeal to God is to appeal to Moses. The two are not the
same. But die act is the same. To rebel against Moses is to rebel
against God.
Then Moses acts, first in the intercession to the Lord for his
people, then in execution of the instructions for their delivery. The
execution features the rod, defined above as distinctive for the Moses
tradition, used now in parallel with Moses' own hand. Both symbols
function in the account of the event itself. Thus, just here the
tradition affirms both poles as complements (compare Isa. 63.11-14;
Ps. 77.21). The event occurs because the Lord fights for Israel. But it
occurs in fact when Moses acts. For this narrative, the two cannot be
separated into distinct traditions or sources. They belong together as
a single affirmation about the event. Moreover, they come together
when the cultic, mythopoeic tradition must be transposed into
narrative, descriptive form. The cultic image may be shaped heavily
by the image of holy war, with the charismatic leader who initiates
the action in the name of the Lord. But the image comes together
with the various other images for Moses in the narrative, literary
setting of storytelling. Moses enters the tradition complex as the
central agent of Israel's story.
The image of Moses in that story can have negative overtones. In
Numbers 11, Moses responds to the request of the people for food.
His response is hostile, although the text does not clarify whether the
hostility mentioned in v. lOb is directed toward the people who weep
at the doors of their tents or the Lord whose anger was hot. The
speech implies that Moses was angry with the Lord, for it begins with
an accusation against Yahweh: 'Why have you dealt ill with your
servant?' The second line of the accusation identifies the problem in
an infinitive clause: 'Why have I not found favor in your eyes, to
place the burden, all this people, on me'. The evidence of failure to
find favor in God's eyes is the burden on Moses by God.
But the important point is that here Moses defines the people as a
burden. Thus, the following questions have a negative cast. In v. 12:
'Did I conceive all this people, or did I give birth to them that you
should say: "Carry them in your bosom as a wet-nurse carries a
suckling child to the land which you swore to their fathers"?' The
question implies a negative answer. Moses did not conceive the
people. Yahweh did. Therefore, Moses should not carry the people as
a wet-nurse carries a child. The formulation is negative. Yet, it
165
166
intercede with Yahweh for the sake of the people. It is in this context
that the image of covenant mediator makes sense for the Moses
tradition. But the point remains that covenant mediator imagery
belongs to a considerably larger complex that sets Moses for the
people before God. (For the details of this position, see the comments
above.)
4. The Conquest Theme: Joshua, the Warrior
As a part of the wilderness theme, Moses' involvement in the
distribution of the land rests on the traditional role of his authority in
the community. Because he said, according to the tradition, that the
land should be distributed in a particular way, the traditional
distribution carried authority in the community. But the foundation
of the authority is the relationship of Moses' proclamation and God's
instruction (Num. 34.1). It is distinctive that in this complex of
traditions, Moses has a significant role in non-narrative forms. But
there is no narrative presentation featuring a role of Moses in the
distribution of land. It does not seem to me to be correct, therefore, to
conclude that Moses belonged originally to the theme of the conquest
or to the early memories of distribution for the land taken from the
Canaanites. To the contrary, the position of Moses in these traditions
seems to be an extension of the position of authority established for
Moses in the Sinai events. In the same manner, the Moses death
tradition belongs to the wilderness theme, at least insofar as the
itinerary structure is concerned. Moses does not tie primarily to the
conquest theme in any clear manner.11
Moreover, it is clear that the history of the conquest traditions
follows much the same pattern as the history for the exodus and the
wilderness. Thus, early allusions to the topic confess Yahweh's act
without reference to Moses. This point is clear in the themes of the
credo. But in other texts, it is also clear. In Josh. 2.10-11:
For we have heard that the Lord dried up the waters of the Sea of
Reeds before you when you came out from Egypt and what you did
to the two kings of the Amorites in Transjordan, to Sihon and Og,
that you destroyed them. When we heard, our hearts melted and
courage did not rise up for any man because of you. For the Lord is
God in heaven above and on the earth beneath.
167
168
not alter the form and genre of the heroic saga. Even with the image
of Moses as man of God, and the themes that depict God's mighty
acts, the form of the Moses narration remains as it was. Heroic saga
is the narrative display of the hero as the man of God. And this
display belongs to the exquisite art of Israel's storytelling.
Provenance of the Moses Traditions
From the perspective of the heroic saga, the Moses traditions cut
across the distinctive lines of the confessional themes. In the
narrative elaboration of those themes to complementary content for
the saga, Moses belongs to the exodus or the wilderness at the same
level as the one represented by his position in the Sinai traditons.
The conquest represents a problematic area for this position since
the Moses involvement never produces an extensive narrative
elaboration but rather remains rather peripheral, even in accounts of
conquest in Transjordan. The exception to this observation is Moses'
involvement in distribution of the land. But this image seems to draw
on the depiction of Moses with authority drawn from the Sinai
complex. Thus, from the perspective of the heroic saga, Moses
cannot be assigned originally to any one topos in contrast to all
others.12
When the question is put from the other direction, however, the
tradition history looks somewhat different. It is obviously the case
that the exodus and the wilderness themes developed from the
earliest points without reference to Moses. Moses may have been
assumed by the early confessions. But in fact, Moses does not appear
in the explicit formulations of the events. Rather, mythopoeic
imagery features God acting directly for the sake of his people. The
conclusion to be drawn, according to the hypothesis defended above,
is that Moses enters the field of tradition in these themes when the
topos shirts from cultic confession with its mythopoeic imagery to
popular narrative elaboration, with its historical imagery. The issues
are somewhat different but the same conclusion applies to the
conquest theme. Yahweh gives the land to his people. And although
Moses may be represented as the chief agent of authority for
distribution of the land, he is nonetheless held at a distance from
narrative elaboration of the theme. Thus, even though Moses does
not enter the narrative display of the theme in an extensive role, the
minimal role he occupies for the theme suggests that the Moses
image generally requires a narrative setting. Would the same
169
170
combined with the credo traditions and all of them were elaborated
into a pan-Israel, mighty acts of God narrative? The implications of
this question must be clear. I want to determine whether at its
earliest levels the Sinai tradition already involved Moses. But I want
to raise that question not simply in terms of an institutional office. I
have suggested above that the appearance of Moses in the office of
the mediator or the intercessor would seem to be a literary,
folkloristic phenomenon rather than a sociologically grounded,
institutionally shaped one. Does Moses appear in the Sinai narrative
as an intrinsic figure? But then the question is whether Moses has
traditio-historical rootage behind the Sinai narrative that would
account for his role in both the Sinai collection of traditions and in
the narrative about God's mighty acts. Does the Sinai tradition
contain the origin of the Moses figure as a literary, narrative
phenomenon?
The answer to this question lies in a careful evaluation of Exodus
19-34. I suggested above that in my opinion this narrative unit
cannot account for the origin of the Moses traditions in terms of
institutional office from some particular sector of Israelite society.
But that conclusion does not preclude the possibility that the setting
for the Moses tradition lies hidden in the narrative process
represented by these chapters.
The first structural element in the unit prepares for a theophany as
the critical event for the narrative. The preparation involves first an
announcement about God's past act and an appeal for obedience in
future action. 19.5 is critical. Obedience is tantamount to life in
the covenant. And the focus here is on the community in covenant.
As obedient members, Israel will carry the title, 'a kingdom of priests'
(mamleket kdhanim) and a 'holy nation' (goy qddos), the construction
of v. 6a. Moses fits here simply as messenger, the point of v. 6b.
Verses 7-8 then document that the message was delivered and that
the people agreed to abide by its terms.
Verse 9 strikes a new tone in the description, however, for here
Moses' authority before the people is established. The relationship
between God and people will parallel the relationship between Moses
and people. And the issue is explicitly obedience. The goal of the
event announced at this point will be 'belief in Moses. Obedience
will occur when the people see God's presence with Moses 'in a mass
of cloud' (be'ab he'dnari). When the people hear God speaking to
Moses, they will respond in obedience to his word. The imagery
here is not simply messenger, but one who speaks out of authority
171
172
And the text leaves its audience waiting for the validation of Mosaic
authority as anticipated by 19.9: ba^bur yisma' hd'am bedabberi
'immdk wegam-beka ya^minu le'6ldm.
The narrative sequence continues in Exodus 32-34. Chapter 32
recounts Israel's apostasy with the golden calf (vv. 1-29) and the
beginning of Moses' intercession. A principal motif in the intercession
is Moses' identification with his people. The intercession dialogue
continues into ch. 33. It is interrupted, however, by w. 7-11,
recounting something about the typical activity of Moses' intercourse
with God. This interlude functions structurally to prepare for the
intercession speech in w. 12-23. But it also provides the validation for
Moses anticipated by 19.9. Thus, the scene notes the regular position
of Moses for mediating the people's inquiry of God at the Tent of
Meeting. But w. 8-9 shift the focus from mediation to the relationship
between God and Moses. Moses would enter the tent. Then God,
symbolized by the cloud, would also enter the tent. Verse 9b is then
the key: 'He would speak with Moses'. Verse 10 confirms the event
and, accordingly, the authority of Moses. 'Then all the people would
see the pillar of cloud standing at the door of the tent, and all the
people would rise and worship, each man at the door of his tent'. The
correspondence between this scene and 19.9 cannot be accidental.
The regular event in the career of Moses establishes his authority to
function in the community with the belief of the people and thus
with their obedience. It is out of that correspondence that I would
argue that though described as a regular event in the career of Moses,
the description is something that is peculiar to Mosaic imagery
rather than typical for an office that derives from an on-going
institution in Israel's cult.
Verse 11 summarizes the event validating Moses' authority. It
features a description of the relationship between Moses and God
with two parts. (1) The Lord would speak with Moses 'face to face'.
This point is supportive for the validation. But the definition of the
event specifically is 'face to face' (vfdibber ^dondy 'el-moseh pdnim
'el-panim). The idiom itself connotes intimacy (cf. Gen. 32.3; Exod.
25.30; Deut. 34.10; Judg. 6.22; Ezek. 20.35). And this same
connotation is at the heart of the validation for Moses. (2) The Lord
relates to Moses 'just as a man speaks to his friend (re(ehu}\ To be a
friend with God, or even to relate to God on the basis of an analogy
of human friend with human friend, is to enjoy a remarkable
intimacy. This definition of the relationship between Moses and
173
174
175
176
177
the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.' 'You
shall not pervert the justice due to the sojourner, or to the fatherless,
or take a widow's garment in pledge, but you shall remember that
you were a slave in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you from
there; therefore, I command you to do this.'
Thus, I would argue, the primary role of Moses as lawgiver does
not limit Moses to the Sinai traditions. That role can be seen clearly
in the Sinai complex. But to the contrary, the primary role of Moses
as lawgiver recognizes that Moses proclaims law as a natural
consequence of the Gospel. To have Gospel without law, to have the
themes of God's mighty acts, revealing his graceful redemption for
his people, without the law to show his people how to respond would
open the Gospel in the Old Testament to heresy. The people could be
forever takers, taking God's goodness, his redemption, without being
at the same time givers, giving that goodness to the stranger, the
widow, the fatherless who live in their midst. To call Moses lawgiver
does not mean that Moses has no fundamental role in the exodus, the
wilderness, or the conquest. It means rather that the mythopoeic
confessions of God's mighty acts necessarily call for Moses, the
lawgiver, when they are elaborated into narratives. At the same level,
the exodus, the wilderness, the theophany at Sinai all call for the
ministry of Moses in order to make the full range of meaning each
carries as clear as revelation.
Deuteronomy makes this hermeneutic even more explicit:
When your son asks you in time to come, 'What is the meaning of
the testimonies and the statutes and the ordinances which the Lord
our God has commanded you?' then you shall say to your son, 'We
were Pharaoh's slaves in Egypt; and the Lord brought us out of
Egypt with a mighty hand, and the Lord showed signs and
wonders, great and grievous, against Egypt and against Pharaoh
and all his household, before our eyes; and he brought us out from
there, that he might bring us in and give us the land which he
swore to give our fathers. And the Lord commanded us to do all
these statutes, to fear the Lord our God for our good always, that
he might preserve us alive, as at this day' (Deut. 6.20-24).
178
Excursus A
EPITHETS FOR THE MOSAIC FIGURE
The picture of the heroic man, marked by a duplicity that affirms
both the importance of the hero's deeds and the relationship of those
deeds to God, can be sharpened by reference to two tides for Moses,
both functioning in the history of the tradition as classical epithets.
1. The Man of God ('is ha*l6hini)
On the surface, the title seems to indicate nothing more than a
relationship. The one who carries the title is one who belongs to God
(see the numerous construct bonds that set the noun in relationship to
some other noun, as e.g. 'fsyisra'el in Josh. 9.6; 10.24; Judg. 7.14; 20.22;
or 1 Sam. 17.25). Thus, the title 'is ha^lohim connotes some kind of
relationship between the man of God and God himself. Moreover, the
title can function as a narrative epithet, a shorthand reference to the
principal of a story (so, 1 Kings 13). On six occasions, Moses carries the
tide: Deut. 33.1; Josh. 14.6; Ps. 90.1; 1 Chron. 23.14; 2 Chron. 30.10;
Ezra 3.2. None of these references is clearly earlier than the
Deuteronomistic Historian, although Josh. 14.6 may hide an earlier
use of the title.19 Two of these texts, Deut. 33.1 and Ps. 90.1, are
simply ascriptions for poems and thus tell litde about the character
of Moses or the shape of the image that portrays him. At most they
suggest that Moses was a famous man who therefore might have
been responsible for a poem, i.e. eligible for credit in the ascription of
a pseudonymous poem. In these cases, the tide indicates nothing
more than a relationship between Moses and God. In 1 Chron. 23.14,
the title places Moses' sons among the Levites. But the value for
defining Moses as 'man of God' does not appear to be strong. Indeed,
in the contrast between the sons of Moses and the sons of Aaron, the
Aaronides seem to be the more highly exalted. Thus, it would appear
180
181
182
183
does not connote one single, limited office, identified by its peculiar
work. A large complex of occurrences for this title applies its qualification to David. But the title does not warrant a conclusion that the
qualification of Moses conceives of Moses as king or even that the
title was limited to polite, courtly speech. The title is not necessarily
messianic. Rather, it can refer to various famous people who enjoyed
an intimate relationship with God. Thus, Josh. 24.29 shows the title
as a qualification of Joshua, Num. 14.24 for Caleb, 1 Kgs 14.18 and
15.29 for Ahijah, 2 Kgs 14.25 for Jonah, and Job 1.8 and 23 or 19.16
and 43.7,8 for Job. Particularly, the Jonah and Job texts suggest that
the title is a general epithet available for describing traditionally
famous and pious persons of the past.
In the Moses traditions, the title appears at least on three
occasions in pre-deuteronomistic sources: Exod. 14.31; Num. 12.7,8;
Deut. 34.5. In accord with the suggestion by Zimmerli, I would
contend that in each case the title functions to emphasize the
relationship between Moses and God. Indeed, in Exod. 14.31 and
Num. 12.7 and 8, it facilitates expression of the twofold character of
the Moses image. The heroic man is at center stage. In Exod. 14.31,
the event at the Sea promotes belief of the people in Moses. And in
Num. 12.7 and 8, Yahweh confirms the position of Moses as leader of
the people vis A vis the opposition of Miriam and Aaron. But at the
same time, the event affirms that Yahweh acted. The same event that
promotes belief in Moses promotes belief in Yahweh. It is the same
demonstration of authority. To refer to this leadership of the people
as servant of the Lord is to recognize the validation of his authority
in God.
But in what he [Moses] powerfully accomplished Yahweh was so
obviously present that the people's responsive faith submits to
Moses and to Yahweh in him. An essential feature of the biblical
revelation comes out here. God's history is not transcendental
heavenly history. It stoops to earth and appoints men with their
deeds and words as signs.22
It is precisely the heroic deeds of the man Moses that become the
signs of God's presence. Heroic deeds and the mighty acts of God
merge. And the merger enables the mighty acts of God to be
translated from a transcendental heavenly history into human
history. Human history demonstrates the authority of God to compel
belief and thus obedience.
Deut. 34.5 is also in my opinion a pre-deuteronomistic allusion to
184
185
In the writings, the pattern for reference to Moses with this title is
similar. Dan. 9.11 sets the pace by identifying the law as the law of
Moses, the servant of God. The title validates the authority of the
law. In Ps. 105.26, the title qualifies Moses in an allusion to the
divine commission marking Moses' vocation. The allusion may be
simply dependent on the Pentateuchal foundation. Yet even if this
were so, it would provide an allusion to the tradition which now
employs the title. And in the Chronicler, the title functions again
with Moses as a general appeal to authority (1 Chron. 6.34; Neh. 1.8;
9.14; 10.30) or an appeal for authority in particular cultic institutions.
2 Chron. 1.3 shows that Moses established the Tent of Meeting and
2 Chron. 24.6 and 9 refer to the tax levied by Moses for support of the
Tent. Thus, it is clear that while the heroic man of authority held
central importance for the Yahwist, and while the later narrative
sources seem to reduce the heroic element by emphasizing the acts of
God, the tradition of the heroic source of authority did not die. The
title does not place Moses in any one particular office. It does not
define the setting for the Moses tradition in any one particular cultic
institution even though the Tent might be a possibility. Rather, the
title seems again to be a term from the popular world, an epithet
within the dynamics of folk narrative for referring to a hero in the
narrative, regardless of his office.
The epithets in the Moses tradition appear, therefore, to support
the contention in the working hypothesis for this project that the
tradition depicts Moses, not in terms of prophet, priest, or king,
portraits drawn from institutional offices operative in the time of the
storyteller, but as the hero of the story, Israel's story. And as hero,
Moses casts an image that embraces many offices, many forms, many
responsibilities. It would be precisely this diversity that opens the
door for development of the Moses image with two natures, the
heroic man and the man of God.
Excursus B
MOSES PARAPHERNALIA
References to Moses paraphernalia appear at scattered points in the
previous sections of this probe. The purpose of this excursus is to
bring those observations together for a more pointed evaluation. By
paraphernalia, I mean those items described in the narratives that
function in one way or another as symbols of the Moses tradition. In
the same way that the cross represents tradition about Jesus'
crucifixion and resurrection, but in addition gains inclusive significance for the entire scope of the tradition, so in the Moses traditions
various symbols represent various items of critical importance for
the shape of the Moses image.
1. The rod (mdffeh). Perhaps the most important symbol for Moses
in the construction of traditions as heroic saga is the rod. A person
carrying a rod for use as a handy, personal tool is not in itself unusual
(cf. 1 Sam. 14.27, 43; Isa. 28.27). Indeed, the tool can stand for the
character of the person whom it symbolizes (cf. Gen. 38.8, 18, 25).
The term can also denote the larger family unit that gives meaning
and identity to all of its members (Num. 31.34, 36). This category is,
of course, distinct from the denotation for a tool; yet, it marks the
place of symbol for personal reference.
In the hands of a particular leader, the tool carries the weight of
power (Ps. 110.2). The same point about the rod as a symbol of
power can be established from negative contexts (Isa. 9.3; 10.24-26;
14.5; Jer. 48.17). The rod can appear in the hand of a shepherd
(Exod. 4.2) but it is not peculiar to shepherds (Exod. 7.12). It can in
fact refer to the reputation and authority of a person and his family
as a symbol preserved as witness to that position for future
generations. Num. 17.16-28 describes the rod of Aaron as a symbol of
187
his position of authority vis a vis those who would murmur against
him and thus challenge his authority in the community. In the test
designed to determine the validity of Aaron's leadership, Aaron's rod
blossomed. And that fact functioned as validation. But perhaps the
more important point in this pericope is not the sign represented by
the vitality of the rod, but the function of the rod with its blossom as
a perpetual symbol of Aaron's position (17.25-26). The rod is clearly
an item in the paraphernalia of Aaron, preserved as a witness to
Aaron's position for coming generations.23
For Moses, the rod functions clearly as a symbol of power. The
point is established in the confrontation between Moses and the
magicians of Egypt. Both sides wield rods. And both possess the
power to turn the rods into serpents (tannin). When, however, the
sign was first given to Moses on the Mountain, the text reports that
the rod became a snake. The word for the reptile produced by the rod
is different (nahas). The rod then functions as the sign of Moses'
power. In the confrontation with the Pharaoh, the rod serves Moses
at the moment of power, the moment when Moses effects a sign. The
tie between the rod and the sign is strong (Exod. 7.9-12; 15-20; 8.1;
13; 9.23; 10.13). And the sign before the Pharaoh functions as
evidence for imposing authority over the Pharaoh, just as it does in
the scene depicting Moses before the Israelites (Exod. 4.30-31). To be
sure, the Pharaoh rejects the claim of power for the sign because of
his hard heart. But the function of the sign is to establish the
authority of the wielder. The symbol reveals a double nature in the
plague series, however. The rod obviously belongs to Moses. But on
occasion, Aaron wields it before the common foe. This element
reflects the particular history of the Aaron tradition and should not
detract from the perception of the object as a symbol of Moses'
position.
It is important to note, however, that the rod functions more
broadly for the Moses traditions than simply in the confrontation
with the Pharaoh. Exod. 17.9 presents Moses with the rod of
authority in his hand, responsible for the success of the battle against
the Amalekites. One should remember just here, however, that the
rod has a dual nature. It is both the rod of Moses and the rod of God
(cf. 7.25). And indeed, the same dual nature characterizes the image
of Moses generally. The rod symbolizes both the authority of Moses
and the authority of God. The one is tantamount to the other. In the
event at Meribah, Exod. 17.1-7, the rod functions as the tool in
Moses' hand, effective for producing water for the community from
188
189
them and the tale about bitter water turned to sweet should not be
missed. Yahweh obliges Israel to obey the statute and ordinance, a
part of his test for Israel (nissdhu). The implication of the aid is that
in response to the aid, Israel will obey the Lord.25 The event of the
aid already contains the proclamation of the law. But still a further
point is in order. Obedience to the law will protect Israel from the
diseases (hammahala) Yahweh put on the Egyptians. The diseases
obviously refer to the signs effected by Moses with the help of the
rod. And now obedience to the law constitutes the antidote to the
power of the rod to bring disease. Significantly, the process is defined
in v. 26 by an epithet for Yahweh. He is Israel's healer (rope'eka).
Would not, in fact, the power to 'heal' the bitter water by a tree
reflect the same power?
Even if, however, the 'tree' that heals bitter water is in some
manner related to the rod that brings diseases on the Egyptians and,
according to the hypothesis, wards those diseases away from the
Israelites, the question about preservation of the symbol as a witness
to the power and authority of Moses for future generations is not yet
answered. If the rod changes its shape within the scope of the Moses
traditions, does it emerge in still another form? Num. 21.4-9 narrates
an event in the wilderness journey that threatened the lives of the
Israelites under Moses' care. Fiery serpents (hannehasim hassfrapini)
attacked the Israelites because of the rebellion against both God and
Moses. And some of the Israelites died from the bites. The remaining
population confessed their sin, and as a result Moses interceded for
them and received instruction for the remedy. A bronze serpent
(nehas rfhosei) on a pole (nes) would reverse the fatal quality of the
serpents' bite. Those stricken by the attack would need only to see
the bronze serpent in order to survive the fate inflicted by the
serpents.
Again, there is no explicit connection between the rod (matteh)
and the bronze serpent (nehas nehoset). Yet it is significant that in the
first scene pitting Moses against the Pharaoh, the rod turned into a
serpent. Indeed, the initial account of the deed, Exod. 7.10, named
the serpent tannin. But the same scene shifts the vocabulary (7.15) to
nahas (cf. also 4.3). And when the Pharaoh's magicians throw their
rods (matteh) before the Pharaoh, they become tannin. The rod of
Moses then swallows the serpent of the Egyptian magicians,
anticipating a final victory by Moses over their skills. But the
foreboding character of the scene is heightened by reference to
Moses' serpent with a different noun. His serpent is a nahas. Does
190
191
But the golden calf was reduced to a sign of apostasy and rejected
as an effective sign of Yahweh's (and Moses?) presence in the
community. The fate of the golden calf and the bronze serpent
reflects the strong anti-Moses (anti-northern?) bias in the tradition.
Would this element not reflect the same tendency as the murmuring
motif, a tendency to show that the wilderness generation lost its
unique relationship with Yahweh because of its rebellion? Would it
not show a tendency in the form of the tradition now preserved in the
MT to undercut the Moses position? Would this too not be a proDavid factor effecting the shape of the tradition originally at home in
the north?29
3. In the priestly tradition, the ark of the covenant functions as a
Mosaic symbol. But in the typical priestly fashion, it is not heroic in
quality. It was constructed by Moses. But it functions, not as a symbol
of Moses' presence for his people, but as a symbol of God's presence.
Its character as a war palladium (Josh. 3) certainly reflects its
function as a symbol of God and his presence for the army (1 Sam. 4).
But in the earlier tradition, particularly in the heroic tradition, there
is no role for the ark in the Moses story.30
4. Num. 27.12-23 depicts Moses laying hands on Joshua to mark
him as his successor. The act symbolizes transfer of power and
authority. But it also reminds the audience that the hands of Moses
parallel the rod as instruments to effect the power of God/Moses for
the people. Laying hands on Joshua marks not simply a transfer of
power and authority, but even more, a transfer of spirit that
characterizes Moses, a recognition of divine presence, the defining
quality of Moses as man of God, now passed to the successor. And
perhaps in the process is the element of cleansing/healing.31 In order
for one confronted by God to accept a divine commission, the
cleansing/healing process was necessary (cf. Isa. 6.6-7; Jer. 1.9; Ezek.
2.9). But the process of transfer opens the door to a new symbol of
Moses for the community. In Joshua appears a new Moses, one
shaped by tradition and experience as a disciple of the teacher, a new
form of the ideal model.
Chapter 10
SETTING AND INTENTION FOR THE SAGA
The hypothesis about the Moses traditions as heroic saga, complemented by the structure of confessional themes depicting God's
mighty acts to save his people, may now be tested by exploring the
setting and intention for each stage in the history of those
traditions.
1. The final form of the Pentateuch preserves the Moses story in
narratives and laws from Exodus through Deuteronomy. It is
obvious that at the canonical level, the Moses story contains a
delicate balance between the tales, legends, anecdotes, and reports of
the Moses saga and the laws in the Sinai tradition. At the canonical
level, the Moses story narrates the great events initiated by God and
Moses in the redemption of Israel and proclaims the great laws
detailing God's will for Israel's response to those events. Indeed, the
one builds on the foundation provided by the other. The dialectic
between the two works on the following pattern: 'Because when you
were slaves in Egypt I delivered you from Egyptian bondage, you
shall therefore hear my laws and obey my will'. To have the one
without the other distorts the character of the Moses traditions as
they are preserved in the MT.
Moreover, the canonical level of the story depicts Moses as both
heroic man and non-heroic man. That portrait paints Moses as a
man who can take initiative in the events that save his people, and at
the same time as a man who witnesses God's action that saved his
people. The heroic man is active. The non-heroic form of the man
shows him as passive. Moses knows that the critical events that effect
the shape of the people's destiny come from God. And he simply
facilitates the process. Yet Moses also knows that the leader of the
194
195
submit, the diversity in the collage does not render the portrait a
surrealistic jumble of mutually exclusive norms. Even the final
portrait, the heroic and non-heroic together, captures an experience
of humans who shoulder the responsibilities of leadership. Why must
the leader look the same today as he looked yesterday? Could the
same man who said, 'Father, forgive them, for they know not what
they do', also say, 'It is written. "My house shall be called a house of
prayer". But you make it a den of robbers', and then drive all who
sold and bought in the temple to the streets? This Moses rises to the
heights of heroism, defends his people even against God, but also
falls to the depths of despair and witnesses a purge of his opposition.
This Moses effects the signs and wonders that lead to the exodus, but
also submits to the authority of the God who sent him. This Moses is
meek and strong, a man of integrity and a man of commitment to
people who often had no integrity, a defender of his people even
when they were ready to stone him. The canonical picture of Moses,
a man caught in the torrents of life and leadership, is in all of its
contradiction, its competing images, a remarkably effective portrait
of human form. I am unable to conclude that the juxtaposition of
competing poles in the picture of this giant is the result of haphazard
combination of originally independent sources. I believe that the
juxtaposition of these poles is in fact the result of a combination of
sources. Moreover, the two principal sources that comprise this
picture were apparently independent, at least in the sense of
developing quite distinct goals. And yet, the combination of heroic
and non-heroic creates an image that, in its surrealism, captures a
genuine facet of human experience. The hero is at times necessarily
balanced by the non-heroic. The leader who bears the weight of all
the people as a nursing father might must on occasion give that
people back to God. 'Today is vacation. O God, today, they belong to
you.'
The combination of the competing poles in the Moses picture
reflects a redactional setting, an age concerned to preserve the
traditions from the past. But it does not reflect a nonsensical
commitment to preservation, as if the only goal were preservation.
The shape of the preserved reflects the struggle with contradictions
in public as well as private life characteristic for the setting of the
redactor. The age is no longer heroic. Its post-heroic view reflects the
concern to survive, as well as a concern, having survived, to make
sense out of the form of the survival. That stance fits, so it seems to
me, in the period classically defined as the period of redaction for the
196
197
a tool in the hands of the savior. And that facility comes to expression
foremost in the law. Moses proclaims God's standards to the
community. And the proclamation overshadows the stature of the
proclaimer.1
In the book of Deuteronomy and in the Deuteronomistic Historian,
the operative image for Moses builds on the issues of power and
authority.2 Moses is the lawgiver. The second law draws its authority
from its source in Moses. And, indeed, the Deuteronomistic
Historian develops a construction of the history of Israel and Judah
built on the authority assumed from the position of Moses.3
In the Yahwist, the image of Moses is fully heroic. Two points
about setting demand attention here also. (1) The portrait of Moses
as hero derives from a heroic age. Heroic age assumes a period of
kingship, not a period when kingship has become simply a shadow of
the past, a stage never again to be set before the audience of the saga.4
(2) The age reflects a period when, despite pressures from the
outside, the model for identity in the community lay within the
community. Moses resisted pressure from the outside; indeed, he
fought against that pressure and destroyed it. Pressures from the
outside, affecting the period from which the saga derives, could also
be defeated. With the help of God, the hero can meet the challenges
of the day.
The classical definition of setting for the Yahwist in the court of
the Davidic king fits this picture of a heroic age. A new kingship
under the pressures of foreign threat, under the sign of failure in the
efforts to establish kingship by Saul and even by Abimelech called for
visions of the heroic. Definition of the Moses narratives as heroic
saga supports the traditional conclusions that the Yahwist must come
from the time of Solomon or perhaps even from the court of
David.5
Yet, a major problem confronts this definition of setting for the
heroic saga. A strong disjunction between the traditions of Moses
and the traditions of David emerges from the Old Testament
traditions.6 In what manner could the Moses traditions as heroic saga
have any role at all to play in a court that called on its own traditions
about a son of David as the model for identity and leadership? Why
would a son of David be concerned about images of heroic leadership
associated with Moses?
Observations about intention in the saga for the Yahwist open
some insight into the problem. The Moses saga presents a model for
judging the quality of leadership established by any son of David at
198
any point in the history of Israel. Even within the Davidic court,
Israel's theologians were concerned to establish standards for judging
the quality of their kings. This point is already expressed in the
Yahwist's presentation of the Garden of Eden as the court of Adam,
the first king. The model places limits around the first man, and as a
sign to the king, the first man shows the distinct difference between
king and God.7
The Moses traditions also show what the king should look like.
David should exhibit the qualities of Moses in his administration of
the kingdom. Otherwise, he might confuse himself and think that he
was more than the Son of God. For David and Solomon to be judged
by the standards of the New Moses was to prevent abuse by David,
Solomon, or any other king of royal power. But at the same time, the
Moses traditions show a positive side of the king. The king may be a
messenger commissioned by God, a man called to a specific task. But
the king is no mean creature, as if by nature he must be a sinner in
the sight of God. God calls the king to perfection according to both
the model of David and the model of Moses. And that perfection
enables the king to perform the tasks for which he carries God's
commission. There are no excuses for missing the mark.
Thus, Ezekiel 34 brings the standards of Moses tradition to bear
explicitly on the qualities of the Davidic kings. Verses 1-6, the first
half of the oracle, describe the abuse of royal power, the abuse of the
power of the shepherd. The duties of the shepherds match the
elements of tradition in the Moses saga: (1) Feed the sheep. (2)
Strengthen the weak. (3) Heal the sick. (4) Bind the crippled. (5)
Bring back the strayed. (6) Search for the lost. (7) Rule the sheep
with the opposite of force and harshness, i.e. with justice (cf. v. 16).
These verses set the responsibilities in a negative cast. The shepherds
of God's people fail in these tasks. The burden of Ezekiel's oracle is
that the shepherds who have failed will be replaced by one shepherd,
'my servant David'.8 But this David is a shepherd whose characteristics are Mosaic. Is Ezekiel's vision of the New David not dominated
by the characteristics of the New Moses? Is the union not already the
fulfillment of the sign act in Ezek. 37.15-28?
To be sure, the time of Ezekiel is not the same as the time for the
Yahwist, at least given the traditional definition of the time for the
Yahwist's activity. My contention is nonetheless that this element of
judgment on the standards and activity of the leadership of God's
people, this unique combination of characteristics that belonged to
199
Moses with the power and authority that belonged to David was
present from the beginning of Davidic monarchy, at least from the
time of the united monarchy. In fact, since signs of position for the
Mosaic tradition in the north have been uncovered, perhaps it was
precisely the moment that united the monarchy that brought Moses
tradition into contact with Davidic tradition. The images of Moses fit
precisely with this pattern: the Liberator, the Shepherd, the
Lawgiver who makes the expectations of God for response to his
mighty acts explicit. The new Moses is the new David who rules by
the way of the Torah, the laws given from Sinai that define the
righteousness of David by the justice of Moses.
Could the shape of the Moses tradition as heroic saga be earlier
than the period of the kingship? Could the tradition inherited by the
Yahwist already have had the heroic element about Moses? The
earliest picture of Moses available, perhaps the only picture of Moses
from the period before the monarchy, depicts Moses as lawgiver
(Deut. 33.4).9 The focus of the event described by this text highlights
God's act. He came from Sinai. He came to his people. He loved
(hobeV) his people. Indeed, the love he gave to his people was the love
of a nursing father (cf. Job 31.33, where hob is that part of one's body
where security is certain). And that love recalls the image of Moses as
the nursing father. The result of God's action was obedience from
the people. And then the expression of that divine act is translated to
the realm of humans by the act of Moses, the lawgiver. At a preYahwistic level, Moses enters the depiction of God's mighty act as
the means for elaborating that act in a narrative of human
experience. Indeed, the emphasis on law at just this point suggests
that the connection between law and event described above is the
fundamental crucible that gives life to the Moses tradition, perhaps
even the womb that gives birth to the Moses story as a life-giving
tradition for Israel. Moses leads his people from Egypt to the Jordan,
meeting each crisis as it comes. And the process provokes Israel's
response in faith. To spell that response out, the tradition employs
the images of Moses, the lawgiver, and all the rich diversity that
accompanies that shape.10
The Elohist's image of Moses, like the Elohist source itself,
remains too fragmentary to describe in detail. At most, I would
conclude that the Elohist pulls the Moses image away from its heroic
qualities in order to place greater emphasis on the pictures of God.
But that appears to be the work of an editor, expanding the Yahwist's
narrative, rather than the work of an independent storyteller.
Chapter 11
THE MOSES TRADITIONS BEYOND THE SAGA
Robert Polzin's treatment of the Moses traditions in the Deuteronomist introduces a significant methodological orientation for evaluating
the function of Mosaic image outside the heroic saga.1 He reviews the
merits of the historical and literary alternatives in an approach to the
Moses traditions, concluding that for his own work, the focus of his
probe will fall on an exploration of the literature about Moses in the
Deuteronomistic History, but that that exploration cannot stand
isolated from historical critical evaluations. His concern is clearly
not to reconstruct Moses as he really was, not even to reconstruct
Moses as the Deuteronomistic Historian thought he really was. His
concern is rather to describe the manner of imaging Moses reflected
by the Deuteronomistic History. 'The principal role of Moses as seen
in the Book of Deuteronomy is hermeneutic: he is the book's primary
declarer (maggid) and teacher (rrflatrtmed) of God's word'.2 Moreover,
this depiction emphasizes the authority of Moses to declare or teach
the word of God, not in the sense of a modern interpreter who stands
to some degree removed from the subject of his work, uninvolved in
the process of interpretation already under way in the text, but rather
in the sense of an involved witness of the power resident in the
tradition. The authority of Moses is then the key item that
underwrites transmission of the Mosaic tradition into the future. The
Deuteronomistic Historian then becomes the interpreter of God's
word in the same history of tradition as Moses. Indeed, the authority
he wields to interpret the post-Mosaic period of history is the same
authority that Moses wields in interpreting the post-exodus history.
It stands in continuity with the authority of Moses to interpret God's
word for the exodus and wilderness generation.
Polzin raises a serious question about the Moses figure in the
202
203
204
instructions ('Put off the shoes from your feet, for the place where
you stand is holy'.) as theophany, recalls the confrontation Moses
experienced with God at the burning bush. The character of Joshua's
relationship with the people is like the character of Moses' relationship
with the people: He must lead the people to a particular place. And
indeed, the leadership will not be easy. Thus, in Josh. 7.1-26, the
effort to take Ai fails. And Joshua laments the failure to God, just as
Moses laments the failure of his leadership in Num. 11.14 and Israel
laments the loss of Yahweh's presence in Num. 11.42. Moreover, the
concluding ceremony for the capture of Ai describes Joshua building
an alter according to the description of Moses. And the preparation
for the battle at Jericho reports Joshua's confrontation with a man,
the commander of the army of the Lord. Joshua's response is
identical to Moses' response to confrontation with the Lord at the
burning bush. And the stranger instructs Joshua to remove his shoes
from his feet, Tor the place where you stand is holy' (Josh. 5.15; cf.
Exod. 3.5). As Moses' successor, Joshua is represented by the
tradition as a New Moses.
This point is clear in the description of Joshua's position in Josh.
1.5: 'No man shall stand before you all the days of your life. Just as I
was with Moses, I shall be with you. I will not fail you or forsake
you'. And Josh. 1.16 describes Israel's response to Joshua: 'They
answered Joshua saying "All that you command us we will do, and
everywhere you send us we will go. Just as we obeyed Moses, so we
will obey you. Only may the Lord your God be with you just as he
was with Moses"'. In both texts, the intention of the speech clearly
sets Joshua's leadership for his people in the mold of Moses. Joshua is
Moses' successor. But the text does not imply that Joshua simply fills
Moses' office, that a line of succession in a particular office emerges.
To the contrary, Joshua is his own figure. He has his own task. But
the task merits Mosaic imagery for description of relationships
between the leader and the led, and indeed, between the leader and
God. Insofar as the imagery is concerned, Joshua is a New Moses.
Mosaic office appears to surface in Deuteronomy. In ch. 34, Moses
lays hands on Joshua. And the process marks the 'spirit of wisdom'
for Joshua. The result of that ordination is obedience to the
commands of Joshua from the people. But the obedience is explicitly
a response to Moses. Moreover, Moses is the head of a series of
prophets to appear in Israel. In Deut. 18.15, Moses reports that 'the
Lord your God shall raise for you a prophet from your midst, from
205
your brothers like me, and you shall obey him'. But the issue is again
not an office. The issue is not a prophetic voice or a prophetic
tradition. The issue is obedience to leadership. And the leadership
fits the model of Moses, not an institutional office that might be
Mosaic, but a heroic figure who calls the people to respond. The
image is relationship between the leader and the led, not the
constitution of a permanent prophetic office.
In this sense, then, Joshua must be seen, not as a prophet in the
line of Mosaic prophets, but as a leader whose image is 'New Moses'.
The point is that the Mosaic dimension in the Joshua tradition is not
institutional. The setting for the Joshua tradition is not the Mosaic
office. Rather, the point is that the imagery available to the tradition
for describing Joshua and what he did is hermeneutic. The Mosaic
quality of the imagery enables the audience to interpret who Joshua
is. And since the Mosaic imagery fits the Joshua forms, Joshua must
be described explicitly as a New Moses.
One must be careful at just this point. It is important not to
interpret any leader whose tradition appears in the form of a heroic
saga as a New Moses, just because the form happens to be the same
as the form used by tradition for describing Moses. Not every hero of
Israelite tradition is by that fact a New Moses. To the contrary, to
speak of some figure in tradition as New Moses means to recognize
that the tradition interprets the figure in terms and categories that
belong in the first order to Moses. Thus, in the relevant Joshua texts,
the tradition makes the connection explicit. In Josh. 1.17: 'Just as we
obeyed Moses in everything, so we shall obey you. Only may the
Lord your God be with you just as he was with Moses'.
The Deuteronomistic Historian clearly interprets the acts of
leadership by Jeroboam I as apostasy. Yet, it seems a strong
possibility to suggest that from the perspective of the northern
empire, from the bias of supporters for Jeroboam I, the model of his
leadership must have been Mosaic. An obvious point of contact with
Mosaic tradition is the cultic act instigated by Jeroboam in
establishing the golden calves in Dan and Bethel. It is well known
that the negative interpretation of the golden calves, now obviously
at the center stage of the Deuteronomistic History, reflects the bias of
the southern tradition. In Exodus 32, Aaron's act falls under the
condemnation of Moses as a violation of the newly formed covenant
with Yahweh. But it is at least a highly probable conclusion that the
tradition in the Yahwist interprets as apostasy an event that was seen
206
207
208
The argument is not that the second Isaiah expects Moses to return.
The servant is not Moses raised from the past to lead the present. To
the contrary, the leader is a new figure, unnamed by the prophet. But
his form, his work, his identity are defined by the Moses traditions.
The servant is the New Moses, just as for the first Isaiah the leader is
the New David.6
In the second poem, the servant title continues. In 49.3, moreover,
the leader is named 'my servant Israel'. But even that communal
identity has a place in the Mosaic tradition. In the role of Moses as
intercessor, Moses makes his identity with his people crucial in his
position before God, so much so that the fate defined for the people
by God becomes the fate claimed by Moses for himself (Exod. 32.32).
But even more, the servant figure receives a universal dimension, like
the comment about the torah in 42.4. The third poem catches the
tradition of rebellion against Moses, a rebellion that challenges the
authority of Mosaic leadership. And the response of the poet is to
affirm the authority of the servant in the face of the rebellion. The
fourth poem emphasizes the suffering of the leader in the process of
his work with the people of God, for the sake of the people of God.
The vicarious element, only implicit in the Mosaic tradition, is now
explicit for the servant. Yet the pattern is clear. Moses was denied the
fruit of the land, the goal of his work, because of the people. The
servant also faced frustrations in completing his mission. 'They made
his grave with the wicked and with the rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his
mouth.' The analogy may not be exact. The violation of Moses in the
later stages of the tradition suggests rash words, some kind of
violation with his mouth. Yet, this element does not appear to be a
part of the earlier levels in the Mosaic tradition. Thus, the prophet
who speaks to exiled Israel of a new exodus describes the servant who
effects that exodus as a New Moses.
The same split in the tradition, obvious in the New David of the
Isaiah from Jerusalem and the New Moses of the Second Isaiah, can
be seen in other forms. Zerubbabel was a member of the house of
David, potentially a New David for the new community in
Jerusalem. Perhaps Jeshua, the priest, could be interpreted by the
new community as a New Moses (Ezra 3.1). Ezra brought a new law
for the new community. And his law carried the authority of Moses
(Ezra 7.6). Could Nehemiah stand in the position of a New David?
Indeed, figures at the center of different genres in Old Testament
209
210
reform was to reassert political hegemony over the north. The peace
proffered by that prospect would facilitate the rule of a Messiah who
would be both New David and New Moses. And the tradition would
have helped his subjects understand who he was and what he was
doing. But unfortunately, like Moses, his task was cut short, before it
could be completed. Har-Meggido proved to be the last battle in the
campaign to unite Moses and David. And the disciples of the two
must have struggled in order to look beyond Josiah to a future
completion of the task.
The New Testament clearly interprets Jesus as a New David.9
Thus, Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the city of David (Lk. 2.4, 11).
Joseph belonged to the house of David (Mt. 1.20). Indeed, the
'Benedictus' identifies the house of David as the source for the horn
of God's salvation. But the tradition also employs images from the
Moses traditions to depict Jesus. The argument that Jesus is
presented as New Moses is not new.10 The Mount of Beatitudes sets
the proclamation of this new lawgiver before his disciples and, thus,
before the world. And indeed, the announcement of his salvation by
the grace of God does not void the law of Moses. To the contrary, it
fulfills it (Mt. 5.17). As Moses enters the world under threat from the
Pharaoh, Jesus enters the world under the threat from Herod (Mt.
2.16). As Moses was transfigured before God, an event witnessed
subsequently by his people through the shining face, so Jesus
transfigured before God, an event witnessed by his disciples and
attended by Moses and Elijah, another Moses figure. And as the
transfiguration symbolizes the authority of Moses, so it symbolizes
the authority of Jesus. The address to the disciples, Mt. 17.5, makes
this point clear: 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well
pleased. Listen to hint. As Moses the shepherd feeds his sheep, so
Jesus feeds his own and calls his disciples to follow suit (Jn 21.15-19).
As Moses heals the pain of his people at the face of death from the
serpents and even brings his sister back from the edge of death (Num.
12.12), so Jesus heals the sick and calls the dead to life. Indeed, the
untimely death of Jesus, the Suffering Servant, draws fuller meaning
from the tradition that sets Jesus in the line of the suffering servant
in the Second Isaiah. And like Moses, his death is for the sake of the
people. The oppressed are redeemed. The lost are sought out. The
weak are strengthened. The crippled are bound up. And Jesus the
Good Shepherd leads them.
Yet, these parallels do not suggest that Jesus is cast by the tradition
211
Chapter 12
CONCLUSION
The working hypothesis for this probe of the Moses traditions,
refined at several points, states: 'The Moses narratives, structured as
heroic saga, merge with narrative tradition about Yahweh's mighty
acts, structured around confessional themes'. An elaboration of the
first element in the assertion emphasizes a particular point about
heroic tradition: 'This heroic tradition binds the hero with his
people. Either by military might, or by skillful intercession, or by
familiarity with surroundings and conditions, he defends and aids his
own. He brings "boons" to his people'. On the basis of the
examination, I conclude that the hypothesis as refined is sustained.
The Moses traditions do not derive from a single office within one
institution of Israel's society. They derive from the folk. They
therefore employ a wide diversity of images that depict a diversity of
facets from the complex figure of Moses. The description of that
complex as heroic allows for the diversity, yet emphasizes that in
each facet Moses appears as a leader/or the people. He identifies with
their woes. He experiences their crisis. And with the help of God, he
acts to resolve their problems. But he is also the man of God who
represents God's imperatives to the people. In fact, he is in the first
order the one who gives those imperatives a voice. He is the lawgiver.
In the dialectic between those two poles, he emerges as an authentic
creature, the one who is intimate with God and people, the one who
in his intimacy facilitates the intimacy of his people with each other
and with God. But he is at the same time a tragic model. His people
reject him, despite his intercession for them before God, in spite of
his sacrifice for them all along the way. In the heroic tradition, he
maintained his intimacy with God and people despite the tragedy.
And in that integrity, he calls his people to follow his pattern. Moses,
the hero, the authentic man, the suffering servant of the Lord,
combines two natures to display the image of the human being
available for us all.
NOTES
Notes to Chapter 1
1. In addition to this obvious point of contact in the tradition, see Wayne
A. Meeks, The Prophet-King. Moses Traditions and thejohannine Christology,
NTSup 14 (Leiden: Brill, 1967).
2. The following survey of a Moses bibliography provides context for my
work. It is not intended to be exhaustive. For a critical assessment of the
discussion about Moses, see Eva Osswald, Das Bild des Mose in der kritischen
alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft seit Julius Wellhausen, Theologische Arbeiten
18 (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1962); Rudolph Smend, Das
Mosebild von Heinrich Ewald bis Martin Noth, Beitrage zur Geschichte der
biblischen Exegese, 3 (Tubingen: Mohr, 1959). For a more recent survey of
the Moses discussion, see Herbert Schmid, 'Der Stand der Moseforschung',
Judaica 21 (1965), pp. 194-221, and C.A. Keller, 'Von Stand und Aiugabe der
Moseforschung', ThZ 13 (1957), pp. 430-41.
3. John Bright, A History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972)
p. 124. See also Edward F. Campbell, 'Moses and the Foundation of Israel',
Interp 29 (1975), pp. 141-54; W. SOderblom, Dos Werden des Gottesglaubens.
Untersuchungen iiber die Anfange der Religion (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1915),
p. 310.
4. W.F. Albright, 'Moses in Historical and Theological Perspective',
Magnolia Dei. The Mighty Acts of God, ed. Frank M. Cross, Werner F.
Lemke, Patrick D. Miller (Garden City: Doubleday, 1976), pp. 129-31; idem,
'From the Patriarchs to Moses. II. Moses out of Egypt', BA 36 (1973), pp. 4876.
5. Albright, 'Moses in Historical and Theological Perspective', p. 120.
6. Bright, p. 124.
7. Dewey M. Beegle, Moses, the Servant of Yahweh (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1972). For greater detail in the following critique, see my review,
'What do we Know of Moses?', Interp 28 (1974), pp. 91-94.
8. Beegle, p. 82.
9. Greta Hort, 'The Plagues of Egypt', ZAW 69 (1957), pp. 84-102.
10. Beegle, p. 96.
11. Beegle, pp. 347-48. See also Gerhard von Rad, Moses, World Christian
Books 32 (London: Lutterworth, 1960), pp. 8-9.
216
See also my comments about this point in 'Moses Versus Amalek: Aetiology
and Legend in Exod. 17.8-16', VTSup 28 (1975), pp. 29-41.
12. Elias Auerbach, Moses (Detroit: Wayne State University, 1975), p. 7.
13. Auerbach, p. 8.
14. Auerbach, p. 8.
15. Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, trans. Bernhard W.
Anderson (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1972), pp. 156-75. See also the
critical evaluation of Noth's work by Robert M. Polzin, 'Martin Noth's A
History of Pentateuchal Traditions', in Biblical Structuralism. Method and
Subjectivity in the Study of Ancient Texts (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977),
pp. 174-201.
16. Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, trans. D.M.G. Stalker
(New York: Harper, 1962), I, p. 14. See also the critical evaluation of von
Rad's work by Robert M. Polzin, 'Gerhard von Rad's The Form-Critical
Problem of the Hexateuch', in Biblical Structuralism. Method and Subjectivity
in the Study of Ancient Texts (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), pp. 150-73.
17. Von Rad, Theology, I, p. 289 n. 1.
18. Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J.A. Baker
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), I, p. 512.
19. Franz Hesse, 'Kerygma oder geschichtliche Wirklichkeit? Kritische
Fragen zu Gerhard von Rads "Theologie des Alten Testaments", I. Teil',
ZThK 57 (I960), p. 24.
20. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr, Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), p. 26.
21. Roland de Vaux, The Early History of Israel, trans. David Smith
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), p. 371.
24. James S. Ackerman, 'The Literary Context of the Moses Birth Story
(Exodus 1-2)', in Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives, ed. Kenneth
R.R. Gros Louis, James S. Ackerman, and Thayer S. Warshaw (Nashville:
Abingdon, 1974), p. 75.
25. For details of this discussion, see Sigmund Mowinckel, Psalms in Israel's
Worship, trans. D.R. Ap-Thomas (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), pp. 1-22.
26. Bright,?. 124.
27. Klaus Koch, 'Der Tod des Religionsstifters', KuD 8 (1962), p. 105. For
a critical review of Koch's position, see Friedrich Baumga'rtel, 'Der Tod des
Religionsstifters', KuD 9 (1963), pp. 223-33; S. Herrmann, 'Mose', EvT 28
(1968), pp. 301-28; Rolf Rendtorff, 'Moses als Religionsstifter? Ein Beitrag
Notes to Chapter 1
217
218
Notes to Chapter 1
219
220
Notes to Chapter 1
221
W. Coats and Burke O. Long (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), pp. 91-109. For
a more recent proposal that the Moses traditions can be denned as heroic, see
James Nohrnberg, 'Moses', in Images of Man and God. Old Testament Short
Stories in Literary Focus, ed. Burke O. Long (Sheffield: Almond, 1981),
pp. 35-57.
98. Martin Noth, A History ofPentateuchal Traditions, trans. Bernhard W.
Anderson (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1972), p. 161.
99. It would seem to me to be a clearly established fact that precise units of
tradition with marked beginnings and an explicitly conceived structure that
moves to marked endings constitute the themes of tradition in the Moses
narratives: (1) the exodus theme, structured around a leitmotif about
redemption from Egyptian oppression, and (2) the wilderness theme,
structured around a wilderness itinerary and introduced by a leitmotif about
aid to the people in the face of wilderness crises. (3) A Sinai theme may have
been an original third item in the series. But in the present structure of the
Pentateuch, it is one among several elements in the wilderness itinerary and
thus a (secondary?) part of the wilderness theme. (4) The conquest theme,
structured around a series of battle reports and introduced by a leitmotif
about fear among the Canaanites of the approaching army of the Lord would
represent a fourth theme. But for the Moses traditions the conquest is not a
distinct element with a marked beginning.
100. Noth, p. 162.
101. See the comments about this problem in Chapter 2 below.
102. My seminar address to the 1983 convention of the Society of Biblical
Literature entitled 'The Form-Critical Problem of the Pentateuch' dealt with
these issues.
103. Bernhard W. Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament (3rd edn;
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1975), p. 48. See also Gerhard von Rad,
Moses, World Christian Books 32 (London: Lutterworth, 1960), p. 10.
104. Lord Raglan, 'The Hero of Tradition', in The Study of Folklore, ed.
Alan Dundee (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1965), pp. 142-57.
105. Jan de Vries, Heroic Song and Heroic Legend, trans. B.J. Timmer
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1963), pp. 210-26.
106. Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, Ballingen Series
17 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1949), p. 30. See also Carl Edwin
Armerding, 'The Heroic Ages of Greece and Israel: A Literary-Historical
Comparison' (Boston: Unpublished dissertation [Brandeis], 1968), pp. 26279.
107. James L. Crenshaw, Samson. A Secret Betrayed; a Vow Ignored
(Atlanta: John Knox, 1978).
108. Crenshaw, p. 126.
109. See de Vries, pp. 235-41.
110. R.F. Johnson, 'Moses', in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), p. 448.
222
111. John van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1975), pp. 131-37.
112. Van Seters, p. 131, n. 19.1 would agree completely with his objections
to current translations of the German term Sage. I would also include in the
objections his own term. Legend can be simply something read or spoken,
thus Sage. But it can also have a more precise, generic meaning. See Ron
Hals, 'Legend: A Case Study in OT Form-Critical Terminology', CBQ 34
(1972), pp. 166-76; reprinted in Saga, Legend, Tale, Novella, Fable. Narrative
Genres in Old Testament Literature, ed. George W. Coats; JSOTS 34
(Sheffield: JSOT, 1984). If objections against using legend for this kind of
narrative nonetheless arise, then some other term must be proposed, for Hals
and others have correctly distinguished a genre of narrative material. I would
think that until a more workable term acceptable to a larger range of
members in the field appears, 'legend' should be reserved for the genre Hals
defines. Sage might be represented with a more neutral term such as
narrative or story, or perhaps even better, account.
113. Robert W. Neff, 'Saga', in Saga, Legend, Tale, Novella, Fable.
Narrative Genres in Old Testament Literature, ed. George W. Coats; JSOTS
34 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1984).
114. So, Neff.
Notes to Chapter 2
1. George W. Coats, 'Legendary Moths in the Moses Death Reports',
CBQ 39 (1977), pp. 34-44.
2. James S. Ackerman, 'The Literary Context of the Moses Birth Story
(Exodus 1-2)', in Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives, ed. Kenneth
R.R. Gros Louis, James S. Ackerman, Thayer S. Warshaw (Nashville:
Abingdon, 1974), pp. 89-96. 'Scholars have pointed out that the foundling
child motif appears in many hero birth stories throughout the ancient near
East.' See also D.B. Redford, The Literary Motif of the Exposed Child',
Numen 14 (1967), pp. 209-28.
3. Brevard S. Childs, 'The Birth of Moses', JBL 84 (1965), pp. 109122.
4. See the form analysis by Childs, The Birth of Moses'.
5. On the Egyptian name of Moses, see Childs, The Book of Exodus, A
Critical, Theological Commentary, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1974), p. 19. Childs observes that while the name is obviously
Egyptian, the storyteller does not reveal any awareness of that fact. The
story sets up an irony. This point is suggested by James Plastaras, The God of
Exodus. The Theology of the Exodus Narratives (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1966),
p. 42. 'The Egyptian name sounded just like the present participle of the
Hebrew verb mashah, meaning "to draw out" ... Moses, the future savior of
Notes to Chapter 2
223
224
Notes to Chapter 3
225
Notes to Chapter 3
1. Norman Habel, 'The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives',
ZAW 77 (1965), pp. 297-323. See also Kutsch, 'Gideons Berufung und
Altarbau Jdc. 6, 11-24', TLZ 81 (1956), pp. 75-84; Walther Zimmerli, 'Zur
Form- und Traditionsgeschichte der prophetischen Berufungsgeschichte',
Ezechiel, BKAT 13/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969),
pp. 16-21.
2. J6rg Jeremias, Theophanie. Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen
Gattung, WMANT 10 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965). On
the importance of fire for such narratives, see Hugo Gressmann, Mose und
seine Zeit. Ein Kommentar zu den Mose-Sagen, FRLANT 18 (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913), pp. 28-29.
3. Childs, The Book of Exodus, pp. 68-69. 'Whereas the J tradition
identifies Yahweh with the God of the Father, the E tradition, followed by P,
marks a discontinuity in the tradition... The E tradition has Moses
approaching the people with the claim of being sent to them by the God of
their father... Verse 15 supplies the answer. Yahweh is the God of the
fathers'. For the basic study of this traditio-historical problem, see Albrecht
Alt, 'The God of the Fathers', in Essays on Old Testament History and
Religion, trans. R.A. Wilson (Garden City: Doubleday, 1968), pp. 14-18.
4. Noth, Exodus, p. 41.
5. George W. Coats, 'Self-Abasement and Insult Formulas', JBL 89
(1970), pp. 14-26.
6. Childs, The Book of Exodus, pp. 56-60
7. Childs, The Book of Exodus, pp. 57-58.
8. See the review of the argument by E.W. Nicholson, Exodus and Sinai
in History and Tradition, Growing Points in Theology (Oxford: Blackwell,
1973).
9. Nicholson's conclusions are summarized on pp. 53-84. See esp. p. 82.
'What conclusions may be drawn concerning the relationship between the
Sinai tradition embodied in the JE narrative in Exodus 19 and the Exodus
tradition? Here surely the evidence is that those traditions were interrelated
from the beginning. For the figure of Moses which, as we have seen, was
integral to the Exodus tradition from the beginning, is likewise integral to the
tradition in Exodus 19 and cannot be regarded as having been only
secondarily inserted or associated with it. There are no sound reasons
whether from a literary-critical, form-critical, or traditio-historical point of
viewfor believing that the Sinai tradition embodied in the old JE narrative
in Exodus 19 either originated or developed independently of the Exodus
tradition in early Israel'.
10. Martin Buber, Moses. The Revelation and the Covenant, Harper
Torchbooks 27 (New York: Harper, 1958), pp. 51-55. See also Plastaras,
pp. 94-100.
226
11. See the review of this discussion by Childs, The Book of Exodus,
pp. 61-64.
12. This complex may reflect a relatively late stage in the history of the
tradition. But it is significant to see that the stage here is a pre-literary, preYahwistic one.
13. George W. Coats, 'Despoiling the Egyptians', VT 18 (1968), pp. 45057.
14. See Gerhard von Rad, 'Faith Reckoned as Righteousness', in The
Problem of the Hexateuch and other essays, trans. E.W. Trueman Dicken
(London: Oliver and Boyd, 1965), pp. 125-30.
15. Heinrich Gross, 'Der Glaube an Mose nach Exodus (4.14, 19)', in
Wort-Gebot-Glaube: Beitrdge zur Theologie des Alien Testaments, ed. Johann
Jakob Stamm, Ernst Jenni, Hans Joachim Stoebe (Zurich: Zwingli, 1970),
pp. 57-65.
16. Horst Seebass, Mose und Aaron, Sinai und Gottesberg, Abhandlungen
zur evangelischen Theologie 2 (Bonn: Bouvier, 1962), pp. 28-31.
17. Martin Noth, Numbers, a Commentary, trans. James D. Martin
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), p. 130. 'Here Aaron, in the list of Israelite
tribes, is simply the representative of the tribe of Levi as if, besides the
Aaronites, there were no other "Levites".'
18. See Michael Mulhall, 'Aaron and Moses. Their Relationship in the
Oldest Sources of the Pentateuch' (Washington: Unpublished dissertation,
1973).
19. Dewey M. Beegle, Moses, The Servant of Yahweh (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1972), p. 79: 'Whatever the signs were which Yahweh gave to
Moses, they did not overcome his reluctance, and so finally he comes to one
of his deep-seated fears. "Oh, my Lord, I am not eloquent... " He could not
speak well before Yahweh appeared to him, and his condition has not
improved during the burning bush experience... Yahweh knows that he has
made Moses a stammerer, but he is going to use him anyway.' Auerbach,
p. 34, makes a similar observation: 'Moses raises the objection that... for
him the formulation of the right words is difficult'.
20. De Vries, pp. 227-41.
21. Childs, The Book of Exodus, pp. 95-101.
22. Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit, pp. 30-31.
23. Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, p. 202.
24. Childs, The Book of Exodus, p. 55.
25. Childs, The Book of Exodus, pp. 55-56.
26. Childs, The Book of Exodus, p. 56.
27. Habel, pp. 297-323.
28. Vater, pp. 136-37.
29. Childs, The Book of Exodus, p. 55.
30. Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, p. 36.
31. Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, p. 36.
Notes to Chapter 4
227
32. For details, see Childs, The Book of Exodus, pp. 111-14.
33. Norbert Lohfink, 'Die priesterschriftliche Abwertung der Tradition
von der Offenbarung des Jahwenamens an Mose', Bibl (1968), pp. 1-8.
34. Noth, A History, p. 178.
35. Noth, A History, pp. 180-81.
36. Heinrich Valentin, Aaron. Eine Studie der vor-priesterschriftlichen
Aaron-Uberlieferung, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalia 18 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1978), pp. 412-18.
37. Noth, A History, pp. 182-83.
Notes to Chapter 4
1. See the effective analysis of structure in Exodus 3-11 by Moshe
Greenberg, Understanding Exodus. The Heritage of Biblical Israel II/l (New
York: Behrman House, 1969). A shorter version of the same material appears
in 'The Thematic Unity of Exodus iii-xi', in Fourth World Congress of Jewish
Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1967), I, pp. 151-54.
2. Noth, A History, p. 71.
3. Coats, 'Self-Abasement and Insult Formulas'.
4. Coats, Rebellion, pp. 29-36.
5. Noth, A History, p. 71.
6. Rudolf Smend, Yahweh War and Tribal Confederation. Reflections
upon Israel's Earliest History, trans. Max Gray Rogers (Nashville: Abingdon,
1970), pp. 125-27.
7. Noth, A History, p. 30.
8. Noth, A History, p. 66.
9. Greenberg, 'Thematic Unity', p. 153.
10. Dennis J. McCarthy, 'Moses' Dealings with Pharaoh: Ex 7, 8-10, 27',
CBQ 27 (1965), pp. 336-45. The abbreviations in the following outlines refer
to patterns in each scene: MMoses; AAaron; PhPharaoh; NLthe
Pharaoh would 'not listen', AYSas the Lord said; NLPGhe would 'not
let the people go'; KFknowledge formula: 'you shall know that I am the
Lord'; DLPGhe did not let the people go.
11. Childs, The Book of Exodus, p. 151.
12. Noth, A History, p. 71.
13. H.J. Kraus, Worship in Israel. A Cultic History of the Old Testament,
trans. Geoffrey Buswell (Richmond: John Knox, 1965), pp. 45-55.
14. George W. Coats, 'Despoiling the Egyptians', VT18 (1968), pp. 450-57.
15. Julian Morgenstern, 'The Despoiling of the Egyptians', JBL 68 (1949),
pp. 2-3.
16. David Daube, The Exodus Pattern in the Bible. All Souls Studies
(London: Faber and Faber, 1963), pp. 55-57. See also Georg Fohrer,
Uberlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus. Eine Analyse von Ex 1-15, BZAW
228
Notes to Chapter 6
229
230
Notes to Chapter 7
231
232
Notes to Chapter 9
1. Gerhard von Rad, 'The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch', in
The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays.
2. Von Rad, 'Problem'.
3. J. Wijngaards, 'NX1H and rbyft: A Twofold Approach to the Exodus',
FT 15 (1965), pp. 91-102. See also Brevard Childs, 'Deuteronomical
Formulae of the Exodus Traditions', in Hebrdische Wortforschung (Leiden:
Brill, 1967), pp. 30-39; von Rad, Theology, I, pp. 175-86.
4. Childs, 'Deuteronomic Formulae'.
5. Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, trans. Bernhard W.
Anderson (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1972), pp. 58-59.
6. George W. Coats 'The Traditio-Historical Character of the Reed Sea
Motif', VT 17 (1967), pp. 253-65; Brevard S. Childs, 'A Traditio-Historical
Study of the Reed Sea Tradition', VT 20 (1970), pp. 406-18. In the later
Notes to Chapter 9
233
tradition, the sea event loses its firm contact with the wilderness theme. I am
convinced nonetheless that it remains a wilderness topic even for the priestly
source. See my comments in The Sea Tradition in the Wilderness Theme: A
Review', JSOT12 (1979), pp. 2-8.
7. Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological
Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), pp. 243-53. A Lauha,
'Das Schilfineermotiv im Alien Testament', in Congress Volume Bonn.
VTSup 9 (Leiden: Brill, 1963), pp. 32-46. Frank M. Cross, 'The Divine
Warrior in Israel's Early Cult', in Biblical Motifs, ed. A. Altman (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966), pp. 11-30.
8. F.M. Cross, 'The Song of the Sea and Canaanite Myth', in Journal for
Theology and the Church 5 (1968), pp. 1-25; George W. Coats, 'The Song of
the Sea', CBQ 31 (1969), pp. 1-17.
9. Robert Bach, 'Die Erwahlung Israels in der Wuste' (Bonn: Unpublished
dissertation, 1950).
10. Wildavsky, pp. 92, 99-106.
11. George W. Coats, 'Conquest Traditions in the Wilderness Theme',
JBL 95 (1976), pp. 177-90.
12. One should note the implication of this position for the analysis of the
Pentateuch. To recognize that structure in the Pentateuch embraces four
distinct themes, elements that compose the whole, does not require a
conclusion that the four elements were originally distinct and independent
units. The Moses heroic saga increases the weight of an argument that
suggests that while the four elements of structure in the Pentateuch
obviously exist, they do not obviously disintegrate the apparent unity of the
whole. To the contrary, the structure of the heroic saga argues for unity
among the elements of structure represented by the themes of tradition.
Contrast the evaluation of this analysis by Robert M. Polzin, 'Martin Moth's
A History of Pentateuchal Traditions', in Biblical Structuralism. Method and
Subjectivity in the Study of Ancient Texts (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977),
pp. 174-201.
13. See the description of the typical narrative display of theophany by
Jorg Jeremias, Theophanie. Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung,
WMANT 10 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965), pp. 7-19.
14. Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, trans. D.M.G. Stalker
(New York: Harper & Row, 1962), p. 188.
15. Coats, Rebellion, pp. 184-96
16. J.M. Sasson, 'Bovine Symbolism in the Exodus Narrative', VT 18
(1968), pp. 380-87.
17. Sasson, pp. 380-87. See also Moses Aberbach and Leivy Smolar,
'Aaron, Jeroboam, and the Golden Calves', JBL 86 (1967), pp. 129-40;
George W. Coats, The Golden Galf in Ps 22: A Hermeneutic of Change',
Horizons in Biblical Theology 9/1 (1987).
234
Notes to Chapter 10
235
236
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aberbach, M., & L. Smolar, 'Aaron, Jeroboam, and the Golden Calves', JBL 86
(1967), pp. 129-40.
Ackerman, J.S., 'The Literary Context of the Moses Birth Story (Exodus 1-2)', in
K.R.R. Gros Louis, et al., eds., Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1974).
Albright, W.F., 'From the Patriarchs to Moses. H. Moses out of Egypt', BA 36 (1973),
pp. 48-76.
'Jethro, Hobab and Reuel in Early Hebrew Tradition', CBQ 25 (1963), pp. 1-11.
'Moses in Historical and Theological Perspective', in F.M. Cross, et al., eds.,
Magnolia Dei. The Mighty Acts of God (Garden City: Doubleday, 1976).
Alt, A., The God of the Fathers', in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion,
trans. R.A. Wilson (Garden City: Doubleday, 1968).
Anderson, B.W., Understanding the Old Testament (3rd edn; Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall, 1975).
Armerding, C.E., 'The Heroic Ages of Greece and Israel: A Literary-Historical
Comparison' (Boston: Unpublished dissertation [Brandeis], 1968).
Auerbach, E., Moses (Detroit: Wayne State University, 1975).
Bach, R., 'Die Erwahlung Israels in der Wtiste' (Bonn: Unpublished dissertation,
1950).
Barzel, H., 'Moses: Tragedy and Sublimity', in K.R.R. Gros Louis, et al., eds., Literary
Interpretations of Biblical Narratives (Nashville: Abingdon, 1974), pp. 120-40.
Baumgartel, F., 'Der Tod des Religionsstifters', KuD 9 (1963), pp. 223-33.
Beegle, D.M., Moses, the Servant of Yahweh (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972).
Bentzen, A., Messias; Moses redivivus; Menschensohn, ATANT, 17 (Zurich: Zwingli,
1948).
Beyerlin, W., Origins and History of the Oldest Sinaitic Traditions, trans. S. Rudman
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1965).
Bright, J., A History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972).
Brueggemann, W., The Prophetic Imagination (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978).
Buber, M., Moses. The Revelation and the Covenant, Harper Torchbooks, 27 (New
York: Harper, 1958).
Butler, T.C., 'An Anti-Moses Tradition', JSOT 12 (1979), pp. 9-15.
Campbell, E.F., 'Moses and the Foundation of Israel', Interp 29 (1975), pp. 141-54.
Campbell, J., The Hero with a Thousand Faces, Ballingen Series, 17 (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1949).
Chadwick, H.M., The Heroic Age (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1926).
Childs, B.S., 'The Birth of Moses', JBL 84 (1965), pp. 109-22.
The Book of Exodus. A Critical, Theological Commentary, OIL (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1974.
'Deuteronomical Formulae of the Exodus Traditions', in Hebraische Wortfarschung
(Leiden: Brill, 1967), pp. 30-39.
'A Traditio-Historical Study of the Reed Sea Tradition', VT 20 (1970), pp. 40618.
Clements, R., Abraham and David. Genesis 15 and its Meaning for Israelite Tradition,
Studies in Biblical Theology, 2/5 (London: SCM, 1967).
238
Bibliography
239
240
Keller, C.A., 'Von Stand und Aufgabe der Moseforschung', ThZ 13 (1957), pp. 43041.
Kingsbury, J.D., Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1975).
Knierim, R., 'Exodus 18 und die Neuordnung der mosaischen Gerichtsbarkeit', ZAW
73 (1962), pp. 146-71.
Koch, K., 'Der Tod des Religionsstifters', KuD 8 (1962), p. 105.
Kraus, H.J., Worship in Israel. A Cultic History of the Old Testament, trans. G. Buswell
(Richmond: John Knox, 1965).
Kutsch, 'Gideons Berufung und Altarbau Jdc. 6,11-24', TLZ 81 (1956), pp. 75-84.
Lauha, A., 'Das Schilfmeermotiv im Alten Testament', in Congress Volume Bonn.
VTSup 9 (Leiden: Brill, 1963), pp. 32-36.
Lemke, W.E., 'The Way of Obedience: 1 Kings 13 and the Structure of the
Deuteronomistic History', in F.M. Cross, et al., eds., Magnolia Dei. The Mighty
Acts of God (Garden City: Doubleday, 1976), pp. 301-26.
Lohfink, N., 'Die priesterschriftliche Abwertung der Tradition von der Offenbarung
des Jahwenamens an Mose', Bibl (1968), pp. 1-8.
'Die Ursunde in der priesterlichen Geschichtserzahlung', in G. Bornkamm & K.
Rahner, eds., Die Zeit Jesus (Freiburg: Herder, 1970).
-'Plagues and Sea of Reeds: Exodus 5-14', JBL 85 (1966), pp. 137-58.
Luker, M., 'The Figure of Moses in the Plague Traditions' (Madison: Unpublished
dissertation, 1968).
Mann, T.W., 'Theological Reflections on the Denial of Moses', JBL 98 (1979),
pp. 481-94.
McCarthy, D.J., 'Moses' Dealings with Pharaoh: Ex 7, 8-10, 27', CBQ 27 (1965),
pp. 336-45.
Treaty and Covenant. A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the
Old Testament, AB, 21 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978).
Meeks, W.A., The Prophet-King. Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology,
NTSup 14 (Leiden: BriU, 1967).
Meyer, E., Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstamme (Halle: Niemeyer, 1906).
Moran, W.L., 'The End of the Unholy War and the Anti-Exodus', Bibl 44 (1963),
pp. 333-42.
Morgenstern, J., 'The Despoiling of the Egyptians', JBL 68 (1949), pp. 2-3.
Mowinckel, S., Psalms in Israel's Worship, trans. D.R. Ap-Thomas (Nashville:
Abingdon, 1962).
Muilenburg, J., 'The Form and Structure of the Covenantal Formulations', VT 9
(1959), pp. 347-65.
'Intercession of the Covenant Mediator', in Word and Meanings: Essays Presented to
David Winton Thomas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), pp. 15983.
'The "Office" of the Prophet in Ancient Israel', in J.P. Hyatt, ed., The Bible in
Modem Scholarship (Nashville: Abingdon, 1965).
Mulhall, M., 'Aaron and Moses. Their Relationship in the Oldest Sources of the
Pentateuch' (Washington: Unpublished dissertation, 1973).
Neff, R.W., 'Saga', in G.W. Coats, ed., Saga, Legend, Tale, Novella, Fable. Narrative
Genres in Old Testament Literature, JSOTS, 34 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1984), pp. 1732.
Newman, M.L., The People of the Covenant. A Study of Israel from Moses to the
Monarchy (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962).
Nicholson, E.W., Exodus and Sinai in History and Tradition, Growing Points in
Theology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1973).
Bibliography
241
Nohrnberg, J., 'Moses', in B.O. Long, ed., Images of Man and God. Old Testament
Short Stories in Literary Focus (Sheffield: Almond, 1981), pp. 35-57.
Moth, M., Exodus, a Commentary, trans. J.S. Bowden; Old Testament Library
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962).
A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, trans. B.W. Anderson (Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall, 1972).
Numbers, a Commentary, trans. J.D. Martin (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968).
Osswald, ., Das Bild des Mose in der kritischen alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft seit
Julius Wellhausen, Theologische Arbeiten, 18 (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt,
1962).
Perlitt, L., 'Moses als Prophet', EvT 31 (1971).
Plastaras, J., The God of Exodus. The Theology of the Exodus Narratives (Milwaukee:
Bruce, 1966).
Polzin, RJV1., 'Gerhard von Rad's The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch', in
Biblical Structuralism. Method and Subjectivity in the Study of Ancient Texts
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), pp. 150-73.
'Martin Noth's A History of Pentateuchal Traditions', in Biblical Structuralism.
Method and Subjectivity in the Study of Ancient Texts (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1977), pp. 174-201.
Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History (New
York Seabury, 1980).
Porter, J.R., Moses and the Monarchy. A Study in the Biblical Tradition of Moses
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1963).
Pritchard, J.B., ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1955).
Rad, G. von, 'Faith Reckoned as Righteousness', in The Problem of the Hexateuch and
Other Essays, trans. E.W. Trueman Dicken (London: Oliver & Boyd, 1965),
pp. 125-30.
'The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch', in The Problem of the Hexateuch
and Other Essays, pp. 1-78.
Moses, World Christian Books, 32 (London: Lutterworth, 1960).
Old Testament Theology. The Theology of Israel's Prophetic Traditions, trans.
D.M.G. Stalker (New York: Harper & Row, 1965).
Raglan, Lord, 'The Hero of Tradition', in A. Dundee, ed., The Study of Folklore
(Englewood Clifls: Prentice-Hall, 1965).
Redford, D.B., 'The Literary Motif of the Exposed Child', Numen 14 (1967), pp. 20928.
Rendtorff, R., Das Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch, BZAW, 147
(Berlin: De Gruyter, 1977).
'Moses als Religionsstifter? Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion uber die Anfa'nge der
israelitischen Religion', in Gesammelte Studien zum Alien Testament (Munchen:
Kaiser, 1975), pp. 152-71.
'The "Yahwist" as a Theologian? The Dilemma of Pentateuchal Criticism', JSOT 3
(1977), pp. 2-10.
Rowley, H.H., 'Zadok and Nehushtan', JBL 58 (1939), pp. 113-41.
Sasson, J.M., 'Bovine Symbolism in the Exodus Narrative', VT 18 (1968), pp. 38087.
Schmid, H., Mose. Vberlieferung und Geschichte, BZAW, 110 (Berlin: Topelmann,
1968).
Der sogenannte Jahwist. Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung
(Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976).
242
INDEX
INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES
Genesis
3.17
20.7
22.2
153
58
146
118
66
153
159
83
24
50,74
24.1-67
24.5
29-31
57
73
52
50
10
172
186
186
186
153
4.1
12.1-3
13.7
15.6
18
29
30.31
32.3
38.8
38.18
38.25
39.5
17,52
88
1.1-14
1.11
1.13-14
1.15-22
1.15-21
1.21
1.22
46,146
46
46
45
45, 48, 223
48
45
54, 55, 56,
70
2.1-10
3-4
2.1-4
43
2.2
43,44
2.3-4
2.5-6
2.7-10
2.11-22
2.13
2.15
44
43
43
49,52
50
224
45
52
51, 70, 73,
78
3.1-4.31
3.1-4.23
3
3.1
3.4
3.5
3.6
57,76
47
52, 73, 224
150
75
58,204
58, 59, 65,
75
3.7-10
3.7-8
3.7
3.8
3.9-14(15)
3.9ff.
3.9-10
3.9
Exodus
1-2
2.19
2.23-25
3.10
3.11-14
3.11-12
3.12
3.13-14
3.13
3.14
3.15
3.16ff.
3.16
3.17
3.18
3.21-23
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.5
4.8
4.9
4.10-17
4.10
4.12
4.13-16
4.13
4.17
4.18-20
4.20
4.21-23
4.24-26
4.27-31
4.29-6.1
4.30-31
4.31
78
69
71
69
71, 75, 76
70,75
68, 70, 76
70,84
52,70
71
64
187
71,77
86,94
5.1-12.36
5.1-6.1
5.1-4
81
81
81
75
59
5.1
5.2
5.3-19
82,86
82,86
22, 85, 87
160
5.3
5.4
33,58
58, 59, 75,
77, 160
58, 59, 82
59,63
59, 114
59,77
75
60
5.5-19
5.5
82
84, 86, 88
81,83
83, 84, 88
81
63
5.20-6.1
5.20
5.23
64,77
63,65
6
6.1
64
59
64
64
65
65
6.2-7.7
57,76
6.4
6.5
60-63
70, 72, 76
65
186
189
66
66
66
68
85,86
224
224
84
6.6-7
77
77
77
6.9
77,78
6.10
6.12
6.13
6.14-25
6.26-30
7-12
7.1-5
78
78
78
78
78
85
78
69
78
7.1
7.6-7
244
Exodus (cont.)
10.4
7.8-12.36
89
10.6
7.8-10.29
64
10.7
7.8-13
93,100
120
7.9-12
187
10.9
7.10
189
10.10
7.12
67
10.12-13
7.14-25
93
10.13
7.14-18
108
10.15
7.15-20
187
10.20-22
7.15
89, 104, 105, 10.20
189
10.21-29
7.16f.
24
10.21-33
7.17
98, 105, 160 10.21-22
7.19
100, 108
10.24
7.20
100, 105
10.27
7.21-22
100
10.28-29
7.23
105
10.28
7.25
89, 98, 160
10.30
7.26-8.11
93
11.1-3
8.1-3
100
11.3
8.1
67, 89, 187 11.9-10
8.2-15
94
11.10
8.4
95
12
8.11-15
100
12.27
8.11
95
12.28
8.13
187
12.29-33
8.14
95
12.29-32
8.15
89, 102
12.31-32
8.16-28
94
12.32
8.16-19
94
12.33-36
8.16
24
12.33
8.18
95
12.34-36
8.20-32
94
12.36
54,95
8.21
12.39
8.24
95
12.50-51
9.1-7
94
13.1
9.1
89
13.17-22
9.8-12
100
13.17
9.8-10
94
14
9.11-35
93
9.11
95
14.1-4
9.12
101
14.5
9.13
24,89
14.7-9
9.22-23
100, 105
14.10-12
9.22
68
14.13
9.23
67, 187
14.15-18
9.24
105
14.16
9.35
100, 105
14.19-20
10.1-20
93
14.19
10.3
95
14.21-23
89
95
95
89
95
89
68, 100, 105
187
105
100
101, 105
93
105
68
95
105
94, 102, 108
89
89
105
65, 97, 161
102
91
90, 230
224
90, 103
85
95
89, 103
90
90
85
97
72
85
90, 103
142
146
129
109, 113,
117, 118
117
116
117
114
116
117
116
17
116, 117
117
14.22-26
14.25
14.26-27
14.28-29
14.31
117
116
117
117
13, 66, 71,
134, 183
15
109
15.21
114
15.22-26
188
15.22-25
124
15.24
118
15.31
115
16
119
16.2-3
119
16.6-12
119
16.13-18
119
16.18
120
16.19-27
119
17
76, 80, 109
17.1-7
118, 143,
165, 187, 236
17.2
118, 120
17.8-13
125
17.9
68, 76, 100,
126, 165, 187
17.10
80, 126
17.11
119, 126
17.12
80, 119, 126,
128
17.13
126
18
55,56
18.1-27
53
18.1-12
53
18.1-8
51
18.1
25,53
18.7
51
18.8
224
18.9-12
54
18.10-11
54
18.12
54
18.13-27
53,54
18.16
142
19-Num. 10 141
19-34
129, 135,
141, 170
19
129, 131,
171, 175, 225
19.1
129, 155
19.2
129
19.3-8
132
19.4
129
245
34.29ff.
34.34
17.16-28
206
17.25-26
112
20
175
21, 134, 143,
173
24
138
20.1-13
Leviticus
26.4
78
33.17-23
33.17
33.19
34
Numbers
11
11.1-3
11.4-34
11.4
11.10
11.11-12
11.14
11.17
11.18-20
11.24-25
11.25
11.31-34
11.42
12
12.1-15
12.1-3
12.2
12.3
12.6-7
12.7
12.8
12.11
12.12
13-14
13.17-20
13.22-24
13.23
13.26-31
14.1
14.2
14.3
14.4
14.11-25
14.24
14.39-45
16
16.13
17
109, 113,
143, 164
115
119
120, 122
120, 164
120, 164
202
54, 150
120
171
150
120
204
37, 128, 190
127
128
159
20, 127
137
128, 183
183
128
210
109, 121, 143
121, 122
122
121
122
122
122
123
122
111, 122
183
122
163
110
67
21-24
21.4-9
21.21-30
22-24
23
25
25.1-18
27
27.12-33
27.12-23
27.12-14
27.14-15
27.14
27.17
27.19-20
27.21
27.22-23
27.23
31
31.1-54
31.34
31.36
32
34
34.1
35
36.13
Deuteronomy
1.23
1.37
2.20ff.
3.18
3.26-27
3.26
4.21-22
5.4
5.5
8.1-2
186
187
109, 118,
119, 147,
149, 151,
188
143, 151,
236
147
115, 189,
190
191
147
147
56, 147
55
147, 151,
152
148
191
147
149
153
149
150, 151
151
151
152
55, 56, 224
55
186
186
147
147, 181
166
147, 181
146
24
153, 202
24
24
202
153
200
21, 135, 136,
141
21, 135, 136,
141
142
246
Deuteronomy
9.12
9.23
10.16
18
18.8
18.15-18
18.15-16
18.15
31
31.1-23
31.2
32.11-14
32.12
32.13
33.1
33.2-4
33.4
33.5
33.8
34
34.1-12
34.4-8
34.4
34.5
34.6-7
34.10-12
34.10
Joshua
1.1
1.2
1.5
1.7
1.13
1.15
1.16-17
1.16
1.17
2.10-11
2.24
3
4.14
5.10-15
5.15
7.1-26
7.1
8.31
8.33
9.6
8.24
184
184
203, 204
184
184
184, 203
150
204
203, 205
166
146
191
146
146
204
204
55
184
184
179
140, 184
10.24
11.12
11.15
13.8
14.2
14.6
14.7
14.11
20.2
20.8
22.2
22.4
22.5
22.9
23.6
23.14
24
24.16-20
24.25
24.26
179
184
184
184
159
179, 180, 182
184
147
159
159
184
184
184
159
142
58
137, 138
173
173
142
Judges
1.16
3.4
3.31
4.11
5.4-5
6.8
6.11-24
6.13
6.15
6.16
6.22
7.14
10.1
13.6
13.8
14.16-17
18.30
20.22
139
159
224
139
169
159
57
157
224
64
172
179
224
181
181
120
140
179
1 Samuel
2.27
2.34
4
9.6-10
10.27
14.27
14.43
17.25
18.13
181
62
191
181
224
186
186
179
149
18.16
149
2 Samuel
3.18
7.23
11.14
12.16
12.25
16.8
18.2
159
157
159
231
159
159
159
/ Kings
1.12
2.3
3.7
8.53-56
8.53
8.56
12
12.25-33
13
14.18
15.29
17.18
17.24
20.28
83
143
149
159
184
184
25,86
174
179, 181
183
183
181
181
181
2 Kings
1.9-13
2.9
4.7
4.9
4.16
4.21-22
4.25
4.27
4.40
4.42
5.8
5.14-15
5.20
6.6
6.9-10
6.15
7.2
7.17-19
8.2
8.4
8.7-8
8.11
11.8
181
150
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
149
185
142
181
66
142
185
185
179
159
159
142
159
142, 180
Ezra
3.1
3.2
3.3
7.6
208
19, 180
180
9, 142, 208
Nehemiah
1.8
8.1
8.8
8.14
8.18
9.3
9.9-22
9.12
9.14
9.19
10.29
10.30
12.24
9,185
142
142
142, 159
142
142
162
163
159, 185
163
142
159, 182, 185
181
12.26
181
Job
1.8
2.3
19.16
31.33
43.7-8
183
183
183
199
183
Psalms
68.8-9
74.12-17
77.2
77.16
77.21
78.13-16
78.20
78.23-29
78.53-54
90.1
105.14
105.26-36
105.26
105.37
105.40-41
106.7-15
106.16
106.32
107.6
107.28
110.2
114.1-8
119.66
169
162
114
162
163, 164
162
165
162
163
140, 179
165
160
185
161, 162
112, 162
162
163
153
114
114
67, 186
162
66
Proverbs
15.33
18.12
128
128
Isaiah
5.24
6.1-13
6.5-7
6.6-7
7.3
9.3
9.6
10.24-26
14.5
28.27
42.4
49.2
142
57
68
191
83
186
207
104
186
186
208
68
247
49.3
50.8
51.9-11
63.11-14
208
236
162
163
Jeremiah
1.8
1.9
1.10
4.4
6.10
6.19
9.24-25
14.9
17.19
35.4
37.4
48.17
64
68, 191
57
78
78
78
78
224
149
181
149
186, 190
Ezekiel
2.9
3.3
20.35
34
34.1-6
34.16
37.15-18
44.3-10
44.7
191
69
172
150, 198
198
198
198, 207, 209
149
78
Daniel
9.11
9.13
Hosea
2
3.1
4.6
11.1
12.13
12.14
13.10
99
99
142
157
110, 181
9, 10, 158
224
Amos
2.4
142
Micah
6.4
157
Zechariah
9.9
20
248
Zechariah (cont.)
11.16
175
Malachi
3.17
3.22
44
142, 184
Matthew
1.20
5.17
17.1-8
17.5
210
210
9,138
210
Luke
2.4
2.11
210
210
John
21.15-19
210
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Aberbach, M. 233
Ackennan, J.S. 17,216,222
Albright, W.F. 11, 215, 223, 224
Alt, A. 225
Anderson, B.W. 38, 216, 221, 232, 235
Armerding, C.E. 221, 235
Auerbach, E. 13,14, 216
Bach, R. 233
Baker, J.A. 216
Barzel, H. 232
Baumgartel, F. 216
Beegle, D. 12,13, 22, 215, 226
Bentzen, A. 236
Beyerlin, W. 230
Bright, J. 11,12,14,15,18, 215
Brueggemann, W. 217
Buber, M. 225
Butler, T.C. 21, 217, 223, 224, 236
Campbell, E.F. 215
Campbell, J. 40, 215, 221
Chadwick, HJV1. 235
Childs, B.S. 21,26,29,61,62,71,73,74,
92, 105, 131, 132, 133, 135-38, 217,
222-28, 230-33
Coats, G.W. 220-23, 225-35
Crenshaw, J.L. 221
Cross, F.M. 140, 215, 231, 233, 234
Daube, D. 227
Dozeman, T. 230
Durham, J.I. 218
Batons, J.K. 217
Eichrodt, W. 16, 26, 216, 218
Eissfeldt, O. 235
Engnell, I. 217
Fohrer, G. 106, 227, 228
Gerlin, A. 217
Gottwald, N.K. 231
Greenberg, M. 91, 227
Gressmann, H. 28, 29, 32, 72,132, 218,
219, 225, 226
Gros Louis, K.R.R. 222
Gross, H. 226
Gunkel, H. 220
Gunneweg, A.H.J. 25, 218
Habel, N. 74, 225, 226
Hals, R.M. 229
Hambrick-Stowe, C.E. 236
Hayes, J.H. 218
Herrmann, S. 216, 219
Hesse, F. 16, 216
Hort, G. 12, 215
Hyatt, J.P. 218,224
JeremiaSjJ. 217
Jeremias, Joachim 234
Jeremias, Jorg 225, 233
Jirku, A. 231
Johnson, R.F. 221, 231
Joines, K.R. 229
Kaiser, W.C. 16, 216
Keller, C.A. 215
Kingsbury, J.D. 236
Knierim, R. 224
Koch, K. 18, 19, 216, 217
Kraus, H J. 227
Kutsch 225
Lauha, A. 233
Lemke, W. 181, 215, 234
Lohfink, N. 227, 229
Luker, M. 23, 218
Mann, T. 230
McCarthy, DJ. 92,132, 227, 228, 230
Meeks, W.A. 215, 232
Meyer, E. 229
Miller, J.M. 218
Miller, P.D. 215, 234
Moran, W.L. 229
Morgenstern, J. 227
Mowinckel, S. 216
Muilenburg, J. 23,137, 218, 228, 230
Mulhall, M 226
250
220
Seebass, H. 67, 226
Seeligmann, I.L. 235
Smend, R. 22, 86, 87, 215, 217, 227
Smolar, L. 233
Soderblom, W. 215
Osswald, E. 215
Wellhausen,J. 140,231
Wenham, GJ. 234
Widengren, G. 25, 218
Wilcoxen, J.A. 231
Wildavsky, A. 229, 233
Wijngaards,J. 232
Willis, J.T. 217
Wolff, H.W. 223, 232