A Critical and Exegetical Commentary On Exodus 1–18 Volume 2: In Two Volumes: Commentary on Exodus 11–18 9780567688736, 9780567688729

Citation preview

The INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY

on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments GENERAL EDITORS

G. I. DAVIES, F.B.A. Emeritus Professor of Old Testament Studies in the University of Cambridge Fellow of Fitzwilliam College

AND

C. M. TUCKETT Emeritus Professor of New Testament in the University of Oxford Fellow of Pembroke College

FORMERLY UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF

J. A. EMERTON, F.B.A., C. E. B. CRANFIELD, F.B.A. and G. N. STANTON General Editors of the New Series S. R. DRIVER A. PLUMMER C. A. BRIGGS Founding Editors

ii

A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON

EXODUS 1–18 BY

G. I. DAVIES, F.B.A. Emeritus Professor of Old Testament Studies in the University of Cambridge Fellow of Fitzwilliam College

IN TWO VOLUMES VOLUME 2 Commentary on Exodus 11–18

T&T CLARK Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2020 Copyright © G. I. Davies, 2020 G. I. Davies has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the Author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. The NewJerusalemU, GraecaU and TranslitLSU fonts used to print this work are available from Linguist’s Software, Inc., PO Box 580, Edmonds, WA 98020-0580 USA. Tel (425) 775-1130. www.linguistsoftware.com A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN:

HB:

978-0-5676-8871-2

ePDF:

978-0-5676-8872-9

Series: International Critical Commentary Typeset by Forthcoming Publications (www.forthpub.com) To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2

Introductory Note

vii PASSOVER AND DEPARTURE (11.1–13.22)

Chapter 11.1-10 The Announcement of the Final Plague

1

Chapter 12.1-20 Instructions from Yahweh about the Passover and Unleavened Bread

27

Chapter 12.21-27 Moses Instructs the Israelites about the Passover

75

Chapter 12.28-42, 50-51 The Final Plague and the Israelites’ Release

101

Chapter 12.43-49 Further Instructions from Yahweh about the Passover Meal 138 Chapter 13.1-16 Laws about the Consecration of the Firstborn and the Festival of Unleavened Bread

157

Chapter 13.17-22 Aspects of Israel’s Departure

195

THE DELIVERANCE AT THE SEA (14.1–15.21) Chapter 14.1-31 The Crossing of the Sea and the Destruction of the Egyptians

216

vi

CONTENTS

Chapter 15.1-21 Two Songs Celebrating the Deliverance of the Israelites and the Destruction of an Egyptian Force

283

THE JOURNEY TO THE MOUNTAIN OF GOD (15.22–18.27) Chapter 15.22-27 Sweet Water and Laws at Marah and Elim

398

Chapter 16.1-36 Manna and Quails in the Wilderness of Sin

423

Chapter 17.1-7 Water from the Rock at Rephidim

487

Chapter 17.8-16 Victory over Amalek

513

Chapter 18.1-12 The Coming of Jethro and Further Celebration of the Exodus

546

Chapter 18.13-27 Jethro’s Advice about a Judicial System for Israel and His Departure

578

I N T R O D U C TO RY N OT E

This volume represents the second part of the commentary on Exodus 1–18, for which the main introductory matter (including abbreviations and bibliography) can be found at the beginning of volume 1.

G.I.D.

viii

PASS O V E R A N D D E PA RTURE ( 11 . 1 – 1 3 . 2 2 )

C ha p t e r 11. 1- 10 Th e An n ou nc e m e nt of t he F inal P l ag ue

Moses’ confrontations with Pharaoh have reached a decisive point and 10.28-29 at first sight suggest that there is nothing more to be said. Accordingly in 11.1-3 Moses receives from Yahweh an assurance that after one more plague (the nature of which is not yet stated) Pharaoh will let Israel go, and the (plural) ‘you’ in v. 1 and the sequel in v. 2 make clear that this is a message for Israel (as later in 12.1 and 14.1-2), not Pharaoh. But in vv. 4-8a Moses still has one last word for Pharaoh before he finally leaves him in 11.8b, and it provides him with a solemn warning of the form which the final plague will take. Although introduced as a message from Yahweh in v. 4, its wording is quite different from v. 1. Some aspects of it recall earlier warnings that Moses has been instructed to give to Pharaoh, but in other ways it takes a new form which suits its climactic position in the ongoing dialogue (see the Explanatory Note on vv. 4-6), and no indication is given of Pharaoh’s response before Moses departs. Instead the chapter ends (vv. 9-10) with a summary of the earlier plague-narrative, in part another divine word to Moses and in part the narrator’s comment, which reaffirms Pharaoh’s refusal to heed Yahweh’s demand and explains it in terms both of its deeper purpose (v. 9) and its theological cause (v. 10). The Masoretic section-divisions mark breaks at the beginning and end of the chapter, but also those noted above before verses 4 and 9 (likewise SP, except that it begins v. 4 with additional material; see Text and Versions). The break before v. 9 is well attested at Qumran (4QpalExl, 4QpalExm, 4QExc) and 4QpalExl also has the division at the end of the chapter: 4QpalExm apparently did not. The presence

2

EXODUS 1–18

of a division before v. 4 in 4QpalExl and 2QExa has been inferred indirectly, but there is no clear evidence. Nor is there any evidence to determine whether there was one at the beginning of the chapter. Both the brief instruction given to Moses for Israel (vv. 1-3) and the summary and conclusion to the earlier plagues (vv. 9-10: in this case together with the long passage about the Passover ritual in 12.1-28) interrupt the main narrative sequence about Moses’ final confrontation with Pharaoh, which resumes with the coming of the final plague in 12.29ff. This has since the late nineteenth century provided a basis for the analysis of ch. 11 into underlying sources and editorial additions. Knobel pioneered the long-standing division of the passage between three main authors, but while he assigned vv. 4-8 (Kriegsbuch = J) and 9-10 (Grundschrift = P) to different sources, he saw vv. 1-3 in a remarkably modern way as the work of the Jehovistic redactor (i.e. RJE in later terminology: pp. 89-91, cf. Num.-Jos., pp. 532, 548). From Wellhausen (Composition, p. 68) and Dillmann onwards vv. 1-3 were attributed to the second early source, i.e. E, but with little positive justification except for the assumption in them that the Israelites lived among the Egyptians and not separately (cf. Carpenter/Harford-Battersby, p. 95: this view is ascribed to E on the basis of 10.21-23 on p. 88, but without any real justification in the text there). Conversely some unease was expressed about the ascription of vv. 9-10 to the P source, mainly because the future interpretation then given to v. 9 seemed out of place in the narrative here (so already Wellhausen, ibid.) and some commentators attributed them, or part of them, to a late redactor.1 Minor redactional additions were also posited in vv. 1, 5 and 7: only Gressmann went further with his suggestions for redistribution and rearrangement of the verses and speculation about ‘missing’ features of the text (Mose, pp. 97-98 n. 1; Anfänge, pp. 41, 44). Such drastic measures found no acceptance, at least for the time being. In fact a simpler analysis was proposed by Rudolph, who assigned vv. 1-3 to J as well as vv. 4-8, but then had to suggest that these sections were originally in the opposite order, to preserve what he took to be the close connection between v. 4 and 10.29 (Elohist, pp. 21-23, 275). Rudolph’s elimination of an E element in the passage, though weakly justified, was taken up by Noth, but by attributing certain verses to a supplementer of J rather than by a rearrangement of the text. Initially Noth simply attributed vv. 1-3 (and v. 4aα) to JS (ÜGP, p. 32), but later he held that it was vv. 7-8

1   McNeile oddly ascribed them to RJE (pp. xvii, 61). Smend (p. 133) and Eissfeldt (p. 270*) suspected the presence of the ‘third early source’ (i.e. J1, L) here, because of some parallels to 4.21.



11.1-10

3

which were secondary (and possibly the whole of vv. 4-8), because a shift to a further conversation with Pharaoh was ‘in no way possible for Moses in J after 10.28f.’ (pp. 71-72, ET, pp. 92-93): now it was the words intended for Israel in vv. 1-3 which were the original contribution of J.2 The older source-critical consensus continued to be maintained, however, by Fohrer, Hyatt and Childs, with Fohrer even separating off vv. 2-3 for his N source (= J1, L) because he believed that 12.35-36, which are clearly associated with them, had such an origin and the generosity of the Egyptians does not fit the plague-narratives of the other sources (p. 82). But Steingrimmson marked a foretaste of the redaction-critical analyses that were to become widespread. Even the oldest nucleus of the passage (vv. 4, 5a, 6) was of late origin according to him (p. 218), and the remainder was introduced in a series of stages (p. 163). Kohata’s analysis was similar, but for her vv. 4-6 were from J (following 10.1-19) and only (possibly) v. 10a from P (pp. 122-26). The precise origin of the remainder was not defined. Houtman shows himself to be well aware of such suggestions, but as usual confines himself to exploring how ‘the [final] narrator’ constructed the text with the needs of ‘the reader’ in mind rather than Moses’ location or the likely chronology (pp. 129-30; cf. Childs, p. 161). For L. Schmidt (Beobachtungen, pp. 50-57) v. 8b followed 10.28-29 (J) immediately, and so nothing else in vv. 1-8 can be from J. But vv. 1 and 4-8a are from RJE and vv. 9-10 are from P: Schmidt saw, as P. Heinisch had done over fifty years earlier, that the Hebrew imperfect in v. 9a could have an iterative sense and so readily be taken to summarise previous events (p. 56). Only vv. 2-3 came from a later (and undefinable) stage of redaction. Levin’s analysis (pp. 338-39) is in some ways similar to this, although his Yahwist is later and his nucleus (the whole of v. 8) belongs not to it but to the major stage of amplification of J which introduced the plague-narrative in what for him was its original form: so 11.8 is the sequel not to 10.28-29 but to 9.13-16. Verses 4-6 were added subsequently (like 12.29-30), and v. 7 later still; likewise apparently vv. 1-3, since they overlap with the original J source in 3.21-22 and 12.35-36 (pp. 334, 338). Verses 9-10 are apparently from P (p. 336). A simpler and in some ways more traditional ‘supplementary’ analysis was offered by Blum. Verses 4-8 belong to the pre-Deuteronomistic plaguenarrative (p. 13), which was disturbed by the insertion of vv. 1-3 as part of the ‘unselbständigen’ Kd layer which also includes 3.1–4.18; 5.22–6.1; 12.21-27; 13.3-16 and parts of ch. 14 (pp. 35-36). Verses 9-10 are from P (to be precise Kp), added as a supplement to the existing narrative and so

2   Kohata and others have also seen an address to Israel as the primary text in the passage, but in vv. 4-6(7) because the addressee in v. 4a is not defined (Jahwist, p. 123 and n. 187).

4

EXODUS 1–18

composed specifically for their present position (p. 254).3 Blum’s analysis was closely followed by F. Ahuis (Exodus 11,1 – 13,16, pp. 102-104), except that he also attributed vv. 9-10 to the Deuteronomist(!), like several additions which he detected in 12.1-20. Van Seters shared Blum’s view of vv. 9-10, but was content to ascribe the whole of vv. 1-8 to J, though with 10.28-29 transposed to the middle of v. 8 (pp. 108, 121 n. 30: like Heinisch): in his view the ‘despoiling’ motif as an aspect of Yahweh’s ‘victory’ over Egypt fitted well into the overall narrative plot. In the most recent scholarship the attribution of vv. 9-10 to P (mostly as an independent source) has been generally accepted (only Propp [p. 313] and for v. 9 Gertz [pp. 181-82: EndR] demur), but for vv. 1-8 a variety of views are held. Schmidt (also Graupner, pp. 66-67) retains the old bipartite division, emphasising the intrusiveness of vv. 1-3 but also their connection to passages from J (6.1) or supplementary to it (in his view 3.20-22) and the absence of any distinctively Deuteronomistic features. So he assigns vv. 4-8 to J and vv. 1-3 to JS.4 Propp thinks that v. 1 is the original introduction to the main narrative in vv. 4-8, which he attributes to E, while vv. 2-3 are from J (pp. 313-15: cf. Dozeman, p. 255). K. Schmid (in scattered references to particular verses) seems to view vv. 1-8 as belonging to the pre-Priestly independent Exodus narrative, but he does not discuss any sub-division within them. Gertz, by contrast, traces a very detailed process of development. In vv. 4-8 the original core (part of a supplement to the pre-Priestly Exodus narrative) comprises only vv. 4aβb, 5a, 6a, 7aα, 8b, with the remainder being added by EndR or later (pp. 180-82). Verses 1-3 are also from EndR, because of their relationship to other passages (10.24-26 as well as 3.18-22 and 5.22–6.1) already attributed to this layer: in Gertz’s larger understanding of the plague-narrative they were needed to underline the divine authority for what Moses says in vv. 4-8* after these verses had been separated from their original authorisation in 9.13-16 by the insertion of the previous three plagues.

Most analyses of this passage have taken their starting-point at least from the view that vv. 1-3, 4-8 and 9-10 stem from different authors. Occasionally it has been suggested that v. 1, or even the whole of vv. 1-3, was designed to lead into (or in Rudolph’s case out of) vv. 4-8 and less often that vv. 4-6 provide further words addressed to Israel, continuing from vv. 1-3. But the contents and   In view of the fact that they are actually out of place at this stage in the narrative, these verses are the Achilles’ heel (or one of them) for a supplementary understanding of P. 4   This is therefore a simpler (and more traditional) view of the passage than that set out earlier by Schmidt’s pupil Kohata. But both agree that E cannot be present in vv. 1-3 (cf. Schmidt, p. 462, for his reasons). 3

11.1-10

5

grammatical references (cf. ‘you’ in vv. 1, 7 and 8) in the two sections make it clear that they take the narrative in two different directions and, unlike vv. 4-8, vv. 1-3 have no point of contact with the preceding context either. Despite contrary opinion (voiced most vigorously by Gressmann but also taken up by L. Schmidt), there is no difficulty in seeing v. 4 (with or without its introductory formula) as the continuation of 10.29: Moses is not said to leave Pharaoh at the end of ch. 10 and it is very natural that he should only do so in 10.8 after giving him a warning of the final plague which will by its very severity instil into him and his courtiers the ultimate lesson about Israel’s special place in Yahweh’s concerns. If, as seems necessary, a distinction in origin between vv. 1-3(a), which are clearly linked in some way to 3.20-22 and 12.35-36, and vv. 4-8 is to be made, there are four main possibilities: (a) vv. 1-3 are a redactional addition to the old narrative in vv. 4-8 (and 10.2429*); (b) they come from a parallel old account of the Exodus story; (c) they are part of a Deuteronomistic layer in the composition of Exodus (‘Kd’); and (d) they belong to the final redaction of the Pentateuch (EndR). The strongest objection to (b) is its presumption that Israelites lived in among the Egyptians and not separately in the land of Goshen. This is not supported by 10.23: in fact 3.20-22; 11.1-3 and 12.35-36 are probably the only passages which involve such a presumption. Against (c) it has been pointed out (by W.H. Schmidt) that there are no Deuteronomistic features in these verses, whatever may (or may not) be said about such features in other elements of the ‘layer’ identified by Blum. Similarly there is no real justification for (d) (or indeed for the view that the verses are of yet later origin), since there is no sign here of any contact with the Priestly narrative.5 Gertz’s arguments for an EndR origin are based on attributions of other passages which there is no good reason to follow. Blenkinsopp’s observations about the very similar motif in the account of the first return from Babylon (Ezra 1.4, 6 etc.) are more plausible (Pentateuch, p. 155) but in view of other probably imaginary elements in that account it could itself have been modelled on the Exodus passages. It is therefore most likely that   A connection has often been made with the materials needed to make the Tabernacle (25.1-7; 35.4-9, 21-29), but beyond the phrase ‘all sorts of gold objects’ (kōl kelê zāhāb) in 35.22 there is no close correspondence of wording or any allusion to an Egyptian origin for what was offered there. 5

6

EXODUS 1–18

at least for vv. 1-3a (a) is correct and we should think of an origin with a redactor who knew the combined old accounts of the Exodus story (i.e. RJE), into which this and the related passages (3.21-22 and 12.35-36) were inserted. With these verses he provided an explicit account of Moses’ reception of a word from Yahweh about the final plague and the authorisation for the Israelites’ ‘plundering’ of the Egyptians. It is probable (see the Explanatory Note) that v. 3b was designed more as an introduction to vv. 4-8 than as the conclusion of vv. 1-3a and so belonged to the main account here. Verses 4-8 make coherent sense as they stand and there is no more reason to eliminate motifs from vv. 6-7 than there was when they occurred in earlier episodes of the plague-narrative. Some differences from the narrative in 12.29-32 have been seen as reasons for regarding v. 5aβ and v. 8a as secondary, but the inconsistency is just as problematic then (if not more so) as it is in the present text. The different ways of describing the antithesis to Pharaoh’s son are not strictly contradictory and can perhaps be put down to deliberate variation, which is more likely in an original author than a redactor. The fact that in 12.31-32 it is Pharaoh himself and not his ‘servants’ who plead with Moses to leave can be put down to a very plausible development in the narrative plot. In 10.28 Pharaoh has ruled out any further contact with Moses, so it is natural that Moses should speak of his ‘servants’ as those who would sideline Pharaoh and take over responsibility for giving the Israelites permission to leave (interestingly in 11.1 it is Pharaoh himself who is said to ‘let Israel go’, another indication of the separateness of vv. 1-3a from vv. 4-8). But in the event, although the ‘servants’ are still mentioned in 12.30, Pharaoh himself (despite his earlier words in 10.28) is ready to take the lead and yield to what Moses has been demanding all along. His submission makes the greater impact for its having been initially presented as impossible. As parts of the fuller plagues narrative that has been preserved, then, vv. 4-8 are attributed by us to E. There is no denying that vv. 9-10 are very closely related to 7.3-6, the introduction to the Priestly plague-narrative. Once the iterative use of the imperfect and the past reference of v. 9a are recognised, the verses make good sense as a concluding summary which leads into the Priestly Passover legislation in 12.1-20. The only question which remains is whether they support or detract from arguments that the Priestly strand is a supplement to the older narrative (as

11.1-10

7

Blum and Van Seters hold) or an originally independent source. Van Seters has claimed that the reference to Pharaoh ‘not listening’ presupposes the non-Priestly accounts where Moses makes a succession of explicit demands of Pharaoh. But this claim is completely undermined by the fact that exactly similar references to Pharaoh ‘not listening’ appear in the conclusions of the individual Priestly episodes in 7.13 (before the first non-Priestly episode), 8.15 and 9.12 (as well as in what were once almost certainly parts of separate Priestly episodes in 7.22 and 8.11). There, what Pharaoh ‘does not listen’ to is what Moses and Aaron are commanded to say in 6.11 and 7.2, and the same was surely originally the case in 11.9, which is the next Priestly section after 9.12. Blum has written that 11.9-10 were composed for their present position (see above), and as far as their connection to 12.1 is concerned this is perfectly true. But in the combined present text they come too late: such a summary would be required before 11.1, where the story moves forward to the next stage. Their present position is in that sense an argument against P being a supplement to the older narrative. It is due to EndR not wishing to disturb (further) the sequence of the older narrative until he had no choice: P’s Passover regulations had to precede the narrative of the final plague, and it also made better sense for them, as an address of Yahweh to Moses and Aaron, to precede Moses’ delivery of instructions about the Passover to ‘all the elders of Israel’ in 12.21-27. The P conclusion to the plaguenarrative naturally enough remained attached to the beginning of the Passover regulations as their point of departure. In two different ways, and at two different points in the overall plot, this passage marks a turning-point in the Exodus story. The two literary units in vv. 1-8 together (and thereby with greater emphasis) introduce Yahweh’s new plan to bring his conflict with Pharaoh to a decisive conclusion with one final, terrible, plague. The words (to be) spoken in them are directed first to Israel (vv. 1-3, for the first time since chs. 3–6 and as they are more fully in 12.1-27) and then to Pharaoh and his people (vv. 4-8), and they spell out the different consequences of the plague for Israel (positively) and for Egypt (negatively). The God who has ‘favoured’ Israel throughout (3.7-8; 8.18; 9.4-7, 26; 10.23) now even makes the Egyptians into their benefactors. This distinction is underlined in vv. 6-7, where it also forms the content of what the Egyptians will learn (‘know’) from the coming catastrophe.

8

EXODUS 1–18

Verses 9-10 were originally the introduction to a second announcement of the coming plague in 12.1-20 (cf. vv. 12-13) and by summing up a series of plagues which ended in 9.12 they showed why further action was necessary. What they say has been largely anticipated in 7.3-6 and they confirm that the whole sequence of events has been under Yahweh’s sovereign control (compare also 10.1-2). In their present position they also serve to provide a belated justification for the originally separate announcements in vv. 1-8. 1 [Yahweh said to Moses, ‘One more plaguea I will bring on Pharaoh and on Egypt: afterwardsb he will let you go from herec. When he lets (you) go, he will surely drive you out all togetherd from here. 2 You speake in the hearing of the people, so that each man may askf his companiong and each woman her friendg for objectsh of silver and gold.’ 3 iYahweh gave the people favour (lit. put the favour of the people) in the sight of the Egyptiansi.] j The man Moses was indeed very greatj in the land of Egypt in the sight of Pharaoh’s servants and of the people. 4 Moses said, ‘Thus says Yahweh, At midnightk I am going forthl in the midst of Egypt, 5 and all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sits on his throne to the firstborn of the maidservant who is behind the grinding stones and all the firstborn of the animalsm. 6 There will be a great cry throughout the land of Egypt, the like of whichn has never happened before nor will there be anothero like itn. 7 But as for the Israelitesp, no dog shall bark (?)q rat either man or animalr, so that you may know thats Yahweh makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel. 8 All theset your servants shall come down to me and bow down to me, saying “Depart, you and all the people whom you lead (lit. are at your feet)”. After this I will depart.’ Then Moses went out of Pharaoh’s presence in a furious rageu. 9 Yahweh said to Moses, ‘Pharaoh has repeatedly not listenedv to you (pl.), so that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt’. 10 So Moses and Aaron didw all these wonders before Pharaoh, but Yahweh made Pharaoh’s heart stubborn and he did not let the Israelites go from his land.

Notes on the Translation a. The object is unusually placed at the beginning of the sentence (as again in 18.23), to draw attention to it (GK §142f, noting that cases where the subject is represented in the verbal form itself ‘are far more numerous’; Muraoka,

11.1-10

9

Emphatic Words, pp. 38-39; JM §155o). Heb. ‫( נֶ גַ ע‬cf. TWAT 5, 224-26 = TDOT 9, pp. 207-209) is used only here of the Exodus plagues, but in Gen. 12.17 it stands (with the Piel of the related verb) for the ‘great sicknesses’ inflicted by Yahweh on Pharaoh and his household because of his violation of Sarah. ‫ נֶ גַ ע‬can mean a physical ‘blow’ inflicted by a human being (Deut. 17.8; 21.5; Prov. 6.33), but it is more often used metaphorically of an illness seen as sent by God and then specifically of the marks left by skin disease (‫ )צרעת‬or similar-looking mould on clothes or house-walls (Lev. 13–14, passim). Here (like ‫ מגפה‬in 9.14) it has a more general meaning, as in 1 Kgs 8.37 perhaps, embracing both the varied earlier plagues and (though without revealing yet its full severity) the final slaughter of the Egyptian firstborn. b. The asyndeton of MT (for its avoidance in the Vss see Text and Versions) makes the consequence unusually direct (cf. JM §177a). c. Heb. ‫מזה‬, as again at the end of the verse, with ‫ זה‬used adverbially for ‘here’. d. Heb. ‫כלה‬, rendered here ‘all together’, most often means ‘destruction’, but the positive sense ‘completion’ is also attested at Gen. 18.21 (in the same adverbial usage as here) and is entirely natural in view of the frequency with which the cognate verb (Exod. 5.13-14; 31.18; 34.33; 39.32; 40.33 etc.) and some nominal derivatives of the root are used for ‘completion’ as well as ‘destruction’ (cf. Houtman, W.H. Schmidt). BDB, p. 478, recognises the positive sense of ‫ כלה‬but regards it as ‘dubious’. Doubts about it were already expressed in the nineteenth century and emendations proposed: among newer dictionaries only DCH 4, pp. 418-19, accepts it. See further Text and Versions. Syntactically the word is best connected to what follows: it precedes the verb and so receives added emphasis, no doubt to highlight the contrast with Pharaoh’s earlier unwillingness to let the whole people depart.6 e. Heb. ‫נא‬. There are other examples of the surprising use of ‘the particle of entreaty’ when God is addressing a human: cf. 4.6 and see Note f on the translation of 4.1-9, where it is suggested that it is a sign of God’s condescension or intimacy when dealing with his chosen human servants. But in such cases (as more clearly perhaps in 10.11, where Pharaoh addresses[?] Israel) it is also possible that the particle simply strengthens a command (cf. JM §105c: ‘Do come!’) and this may even be the original use which then became specialised as an element of deferential pleading. f. Heb. ‫וישׁאלו‬. On the surface this is a case of simple waw indicating the purpose of the preceding command (GK §165a), but since the command does   This is probably what the Masoretic accents intend: the Zaqeph magnum is a lesser disjunctive then Zaqeph parvum on the preceding word (GK §15f; Bergsträsser §12g). A different view is taken by Jacob, p. 294; Schmidt, p. 455; Houtman, p. 131; Ges18, p. 547. A minority of scholars interpret by ‘mit Gewalt’ or ‘gewaltsam’, i.e. ‘by force’ (Gressmann, Anfänge, p. 41; Beer, p. 58; Ges18, p. 547). 6

10

EXODUS 1–18

not specify what Moses is to say it may be correct to see the clause as doing that, with the waw being (like ‫ )לאמר‬virtually an introduction to words of direct speech. There are very similar examples of the same formulaic structure in Numbers (e.g. 17.2; also 19.2, although there the use of the second person m.s. suffix on ‫ אליך‬shows that the command to the people remains indirect): see further JM §177h-k. g. Heb. ‫רעהו…רעותה‬. The fem. nouns from this root are more specialised in their use than ‫ ֵר ַע‬itself, and ‫ רעות‬is the word that regularly occurs in reciprocal phrases with ‫( אשׁה‬cf. my ‘The Ethics of Friendship in Wisdom Literature’, in K.J. Dell [ed.], Ethical and Unethical in the Old Testament: God and Humans in Dialogue [LHBOTS 528; London, 2010], pp. 135-50 [138]). But the context makes it clear that the sense cannot be, as in the weakened idiomatic uses of both words, ‘(from) one another’ since it is from non-Israelites (Egyptians) that the gifts are to be sought (cf. v. 3: also the related passages in 3.21-22 [where other words are used] and 12.35-36). h. See Note r on the translation of 3.16-22. i. Heb. ‫ויתן יהוה חן־העם בעיני מצרים‬. On this idiom see Note m on the translation of 3.16-22. Its full form occurs only here and in Gen. 39.21 and Exod. 3.21; 12.36 (two passages closely related to this one). Abbreviated forms of it may occur in Prov. 13.15 and, less certainly, in Prov. 3.34 and Ps. 84.12: in none of these places is a ‘third party’ named as the bestower of favour. j. Heb. ‫גם האישׁ משׁה גדול מאד‬. The precedence of the subject in the nominal clause here follows the S-P pattern which most grammarians would now regard as normal (cf. Muraoka, Emphatic Words, p. 6; JM §154f). Those, like S.R. Driver and F.I. Andersen, who regard(ed) P-S as the normal pattern in descriptive nominal clauses would presumably see the ‘inversion’ as due to the change of subject and the emphasis laid on it (in fact Andersen’s explanation of such cases is that they are circumstantial [Verbless Clause, p. 43], if there is an explanation at all). But both these factors are sufficiently signalled by the particle ‫ גם‬and the phrase that follows it in the present text. k. Heb. ‫כחצת הלילה‬. For ‫‘ = כ‬at’ cf. BDB, pp. 453 (1.a) and 454 (3.b: with inf. constr. or verbal noun). ‫ חצת הלילה‬is found elsewhere only in poetry (Ps. 119.62; Job 34.20): ‫ חצת‬resembles an inf. constr. (cf. GK §83a). The more usual expression is ‫( בחצי הלילה‬12.29; cf. Judg. 16.3 [2x]; Ruth 3.8); ‫בתוך‬ ‫( הלילה‬1 Kgs 3.20) is probably less precise: on ‫( באישׁון הלילה‬Prov. 7.9; cf. 20.20) see HAL, pp. 43, 91; Ges18, pp. 51, 106. l. See Note l on the translation of 10.1-20. ‘At midnight tonight…’ is evidently meant: the narrative suddenly gathers pace. m. Heb. ‫בהמה‬. The absence of the def. art. is due to the fact that ‫ כל‬itself ‘conveys a certain notion of determination’ (JM §138d; cf. 125h and GK §117c), especially with collective nouns: hence the alternative Eng. tr. ‘every firstborn of animals’. The SP variant (see Text and Versions) may be partly due to the sense that in such an expression the ‫ כל‬should immediately precede the collective noun.



11.1-10

11

n. Heb. ‫)אשׁר( כמהו‬, with the masc. suffix unusually after the fem. noun ‫צעקה‬, which does determine the gender of the verbal forms in this verse: for other instances see GK §135o, or a regular formula may be involved (cf. 9.18, 24; 10.14). There is therefore no need to follow SP (see Text and Versions): its fem. suffixes will be due to secondary ‘smoothing’ of the grammar. o. Heb. ‫לא תסף‬, with the inf. ‫ להיות‬easily understood. Such omission of the expected inf. occurs quite frequently (BDB, p. 415), especially in poetic and later Heb. (for the latter cf. 2 Sam. 7.20 with 1 Chr. 17.10): for a probably pre-exilic instance see Deut. 25.3. p. Heb. ‫ולכל בני ישׂראל‬. The ‘fronting’ of this phrase expresses contrast, or more precisely limitation. The ‫ ל‬denotes the indirect object, as in the other instance of the idiomatic use of ‫( חרץ‬Josh. 10.21: see below). q. Heb. ‫יחרץ‬. The same idiom appears in Josh. 10.21 with a human subject. The verb occurs once (pass. pt.) in the meaning ‘cut’ (Lev. 22.22; cf. ‫כרות‬ in v. 24) and two derivatives point to this sense too (cf. 2 Sam. 12.31; Dan. 9.25 [dub.]). It is probably the basis for the more widespread idea of ‘decide, decisive’. The present idiom seems to be related to the sense ‘sharp(en)’, which elsewhere appears only in derivatives, and to the expression ‫שׁננו לשׁונם‬ ‫ כמו־נחשׁ‬in Ps. 140.4, which Propp aptly compares (p. 344): cf. his other references to the comparison of a malicious tongue to a weapon. These parallels suggest that it is not a gesture (‘pointing’ or ‘sticking out’ the tongue) that is meant, but a hostile sound, as most of the Vss already understood it. In Josh. 10.21 ‘railed against’ is required, but here in relation to dogs ‘bark’ (or ‘growl’) is appropriate.7 r. Lit. ‘from man to animal’. ‫ למאישׁ‬prefixes ‫ ל‬to ‫ מן‬in a frequent idiom where ‫ עד‬follows (see Note r on the translation of 9.13-35). s. Heb. ‫אשׁר‬, which occasionally has this meaning (cf. Num. 32.23; Deut. 1.31), especially in LBH (BDB, p. 83 [8.a]). t. Heb. ‫אלה‬, without the art.: see Note c on the translation of 10.1-20. u. Heb. ‫בחרי־אף‬.ָ The prefix vowel is qamets hatuf, which is required before the following hatef-qamets (GK §102d). v. Heb. ‫לא־ישׁמע‬. Most likely an iterative imperfect (GK §107e: so Heinisch, p. 96; L. Schmidt, Beobachtungen, p. 56; W.H. Schmidt, pp. 455-56; but rejected by Houtman, p. 135 n. 212, and ignored by Dozeman, p. 258.8 7   A derivation from a Heb. cognate of Ar. ḥaraṣa (‫ חרץ‬II in HAL, p. 342: ‘sich mit Eifer an etwas machen’), which can mean ‘be eager for’ as well as ‘tear, split’ (Ges18, p. 401), has been suggested by Zorell (p. 271: ‘hostiliter movit’) and F.C. Fensham (‘The Dog in Ex. XI 7’, VT 16 [1966], pp. 504-507: ‘move eagerly’, sc. to eat their dead bodies). This homonym may well be present in 2 Sam. 5.24, but this seems less likely here than the explanation offered above. 8   Beer translates in the present tense, ‘hört nicht’ (p. 58), but does not comment on the grammar. Others state that the reference is to the earlier plagues, but without translating or commenting further (Smend, McNeile, Fohrer, Steingrimsson, Blum).

12

EXODUS 1–18

w. Or ‘had done’: Heb. ‫עשׂו‬, with the perfect representing a repeated action in what JM §111e describes as a ‘global’ way, i.e. the successive episodes are treated as a single act by way of summary: the fronting of the subject also avoids the implication that a new action is involved (cf. JM §118d) and would justify the rendering as a pluperfect.

Explanatory Notes 1-2. No change of scene is indicated for Yahweh’s new address to Moses, so it is possible to understand these words as being spoken to him in Pharaoh’s presence (so Houtman). But, unlike many previous passages (e.g. 9.1-4[5], 13-19), they contain no message specifically for Pharaoh and v. 2 in fact instructs Moses about what he is to say to the Israelites (‘the people’). So the narrative takes a sharp, if temporary (see the note on vv. 4-6) detour at this point (see the introduction to this section for the possibility that this is due to editorial activity). The Heb. word-order lays emphasis on the fact that there is to be one (and only one) more plague (see Note a on the translation). Nothing is said here about what form it will take, but its effect on Pharaoh will, unlike the earlier plagues, be decisive: he will not only let Israel go (Heb. šlḥ Piel, the constant demand of Moses) but will drive them out (Heb. grš Piel: cf. 12.39). This verb has already been used (with šlḥ) in the non-Priestly introduction to the plague-story in 6.1, where Yahweh declared that through (his) powerful intervention Pharaoh would be impelled to give way.9 ‘All together’ shows that now there will no longer be any limitation of the permission to leave to a part of the people, as Pharaoh had insisted in negotiations with Moses (10.8-11, 24). With departure imminently in prospect, it is time for Moses to inform the people and activate the plan previously described in more detail (except for the reference here to men) in 3.21-22 (cf. 12.35-36): see the notes there. The ‘objects’ may well have included jewellery, but Heb. kly has a wider range of use which includes tableware, for example (see Note h on the translation). 3. The enjoyment of favour is frequently associated with the granting of a request (cf. TWAT 3, 28-31 = TDOT 5, pp. 26-28). 9   As Dozeman points out (pp. 255-56), the force implied by grš is clearly indicated by its use later in Exodus of the conquest of the land (23.28-31; 33.2; 34.11: cf. also 10.11).



11.1-10

13

The statement has often been seen as premature, since it appears to anticipate 12.35-36 (this may be why the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Vulgate put the statement into the future tense [see Text and Versions]: cf. Propp’s proposed emendation of MT). But if those verses are properly understood as a recapitulation of something which has happened earlier, as both intrinsic probability and Hebrew grammar would suggest (see the notes there and the use of the pluperfect tense in e.g. NEB, NJPS and NRSV), then 11.3a can be taken as implying both the execution of Yahweh’s instructions and a favourable response by the Egyptians prior to the final plague. W.H. Schmidt takes an intermediate position, suggesting that the expression indicates only the creation of favourable conditions for a request at this stage (p. 455). But that separates what properly belongs together. If the first half of the verse rounds off vv. 1-2, the recognition of the high regard in which ‘the man’ Moses was (now) held by the Egyptians relates rather to what follows (especially what is envisaged in v. 8) and should be seen as the introduction to it. Two expressions in v. 3b require clarification. The phrase ‘the man Moses’ is found only here and in Num. 12.3 in a similar statement about Moses’ exceptional character. Despite speculation (see Schmidt, p. 455, and Houtman 1, p. 7; 2, p. 131, for details) it probably has nothing to do with any special status of Moses, as the same kind of combination, with ‘the man’ preceding a proper name, appears with Lot (Gen. 19.9: cf. RV ‘the man, even Lot’), Micah the Ephraimite (Judg. 17.5), Elkanah (1 Sam. 1.21), Jeroboam (1 Kgs 11.28), Mordecai (Esth. 9.4) and the angel Gabriel (Dan. 9. 21: for a listing of the examples except the last see Driver, Notes, p. 19; DCH 1, p. 232 includes them all but in a mixed list of passages where a personal name is in apposition to ʾîš, ‘man’ or vice versa). What all these examples have in common is that the person named has already been mentioned in the context, so that the usage is anaphorical in intention and equivalent to the fuller phrase ‘this man, Coniah’ in Jer. 22.28 (it is itself amplified in Dan. 9.21).10 ‘The people’ here most likely means ‘the Egyptians’, rather   Cf. Montgomery, Daniel, p. 370: ‘called “the man” to identify him with the being in 815ff’. None of the standard grammars (GK, Jouon, JM, IBHS) seems to deal with this special case of apposition, although it may be related to phenomena such as those treated in GK §131g and JM §131h-i. 10

14

EXODUS 1–18

than Israel (Nachmanides), to whom it refers in vv. 2-3a: mention of Pharaoh’s servants naturally leads to the addition of the whole Egyptian people (cf. 10.6). 4-6. It is not at first obvious to whom Moses speaks these words, but in v. 7 and especially v. 8 (‘your servants’), which are the continuation of vv. 4-6, Pharaoh is clearly in view (see Text and Versions here for early additions to make this explicit). The omission of the addressee recalls 10.29, where it is not a problem because of the preceding dialogue with Pharaoh, and here it is one sign that vv. 4-8 form the conclusion to that dialogue. The divine speech is in several ways similar to those which have introduced other episodes of the non-Priestly plague-narrative – the participial formulation ‘I am going forth’, the fixing of a time, the unprecedented severity of the plague (cf. 9.18, 24; 10.14), the distinction between the Israelites and the Egyptians, and the intention that the plague will give instruction, ‘so that you may know…’ – but in other respects the finality of the imminent event leads to differences of formulation and content. For example, the word of Yahweh is cited as it is delivered to Pharaoh and the Egyptians (like 10.3-6), rather than when Yahweh speaks it to Moses; and the release of the Israelites appears no longer as a demand addressed to Pharaoh but as the certain outcome of this most dreadful visitation. Its timing ‘at midnight’, without further qualification, suggests that for this version of the Exodus story (in contrast to what is implied by the instructions in 12.1-20; those in 12.21-27 are compatible with what is said here) the warning of what was to happen was given on the same day. The mention of midnight recalls wider fears of the terrors of the night (Pss. 91.5-6; 121.6b), but another of Israel’s origin traditions included the tale of a fearful struggle of their ancestor Jacob in the night (Gen. 32.22-32) and Dozeman makes much of the ‘one night’ in the Exodus story which is the time of both disaster and deliverance (pp. 257-58; cf. his treatment of 10.21-29). Yahweh’s ‘going forth’ (Heb. yṣʾ) at the time of the Exodus is picked up in Ps. 81.6 and its significance is not to be simply equated with his ‘passing through’ the land in 12.12, 23 (so Schmidt, pp. 454-55). The expression draws attention to Yahweh’s departure from his dwelling-place in heaven or on earth (so Knobel, p. 90; Dillmann, p. 96) and his appearance as a mighty warrior on the field of battle, as in Judg. 5.4; Ps. 68.8; Mic. 1.3; cf.



11.1-10

15

Jeremias, Theophanie, pp. 7-12, 148; TWAT 3, 803-804 = TDOT 6, pp. 232-33.11 The ‘grinding stones’ (Heb. rēḥayim, a dual form) in biblical times did not yet take the form of two round horizontal stones, but consisted of a base and a roller, both made of hard stone such as basalt (cf. ABD 4, p. 831; IDB 3, pp. 380-81, with an illustration of an Egyptian model which shows a woman ‘behind’ the stones; further refs. to illustrations in Schmidt, p. 465). Grinding grain into flour was a woman’s work (Eccl. 12.3), but might (especially in royal palaces) be done by slaves (cf. Isa. 47.1-2; even by a captive man in Judg. 16.21). In the account of the death of the firstborn in 12.29 the slave-girl is replaced by an imprisoned captive: it seems that precise correspondences between prediction and fulfilment were not a matter of great concern to the non-Priestly narrator(s). The ‘great cry’ which the Egyptians would now utter (v. 6: cf. 12.30) cannot but recall the ‘cry’ of the Israelites at their oppression by the Egyptians which Yahweh several times says that he has heard (and heeded) in chs. 1–6 (see also 14.10, 15). The verbal echo is closest to 3.7 and 3.9, where the same word (ṣeʿāqāh) is used in both strands of the non-Priestly narrative of Moses’ commissioning. But words with a closely similar meaning (including the probably related verb zāʿaq in 2.23) occur in the Priestly account in 2.23-24 and 6.5. The irony created by the coming reversal of roles is thus bitterly underlined here, with a striking intensification in the addition of the adjective ‘great’ and the incomparability statement in the second half of v. 6 which is quite unrestricted: the catastrophe is presented as one that is totally unique. The language of the ‘cry’ itself on the lips of the powerful people of Egypt reinforces the sense of transformation, since the great majority of biblical examples of it arise from those who are suffering or at risk from the power of enemies or rulers (see Boyce, The Cry to God). As such the ‘cry’ might be expected to awaken sympathy in the reader, but that is clearly far from the narrative’s intention here: the cry is (or will be) the expression of intense suffering, which in this case is seen as fully deserved. There are at least a few other cases where 11   It is surprising that Schmidt (p. 455) rejects this view out of hand. Early interpreters were more alive to the word’s implications (see Text and Versions).

16

EXODUS 1–18

this more detached and perhaps more basic use of cry-language is found (e.g. 1 Sam. 5.10, 12; Isa. 65.14; Jer. 25.36; 48.3, 5; 49.21; Zeph. 1.10), without the theological overtones which it has become customary to associate with it.12 7-8. There is no formal transition in these verses from Yahweh’s message (cf. v. 4a) to Moses’ own words, but in v. 8 ‘me’ and ‘I’ must refer to Moses (despite Dozeman’s suggestion [p. 254] that Yahweh himself could be meant and still be the speaker). This is possible but not so certain in v. 7: the use of the third person for Yahweh might signify that the divine speech is over, but the verse is closely linked to vv. 5-6 by two features of its wording. The mention of the Israelites at the beginning of the verse in the Hebrew is a way of underlining the contrast with the sufferings of the Egyptians, which is also highlighted in the second half of the verse; and both in v. 5 and in v. 7 the infliction of harm and its non-occurrence take in animals as well as humans. As already noted, by v. 8 Moses’ words are clearly being addressed to Pharaoh himself (‘your [sing.] servants’; cf. also ‘out of Pharaoh’s presence’ at the end of the verse). But in v. 7 the ‘you’ is plural, including at least Pharaoh’s courtiers and perhaps his whole people. The purpose of the final plague is still didactic, like many of those which have preceded, but now the scope of the learning embraces not Pharaoh alone, as previously (cf. the singular ‘you’ in 7.17; 8.6, 18; 9.14, 29, which takes up Pharaoh’s own words in 5.2), but the Egyptians more generally. The content of what is to be learned also changes from Yahweh’s power (as in the verses just cited) to the special place of Israel in his purposes, which has also been made evident earlier in the non-Priestly plague narrative (8.18; 9.4-7, 26; 10.23). It is in line with this wider educational purpose, as well as Pharaoh’s exclusion of any further contact between him and Moses (10.28), that Moses envisages that it will not be Pharaoh himself, but his ‘servants’, or courtiers, who will ‘come down’ (presumably from the palace) to give Moses and the Israelites permission to ‘depart’ (Heb. yāṣāʾ, here being used in its epic sense of the long-sought 12   R. Albertz reckons that approximately a third of the occurrences of ṣʿq / zʿq are of this kind (THAT 2, 573 = TLOT 3, pp. 1091-92). The article in TWAT 2, 62839 = TDOT 4, pp. 112-22 (G. Hasel), regards ‘cry for help’ as the basic meaning (p. 115): cf. THAT 2, 569-70 = TLOT 3, pp. 1089. The frequency of prepositions like ʾel and ʿal after the verbs certainly shows the importance of this meaning.



11.1-10

17

departure from Egypt itself, as often later [e.g. 12.17, 42, 51] and in the causative form ‘bring out’ already part of Yahweh’s promise to the people [3.10-12 etc.]). The courtiers will ‘bow down’ (Heb. hištaḥawāh) to Moses, a verb often used for the worship of a god (4.31 [probably]; 12.27; 18.7; 20.5) but also sometimes of the reverence paid to a human leader such as a king (cf. Gen. 43.28; 1 Sam. 24.9; 2 Sam. 14.4 and other examples in BDB, p. 1005 s.v. ‫שׁ ָחה‬, ָ 1). So Moses is not being regarded as divine by the Egyptians, but he is being seen as the equal (at least) of their king Pharaoh. Then, Moses says, he will ‘depart’. It is a little confusing that in the Hebrew, when the narrator goes on to speak of Moses leaving Pharaoh’s presence, he uses the same verb yāṣāʾ in its more straightforward sense. But since this has already appeared several times in the plague-narrative (8.8, 25-26; 9.33; 10.6, 18) there is no real ambiguity. As nothing is said at this point about any reaction by Pharaoh to what Moses has said (one might well infer that he and his courtiers were dumbstruck by it), Moses’ anger is at first sight unexplained. But if it is recognised, as seems likely for other reasons, that Moses’ words in vv. 4-8a are the conclusion of the dialogue begun in 10.24-26, 28-29, Moses’ anger is fully explained by the enduring effect of Pharaoh’s obstinacy and threats there. Some scholars (e.g. Van Seters, Life of Moses, p. 108) seek to make the link even closer by proposing that 10.28-29 originally stood between v. 8a and v. 8b, but this is hardly necessary and no convincing explanation has been given for why 10.28-29 should have been moved from here to where they are now. 9-10. It is likely that both these verses, which contain a short explanatory word of Yahweh to Moses and the (or a) narrator’s summary of the whole plague-story, refer back to and summarise the preceding narrative. This is agreed to be the case for v. 10, but many commentators (e.g. Houtman, Propp, Dozeman) and translations (e.g. JB, NJPS, NRSV) understand Yahweh’s words in v. 9 to refer to a still future refusal of Pharaoh to accede to Yahweh’s demands. It is true that the Heb. imperfect tense used here commonly has a future meaning, so that ‘will not listen to you’ is in itself an acceptable translation and it could be seen as an immediate warning that Moses’ words in vv. 4-8 will have no effect. The problem with this is that on this occasion Pharaoh does relent and let the Israelites go (12.30-31). In fact the Heb. imperfect can also refer to repeated action in the past and present as well as action in the future (a clear example in Exodus is in 33.7-11), and so Pharaoh’s not listening can

18

EXODUS 1–18

be a reference to his repeated not listening in the earlier narratives of the plagues (see Note v on the translation). Such an understanding is supported by the following v. 10, where the same word ‘wonders’ (Heb. môpetîm) is used, and there it clearly refers to the earlier plagues. On this view the two verses provide a concluding summary of the plague-narrative just as 7.1-7 serves as its introduction, and there both the idea of ‘hardening Pharaoh’s heart’ (with a different Heb. verb) and a reference to ‘multiplying [signs and] wonders’ also occur. Those verses are part of the Priestly narrative and it is likely that these are too, since their wording (including the word used for ‘hardening’ here) is also similar to that of the conclusions to the individual Priestly plague-stories (esp. 7.13, 22; 8.11, 15; 9.12), but not so close to the conclusions of the other episodes in the present text, which come from the non-Priestly version. Text and Versions ‫( עוד‬11.1) TgJ and Sy use ‫תוב‬/twb, normally ‘again’, so perhaps pointing more to an additional plague rather than to ‘just one more’. But the difference is slight. ‫( נגע אחד‬11.1) Most of the Vss use general words for ‘blow, plague’, but Aq and Symm preserved the etymology by using ἁφήν (cf. Aq in Gen. 12.17). Vulg did the same by rendering the verb by tangam, while retaining plaga. TgJ added ‘which will be the harshest of all upon them’. ‫( אחרי־כן‬11.1) SP reads ‫ואחרי־כן‬, and LXX, Vulg, TgJ,N and Sy follow suit. But the effective asyndesis of MT is supported by TgO,Nmg and is surely original. ‫( ישׁלח‬11.1) Sy and TgNmg render in first person si., continuing the divine subject from ‫אביא‬. ‫מזה‬1o (11.1) Vulg has no equivalent in its very free rendering of the latter part of the verse, which seems designed to omit anything superfluous. ‫( כשׁלחו‬11.1) LXX introduces a second ὑμᾶς after this (similarly TgN). Sy with šdrtkwn again has first person si., with Yahweh as the subject, possibly from a variant Vorlage ‫כשׁלחי‬. But Sy seems to have rewritten much of this verse to give it a stronger theological thrust (and maintaining the first person si. subject of ‫ אביא‬throughout). ‫( כלה‬11.1) LXX συν παντι and Sy klkwn saw here a form of ‫כֹּל‬, which has inspired some modern emendations of MT (see below). Vulg ignored it, but TgO,J,Nmg used ‫גמירא‬, ‘completeness’, which is probably correct (see Note d on the translation). TgJ added ‫יהי לה‬, ‘will happen to him’, seeing here a reference to ‘complete destruction’ as in the uses of ‫ כלה‬in Jeremiah, but this does not fit the wording of MT. TgN’s ‫בפרעיה‬, ‘quickly’, is probably a guess.



11.1-10

19

Emendations to a suffixed form of ‫ כל‬or a form of the verb ‫ כלה‬have been proposed in modern times, but are not necessary.13 ‫( גרשׁ יגרשׁ אתכם‬11.1) Sy pwqw lkwn, ‘you depart’ (imperative) is very free and misses the main point: it is probably modelled on Pharaoh’s words in 12.31. ‫מזה‬2o (11.1) Here not only Vulg but LXX has no equivalent to this superfluous expression: Aq, Theod and the hexaplaric text correct to MT’s reading. Lemmelijn’s view that the omission of ‫ מזה‬here is more original (p. 190) overlooks the freedom with which the translator dealt with nonessential features of the text. ‫( דבר־נא‬11.2) SP has a pl. verb (presumably assuming that Aaron is addressed too, as SP’s longer additions often do: cf. 9.5, 19), while Sy prefixes the copula. MT is to be retained. The renderings of ‫ נא‬here (LXX οὖν; Vulg ergo; TgO,N ‫ ;כען‬TgJ ‫ ;כדון‬Sy nil) are typical, although LXX and Vulg frequently have no equivalent and Sy occasionally uses hšʾ (in Exodus only 10.11 and 34.9 [2o]). The indications therefore are that LXX and Vulg took it to mean ‘therefore’ and the Aram. Vss understood it as ‘now’ (though Sokoloff, Dictionary, who is followed by CAL, says that ‫ כען‬is in these cases an enclitic particle). A precative understanding is only very rarely found: TgJ in 33.13 (1o) and 34.9 (1o); Vulg in 34.9 (2o). See also Note e on the translation, which casts some doubt on the precative use being original. ‫( באזני העם‬11.2) The idiom is a frequent one, but only LXX renders it literally: TgJ,N come closest with ‘in the hearing of’, while TgO and Sy generalise with ‫קדם‬, ‘before’. Vulg omni plebi turns it into an expression for the extent of the instruction. LXX prefixes κρυφῇ, ‘secretly’, which Wevers suggests ‘makes explicit what is implicit in MT’ (Notes, p. 162: cf. Lemmelijn, pp. 19091), but it is certainly not implicit in the Heb. idiom: this should be recognised as a place where the translator embroidered his Vorlage. ‫( וישׁאלו‬11.2) Sy has no equivalent to the copula here, but its evidence alone is scarcely sufficient to make the shorter text original. ‫( אישׁ‬11.2) Sy ʾnš gbr, ‘each one, a man…’, gives expression to both the uses of ‫ אישׁ‬that are involved here. TgJ adds ‘Egyptian’ after each of the words for ‘friend’ to clarify the meaning. LXX does not represent the possessive suffixes, but equivalents are restored in the Three and Vulg.   See McNeile, pp. 60-61 n. 1; and further refs. in Houtman, p. 130: so most recently in Fuss, p. 255, and HAL, p. 455. According to Houtman, Ehrlich proposed to read ‫ !לילה‬An ingenious change of the vowels alone to ‫ ְכּ ִשׁ ְלּחוּ ַכ ָלּה‬, ‘as one sends a bride’ (sc. with gifts) was first contemplated by A. van Hoonacker and taken up by J. Coppens, ‘Miscellanes Bibliques, XIII’, ETL 23 (1947), pp. 17879, comparing 1 Kgs 9.16. This found some support initially (see the refs. in Childs, p. 130) and in part at least in NEB and REB (cf. Brockington, p. 10). But the grammar is dubious (GK §155g; JM §174d) and the change, like the others proposed, is in any case unnecessary. 13

20

EXODUS 1–18

‫( וכלי זהב‬11.2) In LXX and Vulg there is no equivalent to ‫ כלי‬this time, since Greek and Latin idiom (and the use of adjectives for ‘silver’ and ‘gold’) makes repetition unnecessary. SP adds ‫( ושׂמלות‬cf. LXX καὶ ἱματισμόν), in agreement with 3.22 and 12.35, having earlier modified 3.22 to agree with this verse about the persons involved. The readings of MT and the other Vss which preserve the distinctiveness of each passage are primary and the harmonisations secondary. ‫( ויתן יהוה‬11.3) LXX, Tgg and Sy follow MT, but SP ‫ ונתתי‬makes v. 3a the continuation of the direct speech of God in v. 2 and a promise of what is yet to come (cf. 3.21, where this very wording occurs) instead of MT’s report of what happens next. Vulg dabit achieved the same result with less departure from the wording of MT here (cf. Propp’s repointing of MT to ‫וְ יִ ֵתּן‬, understood as a future [p. 342]; but in normal BH prose this would be ‫)ונתן‬. TgNmg as often prefixes ‘the Memra of’. ‫( את־חן העם‬11.3) SP adds ‫הזה‬, evidently harmonising again with 3.21. The Vss all change the construction according to their native idiom, with LXX and Vulg correctly understanding that the ‘genitive’ ‫ העם‬is equivalent to a dative, TgN understanding ‫ ויתן‬in the sense ‘put’, and TgO,J and Sy making the ‘favour’ (‫רחמין‬, ‘love, mercy’) into an indirect object. ‫( בעיני מצרים‬11.3) SP adds ‫( והשׁאילום‬the mss almost all have the plene form, against von Gall) to match the account in 12.36, as LXX καὶ ἔχρησαν αὐτοῖς does even more precisely. After v. 3a SP inserts its own version of vv. 4b-7 (see the notes below on these verses for its variations from MT), thus extending the divine speech further and ensuring (as in its addition after 10.2) that Moses only speaks to Pharaoh words that have already been given to him by Yahweh. It is likely that 4QpalExm had the addition too, but it does not survive for this part of ch. 11. Wevers’ edition this time cites no Greek equivalent to the plus from Syhex – all it cites (p. 161) is a version of vv. 3b-7 with the addition from 4.22-23 (on which see below, at the end of the notes on v. 3). The same omission appears in Brooke-McLean, pp. 189-90, and in the Lagarde ed. of Syhex. ‫( גם‬11.3) SP has ‫וגם‬, avoiding the asyndesis of MT, no doubt finding this the more necessary after its change and additions before. But the regular ‘weak’ renderings of ‫ גם‬in LXX (καί) and Vulg (-que) served a similar purpose. ‫( גדול מאד‬11.3) LXX, Vulg and Sy add an explicit ‘was’ as required by native idiom. Most of the Vss left the precise sense of ‫ גדול‬undefined, but TgN ‫תקיף‬, ‘mighty’, and Sy yqyr, ‘honoured’, gave it more specific interpretations. ‫( בארץ מצרים‬11.3) From here to the end of the verse LXX renders by three parallel phrases, ἐναντίον τῶν Αἰγυπτίων καὶ ἐναντίον Φαραώ καὶ ἐναντίον πάντων τῶν θεραπόντων αὐτοῦ. The differences in detail from MT are considerable and even Wevers, for once, concedes that a variant Vorlage must be responsible (Notes, p. 163; cf. BAlex 2, p. 142; Propp, p. 309; Lemmelijn, pp. 91, 192-94). This may not be necessary: LXX’s first phrase may be a paraphrase shaped by what was to follow, the second may be the



11.1-10

21

translator’s inference from a passage such as 10.16-17, the addition of πάντων is in line with earlier ‘heightening’ of the narrative in LXX (cf. 10.4, 15), and MT’s ‘in the sight of the people’ may have seemed redundant once ‫בארץ מצרים‬ had been paraphrased. The omission of the final phrase was remedied by Aq, Theod and, in consequence, the O-text (with ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς rather than ἐναντίον as a typical verbatim rendering of the Heb.: cf. O’Connell, Theodotionic Revision, pp. 175, 283-84). A geographical understanding of ‫ארץ מצרים‬ seems clearly to lie behind 2QExa’s [‫[בתו]ך ארץ‬: ׄ compare the similar variant in 4QpalExm at 7.18 (and the plus there).14 ‫( עבדי־פרעה‬11.3) TgN renders ‫ עבדי‬by ‫שׁליטוי‬, ‘his rulers’, reflecting (as often) the reference rather than the sense of the Heb. ‫( ובעיני העם‬11.3) Vulg (coram, not repeated) omni populo, a natural expansion after the preceding reference to a specific group. Before v. 4 SP adds, with an appropriately expanded introductory formula, the words that Moses was instructed to say to Pharaoh in 4.22-23, with the substitution of ‫ יהוה‬for ‫ אנכי‬in v. 23 (presumably because Moses is now delivering Yahweh’s message), evidently judging that this final encounter was the appropriate time for such a warning (cf. vv. 4-7, which take up the same theme). Again 4QpalExm does not survive, but is likely to have had this harmonising addition. It also appeared in the Sam. Gk. version, which is preserved in Syhex (including the variant ‫ יהוה‬from 4.23). No evidence survives from Qumran for the division between vv. 3 and 4 which is marked in the medieval mss. One is restored in 4QpalExl and 2QExa, but without any strong basis. ‫( ויאמר משׁה‬11.4) Vulg et ait found the repetition of the explicit subject unnecessary after v. 3b. 2QExa (]‫)אל פרע[ה‬,TgJ and some mss of LXX make the addressee explicit, in accordance with v. 8 (cf. SP’s expanded introduction in its addition after v. 3). ‫( יהוה‬11.4) TgNmg has ‘the Memra of Yahweh’, as usual. ‫( כחצת הלילה‬11.4) SP writes ‫ כחצית‬for the first word, implying a different vocalisation from MT here and a form that is not found elsewhere (except in SP’s own secondary plus in the middle of v. 3). There is no evidence from Qumran at this point. The form in MT is itself rare (see Note k on the translation), with ‫( חצי‬or ‫ מחצית‬in LBH) being preferred in such expressions. Possibly SP was influenced by these more common forms (and cf. 12.29). The Vss, which render idiomatically (for LXX περὶ μέσας νύκτας cf. LSJ, p. 1185, and Xen., Anab. 7.8.12), are of course of no help in resolving the textual issue here. TgJ renders ‘tomorrow night at/about this time’, presuming that it is now midnight on the 13th of the month Abib, an interpretation also cited in B.Ber. 4a. 14   DJD III, p. 51, regards 2QExa as supporting SP here, but it has ‫בארץ מצרים‬ like MT at this point: the occurrence of ‫ בתוך‬in SP comes later in the passage.

22

EXODUS 1–18

‫( אני יוצא‬11.4) LXX’s εἰσπορεύομαι (followed, in a future form, by OL) disregarded the meaning of Heb. under the influence of the context: Vulg’s egrediar restored the true sense (cf. Sy). Tgg have ‫מתגלי‬, using a frequent paraphrase which is especially appropriate here where Heb. speaks of Yahweh ‘coming forth’ (so also Tg at Mic. 1.3). The same expression occurs in 12.12 (cf. Chester, Divine Revelation, pp. 145-46, 148-49; AramB 7, p. 29 n. 3 [comparing Gen. 11.5, 7]). TgN also has ‫ ממרי‬for ‫אני‬, producing a combination which is most common in TgNmg, but appears in TgF,G at 19.11 and in TgJ at Gen. 11.8 in additional material (see Chester, pp. 103-104). ‫( מצרים‬11.4) SP prefixes ‫( ארץ‬from v. 3 or v. 5?), clarifying the geographical interpretation of ‫מצרים‬, which most of the Vss follow (but TgJ’s ‫מצראי‬ takes it to mean the people). Both 4QpalExl and 2QExa preserve the word ‫ מצרים‬but not what precedes it. ‫( ומת‬11.5) TgN has ‘will be killed’, perhaps a deliberate echo of the wording of 4.23, but also anticipating the personal intervention of Yahweh in 12.12, 29. Sy puts the whole clause into the pl., presumably only a stylistic change. ‫( בארץ מצרים‬11.5) Vulg Aegyptiorum takes ‫ מצרים‬to refer to the people (cf. TgJ at the end of v. 4). The Leiden ed. of Sy (following most early mss) prints dʾrʿʾ dmṣryn, ‘of the land of Egypt’, a free rendering which 7a1 like the other mss has in 12.12, 29, whereas here it corresponds closely to MT (possibly through ‘interference’ from Sy’s rendering of the next verse rather than consultation of the Heb.). ‫( הישׁב‬11.5) Most of the Vss take the natural view that the participle refers to Pharaoh himself, but the Tgg linked it to ‫ בכור‬instead and understood it in a future sense: ‘who is [TgN: was] destined to sit on the throne of his kingdom’ (so recently Houtman). For further references see AramB 7, p. 29 nn. 4-5.15 ‫( כסאו‬11.5) LXX does not represent the suffix, as τοῦ θρόνου can imply ‘his throne’. ‫( עד‬11.5) MT is supported by 4QpalExl, Tgg and Vulg. SP has the idiomatic ‫ועד‬, which could be behind Sy’s wʿdmʾ. The LXX mss are divided between ἕως (= MT) and καὶ ἕως (= SP), but Wevers argues cogently that the former conforms to the style of the translator in contexts such as this (Notes, p. 164; THGE, pp. 164-65) and is the original Greek reading. The reading with καί is scarcely natural Greek and could perhaps be attributed to later scribes’ familiarity with ‘Hebraising’ translations (or to influence from a similar phrase at the end of the verse). 2QExa preserves ‫[ועד‬, but according to DJD III, p. 51, it is not clear whether the waw is the conjunction or the suffix of ‫כסאו‬. MT’s shorter reading is probably preferable. ‫( השׁפחה‬11.5) TgJ heightens the contrast with Pharaoh’s firstborn by adding that she was ‘the least in Egypt’. 15   TgNmg has in place of ‘to sit on the throne’ a variant which seems to mean ‘to hate (‫ )למתעב‬all the thrones’. But see the editio princeps, p. 66 n. 2.



11.1-10

23

‫( אשׁר אחר הרחים‬11.5) ‫ אחר‬apparently troubled LXX and Vulg, who render ‘beside’, and TgO, with ‘who is in the mill-house’. TgN clarifies by adding ‘is grinding’, while TgJ goes even further with ‘who was born to her while she was grinding’. Both here and earlier in the verse the Tgg make the short statement much more interesting to the hearer or reader. ‫( וכל בכור בהמה‬11.5) SP recasts this phrase in line with the previous one, making a more elegant sentence: ‫( ועד בכור כל בהמה‬cf. also 13.15). The Vorlage of LXX was evidently identical to this, a point which Wevers (Notes, p. 164) overlooks. The more abrupt wording of MT, which the other Vss reflect, is probably original. ‫( והיתה‬11.6) TgN has ‫והווה‬, which if correct would imply a past sense (‘and there was’) in Aram. As later in the verse (see on ‫ )לא תסף‬it is most likely that the scribe has been influenced by a similar passage that was more familiar, in this case 12.30. ‫( בכל־ארץ מצרים‬11.6) MT’s reading is supported by the fragmentary remains of 2QExa ([‫ )בכל‬and 4QpalExl ([‫)ב ׄכ[ל] ׄא ׄר ׄץ‬, ׄ LXX, Vulg and Tgg. SP has ‫במצרים‬, which is clearly due to assimilation to the later narrative in 12.30 (LXX made the opposite change). Sy’s bʾrʿʾ dmṣryn (i.e without ‫כל‬: the same rendering appears at 12.30) may in some way be related to the shorter phrase in v. 5. ‫( כמהו‬11.6) SP has the expected fem. form for both occurrences, and most of the Vss naturally make the gender consistent throughout the verse (TgJ’s ‫ כותיה‬is an exceptional retention of MT’s masc.). There is no surviving evidence from Qumran. Odd as it is, MT can be retained (see Note n on the translation). Some of the Vss expand their renderings for additional clarity, Vulg by adding ante in the first subordinate clause and TgJ by making ‘a night’ and ‘a plague’ (‫ )מחתא‬the subject in the two clauses. ‫( לא תסף‬11.6) LXX’s οὐκέτι προστεθήσεται, ‘shall no more be added’, supplements its usual rendering of ‫ יסף‬by προστίθημι with the alternative equivalent used in 10.29. The woodenness of the rendering is partly due to the unusual ellipse of the following inf. cons. (here ‫ )להיות‬in the underlying Heb. Vulg (postea fuerit) and Sy (simply thwh, ‘shall be, happen’) found more idiomatic equivalents. ‫( ולכל בני ישׂראל‬11.7) The choice of ἐν (LXX), apud (Vulg) and mn d (Sy) to represent MT’s ‫ ל‬tends to suggest that dogs belonging to the Israelites are meant (cf. Jub. 49.4), although this is clearly not what the text has in view. ‫( יחרץ‬11.7) The meaning ‘bark’ or ‘growl’ is given by LXX (γρύξει: some mss read βρύξει, ‘bite, gnash’) and TgN: Vulg’s muttiet, ‘shall mutter’, perhaps softens the meaning for greater effect. That this is a contextual interpretation is shown by the other Vss, which start from the sense ‘hurt’ (TgO,J, Sy),16 16   Sy nhr is from hr, for which Payne Smith (p. 106) gives ‘bark’ as a possible meaning. But it is clear, especially from the derivatives, that the real meaning of the verb is ‘fight, strive, hurt’.

24

EXODUS 1–18

which is a natural extension of the common sense ‘cut’ for ‫ ;חרץ‬TgO,J then add ‘by barking’ as their understanding (because of ‫לשׁנו‬, which they like LXX, TgN and Sy regard as instrumental) of what this means in the context. SP supports the reading of MT (for which Josh. 10.21 provides a good parallel – see Note q on the translation): the old ms. Camb. 1846 does seem to read ‫ירחץ‬, but this will be a simple case of metathesis towards a more familiar verb. For rabbinic discussion of the expression see the refs. in AramB 2, p. 45 n. 5. ‫( תדעון‬11.7) MT is supported by 4QpalExl, the only Qumran ms. to preserve this word, Vulg, Tgg and Sy. But SP reads the sing. ‫תדע‬, presumably with Pharaoh rather than all the Egyptians in mind, and LXX’s εἰδῇς agrees with it. Both readings make sense, but the pl. is the more difficult reading in the present context, where v. 8 indicates that Moses’ words are addressed to Pharaoh, and also represents a departure from earlier indications of Yahweh’s purpose in the plague narrative, where the focus is on Pharaoh alone (cf. 7.17; 8.6, 18; 9.14, 29; 10.7): the reading of SP and LXX could well have been harmonised with these passages, whereas a change in the opposite direction is more difficult to explain. The pl. is not impossible in words addressed to Pharaoh, since it is equivalent to ‘you and your people’. ‫( אשׁר‬11.7) LXX ὅσα may have its distinctive sense here (‘the great things which’: cf. Vulg quanto miraculo): the choice of a relative pronoun (rather than a word for ‘that’ such as ὅτι) is probably a consequence of LXX’s understanding of the following word (see the next note). ‫( יפלה‬11.7) LXX again, as in 8.18 and 9.4, read this as a form of ‫פלא‬, ‘be wonderful’, in Hiph. ‘do wonders’, and SP (as in 9.4) spells the word with a final aleph (see Text and Versions on 8.18 and 9.4). But Sam.Tg. ‫( יפרשׁ‬cf. 8.18; 9.4) shows that SP did not intend a sense different from MT and simply displays its characteristic fluidity in the use of the gutturals. Tgg and Sy follow the sense of MT here, while Vulg combines both alternatives with quanto miraculo dividat, which is probably a partial correction of the OL in the light of a text like MT and/or Jerome’s knowledge of contemporary Jewish interpretation. ‫( בין מצרים ובין ישׂראל‬11.7) Sy byt mṣryʾ ldbyt ʾysrʾyl, where the first byt is the common abbreviated spelling of bynt, ‘between’, the l corresponds to the second ‫( בין‬in an idiom which is also found in later BH), and dbyt means ‘those of the house of (Israel)’, a small departure from the unusual use of ‫ ישׂראל‬alone in the other witnesses (cf. Sy’s substitution of byt for ‫ בני‬at the beginning of the verse, and the list in Propp’s note on 3.11 [p. 185]). ‫( והשׁתחוו‬11.8) SP has ‫וישׁתחוו‬, presumably to be read as simple waw with the imperfect to give the same meaning as MT, an isolated lapse into the later syntax. No Qumran ms. survives at this point, and the future forms in the Vss are inconclusive. The regular usage of Exodus makes MT’s waw consecutive and the perfect more likely to be original: simple waw with the imperfect and related PC forms elsewhere indicates either purpose (e.g.



11.1-10

25

2.7) or a modal sense (e.g. 3.3).17 The meaning of the verb is represented as expected (‘bow down, worship’) in LXX (though the accusative με following προσκυνήσουσί reflects classical Gk. idiom rather than normal Septuagintal usage), Vulg and Sy, but the Tgg found this inappropriate to a human figure and rendered either ‘ask (a favour)’ (TgO,J) or ‘salute, greet’ (TgN). ‫( לאמר‬11.8) Sy wnʾmrwn ly, using a finite verb for the Heb. inf. (cf. 13.19) and repeating ‘to me’, both examples of its sometimes ‘free but faithful’ translation technique. ‫( העם‬11.8) LXX (‘your people’) and Sy (‘this people’) secondarily anticipate the specification which is to follow. ‫( אשׁר ברגליך‬11.8) LXX οὗ σὺ ἀφηγῇ, ‘whom you lead’ (the rel. pron. is in the gen. as the obj. usually is with ἡγέομαι and compounds: contra Wevers, Notes, p. 166; Lemmelijn, p. 93 n. 361), Vulg qui subiectus est tibi and TgNmg ‫דאית בידך‬, correctly recognise the sense of the Heb.; TgO,J,N and Sy have ‘which is with you’, which is too imprecise. ‫( ואחרי־כן‬11.8) Sy hydyn, ‘then’, loses a little of the sharpness of Heb. ‫( אצא‬11.8) Vulg egrediemur gives the pl. which the situation implies, but Heb. is more specific. ‫( ויצא‬11.8) LXX and Sy supply the subj. ‘Moses’ again, clearly secondarily (cf. Lemmelijn, pp. 182-83). ‫( בחרי־אף‬11.8) LXX μετὰ θυμοῦ, ‘angrily’, is rather weak, and the other Vss (and some mss of LXX which add μεγάλου) come closer to the Heb. with ‫( בתקוף רגז‬Tgg), iratus nimis (Vulg) and bḥmtʾ rbtʾ (Sy). 4QpalExl had a major break after v. 8, and 4QpalExm an interval within a line. In 4QExc v. 9 seems to have begun a new column and DJD XII, p. 111, reconstructs an interval at the bottom of the previous column. ‫( יהוה‬11.9) TgNmg prefixes ‘the Memra of’. ‫( ישׁמע‬11.9) LXX and Vulg use future verbs; cf. the imperfects of Tgg and Sy. ‫( רבות‬11.9) Vulg and TgN follow MT, but the other Vss render as if the verb were Hiphil like that in 7.3, with LXX πληθύνω and and Sy dʾsgʾ making Yahweh the explicit subject as there, while the inf. Aphel of TgO,J leaves the subject undefined (and could imply that it is Pharaoh who brings the consequences on himself). ‫( מופתי‬11.9) TgNmg added ‘these’ as in v. 10. Several of the Vss rendered as if ‫ אתתי‬were present, either additionally (LXX, TgN) or instead of ‫מופתי‬ (Vulg: cf. 7.9). The influence of the earlier narrative, esp. 7.3 but also 8.19 and 10.1, is no doubt responsible (cf. Lemmelijn, p. 195).

17   The only exceptions would seem to be 15.2 and 15.17 in the Song of Moses, 19.3 in a semi-poetic parallel clause, 23.8 similarly, and 24.7 in a clause synonymous to the previous one.

26

EXODUS 1–18

‫( המפתים‬11.10) LXX prefixes τὰ σημεῖα καί, as in v. 9, and TgN has ‫נסייה‬, using its usual equivalent for ‫ אות‬here for ‫מופת‬. See the previous note. Vulg, however, reverts (for variety?) to its more precise rendering ostenta (a Ciceronian word: cf. 4.21; 7.3). ‫( האלה‬11.10) Vulg quae scripta sunt makes the retrospective reference of ‘these’ explicit. LXX again expands its translation, adding ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπτῳ from v. 9. ‫( יהוה‬11.10) TgNmg prefixes ‘the Memra of’. ‫( לב‬11.10) TgJ, as usual in this expression, prefixes ‫יצרא‬: see Text and Versions on 4.21 and 7.3. ‫( ולא שׁלח‬11.10) LXX καὶ οὐκ ἠθέλησεν ἐξαποστεῖλαι psychologises Pharaoh’s lack of response as in 8.28, with some support from statements in 4.23; 7.14, 27; 9.2; 10.3-4. ‫( מארצו‬11.10) LXX ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου names Egypt again (for an earlier case see 7.11). After v. 10 4QpalExl has a clear vacat beneath, and DJD XII, p. 113, conjectures the same for 4QExc. But in 4QpalExm there is no room for any division before ch. 12 (DJD IX, p. 85).

C h ap t er 1 2 . 1 - 2 0 I nstr u cti o n s fr om Y ah weh a b ou t t he P assover an d U n l eaven e d B r e a d

The boundaries of this section are clearly defined by the introductory speech-formulae in vv. 1 and 21 and are already represented by an empty line before v. 1 in 4QpalExl and a likely reconstructed division before v. 21 in 4QpalExm (where 4QpalExl does not survive), as also by section-divisions in the medieval mss (both Maimonides and BM Or. 4445 actually have a setumah before 12.1 where Codex L has a petuchah). But 4QpalExm evidently did not have a division before 12.1, as there is no room for one, while it may have had one before 12.17b (see Text and Versions). The initial speech-formula presents the section as a divine speech to Moses and Aaron, which makes it likely that there is an original connection with v. 28 (‘as Yahweh had commanded Moses and Aaron’): see also the introduction to 12.21-28. Within the section the divine first-person pronoun is found only in vv. 12-13 and 17; in vv. 11 and 14 Yahweh is referred to in the third person, but in a special formula (‘for Yahweh’) which is frequent elsewhere in divine speeches (e.g. 28.36; 29.18, 28; 30.12-13, 37; 31.15). It has been noted that the instructions for Israel are formulated alternately in the third person plural (‘they’ etc.: vv. 3b-4a, 6b-8) and in the second person plural (‘you’ etc.: vv. 2, 4b-6a, 9-14, 15-20), which might have implications for the earlier history of the passage (e.g. von Rad, Priesterschrift, pp. 47-49; Rendtorff, Gesetze, pp. 5657; Laaf, Pascha-Feier, pp. 11-16; Kohata, Jahwist, pp. 262-66: see further below). The major sub-division within the section is between the instructions about Passover and those about the eating of unleavened bread.1 There is disagreement over whether the break   This is fundamental to the recent examination of Exod. 12 by Gesundheit/ Bar-On (Three Times, pp. 44-95), who also holds that v. 22 was the original continuation of v. 11 rather than belonging to a different source: on this see the introduction to 12.21-27. 1

28

EXODUS 1–18

between these sections follows v. 13 or v. 14: see the Explanatory Note on v. 14, where it is concluded that the break comes after v. 14. If so, both Passover instructions and the first part of those about unleavened bread end with the same formula, ‘as an everlasting statute’ (vv. 14, 17). There is indeed a good deal of repetition, and some significant variation, between vv. 15-17 and vv. 18-20 (see the Explanatory Notes), which suggests that these sections have separate origins. In more detail the passage may be divided as follows: (i) introductory speech-formula (v. 1); (ii) inauguration of calendar beginning with the month of Passover (v. 2); (iii) commissioning formula and instructions about the selection of the animal for Passover (vv. 35); (iv) the guarding and slaughter of the animal (v. 6); (v) the blood-ritual (v. 7); (vi) the cooking and eating of the animal and the disposal of any remains (vv. 8-11); (vii) the announcement of Yahweh’s imminent judgement on the Egyptians and their gods and the sparing of the Israelite firstborn because of the blood smeared on their doorways (vv. 12-13); (viii) the establishment of this festival as a permanent observance (v. 14); (ix) rules about the removal of leaven and the eating of unleavened bread for seven days as a permanent observance (vv. 15-17); (x) further rules about the observance regarding unleavened bread (vv. 18-20). It is noteworthy that the Israelites are referred to here for the first time by some terms that will be frequently used later in Exodus and in the rest of the Pentateuch: ‘assembly’ (Heb. qāhāl) and ‘congregation’ (Heb. ʿēdāh). These expressions do not entirely displace the representation of the Israelites as a ‘people’ or as ‘the children of Israel’ (i.e. Jacob), and ‘congregation’ is frequently (though interestingly not in this passage) combined with the latter expression. But in slightly different ways (see the Explanatory Notes on vv. 3 and 6) they emphasise the identity of the people as an organised unity, a feature which has already appeared in references to their ‘tribal divisions’ (Heb. ṣebāʾôt) earlier in the narrative (6.26; 7.4: so also here in v. 17). As will appear below, the occurrence of these designations for the people is characteristic of the later portions of the Pentateuchal narrative and laws.



12.1-20

29

From Knobel onwards the whole of this section has been almost without exception attributed to the Priestly material of Exodus (cf. Exod.-Lev., p. 91; Wellhausen, Composition, pp. 72-73).2 The observation that the Priestly text in Exodus 12 was not a coherent unity may have led to Dillmann’s view that vv. 14-20 originally stood after v. 49 (pp. 98-100): soon afterwards Jülicher (‘Exodus VII,8 – XXIV,11’, pp. 107-109) introduced a proposal that has been much more influential, that the legislation about Unleavened Bread in vv. 15-20 was a later addition to P (so also Carpenter/Harford-Battersby, Holzinger, Baentsch, Smend [p. 137], Rudolph [possibly: p. 24], BeerGalling, R. Schmitt [p. 20], W.H. Schmidt [p. 508 (with v. 14 possibly also secondary: 498-99)], Kohata [p. 266: cf. n. 29], Ahuis [pp. 106-107, 120: ascribed to DtrT], L. Schmidt [Priesterschrift, pp. 29-31], Graupner [p. 67], Gertz [pp. 31-32]). But it has not been universally accepted (cf. Gressmann, McNeile, Eissfeldt, Noth, Fohrer, Hyatt, Childs, Houtman, Van Seters, Propp, Dozeman: the views of Blum, Blenkinsopp and K. Schmid are unclear). Further secondary additions were identified by Holzinger (vv. 2, 4) and Baentsch (vv. 2, 14): Baentsch seems also to have been the first (and the last for a long time!) to suggest that within the Unleavened Bread law vv. 18-20 were later than the rest. The analysis of vv. 1-14 was taken further by von Rad, who drew attention to the variation between second- and third-person references to the Israelites and attributed it to the interweaving of two originally separate versions of the Passover law, within the wider context of two parallel Priestly narratives (Die Priesterschrift [1934], pp. 47-49). This explanation was accepted by Beer-Galling (pp. 60, 63: so also later for chs. 25–31 + 35–40 [pp. 129, 165]), but it was generally viewed with some scepticism (Fohrer, p. 88 n. 17; cf. p. 49 n. 67), until it re-emerged in a modified form with Rendtorff (see below). The view that v. 2 was intrusive was more widely adopted (Noth, Fohrer, R. Schmitt, Kohata, L. Schmidt, Gertz). In addition Fohrer saw the Begründung in vv. 12-13 as a later insertion, but without giving any reason (pp. 87-88). In 1954 Rendtorff had offered a different explanation of von Rad’s form-critical observations, preferring to see the grammatical variation as due to the reworking of an older third-person ‘ritual’ by the Priestly writer, who used the second person (Gesetze, pp. 56-57). Kohata followed him closely (pp. 262-66), and Gertz (pp. 32-35) and W.H. Schmidt (pp. 493-95) have taken the same view. Others have seen either the third-person verses (Ahuis, pp. 36-39: DtrT) or the second-person verses (L. Schmidt, p. 29; Grünwaldt, Exil, pp. 84-88: PS; Laaf, Pascha-Feier, pp. 11-16, unconvincingly divides them between PG [vv. 1, 3aα, 12-13] and PS [the remainder]) as secondary. A more extreme view, originating with Eerdmans, is taken by Levin (p. 336) and Knohl (pp. 19-23, 52), who see all of vv. 1-14 as postPriestly (so also J.-L. Ska in ‘Les plaies d’Égypte dans le récit sacerdotal’, 2   Wellhausen mentioned the view of Kayser that vv. 11-13 were from JE, but gave good reasons for rejecting it; on Ahuis and Gertz see below.

30

EXODUS 1–18

Bib 60 [1979], pp. 23-35 [30-34]). Kohata also, following Rendtorff and Laaf, revived Baentsch’s view that vv. 18-20 were a secondary supplement to vv. 15-17 (p. 266 n. 29; cf. W.H. Schmidt, p. 508), and Knohl in similar vein attributes them to a late stage of his ‘Holiness School’ (Sanctuary, pp. 19-21; cf. Gesundheit’s description of them as an ‘appendix’ [Three Times, p. 93]). Gertz observes the duplication too, but in his view it is vv. 15-17 which are the later addition, with v. 14, partly because they (and not vv. 18-20) betray the influence of the Holiness Code (pp. 36-37: similarly Otto, ‘Innerbiblische Exegese’, pp. 155-57 [PS and PentR], and Grünwaldt, Exil, pp. 90-96 [with detailed vocabulary comparisons]). The idea that v. 14 is (like v. 17b) a late element in the passage is shared, with some hesitation, by Propp, but he attributes the rest of vv. 1-20 to P (pp. 374, 380, 406-407).

There is good reason to attribute the whole passage to the Priestly section of the Pentateuch in a broad sense. The inclusion of Aaron with Moses as the recipient of legislation (v. 1), the use of precise date-formulae (vv. 3, 6, 18), the designations for the people (especially ‘congregation’ and ‘tribal divisions’: see above), and other specific expressions such as ‘between the two evenings’ (v. 6), ‘acts of judgement’ (v. 12), ‘throughout your generations’, ‘as an everlasting statute’ (both in vv. 14 and 17), ‘cut off from Israel’ (vv. 15, 19), ‘holy occasion’ (v. 16), ‘on this very day’ (v. 17) and ‘both aliens and natives of the land’ (v. 19) all point this way (for references see the Explanatory Notes). But, as the review of earlier scholarship has shown, there is long-established and growing support for the view that the passage reached its present form by a process of amplification of its original core. Of particular importance is the question whether from the beginning P included regulations about a seven-day ‘festival’ of Unleavened Bread, but linked with this is the discussion about whether a distinction should be made between vv. 15-17 and vv. 18-20 and if so which section is the earlier. We shall consider these issues first and other possible additions to the original core afterwards. Consideration of vv. 15-20 may benefit from the fact that there are other Priestly passages (in the broad sense) where Passover and Unleavened Bread are treated.3 Somewhere in the background of these passages is the ‘cultic calendar’ of Ezek. 45.18-25, in which there is an overwhelming concentration on the holy days of the first 3   There are non-Priestly passages too, but these can more appropriately be considered in relation to vv. 21-27.



12.1-20

31

month: only v. 25 deals, very briefly, with the ‘feast’ (Heb. ḥag) in the seventh month. The first and seventh days of the first month are days of purification and atonement for the temple (vv. 18, 20), then on the fourteenth day is the Passover, apparently also described as a ‘feast’ and combined with seven days of eating unleavened bread and daily sacrificial offerings. Nothing is said about any connection with the Exodus or the other distinctive features of the ritual. In the Priestly sections of the Pentateuch themselves the Passover is treated again in Numbers 9, one year on from its inauguration. After the regular celebration in the first month (vv. 1-5) provision is made for those who could not keep the Passover at the regular time (through uncleanness or, with the longer term in view, absence from home on a journey): they are permitted to celebrate the Passover in the second month (vv. 6-14). The details of the celebration correspond closely to the prescriptions of Exodus 12, including the additional laws in vv. 43-49 (cf. Num. 9.12). But there is no mention of a subsequent seven-day period of eating unleavened bread, only of its inclusion in the Passover meal itself (v. 11: cf. Exod. 12.8). This points to a stage in the Priestly legislation about Passover when it was limited to a single day (or rather night), just like the other festival which receives special treatment in the Priestly texts, the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). This strongly suggests that, quite apart from other arguments that have been put forward (e.g. about the contradiction between a prolonged festival and the need for a rapid departure), originally the laws about Unleavened Bread as a sevenday celebration did not appear in Exodus 12, and in fact that they were not added until after the supplementary legislation in vv. 43-49 and the still later composition of Num. 9.1-14. On the other hand, the festival calendar in Leviticus 23, the fullest and latest of the cultic calendars in the Pentateuch, does envisage that Passover will be followed by a seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread, beginning on the fifteenth day of the first month, with a ‘holy occasion’ on the first and final day (vv. 5-8). The same combination is reflected in the equally comprehensive sacrificial list in Numbers 28–29, which clearly follows throughout the pattern of Leviticus 23 (for Passover and Unleavened Bread see Num. 28.16-25). Leviticus 23 is a central part of the Holiness Code, which is now generally agreed to be later than the original Priestly Writing, which it modifies in important respects (see e.g. Nihan, ‘The Priestly Covenant’; and more fully his From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch). Exodus 12.15-20 need not all

32

EXODUS 1–18

be as late as the Holiness Code, but the mention of ‘holy occasions’ in v. 16 is probably best explained if vv. 15-17 were inserted under the influence of H. Verses 18-20 seem to be of separate origin (see the Explanatory Note on vv. 15-17) and could well be a somewhat earlier addition. Their only new requirement is the inclusion of resident aliens, which is already present in Exod. 12.43-49 and Num. 9.14, and v. 20 still envisages that Unleavened Bread will be observed ‘in all your dwelling-places’ and not as a centralised feast. The date for the beginning of Unleavened Bread in v. 18 also makes it coincide with Passover itself, rather than being a day later as in Lev. 23.5-6. It may even be possible to date this addition quite precisely, since it corresponds closely to the main instructions in the ‘Passover Papyrus’ from Elephantine (Cowley 21; TAD 1, A4.1), which is dated to the fifth year of Darius (II), 419 B.C. This conclusion, that vv. 15-17 are a later addition to the passage than vv. 18-20, has the support of Otto and Gertz (see above), but it does seem at first sight to go against the similar concluding formulae in vv. 14 and 17, which suggest that vv. 1-17 were composed, or at least edited, as a unit. However, it is possible to see this structuring of the passage as a deliberate intervention of the redactor who inserted vv. 15-17, to underline the eternal validity both of the main Passover law and of his version of the supplementary ruling about Unleavened Bread. Knohl may go too far in claiming that the ‘everlasting statute’ formula is always a mark of the ‘Holiness School’ (Sanctuary, pp. 46-55), but it was clearly popular in such contexts (Lev. 17.7; 23.14, 21, 31, 41; 24.3) and its use here fits well with other indications of affinity to the Holiness Code in vv. 15-17. Provisionally then we may see vv. 18-20 as an initial expansion of vv. 1-14a to include the traditional seven-day observance of Unleavened Bread and vv. 14b-17 as a later addition designed to bring this aspect of the ongoing celebration by later generations into closer conformity to the pattern in the Holiness Code. Returning now to the Passover instructions themselves in vv. 1-14(a), we may reasonably infer from the variation between second and third person forms first noted by von Rad that the Priestly authors built upon an existing ritual prescription, to which they added more detailed prescriptions which were partly an assimilation to traditional sacrificial practice (vv. 5a, 6a) and partly also a reaction against new developments in the Deuteronomic law about



12.1-20

33

Passover (vv. 4b, 5b, 9a: cf. Deut. 16.1-8).4 The original omission of a separate festival of Unleavened Bread would have been a departure not only from Deuteronomy but from older commemorations of the Exodus (cf. 23.15; 34.18). At the same time the features on which P agrees here with Deuteronomy 16 provide further evidence of its grounding in older tradition. There remains the problem of the calendrical ruling in v. 2, which a growing number of scholars have regarded as a secondary element in the passage (see above). The structure of vv. 1-3 is certainly somewhat unusual: an introduction to a divine speech (as in v. 1) is usually followed directly by an instruction to ‘speak’ to the people (as here in v. 3), and as the text stands the repeated ‘for you’ seems to refer only to Moses and Aaron, the addressees specified in v. 1, when the ruling is clearly intended for the people as a whole. Moreover, both Holzinger and Baentsch found a ruling about the calendar quite inappropriate to the narrative (‘historical’) context, where a means of protection for Israel is needed (and subsequently provided). But these objections are not as compelling as they seem. Whatever the standard pattern for introducing instructions to be passed on to the community, the Priestly writers were able to vary it if a matter of sufficient importance demanded this, and it is not at all difficult to believe that they regarded the establishment of the calendar, according to which worship was to be regulated, as highly important. In fact, earlier in Exodus there is a similar delay between the speech-introduction and the instruction to Moses to speak to the people in 6.2-6, where Yahweh tells Moses the basis for what he is going to do before commissioning him to tell the people of the coming deliverance. The claim that in the context ‘for you’ can mean only ‘for Moses and Aaron’ rests on a pedantic reading of the text which overlooks the representative function which Moses and Aaron have: ‘for you’ can perfectly well mean ‘for you two and all the rest of the Israelites’, and no reader would suppose otherwise (cf. Schmidt, p. 475).5 The fact that a means of protection and 4   The view that all of vv. 1-14 are later than P (Eerdmans, Levin, Knohl) can hardly be correct, as it leaves no connection between the impasse in 9.12 and the Israelites’ departure in 12.40 (cf. L. Schmidt, pp. 29-30). Even suggestions that one of the strands is post-Priestly (Ahuis, L. Schmidt) run into difficulty. 5   A similar, at first surprising, second person pl. pronoun occurs in Zech. 1.2, with the expected instruction to speak to the people only in v. 3. In v. 2 ‘your (pl.)’ can also easily mean ‘your (sing.) and their (sc. the people’s)’.

34

EXODUS 1–18

deliverance for the Israelites is going to be provided need by no means make the association of this with the fixing of the calendar inappropriate: the combination of the two is probably precisely the writers’ point. Moreover, as both Kohata and Gertz have observed, eliminating v. 2 from the core of the Priestly text has to lead to the removal as well of all the references to the calendar later in the passage and this leaves a very ‘un-Priestly’ series of instructions, surprisingly so in a context which is concerned with a major religious festival. Verse 2 is therefore very probably an original part of the Priestly text: on its significance see further my essay ‘The Passover as the New Year Festival in P’. The original Priestly instructions to the Israelites were, then, limited to the Passover ritual itself (vv. 1-14a) and it is initially a ritual carried out in anxious haste (v. 11) and expectation of what is to come: its purpose is grounded in the means of escape which it provides from Yahweh’s imminent intervention in judgement against the Egyptians because of their ruler’s immoveable recalcitrance in the face of Yahweh’s demands (vv. 12-13: cf. 11.9-10). But in an almost unique enlargement of the whole conflict between Yahweh and Egypt, which is recalled elsewhere only in the summary of the Israelites’ journey to Canaan in Num. 33.4, Yahweh’s judgement falls also on the Egyptian gods. Whatever form this is imagined to have taken (see the Explanatory Note on vv. 12-13), it recognises that in the ancient Near East the power of kings was undergirded by their patron gods. Only with the defeat or displacement of the latter could a nation’s overthrow be complete. If the Priestly narrative was indeed composed in Babylon and was designed as a retelling of Israel’s origin traditions for those in exile (see especially 2.23-25 and the commentary on that section), this detail will have served a similar purpose to Deutero-Isaiah’s more explicit polemic against the Babylonian gods (Isa. 41.21-29 etc.). The conclusion to the instructions about Passover in v. 14(a) makes it clear that this ritual was meant to be observed as a ‘memorial’ or reminder by the Priestly writers’ contemporaries and here, as rarely elsewhere in the Old Testament (34.25; Ezek. 45.21), it is given the honorific title of a ‘festival’ (Heb. ḥag). As the only annual festival apart from the Day of Atonement to be prescribed in the original Priestly work, it gives particular prominence in worship to its theme of Yahweh’s past deliverance of his people, which is no doubt seen here as it is elsewhere (e.g. Isa. 43.16-17)



12.1-20

35

as an assurance that he can do the same again. The Exodus tradition is thus as important a focus of the people’s worship as the need for atonement for uncleanness and sin, and the Priestly writers do not hesitate to make it the basis for the liturgical calendar which governs the timing of all the people’s worship. For the exiles this is also a festival which they can celebrate even before their return to the homeland and the rebuilding of the destroyed temple, for it is to be held in their ‘houses’. The very detail of the ritual prescriptions implies that they are not simply part of a narrative of the past but a pattern for the present and the future. The care taken to correct Deuteronomic innovations in vv. 5 and 9 is further evidence of this. In their turn later writers restored the Deuteronomic (and perhaps older) combination of Passover with the seven-day festival of Unleavened Bread as a commemoration of the Exodus (vv. 18-20; vv. 14b-17). Both parts of the celebration now received added weight from their description as ‘everlasting statutes’ (vv. 14b, 17): such permanence is a trademark of the Priestly mind-set, whether in regard to divine covenants (Gen. 9.16; 17.7, 17), the possession of the land (Gen. 17.8) or legal enactments as here. Yahweh’s relationship with his people is secure and essentially unchanging: only individuals who fail to abide by the rules are excluded (vv. 15, 19; cf. Gen. 17.14). The same sense of security, rooted in the memory of Yahweh’s ‘passing by’ his people at the time of the Exodus, was also cherished in the older account of the Passover (vv. 23, 27). The prophet Amos must have shocked his hearers with his ‘never again’ (Amos 7.8; 8.2), which the Old Testament preserves side-by-side with the continuing tradition of Passover (Schmidt, p. 526). 1 Yahweh said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying: 2 ‘This month is a beginning of months for you, it is the first of a the months of the year for you. 3 Speak to the whole congregationb of Israel, saying: “On the tenthc of this month letd each of them take an animal from the flocke for (their) familiesf, an animal for each household. 4 If the household is too small to require a (whole) animalg, then a manh and his neighbour who is closest to his house shall take one by a reckoningi of the persons: you shall reckon the division of the animal according to each person’s share of the foodj. 5 You shall have an unblemished male animal a year old: you may take it from the lambs or from

36

EXODUS 1–18 the goats. 6 You shall have it with you under observation until the fourteenth dayk of this month, and then all the assemblyl of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it between the two eveningsm. 7 They shall take some of n the blood and put it on the two doorposts and the lintelo, on the houses in which they will eat it (i.e. the animal). 8 They shall eat the meat on this night, roasted by firep, with unleavened breadq, onr bitter herbs they shall eat it. 9 You shall not eat any of its raw or boiled, that is boiled in watert, but only roasted by fire with its head as well asr its legs and its innards. 10 You shall not let any of its remain over until morningu; what does remain over until morningu you shall burn in the fire. 11 Thisv is how you shall eat it – wwith your waist girded, your sandals on your feet and your stick in your handw – and you shall eat it in (fearful?) hastex: ity is a passover for Yahweh. 12 I shall pass through the land of Egypt on this night and I shall strike down every firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beastz, and upon all the gods of Egypt I shall perform acts of judgementaa: I am Yahweh. 13 The blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you are, and when I seebb the blood I will pass over youcc and among you there will be no plaguedd for destructionee when I strike in the land of Egypt. 14 This day shall be a memorialff for you, and you shall celebrate itgg as a festival for Yahweh: [throughout your generations – as an everlasting statutehh you shall celebrate itgg. 15 For seven daysii you shall eat unleavened bread: be sure thatjj on the first day you removekk leavenll from your houses, for whoever eats anything leavened, that person shall be cut off mm from Israel, nnfrom the first day until the seventh daynn. 16 On the first day (you shall have) a holy occasionoo and on the seventh day you shall have a holy occasion – on those days no work shall be donepp. Onlyjj what is to be eaten byqq any one of you, that alone may be prepared byqq you. 17 You shall keep the Unleavened Bread (Feast)rr, for on this very dayss I brought out your tribal divisionstt from the land of Egypt. So you shall observe this day throughout your generations as an everlasting statute.] 18 [In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the monthk in the evening, you shall eat unleavened bread until the twenty-first daynn of the month in the evening. 19 For seven days no leaven shall be found in your houses, for whoever eats anything leaveneduu, that person shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, both aliens and natives of the land. 20 Anything that is leaveneduu you shall not eat; in all your dwelling-places you shall eat unleavened bread.” ’]



12.1-20

37

Notes on the Translation a. Heb. ‫ל‬, used as often (cf. BDB, p. 513, s.v. 5c) as an alternative way of expressing the genitive relation: again, also in dates, in vv. 3 and 6. b. Heb. ‫עדת‬. ‫( ֵע ָדה‬cf. vv. 6, 19, 47; 16.1. etc.) is the most common term for the Israelite community in Priestly texts, with over 100 occurrences, and appears here for the first time in Exodus. It is derived from the root ‫( יעד‬like another important Priestly term, ‫[א ֶֹהל] מו ֵֹעד‬, on which see the notes on 13.10 and 27.21), apparently in the sense of those who gather or meet together, and it is even used of a swarm of bees (Judg. 14.8). In non-Priestly texts it is used of the council of the gods (Ps. 82.1, with a parallel usage in Ugaritic) and of groups of men, both righteous and wicked (e.g. Pss. 1.5; 22.17: so also in P of the supporters of Korah in Num. 16.5 etc.). This suggests that, unlike e.g. ‫עם‬ and ‫גוי‬, it lacks an ethnic or political aspect and is particularly appropriate to a community defined by its religious allegiance. (See further in the Explanatory Note.) c. Heb. ‫ה ָעשׂר‬,ֶ employing a different word from the usual words for ‘ten’ and ‘tenth’, one which is almost always (not in Num. 7.66) used for the tenth day, whereas ‫ עשׂירי‬is used for the tenth month and year (so also in Heb. inscriptions: see AHI 1, p. 467; 2, p. 208). ‫ ָעשׂר‬is also a set of ten things (Gen. 24.55; Pss. 33.2; 92.4; 144.9). Its use in dates is mainly Priestly but not exclusively so: cf. 2 Kgs 25.1; Jer. 52.4, 12. On the (common) omission of ‫ יום‬in dates see GK §134n, p: the same happens in epigraphic Heb. (Gogel, pp. 25-51). d. Heb. ‫ויקחו‬, but the waw simply indicates the apodosis after the date (JM §176g). e. Heb. ‫( שׂה‬and presumably also its Ugaritic cognate š: cf. DULAT, p. 794 for refs.) can mean either a sheep or a goat (cf. Deut. 14.4), an ambiguity which is made use of here (cf. v. 5). There is no convenient English equivalent: the archaeologists’ ‘geep’ (used mainly of bones) is unlikely to find wider acceptance. The word is not restricted to young animals, so ‘lamb’ is doubly wrong. f. Heb. ‫ לבית אבת‬uses the normal pl. form in BH and so should mean ‘for families’, not ‘for a family’. On the expression in general see Note j on the translation of 6.10–7.5 and the Explanatory Note and Excursus on 6.14-15. Here (cf. the equivalent ‫בית‬, ‘household’) it is used in its original more limited sense of ‘a family’, rather than for a larger social unit. The use of the pl. is logical after the pl. verb, but the absence of the pron. suffix is then surprising: it is perhaps due to the influence of the nearer distributive expression. g. Heb. ‫מהית משׂה‬, lit. ‘from/than being from/of a (whole) animal’. The first ‫ מן‬is easily understood as an example of a special kind of comparative ‫מן‬: BDB, p. 582, s.v. 6d; GK §133c), but the second has no clear parallel, and commentators have struggled to explain it (for attempts see Houtman, pp. 170-71), even though it is clear enough what the expression must mean.

38

EXODUS 1–18

Propp’s observation that two different ways of saying it have been combined (‫ מהית שׂה‬and ‫ משׂה‬alone: p. 388) is an attractive solution, whether we attribute the ‘overkill’ to textual corruption or the clumsy style of the writer. h. Heb. has ‫הוא‬, ‘he’ (or ‘it’ referring to the ‘household’ [cf. NRSV]; but this is difficult to square with ‫ אל־ביתו‬afterwards), presumably meaning the head of the household: the pronoun may refer back to ‫ אישׁ‬in v. 3. i. Heb. ‫ מכסה‬occurs only here and in Lev. 27.23, where it refers to the ‘calculation’ of the value of land consecrated during the period of a jubilee. The masc. form ‫ מכס‬is more common, but is used specifically of a tax (Num. 31.28ff.; for an epigraphic occurrence see AHI, 101.280). The only BH occurrence of the related verb comes later in this verse (‫תכסו‬, from ‫)כסס‬: cognates in other languages generally have the sense ‘chew, break up’, but on MH see Jastrow, p. 655 (CAL, consulted 2 December 2011, does not give any Aram. exx. for ‘reckon’, but does cite nouns referring to taxation). j. Heb. ‫אישׁ לפי אכלו‬, which is to be taken as the obj. of ‫תכסו‬. Some paraphrase in translation is inevitable here. k. Heb. ‫ארבעה עשׂר יום‬, with neither the numeral nor ‫ יום‬having the def. art. according to widespread practice (GK §134o): so also below in v. 18a. According to GK §134p the inclusion of ‫ יום‬is a late characteristic: pre-exilic inscriptions omit it in dates (cf. AHI 1, pp. 297-98). On the other hand they regularly have the article with the numeral (cf. AHI 2.007.4; 2.008.3). l. Heb. ‫קהל‬. This is a word with even stronger connotations of ‘gathering together’ than ‫( עדה‬cf. Note b), though without the same grounding in an ‘appointment’ (cf. the related verbs). In Ezekiel (e.g. 17.17) and some probably older texts it is used of an army. As a term for Israel as a whole (apparently: ‫ )קהל יהוה‬it occurs in Mic. 2.5 in a legal context of land distribution. In relation to Israel’s early history it is used in Deuteronomy (e.g. 5.22; 9.10) and it is also found in P, though less often than ‫( עדה‬3x in Genesis, 2x in Exodus, 5x in Leviticus, 11x in Numbers). ‘The assembly of the congregation’ as a phrase is found elsewhere only in Num. 14.5 (for looser collocations see Lev. 4.13 and Num. 16.3), and it presumably lays even greater stress on the united action of the whole community (cf. also the ‫ כל‬which precedes in both verses). (See further the Explanatory Note and Houtman, pp. 168-69.) m. Heb. ‫בין הערבים‬. Grammatically ‫ ערבים‬seems to be a dual. This is disputed by GK §88c and BL §63b′ on the basis that not all words with the ‘dual’ ending are duals (cf. ‫ )צהרים‬and LXX (apart from Lev. 23.5) knows nothing of any ‘twoness’ (cf. TWAT 6, 362 = TDOT 11, p. 337). But ‫ בין‬surely implies two things. The expression is found elsewhere of Passover in Lev. 23.5; Num. 9.3, 5, 11; of the evening sacrifice in Exod. 29.39, 41; Num. 28.4, 8; of the evening incense offering in Exod. 30.8; and of the coming of the quail in Exod. 16.12. Several times the expression ‫ בערב‬is used of the same actions (e.g. Exod. 16.13), with less precision (this could explain the tendency of LXX to ignore the dual ending). ‫ בין הערבים‬is in all cases except the last used of a ritual action and must have been designed to specify exactly when it



12.1-20

39

was to be done (cf. ‫ כבוא השׁמשׁ‬in Deut. 16.6). Josephus places the slaughter of the Passover sacrifice between the ninth and the eleventh hour (BJ 6.423), the Mishna brings it back by implication to between 8½ and 9½ (Pes. 5.1; cf. 5.3, which seems to allow any time after noon) and Rashi (on this verse) argues that any time in the afternoon is permitted, which was evidently the traditional view for the Passover references in his time. This cannot be what the expression originally meant: it was a pragmatic piece of exegesis to provide a period long enough for the Passover rituals to be completed for the whole people, as was very clearly seen by Ibn Ezra in his longer commentary, following Saadya Gaon (Rottzoll 1, p. 392: so also Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, pp. 1969-70). The ‘two evenings’ are most likely to be sunset and the time shortly afterwards when darkness falls, so that ‘twilight’ is meant (this is still the Samaritan understanding according to de Vaux, Institutions 1, p. 278 = ET p. 182, and TWAT 6, 362 = TDOT 11, p. 337; and cf. Jub. 49.10-12). The ending of one day and the beginning of the next in the evening is not a problem if it can be assumed (as it probably can) that the text predates this late development (first clearly attested in Neh. 13.19: see further de Vaux, Institutions 1, pp. 275-77 = ET pp. 180-82).6 Some possible support for the ‘twilight’ interpretation may also be found in Arabic: GK §88c, contrary to its main argument, notes the Ar. ʾel-ʿišâʾân, ‘the two evenings’, which Lane defines as ‘the time of sunset and the darkness after nightfall (or: the first third of the night)’ (1/5, p. 2056a); and W. Johnstone has added the bolder suggestion that the idiom of taǵlib would allow the phrase to be understood as ‘between the evening and the morning’ (‘The Legacy of William Robertson Smith: Reading the Hebrew Bible with Arabic-Sensitized Eyes’, in Johnstone [ed.], William Robertson Smith: Essays in Reassessment [JSOTSup 189; Sheffield 1995], pp. 390-97 [esp. 392-94]). n. Partitive ‫( מן‬BDB, p. 580). o. Heb. ‫ המשׁקוף‬occurs only here and in vv. 22-23 below in BH, but the contexts leave little doubt about the meaning (‘threshold’ is the only plausible alternative and there are other words for that); MH ‫ משׁקוף‬and ‫ שׁקוף‬confirm this (cf. Jastrow, pp. 858, 1621), as now does 11Q19 (the Temple Scroll) 41.14-15 (for other occurrences in 11Q19 see DCH 5, p. 566). It is surprising that BDB, p. 1054, associates the word with Aram. ‫שׁקף‬, ‘strike’, rather than with BH ‫ שׁקף‬Niphal and Hiphil, ‘look down, overhang’ (cf. also Ar. saqfun, saqafa, ‘roof’), and Ges18, p. 761, cf. 1409, persists with this view, apparently on the basis that it fits ‫ ֶשׁ ֶקף‬and ‫ ְשׁ ֻק ִפים‬better. But these words have a different meaning and may not be connected with ‫משׁקוף‬. In HAL, pp. 616, 1518-19, and DCH, loc. cit., only the possibility of a link to BH ‫ שׁקף‬is mentioned. 6   It appears from what de Vaux cites that only the latest layer of the cultic legislation (Exod. 12.18; Lev. 23.32) presupposes the change from the (Egyptian) morning demarcation to the (Mesopotamian) evening one. In fact (see the Explanatory Note) Exod. 12.18 can be understood in terms of the older system.

40

EXODUS 1–18

p. Heb. ‫צלי אשׁ‬. In Isa. 44.16 ‫ ָצ ִלי‬is a noun, but here and in v. 9 the use in the constr. st. before a nomen rectum denoting the cause or the means corresponds to a construction used with adjectives (GK §128x). An adjectival form also fits its modifying role after ‫( הבשׂר‬the ‘adverbial accusative’ acc. to GK §118n): cf. Deut. 15.18. q. Heb. ‫ומצות‬. The etymology of ‫ מצה‬remains unclear: Propp compares Ar. naḍā = ‘be thin, poor’ (p. 394). ‫ מצות‬here is apparently a (further) object of ‫ יאכלו‬or perhaps, in view of the Masoretic accents, of ‫( יאכלהו‬but if so it is curious that it precedes the main object): for waw virtually in the sense of ‘with’ cf. BDB, p. 253 (s.v. 1g; more briefly GK §154a n. 1, JM §150p, 151a), though most exx. are of an additional subject. r. Heb. ‫על‬, which can also mean ‘in addition to’ or ‘with’ (BDB, p. 755), and is often so used in sacrificial laws (ibid.). s. Heb. ‫ממנו‬. Cf. Note n: in a negative sentence the partitive sense of ‫ מן‬is still present (‘[no] part of’) but requires a different translation. t. Heb. ‫ומבשׁל במים‬. ‫ בשׁל‬alone can mean ‘boil(ed)’ (cf. 1 Sam. 2.13 and probably Exod. 16.23, where it occurs alongside ‫)אפה‬, but it was also a general word for ‘cook’ (2 Sam. 13.8) and the supplementary phrase (introduced by explicative waw: BDB, p. 252) serves to remove ambiguity (perhaps in relation to the use of ‫ בשׁל‬in Deut. 16.7: see the Explanatory Note): cf. the similar amplification in Deut. 14.6 and Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, pp. 58-60, though he later takes a different view of this particular case (pp. 135-36: the fact that ‫ בשׁל‬alone was found insufficient here undermines his view that it always meant ‘boil’). u. Heb. ‫עד־בקר‬, without the def. art., whereas the prepositions ‫ ב‬and ‫ל‬ usually have it. The absence of the art. after ‫ עד‬is chiefly a feature of Priestly style (though not in 23.18), and it is not universal even in P (e.g. 16.23-24; 29.34). For other (probably P) omissions of the art. with ‫ בקר‬see 16.7 and Num. 16.5. v. Heb. ‫ככה‬, here used cataphorically to refer to the prescriptions that are to follow. Of the four ways of saying ‘thus, so’ in BH ‫( כן‬743x) and ‫( כה‬577x) are by far the most frequent (vs. ‫ ככה‬37x; ‫כזה‬/‫ כזאת‬40x), but they have a wider range of meaning (including also ‘here’ and ‘now’, esp. with prepositions). ‫ככה‬, although found in some probably early texts (Num. 11.15; 1 Sam. 19.17; 2 Sam. 13.4; 17.21; 1 Kgs 1.6, 48), became popular in LBH (cf. 2 Chr. 18.19 [vs. ‫ בכה‬in 1 Kgs 22.20]; Song 5.3 [2x]; Esth. 8.6 [2x]; 9.26)7, in legal texts (Exod. 29.35; Num. 8.26; 15.11-13; Deut. 25.9; 29.23) and in the Jeremiah prose (4x). It is used predominantly in discourse rather than in narrative and may have been preferred not only for a somewhat emphatic force (BDB, p. 462), but because it was less ambiguous than ‫ כן‬and ‫כה‬. In MH it was shortened to ‫( כך‬so already in Sirach 3x), while ‫ כה‬was little used. 7   For occurrences at Qumran etc. see DCH 4, p. 393. In ancient Hebrew inscriptions only ‫ כן‬and ‫( כזאת‬once each) are attested so far.



12.1-20

41

w. The three short phrases, coordinated like a series of nouns by waw between the last two (cf. JM §177c for this possibility), could perhaps be supplied with a verb in the future (‘shall be’) from the context, but they are best grouped with a wide range of attached descriptive phrases such as ‫אפים‬ ‫ארצה‬, which can be regarded as short circumstantial clauses (GK §156c; JM §159a-b). On the realia see IDB 1, pp. 869-71; 4, pp. 213-14; BRL, pp. 18588; ABD 2, pp. 232-35. All three actions are associated with setting out on a journey: cf. 2 Kgs 4.29; 9.1; Deut. 29.4; Josh. 9.5, 13; Gen. 32.11; Num. 22.27. ‫ מקל‬is a rarer word than ‫ מטה‬and ‫ שׁבט‬and can refer also to sticks or branches, so ‘stick’ is perhaps better than ‘staff’ for it. x. Heb. ‫ חפזון‬occurs only here, in Deut. 16.3 (also in Passover legislation but of the departure itself) and in Isa. 52.12 (negatively, with a likely allusion to the Exodus, and again of departure). The par. with ‘flight’ (‫ )מנוסה‬in Isa. 52.12 matches the similar association of the verb ‫ חפז‬in Ps. 104.7, but in 2 Sam. 4.4 and 2 Kgs 7.15 it is used of the ‘haste’ with which one flees (cf. Ar. ḥafaza) and in Pss. 31.23; 48.6; 116.11 it seems to refer to the ‘panic’ that the need to flee brings on (cf. the context in Deut. 20.3 and Job 40.23: TWAT 3, 98-100 = TDOT 5, pp. 90-91; Ges18, p. 379). It is possible that the mood of anxiety is implied by the noun too (so e.g. Childs, p. 183). y. Heb. ‫ הוא‬must, like the preceding pronouns, refer to the animal (or its meat), so that ‫ ֶפ ַּסח‬will here mean the slaughtered animal (as it clearly does in v. 21: cf. TWAT 6, 668 = TDOT 12, p. 9) and not the festival as a whole as it sometimes does. In many passages either sense is possible. The original meaning and etymology of ‫ ֶפ ַּסח‬have been extensively debated in connection with the origin of the Passover itself: for a summary see TWAT 6, 660-69 = TDOT 12, pp. 1-9 (with extensive bibliography). The text of Exodus associates the expression with the verb ‫( ָפּ ַסח‬12.13, 23, 27), which is normally taken to mean ‘spare, protect’ (cf. Isa. 31.5). There are three occurrences of the verb which appear to be related in meaning to the adjective ‫ ִפּ ֵס ַח‬, ‘lame’, and so to mean ‘limp, be lame’ (2 Sam. 4.4; 1 Kgs 18.21, 26), but this is probably a separate root (BDB, DCH). Two recent suggestions are that all the occurrences can be derived from a sense ‘hop, leap, jump’ (O. Keel, ‘Erwägungen zum Sitz im Leben des vormosäisches Pascha und zur Etymologie von ‫’פסח‬, ZAW 84 [1972], pp. 414-34 [428-33]; Houtman, p. 183; HAL; Ges18) or from a sense ‘push, strike’ (E. Otto, ‘Zur Semantik von hebr. psḥ/pisseaḥ und akk. pessû[m]/pessātu[m]’, BN 41 [1988], pp. 31-35; TWAT 6, 665-68 = TDOT 12, pp. 5-8), but neither of these is very probable. Conjectures about the original nature of ‫ ֶפ ַּסח‬have been based on all these proposed etymologies: for further discussion see the introduction to this section and the Explanatory Notes. z. Lit. ‘from man and until beast’, with the idiomatic ‫ ועד‬which MT also has in 13.15 but not in the similar phrases in 11.5 and 12.29. aa. Heb. ‫שׁפטים‬, as in 6.6 and 7.4: see Note m on the translation of 6.1-9. bb. Lit. ‘I will see…and (I will pass over)’, but as often the coordination implies a consequential relationship between the clauses. GK §124g includes

42

EXODUS 1–18

this among its examples of conditional clauses, but since no uncertainty is implied a temporal understanding (according to GK §164b[4]; JM §166b) is preferable. cc. Heb. ‫ופסחתי עלכם‬. The uncommon verb ‫ פסח‬has undoubtedly been chosen here to provide an explanation of the noun ‫ פסח‬in v. 11 (see also Note y), as it is also in vv. 23 and 27: the connection is particularly clear in v. 27. There is a close parallel to the meaning in Isa. 31.5, which is about the protection of Jerusalem from enemy attack, and the association with ‫ גנן‬there (as well as ‫ הציל‬and ‫ )המליט‬suggests the sense ‘protect, spare’. Here, to bring out the etymological connection that is being made, the translation ‘pass over’ is to be preferred (and perhaps also in Isa. 31.5 if [as e.g. O. Kaiser, Der Prophet Jesaja, Kap. 13–39 (ATD; Göttingen, 1973), p. 252, ET, p. 317, thinks] a deliberate allusion to the Exodus story is being made there). dd. Heb. ‫נֶ גֶ ף‬, an alternative to the more common word ‫( ַמגְּ ָפה‬26x BH), is found almost exclusively in Priestly texts in the Pentateuch (Exod. 30.12; Num. 8.19; 17.11-12; elsewhere only in Josh. 22.17 [related to P] and Isa. 8.14 [in a different sense]); compare P’s use of ‫ ֶשׁ ֶפט‬as an alternative to ‫ִמ ְשׁ ָפט‬ (above, Note aa). ee. Heb. ‫למשׁחית‬. ‫ משׁחית‬also appears in the non-Priestly Passover prescriptions (in v. 23, where with the definite article [and the verb ‫ נגף‬following] it seems to refer to a personal ‘Destroyer’ [see further the notes on v. 23]). Here (pace Noth, pp. 66, 71, 75, ET, pp. 91, 96, and Houtman) Yahweh acts alone and ‫ משׁחית‬is used as a nomen actionis, ‘destruction’ (so Jer. 5.26; 51.25; Prov. 18.9; 28.24; Ezek. 9.6; 21.36; 25.15; Dan. 10.8; 2 Chr. 20.23; 22.4). The combination with ‫ל‬, perhaps significantly, is attested elsewhere only in Ezekiel, Daniel and 2 Chronicles. ff. Heb. ‫לזכרון‬. ‫ זכרון‬probably originally meant ‘remembering’ (cf. BL §61cθ), although a purely mental use is only attested in late texts (Eccl. 1.11; 2.16) and generally ‘memorials’ or aids to remembering in the form of observances, objects or records are meant (e.g. 13.9; 17.14; 28.12, 29; 39.7). The word is frequent in P but also elsewhere. The occurrences are part of the important larger theme of remembering, whether by God or by man, in the OT. A ‫ זכרון‬is often also described as an ‫אות‬, ‘sign’ (cf. 13.9; TWAT 2, 586-87 = TDOT 4, pp. 77-78). But here there is a distinction: the ‫( אות‬v. 13) is the blood on the doors and it shows Yahweh which houses are to be spared, whereas the ‫ זכרון‬is ‘this day’, the observances as a whole which are to remind Israel of their great deliverance. This points to a further difference, that here the ‫אות‬ relates to the one past event whereas the ‫ זכרון‬is the observance that will be continued, ‘throughout your generations’. gg. Heb. ‫וחגתם אתו‬. ‫ חגג‬is basically intransitive (cf. 5.1; 23.14), meaning ‘celebrate a pilgrim-feast’ (cf. Ar. ḥajja, ‘make a pilgrimage’), and so it can properly take only an internal or cognate accusative (‫ חג‬in Lev. 23.39; Num. 29.12; Nah. 2.1; Zech. 14.16, 18, 19), according to GK §117p-r. Only here (twice in the verse) and in Lev. 23.41 (again twice, about the Feast of Booths)



12.1-20

43

is an ‘it’ the object. In Lev. 23.41 the ‘it’ is probably ‘the feast of Yahweh’ in v. 39 (though it might be ‘the fifteenth day’ earlier in the same verse), and so there is no departure from normal usage. But here the ‘it’ can only be ‘this day’ at the beginning of the verse (‫ חג‬then follows as an adverbial accusative, ‘as a pilgrimage feast’: GK §118m, q), and so ‫ חגג‬becomes genuinely transitive (for some different cases of such variation in BH see JM §111h). hh. Heb. ‫חקת עולם‬, a very frequent Priestly expression (cf. v. 17; 27.21; 28.43; 29.9 etc.) which occurs elsewhere only in Ezek. 46.14 (‫ חק־עולם‬is likewise always Priestly except for Jer. 5.22). The regular translation ‘an everlasting statute’ is supported by the reference to future generations here. ii. Heb. ‫ שׁבעת ימים‬is an ‘accusative’ of duration (GK §118k). jj. Heb. ‫אך‬. Muraoka (Emphatic Words, p. 130) includes the occurrences in vv. 15-16 in a group of mainly cultic texts in which the adversative and emphatic uses of ‫ אך‬are combined: ‘But, mark!’ But in v. 15 there is no contrast with the preceding clause: ‫ אך‬introduces the prior action which enables its requirement to be fulfilled and so must (as Childs, p. 183, saw) be purely emphatic: against Houtman too, but like 31.13 where Muraoka recognises this use. 31.13 also indicates that emphatic ‫ אך‬can occasionally appear with commands as well as statements. In v. 16, on the other hand, the adversative, or better restrictive, use is to the fore: whether ‫ אך‬conveys emphasis there is at least doubtful. kk. Heb. ‫תשׁביתו‬, lit. ‘cause to cease’: for this rare use (as an alternative to ‫ )הסיר‬cf. Ezek. 23.27, 48 (with ‫ מן‬as here: Isa. 30.11 and Ps. 89.45 are less certain instances). ll. Heb. ‫ ְשּׂאֹר‬is the ‘leaven’ itself, while ‫ חמץ‬and its derivatives (as later in this verse and in vv. 19, 20, 34 and 39) are the dough or bread with which it has been mixed (Lev. 2.11 is not an exception, despite IDB 3, p. 105). According to TWAT 2, 1063 = TDOT 4, p. 489, ‫ שׂאר‬was a mixture of yeast and lactic acid (sour milk). Old dough was often used as a source of leaven (IDB, loc. cit.). For the dagesh forte see GK §20g (apparently regarding this and the similar case in v. 31 as conjunctivum): according to the apparatus in BHS it is present in L (so also Dothan, but not BH3) but it is omitted in many mss and edd. (including the early 16th-cent. Rabbinic Bibles). mm. Heb. ‫ונכרתה‬, with waw of apodosis following the casus pendens ‫כל‬ ‫אכל חמץ‬, which is resumed not by a retrospective pronoun but by a fresh nominal expression, ‫( הנפשׁ ההוא‬JM §156e-f). One view is that ‫ כרת‬in such expressions means the death penalty (so BDB, p. 504; THAT 1, 858 = TLOT 2, p. 636; Ges18, pp. 574-75). But others see exclusion from the community as the sense in all or most of the legal texts (HAL, p. 476; TWAT 4, 362-63 = TDOT 7, pp. 347-48: the death penalty is mentioned only in Exod. 31.14; Lev. 20.2). According to the traditional rabbinic view and some moderns it is a comprehensive term for divine punishment (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, pp. 457-60; Propp, p. 404). For discussion see W. Zimmerli, ‘Die Eigenart der prophetischen Rede des Ezechiel. Ein Beitrag zum Problem an Hand

44

EXODUS 1–18

von Ez. 14 1-11’, ZAW 66 (1954), pp. 1-26 (6-19); cf. his Ezechiel, 1 (BKAT; Neukirchen, 1969), pp. 302-306, ET pp. 302-305; W. Horbury, ‘Extirpation and Excommunication’, VT 35 (1985), pp. 13-38 (esp. 31-34). nn. Heb. ‫מיום הראשׁן עד־יום השׁבעי‬. Here, though not earlier in the verse or in the next verse, ‫ יום‬twice curiously lacks the def. art. when it is present with the following numeral adj. (so also in v. 18b). This implies that it is in the constr. st., with the numeral as a specifier: cf. the expression ‫ יום השׁבת‬in 20.8 and more generally GK §128k, m. oo. Heb. ‫מקרא־קדשׁ‬. ‫ מקרא‬is to be associated with ‫ קרא‬I, ‘call’ (so BDB, etc.), because of several cases where noun and verb occur together (Lev. 23.2, 4, 21, 37; Isa. 1.13; Neh. 8.8): in addition the occurrence in Num. 10.2 clearly has the verbal sense ‘(for) summoning (of the congregation)’ (also at Qumran: see DCH 5, p. 471). There is a question about the sense(s) of ‫ קרא‬I to which it is related: in Neh. 8.8. it is exceptionally the sense ‘read’ (BDB s.v. 4), but elsewhere it might be ‘proclaim’ or ‘invite’ (BDB s.v. 3 and 5). In one case it refers to a place or places (Isa. 4.5), but elsewhere, apart from Num. 10.2 and Neh. 8.8, an occasion or time is meant. The occurrence in Isa. 1.13 attests its occasional use for a cultic celebration in pre-exilic times (possibly also in Ps. 68.27), but ‫ עצרה‬seems to be more common then. In most of its occurrences it is combined (as here) with ‫קדשׁ‬, but the other examples are concentrated in two related passages, Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28–29, which must be determinative for its meaning here. There it is used for special occasions in the Priestly liturgical calendar on which no work was to be done. Leviticus 23 additionally associates it with the term ‫מועד‬, ‘festival’ (vv. 2, 4, 37), and in its present form (which is probably secondary) applies it to the Sabbath (v. 3), presumably because it too was a day (the paradigmatic day indeed) on which no work was to be done. The application to the first and last days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread is found there too (Lev. 23.7-8; Num. 28.18, 25). It seems most likely (Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, pp. 1952-59; cf. Ges18, p. 732, and already E. Kutsch, ‘‫’מ ְק ָרא‬, ִ ZAW 65 [1953], pp. 247-53) that it means a ‘holy occasion’, which is proclaimed, rather than a ‘holy assembly’ (BDB, p. 896; HAL, p. 594; DCH 5, pp. 470-71), to which the people are called or ‘invited’: the object of ‫ קרא‬is regularly the event and not the people, and the point may well be that, being dependent on the lunar calendar, these occasions had to be officially announced (Milgrom, pp. 1958-59). The evidence of the Vss (see Text and Versions) broadly supports this view. pp. The third person m.s. verb unusually agrees in gender with the preceding ‫ כל‬rather than with ‫מלאכה‬, apparently because of emphasis on ‫כל‬, ‘(not) any at all’ (GK §146c). qq. ‫ ל‬in ‫( לכל־נפשׁ‬lit. ‘by every/any person’) and ‫ לכם‬in v. 16b represents the agent, as most frequently in the formula ‫ברוך ל‬, but also occasionally elsewhere in both older and later texts (BDB, p. 514). This usage seems not to be found again in P.



12.1-20

45

rr. Heb. ‫את־המצות‬. In 23.15 and 34.18 the feast is called ‫חג־המצות‬, as it is also in Lev. 23.6 (cf. Num. 28.17), where there is a similar emphasis to here on the first day. Although unique the ellipsis of ‫ חג‬is understandable enough towards the end of a passage which has been focussed on the festival. On the (secondary) variant text of SP and LXX see Text and Versions. ss. Heb. ‫בעצם היום הזה‬, lit. ‘on the bone/body of this day’, occurs (apart from two verses in Joshua [5.11; 10.27]) only in P (12x: e.g. Gen. 17.23, 26) and Ezekiel (4x). tt. Heb. ‫את־צבאותיכם‬. For the sense see Note t on the translation of 6.10–7.5. uu. Here the Heb. is not ‫ חמץ‬as in v. 15 but ‫מחמצת‬, as also in v. 20 but nowhere else in BH (or anywhere else apparently). The word looks like a fem. Hiphil part. (cf. GK §53o): but in MH ‫ חמץ‬Hiphil can be intransitive, ‘become sour, ferment’, so its meaning need not be different from ‫חמץ‬. It seems to be a short-lived neologism of the later legal strata: compare Notes aa and dd on ‫שׁפט‬ and ‫נגף‬. Did it perhaps have a more general application (‘anything leavened’?), like that seen by later rabbis (see Text and Versions), while ‫ חמץ‬simply meant ‘normal bread’?

Explanatory Notes 1. The inclusion of Aaron with Moses as a recipient of Yahweh’s instructions about Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread follows a pattern already used in some Priestly passages earlier in Exodus (cf. 6.13; 7.8; 9.8). Later there are further examples (Num. 14.26; 16.20; 20.12, 23), especially as here to introduce legal material (12.43; Lev. 11.1; 13.1; 14.33; 15.1; Num. 2.1; 4.1, 17; 19.1). The explicit location of these regulations ‘in the land of Egypt’ (cf. 6.28) is also in line with a frequent Priestly practice to mention a place in introductory formulae, even where it is obvious from the narrative context (Lev. 25.1 [cf. 26.46; 27.34], ‘on Mount Sinai’; Num. 1.1, 19; 9.1, ‘in the wilderness of Sinai’; Num. 33.50; 35.1 [cf. 36.13], ‘in the plains of Moab’). This is not necessarily to distinguish one location from another (though in the present case the regulations do have a specific relation to their location): in relation to later readers all of these locations served, like the references to Moses (and Aaron), to anchor the origin of the laws in the era of the formation of Israel. 2. Here for the first time in the biblical narrative an indication is given of when a new year began, although Priestly passages in the Flood story (e.g. Gen. 7.11) had already used numbers to

46

EXODUS 1–18

identify the different months of the year. There is no verb in the original Hebrew, and Cassuto argued from this that an already existing calendrical system was being referred to, not a new one (p. 137; so also Childs, p. 206). Even if this were so, the choice of the month of Passover with its associations with the Exodus and the solemn declaration at this particular point in the narrative would say something very significant about P’s conception of the basis of the calendar. Most modern scholars, however, do see in these words the grounding of a new calendar, with the year beginning in the spring, in Israel’s own salvation history, even though it had probably been adopted from the Babylonian imperial power in the late monarchy period (so recently Houtman, Propp).8 A detail of the wording of the Hebrew, reflected in our translation, confirms this: ‘a beginning of months’ is not how one would speak of an established custom (see Text and Versions for the Samaritan Pentateuch’s ‘the beginning…’, which reflects later acceptance of this system). Perhaps the repeated ‘for you’ (which must have a wider application to all the Israelites) points in the same direction. No name is given to the month here or anywhere in the chapter: the old, probably Canaanite, Abib (cf. 13.4; 23.15; 34.18; Deut. 16.1) has been discarded and the Babylonian name Nisan is perhaps deliberately not used to avoid an anachronism in the supposedly ancient festival laws (cf. Lev. 23; Num. 28–29). In the Targums ‘Nisan’ was sometimes added to match what had become accepted terminology (see Text and Versions on vv. 2, 3, 6 and 18): here the Fragmentary Targum (ms. P) has a long addition in which the claims of all the other months to be the first are considered and rejected, and similar poems occur in some mss from the Cairo Genizah. 3-5. The delay in the command for Moses and Aaron to deliver Yahweh’s instructions to the Israelites serves to give additional prominence to the opening statement about the calendar. Unlike earlier passages which use ‘the children of Israel’ (e.g. 1.7: Heb. benê yiśrāʾēl), ‘the Hebrews’ (e.g. 2.6) or simply ‘Israel’ or ‘the people’ (e.g. 5.2; 1.20), v. 3 introduces for the first time the expression ‘the (whole) congregation [Heb. ʿēdāh] of Israel’, which will occur again with minor variations in vv. 6 and 19 and then 8

  For fuller discussion see my ‘The Passover as the New Year Festival’.



12.1-20

47

frequently in the Priestly sections throughout the Tetrateuch (so in v. 47; 16.1-2 etc.).9 In historical narrative it is rarely used after the beginning of the monarchy and it is not found in clearly postexilic contexts. It appears to be an expression coined by the Priestly writers to refer to the original Israelite community of the time of Moses, which was then occasionally picked up in later sections of the books of Joshua and Judges (especially Josh. 9 and 22; Judg. 20–21). In non-technical contexts Heb. ʿēdāh usually refers to ‘groups’ of people with a common character or cause (see Note b on the translation for examples), but for P its etymological relation to the verb yāʿad, ‘appoint’, may have been significant as an indicator of Israel’s divine election, especially as another derivative of the same root, môʿēd, was used in P for ‘appointed’ festivals (so also earlier in 13.10; 23.15; 34.18; Hos. 9.5) and the designation of the desert shrine as ‘the tent of meeting’ (27.21, again following older usage as in 33.7, 11). Chapter 12 as a whole contains a number of features of community life which fit what is known of the exilic and post-exilic periods (cf. Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, pp. 156-57, referring to J. Weinberg, ‘Das bēit ʾaḇōt im 6-4 Jh. v.u.Z.’, VT 23 [1973], pp. 400-14 for the terminology), and this setting very likely played a part in shaping what the Priestly writers imagined to be the social structure of their ancestors in the earlier time of ‘exile’ in the Exodus period.10 It is striking that the term is almost entirely absent from Ezekiel and Chronicles–Ezra–Nehemiah, despite their affinities in other ways with P: Ezekiel prefers the term ‘house (of Israel)’, while Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah accounts for over a third (43) of the 123 occurrences of qāhāl, ‘assembly’, in biblical Hebrew (on which see the Note below on v. 6). ʿēdāh is juxtaposed directly with ‘Israel’ four times in the Priestly Passover legislation (cf. vv. 6, 19, 47) and only seven times elsewhere (Lev. 4.13; Num. 9   Of possibly earlier occurrences referring to Israel (BDB, p. 417) only Ps. 74.2 (in an [early?] exilic lament) and perhaps 1 Kgs 12.20 (of the assembly which appointed Jeroboam to rule the Northern Kingdom) are likely to be real antecedents: in Hos. 7.12 and Jer. 6.18 the text is probably corrupt, 1 Kgs 8.5 is in a passage which has been worked over in the light of P and/or Chr, and Jer. 30.20 belongs to one of the later layers of the book. 10   On the characteristics attributed to the ʿēdāh see more fully TWAT 5, 1079-89 = TDOT 10, pp. 469-77, although the authors of this article write as if it was an actual institution from Israel’s early history.

48

EXODUS 1–18

16.9; 32.4; Josh. 22.18, 20; 1 Kgs 8.5 par. 2 Chr. 5.6): much more often (27 times) P’s preferred designation of the people as ‘the children of Israel’ follows it (e.g. 16.1): see also Text and Versions on this verse. The Masoretic accents seem to divide v. 3 in such a way that the tenth of the month is the day of the command, not the day of the ‘taking’, a view that was already considered, and rejected, in MRI (Lauterbach 1, pp. 23-24) and by Rashi: for both the decisive argument was that v. 2 located the command on the first day of the month (taking the first occurrence of Heb. ḥōdeš as ‘new moon’ rather than ‘month’). Modern commentators (e.g. Propp, p. 387) lay more stress on ‘saying’ in v. 3 (Heb. lēʾmōr), which though grammatically an infinitive, ‘to say’, almost always functions to introduce direct speech, which begins immediately after it. For the grammatical link between the date and what follows it see Note d on the translation. Selection of the animal in good time would allow time to check its suitability, but other explanations have been suggested (cf. Propp, ibid.; Houtman, pp. 170-71), the most plausible of which notes the importance of the tenth day of the month elsewhere (Lev. 16.29; 23.27; 25.9; Josh. 4.19; Ezek. 40.1) and sees it as enjoying special significance in priestly circles.11 The use of the broad expression ‘an animal from the flock’ (Heb. śeh: see Note e on the translation and TWAT 7, 718-21 = TDOT 14, pp. 46-49) prepares for the option in v. 5b to use a young goat instead of a lamb. In Deut. 16.2 a different expression is used and the option of an ox is also allowed. The family setting is underlined by the preferred ruling for one animal per household: only in the case of small households is sharing of an animal with a close neighbour allowed (v. 4). The ‘reckoning’ would no doubt relate to the cost of the animal as well as the distribution of its meat. The decision to share is here left to individual discretion: later a minimum of ten persons became the norm (Jos., BJ 6.9.3 [423]: see further Text and Versions).12   Gesundheit even proposes that the tenth day was the original date for Passover itself, reviving a suggestion of H. Ewald (Three Times, pp. 91-92). 12   The 1962 NJPS translation had ‘the neighbour closest to his household in the number of persons’, and Childs was persuaded that the context made this preferable to the translation given here (p. 182: cf. Ehrlich, Randglossen 1 [Leipzig, 1908], pp. 304-305). But the context is surely against it: it is ‘the neighbour’ who 11



12.1-20

49

‘Unblemished’ (v. 5: Heb. tāmîm) is a requirement for sacrificial victims too (e.g. Lev. 1.3): the central sense is ‘complete’, but it is often used of what is qualitatively ‘perfect’, including persons and their behaviour (see further THAT 2, 1045-51 = TLOT 3, pp. 142428; TWAT 8, 688-701 = TDOT 15, pp. 699-711). It is entirely understandable that an animal for use in a religious ritual (cf. v. 11) should need to be a perfect specimen, whether it was technically regarded as a sacrifice (as in the parallel passage in v. 27: cf. Deut. 16.2, 5, 6) or not (as probably in vv. 1-14). The demand for a male animal fits other ceremonial rituals in the Priestly system, such as the ordination of priests (29.1), the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16.5) and sin-offerings for a priest, a ruler or the whole people (Lev. 4.3, 14, 23), but for some other purposes a female was allowed (Lev. 3.1) or even specified (Lev. 4.28, 32). The precise significance of ‘a year old’ (Heb. ben šānāh, lit. ‘a son of a year’) has been much discussed (already in MRI [Lauterbach 1, p. 29]; for fuller details see de Vaux, Studies, pp. 4-5; Houtman, pp. 172-73; Propp, pp. 389-90). In the case of the animal for Passover, given its timing in the spring when young animals are born, the reference is probably simply to an animal of the previous year’s birthing season.13 Whereas vv. 3-4a speak of the people in the third person plural and of individuals within it in the third person singular (‘they’, ‘he’), vv. 4b-5 address them directly in the second person plural (‘you’). This variation continues in vv. 6-14 (in vv. 15-20 direct address predominates) and it has been seen as a pointer to two different stages in the composition of the passages (see further the introduction to this section). 6-7. The chosen animals are to be slaughtered by all the people on the fourteenth day of the (first) month, a precise date corresponding to the middle of the lunar month (full moon: cf. Ps. 81.4) which is also specified in the liturgical calendars in Lev. 23.5; is closest (cf. Prov. 27.10), not the household/house, and v. 4b indicates that ‘by a reckoning of the persons’ goes with ‘shall take’. Nowhere else in BH, in addition, does Heb. qārôb mean ‘numerically close’. The 1985 NJPS revision reverted to the generally accepted interpretation that is followed here. Despite what Childs says (and cf. Sarna, p. 244 n. 12; Propp, p. 389), it is not clear that the Masoretic accents support one view rather than the other. 13   The more precise expression ben šenātô, lit. ‘son of its year’ (e.g. Lev. 12.6), was perhaps needed to specify a ‘yearling’ in the case of rituals which could be required at any time.

50

EXODUS 1–18

Num. 28.16; Ezek. 45.21 and in Num. 9.3-5, but not in the probably earlier legislation in Exod. 12.21-27 and Deut. 16.1-8. Verse 6 is also very specific about the timing of the slaughter ‘between the two evenings’ (i.e. ‘at twilight’: see Note m on the translation), using an expression that also regulates the timing of the evening sacrifice in the tabernacle/temple in 29.39, 41; Num. 28.4, 8, instead of ‘sunset’ as found in Deut. 16.6. Thus here, although the domestic setting of Passover is very clear, it is also correlated by the Priestly school with activities in the tabernacle/temple. The specification of the time of the ritual as in the evening is also unusual but is obviously dictated, like its interpretation, by the narrative context here (v. 12: cf. 11.4; 12.29-32; Deut. 16.1, 6, though the latter connects the timing of Passover with a nocturnal departure from Egypt, not the slaying of the Egyptian firstborn). The involvement of the whole people together is emphasised by the use of the additional word ‘assembly’ (Heb. qāhāl) for them (see Note l on the translation). This word is more widely used than ‘congregation’ (Heb. ʿēdāh), occurring especially in Deuteronomy (and passages influenced by it), Psalms and Chronicles as well as in P (cf. 16.3): for an attempt to distinguish different nuances of meaning in these texts see TWAT 6, 1210-19 = TDOT 12, pp. 551-59. The contexts in which it is used tend to be cultic or at least religious in a wider sense (so very clearly in the Psalms), in contrast to ‘people’ (Heb. ʿām): cf. THAT 2, 615-18 = TLOT 3, pp. 1122-25. The blood ritual, also mentioned in vv. 22-23, is focused on the doorway as the route by which external danger could be expected to approach. The omission of the threshold itself is surprising and has led to the suggestion that the animal was slaughtered there, so that its blood had already run on to the threshold: possibly v. 22 contains a reference to this in the word usually translated ‘basin’ (see the notes there and Houtman, pp. 192-93). The blood ritual is only mentioned in the Exodus narrative in the Old Testament, where its explanation is tied to the specific narrative context (cf. vv. 13, 23): in the Mishnah (Pes. 5.6), which assumes that Passover animals will be slaughtered at the temple, it was replaced by the general sacrificial practice of pouring out the blood at the base of the altar (cf. 24.6; 29.12). 2 Chronicles 30.16-17 seems already to presuppose this practice. The blood ritual in Exodus 12 is clearly apotropaic and reflects very ancient beliefs about threats to human life and how they may be averted, like the power attributed to the



12.1-20

51

blood of circumcision in 4.25-26 (but not in the Priestly instructions about circumcision in Gen. 17.9-27 or in the narrative in Josh. 5.2-9, where no mention is made of the blood shed). In ritual texts, especially in P, similar blood rites are used in other contexts, probably with different meanings, as in the old account of covenantmaking in Exod. 24.6, in the ordination of priests (29.20-21) and in the cleansing of the tabernacle/temple (Lev. 16.14-15, 18-19; Ezek. 45.18-20).14 Since the nineteenth century and especially since the much-cited study of L. Rost (‘Weidewechsel und altisraelitischer Festkalender’, ZDPV 66 [1943], pp. 205-16) close parallels to the blood-ritual (and other features of this passage) have been found in pre-Islamic Bedouin practices, especially in springtime rituals connected with the change of pasture by semi-nomads, with the implication that the Exodus account gives a specific historical origin to a practice that was originally much more widely current (for a summary see R. Schmitt, Exodus und Passa [2nd ed., 1982], pp. 25-29); this approach was strongly criticised by B. Wambacq, ‘Les origines de la Pesaḥ israélite’, Bib 57 [1976], pp. 206-24, 301-26, who is followed by Van Seters, Life, pp. 114-19. But Albertz, Religionsgeschichte, p. 61, ET 1, p. 35 (see also p. 253 n. 47), continued to find it persuasive. 8-10. The mention of eating at the end of v. 7 leads into the detailed prescriptions for the Passover meal itself. ‘On this night’ must mean the night of the day mentioned in v. 6, not the day when the command was given: its reference is determined by the co-text rather than the narrative con-text, to use the terminology of discourse analysis. Verse 8 gives the basic requirements about when the animal is to be eaten and how it is to be cooked and served; vv. 9-10, in the reverse order, amplify these requirements (with another change from the third person to the second) and add a ruling about how any left-overs of the meat are to be disposed of. In the present context the mention of unleavened bread (v. 8) serves to reinforce the link between vv. 1-14 and vv. 15-20: there is an overlap between the day of Passover and the festival of Unleavened Bread. There are, however, other circumstances in which unleavened bread is mentioned, with no ritual significance: in the narratives about Lot’s angelic visitors (Gen. 19.1-3) and Saul’s 14   Ezekiel’s version of temple-cleansing specifically mentions ‘doorposts’ (mezûzōt, as here) and so is the closest parallel to the practice in Exod. 12.

52

EXODUS 1–18

visit to the medium of Endor (1 Sam. 28: cf. v. 24) such bread is served to unexpected guests when there was presumably no time to bake bread in the normal way. The narrative later in the chapter (vv. 29-39), which dissociates the eating of unleavened bread from the Passover ritual by placing it after the Israelites had departed from Egypt, provides a similar explanation based on the need for haste (v. 39). Unleavened bread (like ‘bitter herbs’) was (and is) a standard part of Bedouin diet (cf. Schmitt, p. 29, with references), so that it could have been a part of the ritual which went back to very early times. The Mishnah defined acceptable ‘bitter herbs’ as ‘lettuce, chicory, pepperwort, snakeroot and dandelion’ (Pes. 2.6, in Danby’s translation, p. 138; cf. the renderings of Pseudo-Jonathan, the Vulgate and possibly the Septuagint in Text and Versions). In the Old Testament they appear elsewhere only in the related legislation in Num. 9.11, which adds no clarification, and in Lam. 3.15, where (unless the verse is entirely metaphorical, as some think) plants that would only be eaten (by city-dwellers at least) in dire circumstances seem to be meant.15 In the Priestly context the mention of them provides an apt reminder of the ‘bitter’ oppression (Heb. mrr) of the Israelites (1.14: Schmidt, p. 504). ‘Raw’ meat could not be eaten, because of the blood in it (cf. Gen. 9.4; Deut. 12.23). Since this was so well known, it could be that here ‘raw’ means ‘rare, half-cooked’, as it does in later Heb. (Schmidt, p. 476: cf. HAL, pp. 620-21; see also Text and Versions). The requirement that the animal be roasted over a fire, which is accentuated in v. 9, may be another ancient feature of the ritual. If so, the corresponding ruling (for later times) in Deut. 16.7 that allows it simply to be ‘cooked’ or possibly ‘boiled’ (Heb. biššēl, as here in v. 9) involves an assimilation, which would be natural enough in a temple context, to normal sacrificial procedure (see Note t on the translation). In v. 9 the Priestly law seems explicitly to repudiate such ‘modernism’.16 An important consequence of 15   P.D. King, Surrounded by Bitterness (Eugene, 2012), pp. 339-40, understands Lam. 3.15 metaphorically, but apparently sees real experience behind it (cf. Job 9.18). On the other hand Beer’s comment suggests that these herbs/ vegetables were a selection from those that were regularly eaten (Die Mischna, vol. 2/3, pp. 120-22). 16   In 2 Chr. 35.13, a later text, the requirements of Exod. 12.8-9 and Deut. 16.7 are conflated (so Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, pp. 134-37; H.G.M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles [NCB; London, 1982], p. 407).



12.1-20

53

roasting as opposed to boiling was that the animal could be cooked whole, which seems to be the concern in v. 9b (see Houtman, pp. 180-81, for further discussion). Importance seems also to have been attached to the eating of the whole animal at a single meal, hence the provisions in v. 10 (also found, in part, in Deut. 16.4b) and the special measures for small families in v. 4. 11. The dress and equipment required (still in the second person plural) for the meal all reflect preparedness for immediate departure and anticipation of it, as is appropriate in the narrative context. Deuteronomy 16.3 uses the same word (Heb. ḥippāzôn) for ‘(fearful?) haste’ (see Note x on the translation for its connotations) but, like what is probably an allusion to it in Isa. 52.12, of the departure itself rather than the manner of eating the Passover meal. The same idea is expressed in different words in the departure narrative in Exod. 12.33, 39. It may be that the Priestly writers have dramatised the ritual here to make the recollection of the Exodus story more vivid. ‘Passover’ (Heb. pesaḥ) here, as more clearly in v. 21 (cf. Deut. 16.5), where NRSV’s ‘the Passover lamb’ renders this single word, is the name for the animal which is slaughtered and eaten, rather than the festival as a whole, and Schmidt suggests that the statement may have been the conclusion of the old underlying ritual text (p. 494). The expression ‘a Passover for Yahweh’ is another allusion to standard sacrificial and more generally cultic language: compare ‘a festival for Yahweh’ in v. 14 and ‘a Passover sacrifice for Yahweh’ in v. 27. Although not limited to Priestly passages (cf. Gen. 4.3; 8.20; Exod. 32.5), such expressions are naturally particularly frequent there (e.g. 29.18; 30.10, 37). The one (other) observance which is not cultic in the narrow sense to be designated in this way is the Sabbath (20.10: cf. 16.23, 25; 31.15), but this may be a way of drawing it into the cultic realm, like its description as ‘holy’ (a description which is never applied to the Passover in Exodus: contrast the ‘holy’ occasions associated with the festival of Unleavened Bread in v. 16). 12-13. As sometimes happens elsewhere in Priestly legislation (e.g. Num. 19.1-20), the explanation for a ritual only follows after the details are complete. Here the transition is especially marked by the use, for the first time in the chapter, of the divine first person: ‘I will pass…’ There is even a minor formal tension here, since in vv. 11 and 14 Yahweh is spoken of in the third person. The first part of the

54

EXODUS 1–18

explanation corresponds closely but not exactly to the non-Priestly announcements of the final plague in 11.1, 4-6 and especially to the briefer recapitulation in v. 23a below, where the words ‘pass through’ (Heb. ʿābar) and ‘strike down’ (Heb. hikkāh) both recur. A distinctive element in the Priestly version is the judgement on the Egyptian gods, a feature which is picked up elsewhere only in Num. 33.4 (in 6.6 and 7.4 the object of Yahweh’s acts of judgement is not specified). Here Yahweh is punishing not only Pharaoh and his people but the gods whom they worship. The implication seems to be that they are real beings, but totally under Yahweh’s control, as in passages like Pss. 29.1-2, 97.7, 9 and especially 82.1-2, 6-7, where Yahweh (here referred to as ‘God’, ʾelōhîm) proclaims judgement against other gods more generally in the ‘divine council’. In prophecy of the sixth century B.C. and later the gods of Egypt are sometimes mentioned as bearing their share of divine judgement on the nation (Isa. 19.1; Jer. 43.12-13; 46.25; Ezek. 30.13 [cf. v. 19]). There is also some similarity to the polemic against Babylonian religion in Deutero-Isaiah, especially in Isa. 46.1-2. Here in Exodus too the idea that the gods of Egypt are the guarantors of Pharaoh’s power, but unable to protect him against Yahweh’s intervention, may be present. But the theme is left unelaborated and it is not even clear whether the judgement on the Egyptian gods involves the destruction of their temples and images (as in the Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael and the Palestinian Targums: see Text and Versions) or simply the humiliation of Pharaoh and the killing of the firstborn (see further Houtman, p. 184). For ‘I am Yahweh’ compare 6.2, 6 and especially 9, where it also concludes a divine assurance.17 Verse 13 takes up the blood ritual of v. 7 (just as v. 23b does with v. 22) and gives it the Priestly designation of ‘a sign for you’, recalling the use of the same word (Heb. ʾôt) of the rainbow after the story of the Flood and the mark of circumcision (Gen. 9.12, 17; 17.11). In both of those cases the sign is a reminder of a covenant, and although it is not explicitly mentioned here the Priestly account has already made clear twice that the deliverance of Israel from 17   S.R. Driver had already seen verses such as this as perhaps being extracts from a body of ‘Holiness legislation’ because of this formula (Introduction, pp. 59, 151) and such ideas have recently been taken much further by Knohl, Sanctuary, esp. p. 16: see the note below on v. 14. Here and in ch. 6, however, the formula can be seen as an element of P’s own style.



12.1-20

55

Egypt is based on Yahweh’s remembering of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (2.24; 6.5-6). Here, as the sequel shows, the blood is not so much a sign for Israel to learn from as a mark which distinguishes their houses from those of the Egyptians and so ensures that Yahweh will spare them from the judgement: ‘a sign for you’ rather than ‘a sign to you’ (for the latter see 3.12 and, by implication, 4.1-9). This language lifts the rationale of the present text (whatever may have been true of the ritual in earlier times) out of the realm of magical thought into a theology of election and covenant. It is in this verse (as also in vv. 23 and 27) that an explanation for the name ‘Passover’ (Heb. pesaḥ) is given, by the use of the rare verb pāsaḥ, here translated for the sake of the connection ‘pass over’. This is not the earliest rendering of the verb that is known nor the most widespread in the ancient translations (see Text and Versions). Its sense, to judge from its use in Isa. 31.5, is probably ‘protect’ or ‘spare’ (see Notes y and cc on the translation). The result, in any case, is that ‘among you there will be no plague [or “blow”: see Note dd on the translation] for destruction’: ‘to destroy you’ would be more idiomatic English (cf. NRSV), but Heb. mašḥît is a noun. In fact it is the same Hebrew word that is translated ‘(the) Destroyer’ in v. 23, where it is probably to be parsed as a participle of the verb šāḥat. There the mašḥît has a personal character: it seeks to ‘enter your houses’ and ‘to strike you down’ (see further the notes on v. 23), but here that is not the case: mašḥît is the effect of the plague and the personal agent is Yahweh alone (‘When I strike’). With such similar, but significantly different, wording some connection between the two verses is certain, and there can be little doubt that in this case the Priestly writer knew v. 23 (or perhaps the liturgical tradition from which it derives) and modified it to eliminate the traces of an angelic or demonic figure which earlier generations had seen to be active along with Yahweh in the Exodus story and/or in older celebrations of the Passover (‘protection’) ritual.18   The extensive dependence of vv. 12-13 on the older text (including vv. 2930) and the direction of dependence have been strongly argued by P.N. Tucker, ‘The Priestly Grundschrift: Source or Redaction? The Case of Ex 12:12-13’, ZAW 129 (2017), pp. 205-19. Contrary to his reasoning, however, this would not decide the question of whether PG was a source or a redaction in favour of the latter. The duplication earlier in Exodus clearly points to the combination of two separate 18

56

EXODUS 1–18

14. There is some disagreement over whether this verse belongs more with what precedes (so most recent commentators, at least on the continent of Europe) or with what follows (so most English translations, but significantly not JB; also Dillmann, Baentsch, McNeile, Hyatt [p. 134], Childs, Dozeman[?]): for further discussion see the introduction to the section. The transition from the unique setting of the Exodus to a permanent institution might seem to support a break after v. 13, but both ‘this day’ (which it is difficult to take cataphorically, as v. 15 begins with a ruling about a seven-day period) and the (added) reference to ‘an everlasting statute’ (Heb. ḥuqqat ʿôlām) as in v. 17 favour the view that v. 14 is the conclusion to a law: so R. Hentschke, Satzung und Setzender: ein Beitrag zur israelitischen Rechtsterminologie (BWANT 53; Stuttgart, 1963), p. 65, followed in TWAT 3, 153 = TDOT 5, p. 144. In fact none of what Hentschke saw as exceptions to this rule (Lev. 3.19; 16.29; Num. 19.10) need be such. This means, first, that it is the day of Passover (the fourteenth of the first month, later Nisan) which is seen as a ‘memorial’, that is an occasion when the events of the Exodus and perhaps especially the sparing of the Israelites from the death of the firstborn are to be remembered, an idea which in general terms is found also in Deut. 16.1 (cf. v. 6b), although the specific reference to ‘remembering’ (v. 3) occurs in the context of the seven-day abstinence from unleavened bread (as in Exod. 13.3). Secondly, here Passover is treated as a ‘festival’ (Heb. ḥag; so also in the Hebrew verbs here translated ‘celebrate’: see Note gg on the translation) in its own right. This is unusual, although the phrase ‘festival (ḥag) of the Passover’ occurs again in 34.25 (cf. 23.18?),19 for it seems incongruous for a word that is generally thought to mean a ‘pilgrimage festival’ (e.g. BDB, p. 290; cf. de Vaux, Institutions 2, p. 366, ET, p. 470) to be used in the context of a family celebration such as appears here. Two explanations are sources and originally PG probably had its own distinctive account of the death of the Egyptian firstborn, traces of which can be found in 12.29a and in Num. 33.3. Equally the use by PG of a Vorlage distinct from vv. 21-23 in the third-person sections of vv. 3-11 remains a definite possibility: the correspondence with the verbs in vv. 21-23 is not in fact complete (cf. vv. 7-8), and why would the Priestly writer have turned the second-person forms in vv. 21-23 into the third person when his own contributions are in the second person? 19   The two words are conjoined in the opposite order in Ezek. 45.21, perhaps with a similar sense to here.



12.1-20

57

possible. The Priestly writers were probably aware of recent moves to make Passover into a national festival at the Jerusalem temple (Deut. 16.5-6; 2 Kgs 23.21-23; Ezek. 45.21-24) and could here be indicating their approval of such a development. Alternatively, it might be suggested that in discussion of the meaning of ḥag too much weight has been given to the use of the Arabic cognate ḥajjun to designate the pilgrimage to Mecca and that Hebrew ḥag simply means a solemn festival (cf. Segal, The Passover, pp. 128-29; TWAT 2, 730-44 = TDOT 4, pp. 201-13). The old ‘festival calendars’ in Exod. 23.14-18 and 34.18, 22-25 probably antedate any moves towards the centralisation of national religion in Jerusalem and so attendance at the ḥaggîm mentioned in them need not originally have involved a pilgrimage at all. The final words of the verse are very similar, not only to v. 17b, but to Lev. 23.41 (cf. Gertz, pp. 35-36) and were very probably added with vv. 15-17: the original Priestly law thus ends with v. 14a. 15-17. The Priestly law about the ‘festival’ (P does not use the expression here: see below on v. 17) of Unleavened Bread seems to have been preserved in two different forms in vv. 15-17 and 18-20. Each is self-contained and the key features are found in both of them: the seven-day abstinence from leavened bread (vv. 15 and 18; cf. v. 20) and the punishment of anyone who transgresses by exclusion from the community (vv. 15 and 19). Different words are used for what is leavened: the usual ḥāmēṣ in v. 15 and the otherwise unattested maḥmeṣet in vv. 19 and 20 (see Notes ll and uu on the translation). In addition to the core requirements, vv. 15-17 demand specifically the removal of all leaven on the first day, and ‘holy occasions’ on both the first day and the seventh, when no work is to be done except for the preparation of food. The seventh day was already hallowed in earlier laws on the subject (13.6; Deut. 16.8; not, however, specifically in Exod. 23.15 and 34.18). The first day will be the day following Passover, when the departure from Egypt was thought to have taken place: the passage elevates this day to the same status as the final day and confirms this by the use of the same concluding formula as now appears in v. 14: ‘as an everlasting statute’ (v. 17). The special status of both the first and the seventh days is maintained in the laws of Lev. 23.7-8 and Num. 28.18, 25, where similar regulations apply to the festivals of Weeks (Lev. 23.21; Num. 28.26), ‘autumn New Year’ (Lev. 23.24-25; Num. 29.1), Atonement (Lev. 23.27-28; Num. 29.7) and Tabernacles

58

EXODUS 1–18

(Lev. 23.35-36; Num. 29.12, 35). It is most probable that vv. 15-17 (and v. 14b) were added here to conform to Leviticus 23 (see the introduction to this passage). Unlike the law in 13.3-10, which can probably be understood to be attached (whether originally or not) to the narrative account in vv. 33-34 and 39, and Deut. 16.1-8, where both ‘the bread of affliction’ and ‘in great haste’ (v. 3) recall implicitly the Exodus narrative, P provides no explanation for why unleavened bread is to be eaten, except for the temporal coincidence with the day of departure from Egypt (v. 17). The formula ‘on this very day’ (Heb. beʿeṣem hayyôm hazzeh) is a standard Priestly formula (see Note ss on the translation).20 For P it was the ritual of the Passover lamb, apparently, which was the chief symbol for the Exodus deliverance, and this may be why the beginning of v. 17 refers literally only to the observance of ‘unleavened bread’, without using the word ḥag here. This would be a departure from tradition (23.15; 34.18; Deut. 16.16; Ezek. 45.23) and one that was not to endure (cf. Lev. 23.6; Num. 28.17; 2 Chr. 30.13, 21; 35.17), but the same tendency to elevate Passover over Unleavened Bread in P can be seen in Num. 9.1-14 and below in vv. 43-49. 18-20. Compared to vv. 15-17, the main distinctive features of these verses are (i) the correlation of the seven days of Unleavened Bread with exact dates in the first month (v. 18); (ii) the requirement that leaven is to be excluded from the Israelites’ houses for the whole seven-day period (v. 19); and (iii) the extension of the ruling to cover ‘resident aliens’ (Heb. gērîm) as well as native Israelites (v. 19). As in v. 8, it is laid down here that the eating of unleavened bread must begin with the Passover meal itself (cf. the date in v. 6) and the specification ‘in the evening’, although using different terminology, actually allows time to elapse after the slaughtering of the animal at twilight and so fits well with v. 6b. According to de Vaux, who rightly places the change from a day beginning in the morning to a day beginning in the evening in the late Old Testament period (Institutions 1, pp. 275-77, ET pp. 180-82: Neh. 13.19 provides a terminus ante quem), the expressions used here imply the later system (ibid., 1, p. 277, ET p. 182). This may not be the case: 20   The reference to the Exodus in the past tense here is anachronistic and shows, even more clearly than the description as ‘an everlasting statute’, that the wording of much later parenesis is being drawn on (cf. 13.8; Deut. 16.3).



12.1-20

59

the evening of Passover may be an addition to the seven full days here, and if ‘until the twenty-first day of the month in the evening’ is inclusive, it would put the beginning of the twenty-second day on the following morning. As de Vaux observed, the different dating of the beginning of Unleavened Bread on the fifteenth in Lev. 23.6 and Num. 28.17 follows the older system. The inclusion of resident aliens and the actual terminology used in v. 19 link this section to the additional laws about Passover in vv. 43-49 (esp. vv. 48-49: see further the Explanatory Note there) and to Num. 9.1-14 (esp. v. 14), as well as to other laws which seem not to be an original part of P (Lev. 16.29; 17.15; 18.26; 19.34; 24.16, 22; Num. 15.29, 30; see also Josh. 8.33; Ezek. 47.22). The same spirit of inclusiveness is reflected also in, and may have been inspired by, some of the later prophets (esp. Isa. 56.3-8). The expression ‘natives of the land’, as in v. 48 and Num. 9.14, which scarcely occurs outside the Priestly and Holiness legislation (the only exceptions are Josh. 8.33, Ezek. 47.22 and [?] Ps. 37.35), provided a useful identity marker in later times for true-born Israelites in contrast to foreign residents. It clearly has in view the occupation of Canaan and, indirectly, the restored community in Judah centred on Jerusalem. On the ‘resident aliens’ see Note dd on the translation of 2.11-22: the same status is earlier attributed by P to Israel’s own ancestors in Canaan (see the notes on 6.3-4). Text and Versions Before 12.1 4QpalExl has an empty line, but there is no room for a division in 4QpalExm. ‫( ויאמר‬12.1) Vulg dixit quoque: quoque only occasionally (as in 10.25) reflects ‫ גם‬in the Heb. Here (as in 7.19; 8.16; 9.13) it is added to mark a new word from Yahweh soon after an earlier one (cf. 11.9). ‫( יהוה‬12.1) TgNmg adds ‘the Memra of’, as do the early TgG mss AA, HH and KK. ‫( ואל־אהרן‬12.1) LXX and Vulg have no equivalent to the second ‫אל‬, but the ‘Three’ and Syh follow MT. ‫( בארץ מצרים‬12.1) LXX as usual renders by an appositional expression ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπτῳ (cf. Wevers, Notes, p. 168) but the genitive Αἰγύπτου is well attested and was taken over into (OL and) Vulg. ‫( לאמר‬12.1) Sy has no equivalent, as in other places where ‫ אמר‬has preceded in the same clause (e.g. 5.10; 7.8). ‫( החדשׁ הזה‬12.2) TgN and TgG (HH) add ‘Nisan’, as do TgF and TgG (AA) after the next word. TgG (GG), like TgO,J, does not have it at all.

60

EXODUS 1–18

‫( לכם‬12.2) Sy nhwʾ supplies a verb in the future tense, as TgG (AA) and Vulg also do in the next clause. TgJ adds ‫מקבעיה‬, ‘to fix it’, emphasising like its addition later in the verse (see the next note) the human regulation of the calendar. ‫( ראשׁ חדשׁים‬12.2) SP reads ‫ראשׁ החדשׁים‬, adding the def. art. to correspond to the determined expression at the end of the verse. The remains of 4QpalExl are faint at this point, but it probably agrees with MT (DJD IX, p. 83), as does LXX ἀρχή and TgN ‫רישׁ ירחין‬. The ‫ ירחיא‬of TgO,J may reflect a similar concern to SP, but not necessarily a different Vorlage. MT is the more difficult reading and probably original. After this phrase TgJ added ‘and from it you shall begin counting the feasts and the times and the seasons’. TgF (ms. P) has a much longer addition of a poetic ‘Dispute of the Months’ (ET in AramB 2, p. 46: cf. S.P. Brock, ‘A Dispute of the Months and Some Related Syriac Texts’, JSS 30 [1985], pp. 181-211 [185-86, 209-11]). Similar poems appear in some Genizah mss (cf. Klein 1, pp. 186-207, with additions in M. Klein, ‘Complementary Fragments from the Cairo Genizah’ [Heb.], in M.V. Fox et al. [eds.], Texts, Temples and Traditions [FS M. Haran; Winona Lake, 1996], pp. 95*-117* [96*-98*]). ‫( לחדשׁי השׁנה‬12.2) LXX ἐν τοῖς μησὶν τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ and Vulg in mensibus anni paraphrase the genitival lamed of MT, while TgJ and TgG(HH) insert ‘for counting’ to clarify the meaning. Sy adds ‘all’, and this may also be the intention of TgNmg’s ‫לכל‬, which is now oddly attached to ‫ לכון‬earlier in the v. TgN itself has ‘all the beginnings of…’ (likewise in TgF and TgG (AA; cf. HH)), perhaps implying that it understands ‫ חדשׁ‬throughout the verse in its sense of ‘new moon’ (although this would make its earlier addition of the month-name Nisan anomalous). ‫( דברו‬12.3) LXX and Sy have sing. imperatives, conforming to the common pattern in Exodus where Moses alone speaks on Yahweh’s behalf (and cf. esp. v. 21). For the pl. cf. vv. 1 and 28 and e.g. Lev. 11.1; 15.1. SP, Vulg and Tgg have the pl. here like MT: the Qumran mss do not survive at this point. SP adds ‫ נא‬afterwards, probably conforming to the similar expression in 11.2, which is also not at the beginning of a speech: see Note e on the translation of 11.1-10. ‫( אל־כל‬12.3) TgO,J,N imply ‫ ִעם כל‬as expected, but the early TgG mss read ‫( ַעם‬i.e. ‫( לבת )לות‬HH) and ‫( אל־כל ַעם‬AA), with ‫ ַעם‬added from v. 6 and displacing ‫ כל‬in HH. ‫( עדת‬12.3) Here and generally elsewhere LXX renders ‫ עדה‬by συναγωγή(ν). The use of this word for a community of people (rather than the action of gathering or a collection of things) is apparently a new development in Hell. Gk. (cf. LSJ, p. 1692), but it is not restricted to Jewish sources (or in LXX to references to Israel [cf. Muraoka, p. 533]). ‫( ישׂראל‬12.3) So MT and TgO,J,G(AA), and cf. vv. 6 and 19: but the prefixing of ‫( בני‬as commonly elsewhere after the constr. form of ‫עדה‬: e.g. 16.1-2) has strong support (SP, 4QpalExl, LXX, Vulg, Sy, TgN,G(HH)) and is characteristic



12.1-20

61

of P’s style. Still, the consistent use of ‫ ישׂראל‬alone throughout vv. 1-20 in MT (cf. also v. 15) speaks in favour of the originality of the unusual reading (so also Propp, p. 358). ‫( לאמר‬12.3) TgG(HH) has no equivalent, probably a careless omission. ‫( בעשׂר‬12.3) TgN and both the early mss of TgG have ‫בעשׂרה יומין‬, lit. ‘in ten days’, reflecting the use of BH ‫ ָעשׂ ֹר‬for a period of ten days in Gen. 24.55 and perhaps a more flexible view of when the Passover animal was to be ‘taken’ (for a variant of the latter see on TgJ in the next note). ‫( לחדשׁ הזה‬12.3) Both mss of TgG add ‘Nisan’ here. TgG(AA) has no equivalent to ‫הזה‬. After the date TgJ adds ‘Its time is fixed on this occasion but not for the generations (to come)’, a ruling found in M.Pes. 9.5 and elsewhere. ‫( ויקחו להם‬12.3) LXX ignores the idiomatic initial waw and ‫ להם‬in its freer rendering of the Heb. TgN has ‫לכון‬, but the mg corrects to ‫להון‬. ‫( אישׁ‬12.3) TgJ has no equivalent, simplifying its rendering. ‫( שׂה לבית־אבת שׂה לבית‬12.3) Most of the versional renderings for ‫ שׂה‬limit the reference to sheep, thus missing the wider meaning of this term (see Note e on the translation). But LXX πρόβατον had a wider meaning in earlier Gk., and in LXX it is often the equivalent of ‫שׂה‬. 4QpalExl and Sy, perhaps independently, invert the order of the two phrases, either accidentally or to put the more specific phrase second. TgN and Sy add the expected pron. suffix (sing. or pl.) to ‫אבת‬, while TgN and both mss of TgG add ‫ כל‬before the second ‫בית‬. TgO and TgG(AA), probably wrongly, treat ‫ בית־אבת‬as sing. A distinction between families and households is generally assumed, most clearly in Vulg’s paraphrase per familias et domos suas and in TgJ’s addition after ‫ אבת‬of ‘and if they are more numerous than the counting’: on the basis of the alternative in v. 4, the possibility is envisaged that individual households in a large family might each have a separate animal, a variation that already appears in Tannaitic midrashim (see AramB 2, p. 190 n. 9). Both LXX and Vulg translate v. 4 quite freely, but the meaning of the Heb. is mostly preserved and there is little if any evidence of a Vorlage divergent from MT. ‫( הבית‬12.4) Most of the Vss vary their rendering to make clear that the members of the ‘household’ are meant here: only TgO and Sy do not. ‫( מהית משׂה‬12.4) LXX, Vulg and TgJ paraphrase with expressions for ‘sufficiency’, while Tgg all introduce the idea of ‘being counted’ which is found also in MRI (Lauterbach 1, p. 26): TgJ adds the minimum of ten persons which Jos., BJ 6.9.3 (423) already has (but M.Pes. 9.11 seems to allow for companies of five persons). Sy has dnpwq bh ʾmrʾ, lit. ‘so that the lamb should go out in it’, i.e. ‘be fully consumed’ (cf. the uses of npq for ‘spend, expend’ in Payne Smith, pp. 345-46). TgN,G additionally specify that the Passover lamb is meant. ‫( ולקח הוא‬12.4) So also most SP mss (4QpalExl does not survive at this point), but Camb. 1846 reads ‫ ולקחו‬without the ‫הוא‬, evidently an aural error, as the continuation with ‫ ושׁכינו‬does not make sense.

62

EXODUS 1–18

‫( ושׁכנו‬12.4) LXX τὸν γείτονα and Vulg vicinum suum ignore the waw and oddly take ‫ שׁכנו‬as the object rather than a second subject, probably because of the sing. ‫ולקח‬, though the other Vss had no problem with this. ‫( במכסת נפשׁת‬12.4) So also 4QpalExl, but SP has ‫במכסות נפשׁות‬, which BHS takes as a pl. form (for the ‘numbers’ in each household?). It might, however, be a sing. noun in ‫וּת‬- (so GSH §144b). A sing. form is reflected in LXX, Vulg, Tgg and Sy. ‫( לפי אכלו‬12.4) LXX τὸ ἀρκοῦν αὐτῷ closely resembles TgJ ‫לפם מיסת‬ ‫מיכליה‬, but the same ‘unpacking’ of the Heb. phrase could have arisen independently in the translators’ minds. The mst mʾklh of Sy might more plausibly be seen as related to one of the other two. ‫( תכסו‬12.4) συναριθμήσετε has been plausibly reconstructed as the original LXX reading, even though it occurs in no ms. (cf. Walters, Text, pp. 61, 105; Wevers, Notes, p. 169; THGE, p. 230): the middle form in mss A, B etc. is only attested in a late papyrus acc. to LSJ, p. 1699. TgJ has ‫תיכסון‬ (followed by ‫)ית אימרא‬, from ‫‘ = נכס‬slaughter’, which it presumably saw as the verb behind the Heb. form because of the wider context (cf. v. 6). But it does not fit the ‫ על‬of the Heb. or the preceding ‫מכסת‬, which TgJ correctly rendered by ‘number’ (‫)סכום‬. ‫( על־השׂה‬12.4) TgN,G again add ‘of the Passover’. TgG has ‘lambs’ in the pl. (as it did also earlier in the verse) and TgNmg has picked this variant up. TgG’s ‫ עם‬for ‫( על‬again as earlier in the verse) is another sign of its frequent carelessness. ‫( תמים‬12.5) LXX has τέλειον, a word used since Homer for valid sacrifices. TgN,G and Sy make clear the sense in which ‫ תמים‬is being used by adding (or, in the case of Sy, substituting) ‘without blemish’ (mwm). Cf. MT at Lev. 22.21 and Num. 19.2. Such clarification is widespread in TgN (Exod. 29.1; Lev. 1.3, 10) and TgG (cf. Lev. 23.12, 18; Num. 28.19) and can be traced back to MRI (Lauterbach 1, p. 28). ‫( בן שׁנה‬12.5) The original text of TgO read ‫בר שׁתיה‬, ‘the son of his year’ (cf. Lev. 12.6), which comparison with MRI shows to have been a way of confirming that an animal up to a full year old was meant (Lauterbach 1, p. 29). ‫( מן־הכבשׂים‬12.5) SP and 4QpalExl read ‫מן־הכשבים‬. The spelling found in MT (where it is the prevalent form [107x; plus a fem. form]) corresponds to the cognates in related languages and so is older. But the metathesised spelling of SP and 4QpalExl is found 13x in MT, including 4x in Genesis 30, which may have led to the variant spelling here: in general SP has the same spelling as MT for this word. At Qumran the spelling ‫ כבש‬predominates, except where a cited biblical text has ‫ כשב‬and at 4Q251 f12.1. ‫( ומן־העזים‬12.5) TgO,J insert ‫ בני‬to show that a young goat is meant, and Sy has mn gdyʾ with the same intention. TgN,G combine the two. Vulg apparently misunderstood the waw (which here means ‘or’) as requiring an additional



12.1-20

63

offering: iuxta quem ritum tolletis et hedum probably means ‘alongside this ritual you shall also take [or “kill”] a young goat’. ‫( תקחו‬12.5) TgN (but not TgG) adds ‫לכון‬: cf. MT at v. 3. ‫( למשׁמרת‬12.6) LXX and Vulg understandably render with some freedom, cf. TgJ and Sy nṭyr, ‘kept’. TgJ prefixes ‫קטיר ו‬, ‘tied up and’, indicating the means of ‘keeping’ the animal. ‫( יום‬12.6) LXX and Sy have no equivalent, following the idiom of the target languages (and sometimes also Heb.: cf. Note c on the translation). ‫( לחדשׁ הזה‬12.6) TgG has ‘Nisan’ in place of ‘this’, as in vv. 2-3. TgJ adds ‘so that you may know that you are not afraid of the Egyptians who see it’, an explanation found also in MRI (Lauterbach 1, p. 39) and Exod.R. (cf. 8.26). ‫( אתו ושׁחטו‬12.6) A fr. of 4QpalExm which seems well located here reads ]‫אתם ו[ושׁחט‬, making the obj. pl. to fit the pl. subject. But as the easier reading it must be secondary. The other witnesses all read the sing. After these words TgJ adds ‫כהילכתא‬, ‘according to the law/rule’. ‫( כל קהל עדת־ישׂראל‬12.6) TgG originally omitted all the remainder of the verse and replaced it with v. 3b. A subsequent scribe added the missing words and deleted the intrusive ones. The original mistake was probably due to parablepsis arising from the similarity of ‫ ויכסון‬here and ‫ ויסבון‬in v. 3 (Klein 2, p. 57). The most widespread variant is the addition of ‘children of’ before ‫ישׂ‬ ‫ ראל‬as in v. 3 (so SP, 4QpalExl [almost certainly to be restored in a lacuna], LXX, Vulg, TgN,G and Sy here): but again this is probably due to assimilation to the more common formula. For ‫ קהל‬LXX unusually has πλῆθος (only elsewhere at 2 Chr. 31.18), probably because its normal equivalent in Genesis–Numbers, συναγωγή, is being used for ‫ עדה‬here (Vulg has multitudo alone for both words): cf. Barr, Semantics, pp. 128, 253. The Tgg mainly use the Aram. cognate (TgO ‫קהלא‬, without a following ‫ד‬, seems to place it in apposition to ‫עדת־ישׂראל‬, perhaps a sign of bafflement at the double description of the people), but TgG (like Sy) has ‫עם‬. TgNmg has both, either by conflation or to show that ‫כנישׁתא‬, its rendering for ‫עדת‬, is being used of the community rather than a building. ‫( בין הערבים‬12.6) LXX πρὸς ἑσπέραν and Vulg ad vesperam are sometimes treated as not distinguishing this phrase from ‫( בערב‬cf. GK §88c) but their renderings of ‫ בערב‬are generally distinct and these phrases appear to mean ‘towards evening’, so earlier than ‘in the evening’. Sy bmʿrby šmšʾ (also in 16.12), ‘at sunset’, will be based on Deut. 16.6. Tgg ‫ביני שׁמשׁיא‬/‫בין‬, a phrase whose MH equivalent occurs in Aboth 5.9 and is precisely defined in B.Shabb. 34b: ‘from the time that the sun sets as long as the eastern horizon is red’ (cf. J.Ber. T. 2b). ‫ בין שׁמשׁא‬was specifically used of Sabbath eve, perhaps without such a precise sense (see refs. in Jastrow, p. 1602): the exact sense of ‫ שׁמשׁ‬here remains uncertain. The first hand of the early SP ms. Camb. 1846 omitted the phrase and it was restored above the line. ‫( הדם‬12.7) Sy dmh, ‘its blood’, sc. of the animal, for precision.

64

EXODUS 1–18

‫( ונתנו‬12.7) Sy wnrmwn, ‘and they shall put’; later mss wnrswn, ‘and they shall sprinkle’, as fitting a liquid. ‫( המשׁקוף‬12.7) Some of the equivalents used in the Vss could also mean ‘doorpost’ (LXX φλιάν) or ‘threshold’ (TgO,N,G ‫ ;שׁקפא‬TgJ, Sy ‫)אסכופא‬: to avoid ambiguity Aq substituted ὑπέρθυρον (an ancient word) and TgJ added ‫עילאה‬. TgJ also specified that the daubing was to be done ‘on the outside’, perhaps a trace of the view (which TgJ’s translation does not follow) that ‫ סף‬in v. 22 means ‘threshold’: see Text and Versions there. ‫( על הבתים‬12.7) LXX ἐν τοῖς οἴκοις probably has the same meaning as Heb., but in correcting it the Three prefixed ‘and’, as if the whole house was to be daubed with blood. The presence of καί (but not ἐπί) in LXXO shows that this was an early addition (cf. Sy wʿl btʾ), and the widespread attestation of this reading possibly derives from the elusive Lucianic recension. ‫( אתו‬12.7) LXX αὐτά, the pl. at this point probably being due, as Wevers suggests (Notes, p. 171), to the fact that ‘houses’ are now being spoken of. TgN replaces with the specific ‫פסחא‬, but this does not appear in TgG. TgJ adds ‘and sleep’, perhaps with reference to those who went to share Passover in another house: the issue was already a concern for MRI (Lauterbach, p. 45), where v. 13 is cited in support. ‫( בהם‬12.7) According to BHS a Geniza Heb. ms. reads ‫ שׁם‬here, but this is probably only assimilation to v. 13. ‫( בלילה הזה‬12.8) Vulg nocte illa, reflecting the distance of the readers in time from the events.21 TgJ adds ‘of the fifteenth [sic] of Nisan’ and, in line with M.Zeb. 5.8 (and other rabbinic sources: cf. AramB 2, p. 190 n. 20), ‘until midnight’. TgN,G substitute ‘of Passover’ for ‘this’ (cf. their additions in vv. 4 and 7). ‫( צלי־אשׁ‬12.8) Sy has kd mṭwy bnwrʾ. In Syr. kd with a part. can indicate an ongoing process (‘while…’: Payne Smith, p. 204), but this is clearly inappropriate here and kd often means simply ‘when’ or ‘after’ (cf. its use in v. 9 in TgO). ‫( מצת‬12.8) TgO,J have the sing. ‫( פטיר‬cf. Sy), which could presumably have a collective meaning like, e.g., ‫לחם‬. Propp (p. 360) prefers the reading of Num. 9.11, ′‫על־מצות ומ‬, which is certainly easier, but that very fact together with the absence of a well-attested variant here suggest that MT was regarded as intelligible. ‫( על מררים‬12.8) For ‫ על‬TgN,G have ‫עם‬, which may well capture the meaning intended by the Heb. (cf. Note r on the translation). Several of the Vss give very specific renderings of ‫מררים‬: TgJ ‘chervil and endives’ names two of the five options listed in M.Pes. 2.6, and Vulg’s lactucis agrestibus, ‘wild lettuce’, is also in the list. LXX’s πικρίδων looks generic (so Lust et al. 21   Or is it that of Moses’ speech? The Heb. ‘this’ might seem to suggest the day when Moses was speaking, but it is ‘co-text referential’ rather than ‘con-text referential’.



12.1-20

65

and BAlex), but LSJ, p. 1404, followed by Muraoka, p. 457, gives two specific equivalents, ‘ox-tongue’ and ‘chicory’, the latter of which is also in the Mishnaic list (cf. BAlex). Vulg may perhaps be based on this understanding of πικρίδων. ‫( יאכלהו‬12.8) LXX and TgG (but not TgN) ignore the suffix, perhaps to ease the syntax, with ‫ מצת‬as the obj. of ‘eat’ (cf. Wevers, Notes, p. 172; BAlex). But it is attested by SP as well as MT and the other Vss. ‫( נא‬12.9) 4QpalExl reads ‫נו‬, reflecting a common orthographical/phonetic variation at Qumran (cf. Qimron, pp. 39-40; more fully N. Mizrahi, ‘Linguistic Change through the Prism of Textual Transmission: The Case of Exodus 12:9’, in A. Moshavi and T. Notarius [eds.], Advances in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics: Data, Methods and Analyses [Winona Lake, 2017], pp. 27-52). The meaning is not affected. TgO,J ‫( כד הי‬cf. Sy) use ‫ כד‬in its common sense of ‘when’, but without a verbal clause, and ‫ הי‬for ‘raw’, a sense it has only once in BH (1 Sam. 2.15), apart from the references to ‘raw [human] flesh’ in Leviticus 13. TgN,G,F have ‫מהבהב‬, ‘lightly roasted, rare’, perhaps rightly reasoning that no one would consider eating meat raw. ‫( ובשׁל מבשׁל במים‬12.9) The abbreviated renderings of LXX ἡψημένον ἐν ὕδατι and Vulg coctum aqua have the main point but seem uninterested in the intricate construction of the Heb. phrase (the Three and LXXO restore the full expression). The Tgg and Sy, on the other hand, show awareness of various rabbinic interpretations of it. TgO and Sy take ‫ בשׁל‬as an inf. abs., giving the sense ‘thoroughly boiled in water’ and the ‫שליק‬, ‘overboiled’, of TgN,G produces the same sense, which is discussed and rejected in MRI (Lauterbach, p. 48). Some important SP mss (cf. Tal, Sadaqa, Camb. 713 and Camb. 1846) read the first word as ‫בשול‬, but in view of the infrequency of the inf. abs. in SH (cf. GSH §178) this is more likely intended as a Qal pass. pt., without difference in meaning from MT. TgJ assumes that since the following phrase mentions water ‫ בשׁל‬alone must refer to other liquids in which meat might be cooked: ‘boiled in wine or oil or (any) liquid’ – another view that is mentioned but rejected in MRI (ibid.). The reading ‫ ומבשׁל‬in 4QpalExl may indicate that it too saw a general ban on boiling followed by a specific one here. In all the Tgg except TgG ‫אף לא‬, ‘not even’, is inserted before the whole phrase to draw attention to the fact that a method of cooking allowed in other laws was forbidden for Passover here. ‫( על־כרעיו‬12.9) The ‫( על‬like the following one) is translated by ‘with’ in LXX, Vulg, TgJ,N,G: compare TgN,G in v. 8. The rendering ‘its feet’ for ‫כרעיו‬ (LXX, Vulg, TgJ,N) may derive from the fact that in JAram ‫ כרע‬sometimes means ‘foot’. Sy replaces both occurrences of ‫ על‬with w and adds a w before ‘its head’, suggesting that it (like Vulg more clearly by its addition of vorabitis) mistakenly presumed that all these parts of the animal were to be eaten. ‫( ולא‬12.10) LXX does not represent the waw, but SP (apart from Sadaqa’s edition), 4QpalExl and the other Vss support MT, which is probably original here.

66

EXODUS 1–18

‫( תותירו‬12.10) The original LXX reading ἀπολείψετε is preserved only in miniscules and citations, but the readings of A and B are clearly corruptions of it. Vulg remanebit is a typically free reformulation and not significant textually. ‫( עד־בקר‬12.10)1o After this LXX (or perhaps its Vorlage) added ὀστοῦν οὐ συντρίψετε ἀπ’αὐτοῦ from v. 46, presumably because the disposal of the carcass was the point at which its bones might easily have been broken and the regulation might have been ignored if included only in the ‘appendix’ at the end of the chapter. The same addition is made in MT at Num. 9.12. The wording is identical to v. 46: the citation in John 19.36 differs slightly (συντριβήσεται), so that could not be the source of the addition. ‫( עד־בקר‬12.10)2o Here TgJ adds ‘you shall put it aside and on the evening(?) of the 16th’ and then, after ‘you shall burn it with fire’, explains that ‘it is not possible for the remainder of an offering of holy things to be burned on a holy day (‫’)ביומא טבא‬. The same concern is evident in MRI (Lauterbach, pp. 50-51) and in other rabbinic texts (see AramB 2, p. 191 n. 24). ‫( תשׂרפו‬12.10) Most SP mss and edd. agree with MT, but Tal prints ‫תשרפ‬ (sic): this is almost certainly a printing error. TgG (which had ignored an obj. suff. in v. 8) and Sy supply ‘it’ here. ‫( ככה‬12.11) TgJ expands with ‘according to this rule’, similarly TgN,G in different words. ‫( תאכלו אתו‬12.11) TgJ adds ‘at this time but not for (future) generations’: cf. v. 3 and M.Pes. 9.5. ‫( חגרים‬12.11) TgF spiritualises by adding ‘with the commandments of the law’, and this is picked up by TgNmg (among many other cases of such Targumic references to the law see e.g. TgJ on Gen. 2.15; 49.10, 14-15; TgF on Gen. 49.7, 10). ‫( נעליכם‬12.11) LXX prefixes ‘and’, in line with Greek idiom, as does Sy. ‫( ומקלכם בידכם‬12.11) MT’s sing. nouns with the 2 pl. suff. (cf. JM §135b-c) are not surprisingly rendered as plurals in the Vss (only TgO ‫בידכון‬ keeps to MT), and SP likewise exhibits the pl. forms. In 4QpalExl only ‫[כם‬ survives from this phrase, so its reading for the nouns cannot be determined (DJD IX, p. 33, inclines to the MT reading on the basis of very faint traces). ‫( ואכלתם אתו‬12.11) Sy has ʾwklwhy, without the initial waw of MT, creating a more staccato effect (for the form, as again in v. 14, cf. Brockelmann §186 n. 3). ‫( בחפזון‬12.11) LXX (probably), Symm, Vulg and Sy understood the meaning to be ‘in haste’ and Tgg ‫ בבהילו‬can mean this (cf. Ezra 4.23), though it could refer to agitation or alarm. The latter is the view of Theod and Aq (ἐν θάμβῳ). TgJ attributes the ‫ בהילו‬to ‘the Shekinah of the eternal Lord’, a view considered possible in MRI (Lauterbach, p. 52), though it prefers to apply it to the Egyptians (cf. v. 39). ‫( פסח הוא‬12.11) Sy introduces the clause with an artificial connection, mṭl d, ‘because’. ‫ פסח‬is transcribed in its Aram. form πάσχα in LXX and Theod:



12.1-20

67

Symm φάσεχ and Vulg phase use forms that are closer, but not identical, to the Heb. as transmitted by MT. Each adds an interpretation, Symm ὑπερμάχησις, ‘defence, protection’, probably deduced from the occurrence of the related verb in Isa. 31.5 (cf. Salvesen, Symmachus, pp. 83-85; Walters, pp. 174, 248, 344), and Vulg id est transitus. The latter was Aq’s view (ὑπέρβασις), based on the use of ‫ עבר‬in the following verse and in v. 23, and it has given rise to the standard Eng. expression ‘Passover’. TgO,G and Sy have simply ‫פסחא‬/pṣḥʾ, but TgN prefixes ‫מכס‬, ‘sacrifice’, to accord with MT in v. 27. TgJ picks up a common view that ‫ פסח‬is related to ‫חוס‬, ‘spare, have pity’ (cf. Salvesen, pp. 84-85) and renders ‘because it is a sparing (‫ )חייסא‬for you…’: cf. its renderings in vv. 13 and 27 and rabbinic pars. in AramB 2, p. 191 n. 28. ‫( ליהוה‬12.11) The Tgg. mostly have ‘before the Lord’, as elsewhere, but TgG has ‘for the name of the Lord’, a periphrasis found widely in TgN and elsewhere (cf. Chester, Divine Revelation, pp. 343, 345-46). ‫( ועברתי‬12.12) Some SP mss read ‫( והעברתי‬only the Cambridge ms. 713 among the earliest), presumably implying the interposition of some unspecified agent (perhaps the ‫ משׁחית‬of v. 23). The Tgg show a similar concern to avoid any suggestion that God moves (cf. 11.4 and the note there), either by rendering with ‫( ואתגלי‬O,J) or by involving the Memra (as subject in G, as agent in N): TgNmg combines the two. ‫( בארץ מצרים‬12.12)1o TgJ adds ‘in the Shekinah of my glory’ and a reference to ‘90,000 myriads of destroying angels’, which goes far beyond the single intermediary in TgJ’s renderings of 4.25 and 12.13: cf. J.Sanh. 2, 20a. The foundation for the idea could be found in Ps. 78.49. ‫( הזה‬12.12) Vulg illa as in v. 8. TgG has ‘of Passover’, TgN combines this with MT (cf. v. 8). ‫( והכיתי‬12.12) The Tgg use ‫ קטל‬to make the slaughter explicit (with the Memra as subj. in TgG): Sy ‘(they) shall die’ has the same effect and avoids direct responsibility of God. ‫( כל־בכור‬12.12) TgN,G and Sy have ‘all the firstborn’ in the pl. and Sy continues with ‘of the land of Egypt’ instead of ‘in…’ (cf. 11.5), in both cases rendering MT with a little freedom. ‫( מאדם‬12.12) TgN,G and Sy again agree in using an explicitly pl. form, this time ‘sons of men’. ‫( ועד‬12.12) All SP mss (except Sadaqa’s) read ‫עד‬, as SP seems to prefer for this phrase (see the note on 9.25). The absence of ‘and’ in LXX and Vulg need not imply a Vorlage different from MT. ‫( אלהי‬12.12) The Tgg have ‫טעות‬, ‘errors’, i.e. false gods, Sy dḥlthwn, ‘what they worship’: both are ways to avoid implying that the ‘gods’ other than Yahweh actually exist (for details see AramB 6, p. 20 and n. 21). ‫( שׁפטים‬12.12) LXX has τὴν ἐκδίκησιν, ‘vengeance, punishment’ (for the sing. cf. Sy dynʾ) as in 7.4 (see the note there) and Num. 33.4, apparently a deliberate variation towards a word more often used to represent the root ‫נקם‬ (in 6.6 LXX has the expected κρίσει [again sing.] to convey the purpose of

68

EXODUS 1–18

God’s action). The Pal. Tgg and TgJ follow the view, already recorded in MRI (Lauterbach, p. 55), that the pl. points to between two and four different kinds of judgement on images made of different materials: TgJ in full detail, TgN,G by just adding the word ‘different’ (which is how MRI begins its comment on the phrase). ‫( אני יהוה‬12.12) TgN has ‘says Yahweh’, an interesting view of the meaning of this common formula: but the mg corrects to MT (and to TgG).22 ‫( והיה הדם‬12.13) 4QExc definitely and 4QpalExl possibly did not have an interval after v. 12: SP has one, but MT does not. Sy has ‘this blood’; TgJ expands its explanation to include not only ‘the blood of the Passover sacrifice’ but the blood from circumcision mixed with it, having already indicated the power of the latter to ward off ‘the destroying angel’ in 4.24-26. For numerous rabbinic references to this mixture (inc. MRI on v. 6 [Lauterbach, pp. 33-34]) see AramB 2, p. 191 n. 31. ‫( לאת‬12.13) LXX ἐν σημείῳ, with ἐν = ‘as’, a possible sense in Hell. and LXX Gk. (cf. LSJ, p. 552, s.v. I.10; Muraoka, p. 182, s.v. 14 and 20). ‫( אתם‬12.13) TgJ,N expand with ‘(are) dwelling’; Vulg uses the future eritis. TgN has ‫אנון‬, ‘they’, but the earlier TgG has ‫אתון‬, so ‫ אנון‬is probably a scribal error. ‫( וראיתי את־הדם‬12.13) TgJ has ‘the merit of the blood’, an idea implied in MRI (Lauterbach, p. 56). TgG attributes the seeing to the Memra: see also the next note. ‫( ופסחתי‬12.13) TgG uses the third person, with the Memra still the subject; TgN adds ‘by my Memra’ here. Both combine a transcription of MT with forms of the verb ‫נגן‬, ‘protect’: for this interpretation of ‫( פסח‬on which see Brock, ‘An Early Interpretation’, p. 29) compare LXX σκεπάσω and see the notes on vv. 11 and 23. TgO,J have the related understanding of ‫ פסח‬as ‘spare’, which is specifically related to Isa. 31.5 in MRI on this verse (Lauterbach, pp. 56-57), while Vulg again follows Aq’s lead with transibo. The exact sense to be given to Sy wʾpṣḥ (a dialectal variant of psḥ) is uncertain, since it is used only in this context (cf. vv. 23 and 27), but in Isa. 31.5 Sy renders ‫ פסוח‬by nsyʿ, from syʿ = ‘help’, which seems closer to ‘protect’ and ‘spare’ than ‘pass over’. ‫( נגף למשׁחית‬12.13) TgO,N and Sy use the stronger ‘death’ for ‫נגף‬, which is comparable to its use for ‫ דבר‬in 9.3 and 9.15: see the notes there and AramB 7, p. 23 n. 4. TgJ elaborates this understanding into a reference to ‘the angel of death, who has been given power for destruction’, but will have no access to the Israelites: TgNmg has a variant of this.

22   TgN’s rendering is found in other places where the formula concludes a statement: e.g. Lev. 18.5 and frequently in the following chapters; also in TgF at Lev. 18.21; 19.16 and TgG at Lev. 23.22. But TgN does not use it in Exod. 6.8, perhaps because that is the end of a divine promise and not an ordinance.



12.1-20

69

‫( בהכתי‬12.13) The Tgg and Sy again use qṭl to render Heb. ‫נכה‬, as in v. 12. The absence of an object in the Heb. is dealt with either by repeating ‘all the firstborn’ from v. 12 (TgN and mg) or by ignoring the ‫ ב‬before ‫ארץ‬ ‫( מצרים‬Vulg). TgNmg adds a further reference to divine self-revelation. ‫( לזכרון‬12.14) LXX has simply μνημόσυνον; the Three, followed by the hexaplaric witnesses, prefixed εἰς to represent the ‫ ל‬of MT. TgN,G add ‫טב‬, ‘good’, to distinguish this from a ‫ זכרון‬which is a reminder of something evil, as in Num. 5.15, 18: for other examples of this, also in TgJ, see AramB 2, p. 48 n. 12. Already Jub. 49.15 refers to the Passover as ‘a reminder acceptable to the Lord’. ‫( וחגתם אתו חג‬12.14) Vulg usually has sollemnitas for ‫חג‬, but occasionally it uses sollemnis dies (1 Kgs 8.12; 12.32; Neh. 8.14) and its celebrabitis eam sollemnem here (after hanc diem just before) seems to draw on that phraseology. ‫( ליהוה‬12.14) Tgg as usual have ‘before Yahweh’. TgNmg adds ‘your God’, a formula more characteristic of Deut. than Exodus (and especially its Priestly sections); the Passover law in Deuteronomy 16 may perhaps have been in mind. ‫( תחגהו‬12.14) Sy hwytwn ʿbdyn lh, using the perf. of hwy idiomatically to express a command (Brockelmann §208) ‘to perform a durative or repeated action’ (J. Joosten, pers. comm.). The use of the colourless ʿbd for ‫ חגג‬is compensated for by the repetition of ʿdʿʾdʾ, ‘feast, festival’, before ldrykwn. ‫( תאכלו‬12.15) TgNmg records a third person pl. reading ‫יאכלון‬, but this is so out of keeping with the rest of the context that it must be a mistake, perhaps from vv. 7-8. ‫( אך‬12.15) The Vss divide between adversative (LXX, TgO,J) and restrictive (TgN,G) interpretations of the particle, with Sy (‘and’) and Vulg (no equivalent) effectively ignoring it. In MRI (Lauterbach, p. 64 and n. 6) the interpretation of ‫ אך‬forms the basis for the halakah added in TgJ (see the next note). ‫( ביום הראשׁון‬12.15) Both LXX and Sy render loosely ‘from’ rather than ‘on’ (possibly influenced by the phrase later in the verse). TgJ specifies ‘from midday on the day before the feast’, following the rulings in M.Pes. 1.1-4 and MRI loc. cit. ‫( תשׁביתו‬12.15) LXX’s ἀφανιεῖτε can mean ‘remove’ or ‘destroy’ (the later requirement was that the leaven should be burnt), but Aq and Symm replaced it respectively with διαλείψατε and παύσατε, probably both literalising with the sense ‘cause to cease’ (for διαλείπω in the sense ‘cease’ cf. LSJ, s.v. II.2). Vulg’s non erit is very free. ‫( חמץ‬12.15) LXX ζύμην, as several times elsewhere, although it really means ‘leaven’ rather than ‘leavened’. The other Vss (inc. Vulg fermentatum here) preserve the distinction, and so does LXX (ζυμωτόν) in v. 19. Sy repeats ‘from your houses’ here, where it makes little sense: as Propp saw (p. 360), it will be an inner-Syriac corruption, presumably an early one.

70

EXODUS 1–18

‫( ונכרתה‬12.15) LXX and Tgg ‘shall be destroyed’ and Sy and Vulg ‘shall perish’ lose the specific connotations of the Heb. (as in v. 19). ‫( הנפשׁ ההוא‬12.15) SP as usual reads the expected fem. form ‫ההיא‬: none of the Qumran mss preserves the text at this point. TgO,J interpret correctly with ‫אנשׁא הוא‬. ‫( מיום הראשׁון‬12.15) TgJ pedantically adds ‘of the feast’. ‫( עד‬12.15) SP ‫ ועד‬adds the idiomatic but not indispensable waw. TgJ,G and Sy also have a waw, whereas LXX, Vulg and TgO,N do not; but in most cases the reading is just as likely to be due to the idiom of the target language as to the Vorlage. Again, none of the Qumran mss preserves this word. It is more likely that the waw would have been added to conform to idiom than removed, so MT is probably original here. ‫( וביום הראשׁון‬12.16) A number of SP mss, including two early ones (F and Tal’s), omit the waw (cf. Vulg), but the other Vss support MT. Given the tendency of scribes to add waw, the text without it might be more original (cf. Propp, p. 360). 4QExc has only ]‫ [הראשׁון‬for this verse (probably for its first occurrence), so its reading cannot be determined. LXX, Sy and Vulg do not render the ‫ ב‬and so make ‘the first day’ the subject of the clause (likewise in the next clause): this will be connected with their interpretations of ‫מקרא־קדשׁ‬. ‫( מקרא־קדשׁ‬12.16) Tgg render ‫ מקרא‬by words for ‘festival’, with the addition of ‫יום טוב‬, ‘feast day’ in TgN,G, as often elsewhere: so also MRI ad loc. (cf. AramB 2, p. 48 n. 13). Vulg’s renderings, though free, have a similar intention: sollemnis is frequently used with dies to represent ‫ חג‬and eadem festivitate for the second occurrence presumably uses festivitas (as always elsewhere in Vulg) of a religious festival rather than in its wider classical sense. Sy qrʾ, ‘proclaimed’ (pass. part.), is probably dependent on LXX κληθήσεται…κλητή and a clue to the true meaning of the latter word, which Walters rightly saw as being ‘proclaimed’, with ‫ מקרא‬being (mis)understood as a Pual part. (pp. 244-46; Lust et al., p. 258).23 ‫( מלאכה‬12.16) LXX ἔργον λατρευτόν; λατρευτόν in this expression probably has the ancient association of the word-group with slavery, so it will mean ‘servile labour’. In Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28–29, in similar contexts, the phrase stands for ‫מלאכת־עבדה‬, where the use of λατρευτόν can be seen to be based on the association of ‫ עבדה‬with ‫ע ֶבד‬,ֶ ‘servant, slave’ 23   κλητή is commonly but wrongly taken as a noun meaning ‘assembly’ (sc. ἐκκλησία: cf. LSJ, p. 960; Lee, p. 51; Muraoka, p. 320). But Wevers recognised that this does not fit here, though he thought that it did in Lev. 23 (Notes, p. 177), and BAlex (p. 148) cited Philo, De spec. leg. 2.157 in support of an adjectival parsing ‘called’ here (its own appel, ‘call’, reflects an inability to shake off the dominant nominal understanding and is scarcely an improvement). This is supported by the fact that in Lev. 23 κλητή is three times associated with the verb καλέω (vv. 2, 21, 37), as here, and in Num. 28.18, 26; 29.1, 7, 12 ‫ מקרא‬is rendered by ἐπίκλητος, ‘called, designated’.



12.1-20

71

(an association that may well not have been originally intended in the Heb.: cf. the widespread rendering ‘laborious work’). Here LXX is introducing a specification from other passages: the language of MT (which is followed by the other Vss and SP) is that of the Sabbath commandment of the Decalogue, qualified by the specific exception of food preparation (see the next note but one). ‫( לא יעשׂה‬12.16) Vulg nihil…facietis, TgG and some later mss of Sy render by second p. active forms, assimilating to the language of Lev. 23.7 etc. Many LXX mss, including LXXB, likewise read ποιήσετε and this should be regarded as the original LXX reading, with Rahlfs: after the addition of a word from Leviticus 23 it would be entirely natural to continue with its verbal form.24 ‫( יאכל‬12.16) LXX ποιηθήσεται probably deliberately eliminates the specification in the Heb. (or at least MT: it is possible that LXX’s Vorlage already had a revised text) to maintain the agreement with Leviticus 23’s more general ruling: the result is a clause that has no real point. TgJ ‫דיתעביד למיכל‬ combines ‘doing’ with ‘eating’: cf. the fuller (and wider?) expression of TgN. Vulg and Sy paraphrase, but are clearly based on MT. ‫( את־המצות‬12.17) The oddness of this phrase gave rise to a number of variants. Vulg, TgN and Sy agree with MT. SP reads ‫את המצוה‬, ‘the commandment’, and LXX τὴν ἐντολὴν ταύτην is evidently based on the same text, to which it has added ‘this’ to provide the specification which such instructions normally have (cf. Deut. 11.22). TgG,Nmg provided specification by rendering ‘the commandment of unleavened bread’. The derivation of ‫ המצות‬here from ‫ המצוה‬was known in rabbinic Judaism: it is attributed to R. Josiah in MRI (Lauterbach, p. 74), and recently it was adopted in NEB (Brockington, p. 10), though not REB. It can scarcely be the original meaning, as Propp agrees (p. 361). The reading ‫ המצוה‬of SP and LXX’s Vorlage, if original, could never have given rise to the ‫ המצות‬of MT, because it is unambiguous, whereas ‫המצות‬ in an unvocalised text could potentially be read in two ways: presumably the sing. ‫ המצוה‬arose from the specific law in the context (and LXX’s ταύτην took this process further). A general reference to ‘the commandments’ would be out of place in this context. A different kind of variation, also with attestation in MRI (p. 73), is found in TgJ, which reads ‘(you shall watch) the dough of the unleavened bread’. ‫( בעצם‬12.17) LXX has simply ἐν, as in v. 51: the other Vss use appropriate equivalents.

  Wevers oddly follows the A reading ποιήσεται here (likewise in 30.32, 37: cf. THGE, pp. 230-31, and Notes, p. 177 – his own wording has evidently suffered textual corruption!), but the middle form is out of place and it (not ποιήσετε) must be due to the common scribal confusion between -ε and -αι. 24

72

EXODUS 1–18

‫( הוצאתי‬12.17) Most witnesses support MT’s past tense, despite its inappropriateness at this stage of the narrative: it was the latter which presumably led LXX (ἐξάξω), Vulg (educam) and possibly TgNmg (‫ )אפק‬to use the future. The reading of MT (and SP: no Qumran evidence survives) should be preferred as the difficilior lectio. ‫( את־צבאותיכם‬12.17) LXX and Vulg render in the sing., but the pl. is regular in Exodus (cf. 6.26; 7.4; 12.41, 51) and the sing. translation may simply represent the unity of the ‘tribal divisions’. TgJ,N add ‘redeemed’ to reinforce the theological interpretation of the event. ‫( ושׁמרתם‬12.17)2o The waw seems to be preserved at the end of a line in 4QpalExm, after an empty space, and DJD IX, pp. 59, 86, suggests that it is a further example of one of the scribe’s methods of marking a division in the text. No verse division appears in MT or SP at this point (in MT the word does follow athnach), but ‘this day’ does fit v. 18 more closely than v. 17a and makes a division at this point more appropriate. SP adds ‫ ועשׂיתם‬and LXX reads καὶ ποιήσετε instead of repeating καὶ φυλάξεσθε from the beginning of the verse. SP recalls a number of passages in Deuteronomy where ‫ שׁמר‬is immediately followed by ‫( עשׂה‬e.g. 4.6) with reference to the commandments. ‫ עשׂה‬can be used of ‘celebrating’ a feast but is never, apparently, used of a day (‫)יום‬. This may be why Wevers suggests that LXX means ‘you will make this day an eternal ordinance…’ and that SP is a conflation of MT and (the Vorlage of?) LXX (Notes, p. 178). But Wevers’s translation, while theoretically possible (and NETS agrees), produces an idiom which is (apparently) unparalleled elsewhere and, even if it is what LXX intended, it is more likely that ‫ועשׂיתם‬ was originally added because of the Deut. parallels (as in SP) and that LXX, having the amplified text in its Vorlage, then ignored ‫ ושׁמרתם‬because it had already been rendered earlier in the verse. For the closeness of LXX and SP in this verse compare the note above on ‫את־המצות‬. ‫( חקת‬12.17) Five SP mss, including Camb. 1846 and two cited by Crown, read ‫חקות‬: whether this is meant as a pl. or a variant pronunciation of the sing. it belongs with some other exx. noted in GSH §146j, 165c. In v. 43 it can only be a sing. The formula with ‫ עולם‬is always found in the sing. elsewhere (except for Ezek. 46.14 where the text is doubtful), as in v. 14, and should be so read here. ‫( בראשׁון‬12.18) TgO,J specify that it was Nisan, while TgN,G, Sy, Vulg add ‘month’; but the adjective alone is found several more times (e.g. Gen. 8.13; Num. 9.5) and is doubtless original. The name Nisan is first attested in this connection in the ‘Passover Papyrus’ from Elephantine, dated to 419 B.C. (Cowley 21; TAD 1, pp. 54-55 [A4.1]: ‫ לניס[ן‬in line 7). LXX ἐναρχομένου will mean ‘of the beginning (month)’ (cf. BAlex 2, p. 149), an unusual periphrasis for ‘first’ which is probably an echo of v. 2: it occurs elsewhere only in Num. 9.5, another passage about Passover/Unleavened Bread, where it is presumably dependent upon the rendering here. LXX also adds the normal equivalent τοῦ πρώτου to ‘month’ later in the verse.



12.1-20

73

‫( בערב‬12.18) TgG has ‫ביני שׁימשׁתא‬, its rendering for ‫ בין הערבים‬in v. 6, both times (so also TgN the first time, alongside ‫ברמשׁא‬, the regular Targumic equivalent to ‘in the evening’), despite the fact that v. 6 refers to a earlier stage of the ritual. TgJ emphasises the distinction by additions which locate the eating on the evening of the 15th (with a different view of when the new day begins); and then expands its rendering of the second ‫ בערב‬to ‘on the evening of the 22nd you may eat leavened bread’ (compare its additions in vv. 8 and 10). ‫( עד יום האחד ועשׂרים‬12.18) SP reads ‫אחד‬, without the article, despite the fact that in such dates the article is common (also in Heb. inscriptions: see Note k on the translation) and SP is more inclined to add the article than to remove it (GSH §170h [cf. 166c]). Both these factors might suggest that ‫אחד‬ is the original reading, but SP may have removed the article to accord with its apparent absence in ‫ בארבעה עשׂר יום‬earlier in the verse. ‫( שׂאר‬12.19) Sy renders with ḥmyʿʾ, ‘leavened bread’, although it had recognised the distinction between ‫ שׂאר‬and ‫ חמץ‬in v. 15. Likewise in 13.7 it merged the separate commands about ‫ שׂאר‬and ‫ חמץ‬into one, as though it saw no significance in the difference. For similar indifference to details of ritual elsewhere in Sy see Weitzman, Syriac Version, pp. 210, 217-19. ‫( ימצא‬12.19) TgG (cf. TgNmg) renders ‘shall be seen’, as in MT of 13.7 (and Deut. 16.4). ‫( כי‬12.19) ‫ כי‬has no equivalent in LXX and Vulg (as also in v. 15), so that the two instructions remain independent of each other. ‫( מחמצת‬12.19) TgO,J introduce a new word for ‘leavened’, ‫מחמעא‬, here (and in v. 20) to reflect the difference from ‫ חמץ‬earlier in the passage. LXX ζυμωτόν marks the distinction from ‫( שׂאר‬ζύμη) that it ignored in v. 15. ‫( הנפשׁ ההוא‬12.19) SP as usual reads ‫ההיא‬, without the curious consonantal text of MT. TgO,J render ad sensum ‫(בר) אנשׁא‬, while the other Vss keep to the wording of MT and Vulg’s anima eius introduces a soul/body distinction that distorts the meaning. ‫( מעדת ישׂראל‬12.19) TgG has ‘from the people (‫ )עם‬of the assembly of Israel’, amplifying the phrase (as in v. 3) to agree with the fuller expression in v. 6. ‫( בגר ובאזרח‬12.19) All the Vss except TgN, Aq and Symm understandably use pl. forms to render the generic singulars of the Heb. (likewise TgNmg and in the first case only[?] TgG). LXX γιώραις for ‫ גר‬is an exceptional use of a loan-word from Aram. (cf. TgO,N,G here and often), found in LXX only here, in Isa. 14.1 and in the mg. of a few mss at Lev. 19.34. Elsewhere LXX uses πάροικος when Israelites are referred to (as at 2.22 and 18.3) and otherwise generally (c. 70x) προσήλυτος (as in vv. 48-49 and 20.10). The latter, which has long been supposed to be a Jewish coinage but now has a third-century B.C. pagan attestation (for which see D.M. Moffit and C.J. Butera, ‘P.Duk. inv.727r: New Evidence for the Meaning and Provenance of the Word Προσήλυτος’, JBL 132 [2013], pp. 159-78; earlier J.A.L. Lee, ‘Equivocal and Stereotyped Renderings in the LXX’, RB 87 [1980], pp. 104-17 [112

74

EXODUS 1–18

n. 27]), was used here by Aq and Symm. LXX evidently quickly decided that a word intelligible to Greek-speakers and increasingly used in a technical sense for Gentile converts to Judaism (so already in Philo acc. BAG, p. 722) was preferable to other options where foreigners were meant. But here γιώρας, like the words chosen in the other Vss (Vulg advena, TgJ ‫ דיורא‬and Sy ʿmwrʾ), probably maintains the purely social connotations of the Heb. Sy inverts its equivalents for the two words here (agreeing with v. 49), to give priority to the ‘normal’ case. ‫( כל־מחמצת‬12.20) A few SP mss prefix waw, including two from the early thirteenth cent., but the rest of the tradition exhibits the asyndeton of MT. For ‫ מחמצת‬TgN has ‫( אחמע‬after ‫ חמיע‬in v. 19), an unattested form: the mg has corrected to ‫מחמע‬, (close to) the reading of TgO,J. TgJ has ‫כל עיבובין דמחמע‬, ‘any mixtures of what is leavened’, an expansion which alludes to an issue discussed in MRI (Lauterbach, p. 79): M.Pes. 3.1 gives a list of forbidden ‘mixtures’. ‫( בכל־מושׁבתיכם‬12.20) LXX ἐν παντὶ κατοικητηρίῳ again experiments with a rendering which it will hardly ever use for ‫ מושׁב‬again (only twice in Ps. 106[107]): compare the note on ‫ בגר‬in v. 19. Other derivatives of the same stem (esp. κατοίκησις and κατοικία) or a periphrasis (as in 10.23) are much more frequent equivalents. TgJ inserts ‫אתר‬, ‘place of’, which might also allude to a discussion in MRI (Lauterbach, p. 80), and Sy inserts byt as it did in 10.23: TgN,G have both, which Klein (2, p. 59) understandably regards as excessive. ‫( תאכלו מצות‬12.20) In 4QpalExm a very little of these two words survives at the end of a line. Space considerations suggest that there was an interval of about 10 spaces at the beginning of the next line to mark the division found also in MT and SP. This would be the only possible case of this kind of division in what survives of 4QpalExm and several other Exodus mss from Qumran have no examples of it at all (of course occasions for its use would be limited). There is one certain case (before 26.15) and several reconstructed cases in 4QNumb (DJD XII, pp. 208-10) and as many as 16 clear cases in 1QIsa. For further examples see Tov, Scribal Practices, p. 146. All these examples are in mss using the square script, so Tov (ibid.) doubts whether this method of division was used in palaeo-Hebrew mss. The alternative way of dealing with a break after a full line of text was to leave a completely empty line, and Tov gives two examples of this in 4QpalGen-Exl, and there are more (cf. DJD IX, pp. 19-20). But there are none in the more extensive remains of 4QpalExm, and after 12.20 there was certainly not an empty line. So either no division was marked at this point or the indentation method was used. The second seems intrinsically more likely, and if there was no indentation a longer reading than MT would be needed in v. 21 to fill the line.

C h ap t er 1 2 . 2 1 - 2 7 M oses I n s tr u cts th e I s r a e li t e s a bou t th e P as s ove r

The section comprises (except for a short narrative about the people’s response in v. 27b) a speech of Moses in which he gives instructions to ‘the elders of Israel’ about certain aspects of the Passover ritual. The boundary between it and the preceding speech of God to Moses is unambiguous and was represented by divisions in MT and SP and probably in 4QpalExm. At the end MT and SP place the division after v. 28. This is readily understandable, since v. 28 is more closely related in content to vv. 1-27 than it is to v. 29ff. But its connections are with vv. 1-20 rather than vv. 21-27 (see further the notes on the next section), and once these two sections are separated it is less natural to associate v. 28 with vv. 2127. Moreover, as a verse of narrative v. 28 does resemble what follows it more than what precedes it from a formal point of view. Internally the unit can be divided readily into six sub-sections (cf. Coats, pp. 82-83): (i) introduction to the speech (v. 21a); (ii) instructions to the elders (vv. 21b-22); (iii) reason/consequence (v. 23); (iv) future observance of Passover (vv. 24-25); (v) instruction of the children (vv. 26-27a); (vi) conclusion: response of the people (v. 27b). The progression from one sub-section to the next is entirely logical once it is recognised that the narrative is written for the benefit of later generations of Israelites. Within each sub-section there are no signs of literary disunity except in v. 24, which overlaps with v. 25 and contains a surprising shift to second person singular forms in its second half (see the Explanatory Note on vv. 24-25). At first sight these verses look like a straightforward account of Moses’ transmission of Yahweh’s instructions to the people (vv. 120) in an abbreviated form, and that is no doubt how the canonical text is meant to be understood. But the contents of vv. 21-27 make it most unlikely that this is what their author intended. There are many differences between the two passages, such as the group to which Moses speaks, the sub-division of the people into ‘clans’ rather than households, the addition of instructions about the bunch

76

EXODUS 1–18

of marjoram and not leaving the house before morning, variations in vocabulary and, perhaps above all, the introduction in v. 23 of a personal ‘Destroyer’ who must be kept from the Israelites’ houses. The instructions about the teaching of children also greatly amplify what is said earlier about the Passover being a ‘memorial’ (v. 14) (see in more detail the Explanatory Notes on the whole passage). In addition much of what is prescribed in vv. 1-20 is omitted here. Even if the total omission of any reference to the Feast of Unleavened Bread is disregarded, on the grounds that the people are instructed about this later, in 13.3-10 (though again in very different words from 12.15-20), it is remarkable that none of the instructions about the criteria for selecting animals, the timing of different stages in the ritual, and the way in which the animal is to be cooked and eaten, are repeated here. It is scarcely conceivable that vv. 1-20 and vv. 21-27 were originally intended to go together (cf. Schmidt, pp. 481-83). This has been generally recognised almost from the beginning of modern critical scholarship on Exodus and is rarely disputed today except by conservatives (Van Seters [see below] is a rather surprising bedfellow for them). The dominant critical view has been that vv. 21-23 and v. 27b come from J and that vv. 24-27a are a Deuteronomistic addition (with some recognition of glosses here and there). But Knobel, followed closely by Nöldeke in 1869, had maintained the traditional view that vv. 21-23 were the continuation of the (for him early) Priestly instructions in vv. 1-20, while then attributing vv. 24-27 to the Jehovist.1 This view of vv. 21-23 was rejected by Wellhausen, who saw that they were closely connected to vv. 24-27 and exhibited many differences from P (Composition, pp. 72-75). But he found it impossible to attribute the passage to J, because it would interrupt the narrative link between 11.8 and 12.29 and also the emphasis on the sparing of Israel was quite different from the JE narrative. He considered the possibility that vv. 21-27 might be a subsequent addition to P (cf. Kuenen’s view in his Hexateuch, p. 331 [cf. 168 n. 4], that the section was from the Endredaktor), to which the content of the passage is close, but favoured the view that (like 13.3-16) it was either from RJE or a later supplement to JE (p. 75).2 1   So Exod.-Lev., pp. 91, 105. In Num.-Jos. his summary of the sources of the Hexateuch assigns vv. 24-27 to his Rechtsbuch (= E; p. 532). 2   In the Prolegomena the twice-repeated statement that there are no references to Passover prior to Deuteronomy (ET, pp. 86-87; cf. 4th German ed., pp. 84, 86) must presume that Exod. 12.21-27 is later than Deuteronomy. The context is Wellhausen’s well-known argument that it was only in Deuteronomy that the originally agricultural festivals began to acquire a historical element.



12.21-27

77

It was first Dillmann and then especially Karl Budde who laid the foundation for the majority view. Dillmann, having criticised Knobel’s view for ignoring the omissions in vv. 21-23 and the non-Priestly terminology there, argued that 13.3-16 must be J because 12.34, 39 needed to be complemented by a law for the continued observance of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Since 12.21-27 presented the same pattern of an ancient action which was turned into a regular practice, these verses too should (all) be assigned to J. Eleven years later (with more emphasis on their own style and character) Budde also attributed vv. 21-23 and v. 27b to J, but for linguistic reasons he regarded the intervening verses as a Deuteronomic insertion (‘Die Gesetzgebung der mittleren Bücher des Pentateuchs, insbesondere der Quellen J und E’, ZAW 11 [1891], pp. 193-234 [199-200]). He was followed by B.W. Bacon, Holzinger (with some modifications) and Baentsch, with the last-named appealing, in an almost Gunkelian way, to the combination of fixed older traditions as the reason for the apparent ‘intrusiveness’ of the passage in the J narrative (p. 100).3 Shortly afterwards a different way of reconciling such tensions within the non-Priestly material with an early origin for some of its Passover legislation was to be proposed, based not on oral tradition but on a more thoroughgoing use of source analysis. In 1912 Rudolf Smend assigned 12.21-23, 27b to the earlier of the two Yahwist sources which he distinguished (J1), while the surrounding older narrative was attributed to the later one (J2). In other words, for Smend the tensions that had concerned Wellhausen, and have continued to require some defensive explanation by those who have seen 12.21-27 (or some of it) as part of a single J narrative, became one of the arguments for the idea of a ‘fourth narrative source’ in the Pentateuch, which was taken up in turn by Eissfeldt, Beer and Fohrer.4 For vv. 24-27a they, like more mainstream critics, envisaged a Deuteronomic author. With the (partial) exception of this distinguished but uninfluential minority, scholars throughout the twentieth century (and beyond: cf. Schmidt, pp. 517-21) were in general well satisfied with the analysis of the passage proposed by Budde.5 A few scholars have, like Dillmann, not held to a Deuteronomic origin for vv. 24-27a. One group places it earlier than Deuteronomy (Lohfink, [Das   A little curiously Gressmann, who might have been expected to favour such an approach, found the inconsistency too great and reverted to Wellhausen’s view (Anfänge, pp. 41-42; cf. Mose, pp. 97-98 n. 1). 4   See further the introduction to 12.28-42, 50-51. To anticipate, Eissfeldt attributed to L (his name for J1) vv. 21-23, 27b, 33-39, while 11.4-8 and 12.29-30, 32 were from J and v. 31 from E. 5   This widespread agreement is at first ignored by Gertz (Tradition, pp. 38-39: ‘nun seit langem wie kaum eine andere Textanalyse innerhalb des Pentateuch umstritten’: but later recognised, p. 45 n. 75 [die Mehrheitsmeinung’]), despite the fact that his own (partly tentative) conclusion is quite close to it. For the (important) differences in his view see below. 3

78

EXODUS 1–18

Hauptgebot, pp. 121-22]; Clements, Blenkinsopp, Propp). Some others have argued that these verses are from P, along with vv. 21-23 or most of them (first apparently H.G. May, ‘The Relation of the Passover to the Festival of Unleavened Cakes’, JBL 55 [1936], pp. 65-82; then B.N. Wambacq [‘Les origines de la Pésaḥ israélite’, Bib 57 (1976), pp. 206-24, 301-26 (316-19)], Norin, Van Seters [‘The Place of the Yahwist in the History of Passover and Massot’, ZAW 95 (1983), pp. 167-82; Life, pp. 114-19], Coats [pp. 82-83], Gesundheit [Three Times, pp. 58-75; earlier (as S. Bar-On) ‘Zur literarkritischen Analyse von Ex 12, 21-27’, ZAW 107 (1995), pp. 18-30, with vv. 22-27a being the original P continuation of v. 11] and apparently J.S. Baden [cf. Composition, pp. 76, 173 with n. 18]).6 This view has been strongly criticised by Blum, Studien, p. 39 n. 149, and Gertz, Tradition, p. 45 n. 74, but a Priestly or post-Priestly origin just for v. 24 or part of it has, understandably, been more popular (so Carpenter/ Harford-Battersby [as the original conclusion of vv. 1-20], McNeile, Noth [for v. 24b], Blum, [ibid.], Propp: cf. Baentsch, R. Schmitt [Exodus und Passa, p. 21], Gertz [Tradition, p. 40]). Levin judges the whole of vv. 21-27 to be very late (‘wahrscheinlich…nachendredaktionell [RS]’, p. 336), since they interrupt the natural sequence in both J and P, but Gertz retains the distinction between vv. 21-23 and vv. 24-27a, regarding only the latter as very late (because of its mix of Deuteronomic and Priestly language) and eventually concluding that vv. 21-23 are most probably a pre-Priestly supplement to the non-Priestly Exodus narrative (Tradition, pp. 39-50).

Within vv. 24-27a it does seem necessary, as some others have seen, to distinguish between v. 24 and vv. 25-27a, for the reasons given below in the Explanatory Note on vv. 24-25, and to attribute v. 24 not to P itself but to a redactor who sought to bring vv. 2527a within the Priestly view that the continuing celebration of the Passover could be observed anywhere, even outside the land of Canaan. This is very likely the redactor who combined P with the non-Priestly Exodus narrative, who also placed v. 28 where it is now to make vv. 21-27 appear as a summary of vv. 1-20. The reasons given by Gertz for seeing the influence of Priestly style in vv. 25-27a are, however, inconclusive, because they concern mainly common expressions which are not distinctively Priestly. The idea of the gift of the land is found already in Gen. 12.7; 13.15, 17. The proposal to view all or most of vv. 21-27 as Priestly is founded 6   Gesundheit, Three Times, pp. 66-67, for no good reason separates vv. 21 and 27b from the rest of the unit as a ‘redactional frame’, conveniently sidelining some of the passage’s most clearly non-Priestly elements.



12.21-27

79

partly on the difficulties of seeing it as part of J, to which we must return, and partly (this is ‘the principal argument’ according to Van Seters, Life, p. 116) on the occurrence in vv. 21-24 of vocabulary that is typical of P. Blum (see above) has reasonably objected that the technical language in question cannot be presumed to be the sole property of one biblical writer or school, and it should also be recalled that in several ways, including the use of some of the terminology in question, vv. 21-27 are so different from vv. 1-20 that they cannot have been designed to follow that passage (see the Explanatory Notes). It is in fact not characteristic of P to follow a divine instruction to Moses (and Aaron) with an account of how this instruction was handed on to the people. The transition from v. 20 to v. 21 (and from v. 27 to v. 28) must be due to the use by the redactor of material from two different versions of the Exodus story. To return to vv. 25-27a, there are undeniably some affinities in their form and language to Deuteronomy. The formula ‘When you come into the land which Yahweh will give you’ (v. 25) recalls both the theology of the land and the association of legal requirements with entry into the land that are characteristic of Deuteronomy and brought together in passages like Deut. 17.14; 18.9; 26.1; and 27.3. The Kinderfrage motif in vv. 26-27 also has a parallel in Deut. 6.20-25. Some connection between Deuteronomy and this passage is highly likely, but the common view that this passage is therefore influenced by Deuteronomy is not necessarily correct. As noted already, the theology of the land as Yahweh’s gift is already found in non-Priestly passages in Genesis, to which the words ‘as he has promised’ (v. 25) might be referring. Secondly, this passage and Deut. 6.20-25 are only two out of six passages in which such Kinderfragen appear. Excursus on the Kinderfrage Passages A series of passages in the Hexateuch display a similar pattern to Exod. 12.2627a and Deut. 6.20-25, in which children’s questions, stated or assumed, provide the impulse for instruction about the early traditions of Israel. In Exod. 13.14-15 the killing of firstborn animals is explained as a commemoration of the slaying of the Egyptian firstborn at the time of the Exodus. Verse 8 provides for a similar explanation of the Feast of Unleavened Bread to be given to a child (without an explicit question, but one is almost implied).

80

EXODUS 1–18

Another pair of such formulae occurs in Joshua 4, for the explanation of twelve stones, placed either in the midst of the river Jordan (vv. 6-7; cf. v. 9) or at Gilgal near Jericho on the west side of the river (vv. 21-22[24]; cf. vv. 2-3, 8) to commemorate Israel’s miraculous crossing in the time of Joshua. Such questions were seen by Gunkel as universal and as the basis for what he called ‘aetiological legends (Sagen)’: ‘Es gibt eine Fülle von Fragen, die ein antikes Volk beschäftigen. Das Kind schaut mit grossen Augen in die Welt und fragt: Warum?’ (Genesis, p. xx; cf. Legends, p. 25). Not surprisingly Gunkel observed that such questions were cited in the Old Testament specifically in relation to aspects of the cult (ibid., p. xxiii, citing Exod. 12.26; 13.14; Josh. 4.6; cf. Legends, pp. 30-31, also L. Köhler, Der Hebräische Mensch: eine Skizze [Tübingen, 1953], pp. 66-68, ET pp. 79-80). The two Joshua passages (mainly in fact the second) were brought into H.-J. Kraus’s argument that Joshua 3–5 were closely modelled on the liturgy of an early festival at the Gilgal sanctuary (‘Gilgal. Ein Beitrag zur Kultusgeschichte Israels’, VT 1 [1951], pp. 181-99 [esp. 186, 196]; cf. Gottesdienst in Israel. Grundriss einer Geschichte des altisraelitischen Gottesdienstes [Munich, 2nd ed., 1962], pp. 183-86, ET pp. 157-58, and J.R. Porter, ‘The Background of Joshua 3–5’, SEÅ 36 [1971], pp. 5-23 [14]). But it was J.A. Soggin who noted that the Exodus passages too (and Deut. 6.20-25, on the rather dubious grounds that it cited an ancient ‘cultic credo’) were associated with cultic observances and had a formal character which made it possible to see the Kinderfragen as a whole as fragments of an old catechetical system for teaching about the great traditions (‘Kultätiologische Sagen und Katechese im Hexateuch’, VT 10 [1960], pp.  341-47, spec. 345-46). Although Soggin accepted the Deuteronomistic authorship of all the passages, he adopted the view that was widespread at the time, that the Deuteronomic tradition had ancient roots, and saw the catechetical form as going back to the Shechem and Gilgal sanctuaries in the premonarchic period. In his later commentary on Joshua (ET Joshua: A Commentary [London, 1972]) Soggin was able to say: ‘For a very long time, the sight of the stones in the river, in the middle of the ford, and of the twelve pillars in the sanctuary, was the occasion of a liturgical dialogue between the community taking part in the celebration and the priests…’ (p. 67). Soggin’s article was mentioned, but not relied upon, in an Excursus in Lohfink’s Das Hauptgebot, which challenged the common view that Exod. 12.24-27a and 13.3-16 were modelled on Deut. 6.20-25 by making a close examination of the vocabulary and style of the Exodus passages. Lohfink concluded that Exod. 12.24-27a was ‘not Deuteronomic’ (pp. 121-22), while 13.3-16 was ‘proto-Deuteronomic’ (a term used here for the first time), representing a stage in the development of Deuteronomic style in which the classic formulations found in Deuteronomy were not yet present (pp. 122-24): in both cases the similarities to Deuteronomy were outweighed by the differences. Lohfink was not so sure that a catechetical practice lay behind the biblical



12.21-27

81

passages – it was possible ‘dass die Einführung der Kinderfrage in unseren Texten nur ein rhetorisches Mittel ist’ (p. 116) – and preferred to see their origin in older ‘preaching traditions’ (p. 118). M. Weinfeld has seen very clearly that a distinction is to be made between the parenetical use of the Kinderfrage in Deut. 6.20-25 and the real ritual situations envisaged in the other passages: in Deuteronomy 6 ‘the author transformed a collocution attached to a ritual ceremony into a liturgical oration irrelevant to the ceremony’; ‘the son–father collocution’ was ‘divorced from its actual setting and converted into an instruction’ (Deuteronomy, pp. 34-35). In his more recent commentary on Deuteronomy 1–11 (AB 5; New York, 1991) Weinfeld has argued for a specific dependence of Deut. 6.20-25 on Exod. 13.1-16 (pp. 328-30, following M. Caloz, ‘Exode, XIII, 3-16 et son rapport au Deutéronome’, RB 75 [1968], pp. 5-62), while ‘the Gilgal tradition’ in Joshua 4 lies behind Exodus 12–13 as well as Deuteronomy 6: ‘Gilgal was the birthplace of religious education and dramatisation of salvation-history in ancient Israel… [T]he fourth catechism in Deuteronomy is freed from any connection to a ritual… Education in Deuteronomy does not depend on ritual ceremonial media…, but is formal and abstract’ (ibid.). A similar distinction was drawn by J. Loza (‘Les catachèses étiologiques dans l’Ancien Testament’, RB 78 [1971], pp. 481-500), who analysed the common structure of all the passages in detail. Loza made a further distinction between the Kinderfragen in Joshua 4, which do have a cultic origin, and the rest, which probably do not. But Deut. 6.20-25 is a separate case from all the others, since it is dependent on the terminology of ancient Near Eastern treaties as well as the catechetical tradition (p. 500).7 In Exod. 12.24-27a Loza sees contacts with P in vv. 24-25, so that the old, pre-Deuteronomic, nucleus is restricted to vv. 26-27 (pp. 486-87). The most recent review of all the passages is provided by Thomas Dozeman in his God at War (pp. 48-60), which should probably be seen as the key to understanding the corresponding section of his commentary, where it is not always clear which view he favours in the complex debate which he describes (pp. 248-52, 271-79). Dozeman’s earlier discussion comes in a chapter on the Deuteronomistic edition of Exodus: it opens with a reference to ‘Deuteronomistic tradents’ and Exod. 12.24-27 ‘look to be Deuteronomistic’ (p. 49). Against Lohfink he believes that we must recognise a ‘flexibility’ in the language of the Deuteronomists, so that minor variations in vocabulary do not undermine the attribution of sections to them. He places more weight on ‘literary arguments’ such as the parenetic style, the role of the elders, the instruction of children, and the relationship to the older narrative of Exodus   The parallels cited are in the Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon §25 (ANET, p. 537: already noted by Lohfink, p. 115 n. 7) and in the Sefire treaty 1C, 1-9 (ANET, p. 660): but in neither case is there any question and answer pattern. 7

82

EXODUS 1–18

(pp. 49-50). The Passover ritual, like the despoiling of the Egyptians, lays weight on ‘active participation by Israel’ in contrast to the purely theocentric older narrative (cf. pp. 46-47). It is recognised that ‘older cultic roots’ probably underlie the Kinderfrage (p. 49), but Dozeman’s emphasis falls on what he sees as the Deuteronomistic use of this catechetical tradition, which he traces from Exodus through Deuteronomy to Joshua (pp. 54-59). But since ‘Joshua 4 is the oldest version of the catechism’ (p. 60), the tradition has been extended backwards from the Deuteronomistic History into the (later) Deuteronomistic revision of the Tetrateuch and Deuteronomy itself, to define a theology of the Exodus which is closely tied in to the whole salvation-history. This provides what is perhaps the most appealing synthesis of the consequences of a thoroughgoing Deuteronomistic interpretation of the Kinderfrage passages. There is no doubt that, both in Deuteronomy itself and in the Deuteronomistic History, a prime concern is to uphold the central theological importance of the Exodus, alongside and in conjunction with the covenant at Horeb and the Deuteronomic law. This builds in a particular way on the prominence of the Exodus tradition in earlier times, particularly in the northern kingdom. But more needs to be said, and can be said, about a pre-Deuteronomic use of the Kinderfrage pattern in this connection. This is certainly evident in Joshua 4, where the clearly Deuteronomistic rewriting of the chapter includes the second Kinderfrage section in vv. 20-24 (which is the one that includes the Exodus) but not, it would seem, the first such section in vv. 6-7, which will be older. It and the Exodus texts represent the stage at which such instruction was still closely linked to cultic situations, which preceded its adaptation to a specific law-centred application in Deuteronomy 6, as Lohfink and Weinfeld saw.8

There is thus an important difference between Deut. 6.20-25 and the other five passages. Deuteronomy 6.20-25 uses the Kinderfrage motif as one of many ways in which the Deuteronomists seek to persuade their hearers/readers of the need to obey the laws contained in the book. All the other passages relate to objects or observances which were designed (or at least so understood) to remind future generations of Yahweh’s great saving actions in the past. In Exod. 13.8 and 13.14-15 (where very similar issues arise to here) the instruction concerns the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the killing of firstborn males. In Josh. 4.6-7 and 4.21-24 it is the significance of twelve stones set up close to the river Jordan, near Gilgal, that is at 8   Dozeman refers to Weinfeld in some other connections, but does not pick up his very important observations about the changed use of the Kinderfrage in Deut. 6.



12.21-27

83

issue. The success of such reminders can be seen in a passage like Ps. 80.9-12, where the Exodus and conquest traditions are drawn upon as support for a prayer for help which most likely dates from the late eighth century B.C. Contrary to the general view today that all the Kinderfrage passages are Deuteronomistic in origin, a strong case can be made for seeing Deut. 6.20-25 as a typical adaptation of an originally cultic motif to promote the acceptance and observance of the whole collection of laws in Deuteronomy. Exodus 12.25-27a at least could well belong to the non-Priestly narrative of the Exodus itself (the case for saying this also of 13.3-16 will be considered in the introduction to 13.1-16), along with vv. 21-23 and 27b, which have some strong linguistic affinities especially with ch. 4 (see the Explanatory Notes on vv. 21-22 and 26-27). In the introduction to 4.18-31 we attributed the related verses to J (vv. 24-26 and 29-31). We have observed above that a number of tensions have been noted between 12.21-27 and 11.1-8 + 12.29ff., which have led to the view that 12.21-27 are not part of the main narrative of the plagues but come either from a redactor or from a ‘third early narrative source’. Specific differences include the need for a mark to show Yahweh which houses belong to the Israelites, the use of an intermediary (‘the Destroyer’) and the timing of the Israelites’ departure. Although explanations can be given for these variations, they sound a little like special pleading (so most recently Gertz, pp. 47-48, who lays particular weight on the absence of any reference back to the Passover and the sparing of the Israelites in vv. 29-30). Our attribution of the main plague-narrative to E (see most recently the introduction to 11.1-10) removes the difficulty at a stroke, without any need to assume an additional early narrative source. 12.21-27 (apart from v. 24) can readily be attributed to J, since the narrative into which it appears to intrude is not from J but from E, and the affinities of the passage to the J narrative earlier in Exodus do not need to be ignored or explained away. Closer to hand, 12.21-23, 25-27 will belong with other fragments of J’s plague narrative which we have detected in 7.15-17, 20*; 9.22-23a, 35; 10.12-15*, 20 and 10.21-23, 27. The feature that is common to these passages (and distinctive from the main body of the plague-story) is that Moses must stretch out his staff (or his hand) to bring on the plague in question. This reflects the same requirement for human action to initiate (subject to a prior divine command) Yahweh’s intervention, whether in judgement or

84

EXODUS 1–18

in deliverance, as Dozeman has observed to be characteristic of the Passover ritual. In this respect the surviving fragments of J hang together theologically. Further evidence of such coherence can be seen in the involvement of an angelic figure (as in 3.2) and in the apotropaic use of a blood ritual (as in 4.25-26). According to the traditional dating of the Pentateuchal sources, which this commentary broadly shares (see the general Introduction), the assignment of these verses to a non-Priestly narrative source also implies that they are older than the Priestly instructions in vv. 1-20 and come from pre-exilic times. This is, for example, the best explanation for the different uses of the same Heb. word (mašḥît) in vv. 13 (‘destruction’) and 23 (‘the destroyer’): see further the Explanatory Notes. The question then arises about the basis for the close similarity of wording between parts of vv. 1-20 and 21-27 respectively, which will also be treated in the Explanatory Notes. Recent scholarship has tended to explain such similarities by direct borrowing from the older account by the authors of the later one (see e.g. n. 18 on 12.1-20). This may be correct, but the alternative possibility that knowledge of the same words was widespread in popular or priestly (oral) tradition is especially likely in the case of the ritual for an annual ceremony such as Passover, to which both vv. 14a and vv. 24-27a refer (cf. Schmidt, p. 483). The larger questions about the origins and history of the celebration of Passover in ancient times cannot be handled fully here, not least because no one biblical passage provides a basis on its own for discussing them: the present passage, for example, deals only with certain aspects of the ritual and the later instructions in vv. 1-20 very probably preserve ancient features of it too. For orientation in the wider debates reference may be made to such works as de Vaux, Institutions; Albertz, Religionsgeschichte; Schmitt, Exodus und Passa; and the overviews in ABD 6, pp. 755-65; Propp, pp. 427-52; and Schmidt, pp. 483-92 (cf. 469-72). Very probably Passover began, as both accounts in Exodus 12 suggest, as a domestic celebration and was already practised before its association with the Exodus as a spring rite for the protection of families and their livestock. At some point (no later than the reign of Josiah) it was amalgamated with the agricultural festival of Unleavened Bread and became part of a national festival at the temple in Jerusalem (Deut. 16.1-8; 2 Kgs 23.21-23; Ezek. 45.21-24; M.Pes. 5).



12.21-27

85

Whereas the other component of the non-Priestly narrative moved straight on to the fulfilment of Yahweh’s declaration in 11.4-6 that there would be one terrible, final plague to force Pharaoh’s hand, this one delays that intervention to incorporate a passage which draws attention to the celebration of the regular Passover festival as having its origin (at least in the way that it was now observed) at a crucial point in the Exodus story. Just as Moses himself had earlier been preserved from a divine attack by his wife’s application of the blood of his son’s circumcision, so the Israelites’ houses had been marked and preserved from the onset of the angelic ‘Destroyer’ who carried out Yahweh’s vengeance on the Egyptians (as he had perhaps, in earlier versions of this ritual, been warded off from attacks on the newborn animals of the flock) by the blood of a slaughtered animal. And so for ever hereafter, and especially in the land which was Yahweh’s gift, this ritual was to be repeated and explained to succeeding generations as a memorial of that first great act of Yahweh’s deliverance of his people. Like them, future generations could be expected to ‘bow down’ and ‘worship’ at the recollection of it, and no doubt in hope too of Yahweh’s future care for his people. 21 [Moses called all the elders of Israel and said to them: ‘Go (along?)a and take animals from the flockb for your clansc and slaughter the Passoverd. 22 Take a bunche of marjoramf and dip it in the blood which is on the threshold/in the bowlg and apply some of the bloodh which is on the threshold/in the bowlg to the lintel and the two doorposts. Not one of you shall go out of the door of his house until morning. 23 Yahweh will pass through to smitei the Egyptians/Egypt, but whenj he sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts he will “pass over”k the door and he will not allowl the destroyerm to come into your houses to smite.] 24 [You shall maintain this practicen as a statute for you and your descendants for ever.] 25 [When you come into the land which Yahweh will give you, as he has promised, you shall maintaino this service/worshipp. 26 When your children say to you, “What is this servicep to you?”q, 27 you shall say, “Itr is a Passover sacrifice for Yahweh, whos ‘passed over’ the houses of the Israelites when he smotei the Egyptians/Egypt and kept our houses safe”.’ The people bowed down and worshippedt.]

86

EXODUS 1–18

Notes on the Translation a. Heb. ‫משׁכו‬. The normal meaning of ‫משׁך‬, ‘drag, pull’, would fit with an animal as obj. here (so DCH 5, p. 523) but is inappropriate for an action prior to the ‘taking’ of the animal (‫)וקחו‬. Hence ‫ משׁכו‬is generally taken as a case of the rare intransitive use of the verb for ‘go (along), proceed’ (compare then the frequent use of ‫ הלך‬before ‫לקח‬, e.g. in 5.11), as in Judg. 4.6; 5.14; 20.37; Job 21.33; Sir. 14.19 (cf. BDB, p. 604; HAL, p. 610). But the form in Sir. 14.19 may well be passive (DCH 5, p. 525; Ges18, p. 753) and the three occurrences in Judges can all be explained differently (Ges18, ibid.), so that only Job 21.33 provides a strong parallel in BH for a meaning parallel to ‫הלך‬, if indeed its own interpretation is clear enough to do so. There are possible examples of it in post-biblical Heb. and JAram., but they may in fact be passives. Perhaps, therefore, ‫ משׁך‬here has its common meaning ‘pull’ or, as F. Perles suggested (Review of Gesenius-Buhl, Handwörterbuch [14th ed.], JQR 18 [1906], pp. 383-90 [385]), the sense ‘acquire’ which it has in MH (Jastrow, p. 853: cf. MRI, Lauterbach, p. 83) and ‫ וקחו‬is a gloss to explain the unusual word or an assimilation to v. 3.9 See further Text and Versions. b. Heb. ‫ צאן‬is the collective noun corresponding to ‫ שׂה‬in vv. 3-5 and shares its ability to refer to goats as well as sheep and to both together (Gen. 30.3132: cf. BDB, p. 838). c. Heb. ‫ משׁפחה‬is normally the next kinship group below a tribe (so in the P genealogy in 6.14-25), though it appears sometimes to refer to both a wider and a narrower group (cf. TWAT 5, 87-89 = TDOT 9, pp. 80-82). ‘Each clan was ruled by the heads of its families, the zeqēnîm or “elders” ’ (de Vaux, Institutions 1, p. 22, ET p. 8): so here it is envisaged that the selection of animals was organised at the level of clans rather than individual families as in vv. 3-5. d. Here as in v. 11 (and v. 27) ‫ פסח‬refers to the slaughtered animal, not the festival as a whole: see Note y on the translation of vv. 1-20 and the Explanatory Note on v. 11. Schmidt suggests (p. 477) that the absence of ‫ את‬might be due to older usage. e. Heb. ‫אגֻ ָדּה‬,ֲ a rare word which only has this meaning here in BH. It is more frequent in post-biblical Heb., where the related verb also occurs (e.g. 5Q13 f2.7: see also Jastrow, pp. 10-11). f. Heb. ‫אזוב‬. The familiar Eng. equivalent ‘hyssop’ is taken from LXX and Vulg, but it is now generally agreed that ‫ אזוב‬cannot mean Hyssopus officinalis L., as it is not native to Palestine, and probably refers to ‘Syrian marjoram’ (Origanum maru L.: so already BDB, p. 1119, and L. Baldensperger and G.M. Crowfoot, ‘Hyssop’, PEFQS 63 [1931], pp. 89-98: see further Houtman 1, p. 164; Propp, p. 407; Dozeman, p. 273; NEB, REB; and the recent lexica s.v.): on its characteristics see ABD 2, p. 812. 9   Perles cited Job 28.18 and Ezek. 32.20 as other possible instances of the sense ‘acquire’ in BH. In the latter case it is hardly likely.



12.21-27

87

g. Heb. ‫בסף‬. There are two Heb. words ‫סף‬,ַ one meaning a vessel for liquids (cf. Zech. 12.2) and the other, which is more common, ‘threshold’. Usually the former is thought to be involved here, with the def. art. being explained as prolepsis (cf. ‫ הסנה‬in 3.2 and the note there: GK §126q). But ‘threshold’ is also possible and would explain why no mention is made of the application of blood to the threshold later in the verse. This was the interpretation of Vulg (in limine) and probably LXX (παρὰ τὴν θύραν: see further Text and Versions): Houtman 2, pp. 175, 193, gives additional references. One might expect ‫ על־הסף‬if ‘threshold’ were meant (cf. the use of ‫ על‬in v. 23), but ‫ ב‬does occasionally mean ‘on’ (Gen. 8.20; Num. 23.2; Judg. 8.21; 1 Kgs 2.5; Isa. 59.17). h. Heb. ‫מן־הדם‬. For the partitive use of ‫( מן‬as in v. 7) see BDB, p. 580. i. Heb. ‫לנגף‬. The verb (again in v. 27) has already appeared in 7.27 and the related nouns ‫ מגפה‬and ‫ נגף‬in 9.14 and 12.13. There is considerable overlap in meaning and usage between the verb ‫ נגף‬and the Hiphil of ‫( נכה‬for which see vv. 12-13 and 29 in the nearer context: also e.g. 3.20; 7.17, 25; 9.15), but in the Qal the former generally refers to divine action, whereas ‫ הכה‬is frequently used of human action as well, especially in the context of war (cf. TWAT 5, 228-29, 446-52 = TDOT 9, pp. 211-12, 416-22). This perhaps gives ‫ נגף‬a more distinctively theological ‘colouring’ than ‫הכה‬. j. See Note bb on the translation of vv. 1-20 for the identical construction in v. 13. k. For the rendering of ‫ פסח‬here see Note cc on the translation of vv. 1-20. From the original meaning ‘protect’ one might infer the sense ‘stand guard’ in v. 23. l. Heb. ‫ולא יתן‬. For the use of ‫ נתן‬for ‘allow’ see 3.19 and BDB, p. 679. m. Heb. ‫המשׁחית‬. For the different senses of ‫ משׁחית‬here and in v. 13 see Note ee on the translation of vv. 1-20. Here ‫ משׁחית‬is the nominalised Hiph. part. of ‫שׁחת‬, and the reference is to an angelic ‘destroyer’ like the one in 2 Sam. 24/1 Chr. 21, where ‫ (ה)משׁחית‬appears as an attribute of the ‫ מלאך‬who brings a plague. The other occurrences of the nominalised part. (1 Sam. 13.17; 14.15; Isa. 54.16; Jer. 22.7; possibly Jer. 4.7 and 51.1) refer to human ‘raiders’, in the first two cases perhaps as a technical military term for a unit of an army. See further the Explanatory Notes on vv. 13 and 23. n. Heb. ‫את־הדבר הזה‬. The translation of ‫ דבר‬as ‘practice’ (cf. NRSV ‘rite’) is based on its indefinite use for a ‘thing’ and especially its use after ‫עשׂה‬ in e.g. Gen. 22.16 (cf. BDB, p. 183). But since the ‘practice’ has just been commanded by Moses, a rendering closer to the core meaning ‘word, saying’ is also possible: for ‫ דבר‬specifically of commands see BDB, p. 182, and for its use in that sense elsewhere with ‫( שׁמר‬and no intervening form of ‫ )עשׂה‬cf. Deut. 12.28; 13.1; 17.19; 29.8; Ps. 119.17, 57, 101; 1 Chr. 10.13; 2 Chr. 34.21. In view of the continuation in v. 25, where ‫ שׁמר‬is construed with ‫ עבדה‬as its object, ‘practice’ is nevertheless preferable here.

88

EXODUS 1–18

o. Heb. ‫ושׁמרתם‬. Waw of the apodosis, after the preceding temporal clause (GK §112oo). p. Heb. ‫(את־)העבדה הזאת‬. The sense ‘service, worship of God’ is mainly limited to P, Ezekiel, Chronicles and Nehemiah according to BDB, p. 715, but it appears again in the non-Priestly law about the Feast of Unleavened Bread in 13.5. In view of the more widespread use of the verb ‫ עבד‬for the service and worship of God (cf. esp. Exod. 3.12; 7.16, 26; 10.26), it is not surprising to find some occurrences of the noun in worship contexts outside the main places where it occurs. The sense is also somewhat different, referring to a particular cultic practice (cf. ‘this’) rather than to the service of God in general. J. Milgrom pointed out that in most, perhaps all, of the occurrences of ‫ עבדה‬in P and Ezekiel it has the sense ‘physical labour’, not ‘worship’ (Studies in Levitical Terminology, I: The Encroacher and the Levite. The Term ʿAboda [Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1970], pp. 60-82, 83-86): so certainly in Exod. 1.14; 2.23; 6.6, 9. This sense was developed in Neh. 10.33 and Chronicles into a general use for ‘cultic service’ (ibid., pp. 8283, 86-87), which is quite different from the use here (and in 13.5) for a specific ‘act of worship’. q. Questions of a similar structure to this one occur in Gen. 33.5, 8; Josh. 4.6; 2 Sam. 16.2; Ezek. 12.22; 37.18. Where an answer is given (in Ezek. 12.22 the question is rhetorical), it shows that, apart from Gen. 33.5 (where ‫ מי‬introduces a straightforward question about identity), the question seeks to elicit the meaning of something, in terms of its purpose or cause, to the addressee. Here, as in the very similar case of Josh. 4.6, the reason for the practice is being sought. The briefer formulations in 13.14 and Deut. 6.20 (without ‫ )לכם‬probably have a similar intent. r. Heb. ‫הוא‬. R.D. Holmstedt and A.R. Jones (‘Tripartite Verbless Clauses in Biblical Hebrew: Resumption for Left-Dislocation or Pronominal Copula?’, JSS 59 [2014], pp. 53-89), include this ‫ הוא‬in their ‘best-case corpus’ of examples of a ‘copular pronoun’ in BH (p. 83), but it is hard to see why, as the clause does not exhibit the ‘tripartite verbless clause’ structure whose analysis they are discussing. ‫ הוא‬is simply the subject of the clause and the words preceding it are the predicate, placed first as is natural in the response to a question (cf. Muraoka, Emphatic Words, pp. 18-20; JM §154g). s. Heb. ‫ אשׁר‬could mean ‘because’ here (BDB, p. 83, s.v. 8c: cf. NJPS and Houtman and ‘for’ in NEB, REB, NRSV), though scarcely ‘when’ (cf. Vulg quando). But the straightforward ‘who’ of LXX, Tyndale (‘which’), AV, JB and NIV is preferable (cf. Propp, p. 410). t. Heb. ‫וישׁתחוו‬. Codex L has the strange pointing ‫וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַתּ ֲחוּוּ‬, as also in 4.31 (cf. 11.8). Dotan ad loc. (cf. p. 1230) omits the dot in the penultimate waw (as did BH3) and describes it as a mappiq (p. xiv), designed to show that the waw is consonantal (see in general GK §14d). Many mss and earlier edd. also omit the mappiq here.



12.21-27

89

Explanatory Notes 21-22. The new introductory formula signals a change of speaker, which is also reflected in the divisions marked in MT, SP and probably one Qumran manuscript (see Text and Versions). Moses now gives instructions to ‘the elders of Israel’ which continue to the middle of v. 27. Verse 3 in the previous (Priestly) section had anticipated that Yahweh’s instructions given there would be transmitted to ‘the whole congregation of Israel’, and the elders here are seen by some commentators as the natural intermediaries for the fulfilment of that task. In Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic History the elders do receive the law from Moses and exercise various leadership roles, as they do also in non-Priestly sections of the Tetrateuch (see Dozeman, p. 273, for a summary of the evidence: more fully J. Buchholz, Die Ältesten Israels im Deuteronomium [GTA 36; Göttingen, 1988]). But they never do so in Priestly texts (the mention of them in Lev. 9.1 does not lead anywhere and is probably secondary: cf. Buchholz, p. 36), where different titles are employed. Moreover, the details of the instructions here, while similar to certain features of vv. 1-20, differ from that passage in important ways (see below) and were probably not originally designed to be its sequel. The role of the elders as leaders of the community here fits well, however, with other references to them in the non-Priestly Exodus narrative (cf. 3.16, 18; 4.29; 17.5-6; 18.12; 19.7; 24.1, 9, 14; Num. 11.16, 24-25, 30; 16.25: in Exod. 10.9 Heb. zāqēn refers to ‘old’ people in general), and these verses are therefore best seen as part of it too, embodying an alternative account of the Passover ritual which was once the continuation of 11.1-8. The first word of Moses’ instructions, Heb. miškû, is not the usual word for ‘Go’ and it could mean ‘Draw’ or ‘Get’ (see Note a on the translation and Text and Versions). ‘Animals from the flock’ (Heb. ṣōʾn), as in vv. 3-5, allows for a goat as well as a lamb to be chosen (but not a bull as in Deut. 16.2; cf. 2 Chr. 30.24; 35.7-9, 12). The people are seen here as a body of ‘clans’ (for this meaning, which is preferable to ‘families’ [NRSV], see Note c on the translation), a unit that comes between the tribe and the household in Israelite society (cf. the genealogy in 6.14-25 and the notes there). Here too the language is different from that used in vv. 3-4 and the problems associated there with large and small households do not

90

EXODUS 1–18

arise. The mention of ‘the Passover lamb’ (Heb. happesaḥ, with the definite article) can be explained in the present context from the inclusion of the word in the preceding prescriptions (v. 11), though even in the combined narrative it would be the first that the elders had heard of it. Another possibility, especially when vv. 21-27 are read apart from vv. 1-20, is that this writer knew that Passover was an ancient custom, not one that was first invented at the time of the Exodus, and so could assume that it would make sense to the early Israelites portrayed in the narrative. What is added in v. 23 is then a new explanation for the practice when it was associated with the Exodus. In v. 22 some details are included in the instructions that were not specified in Yahweh’s words to Moses in vv. 1-20, a further sign that vv. 21-27 were not originally designed to follow on from them. The use of ‘a bunch of marjoram’ (Heb. ʾēzôb: see Note f on the translation) to spread the blood of the slaughtered animal over the doorway is similar to aspects of the rituals prescribed for the cleansing of individuals who have suffered from skin disease and houses with fungal growths (Lev. 14.4, 6, 49, 51-52: cf. Ps. 51.9). In both cases this is no doubt a practical measure where a comparatively large area was to be smeared.10 The location of the blood is also specified here, by a Heb. word (sap) which is unfortunately ambiguous (see Note g on the translation). Most translations and commentators render it ‘bowl’, comparing the practice in 24.6 (where a different Heb. word is used). But some early interpreters (see Text and Versions) took it to mean ‘threshold’, presumably as indicating the place where the animal had been slaughtered, and this understanding has been revived in modern times (e.g. Houtman 2, p. 193, with refs. to other scholars: see also NEB mg.): it is also satisfying from a ritual point of view, as the whole of the door opening is then protected. Finally the elders are warned that no one should leave their protected houses till the morning, when the danger will be past (cf. 11.4; 12.12, 29). There is some tension between this requirement and the non-Priestly narrative in 12.31, where Moses and Aaron are summoned by Pharaoh ‘in the night’ and apparently receive his permission to leave at the royal palace. In the narrative context it is clear that the slaughter is now past 10   By contrast putting blood on a more restricted area is done with the finger (e.g. Lev. 4.6-7).



12.21-27

91

(vv. 29-30), but the tension suggests that v. 22 and its context may originally have been composed (or this requirement was added) for a separate purpose, perhaps as a guide to the ongoing ritual of the Passover (cf. vv. 24-27). The word used for ‘applying’ the blood here is neither the word used in v. 7 (Heb. nātan, ‘give, put’) nor one of the words used in other ritual contexts (e.g. hizzāh, ‘sprinkle’, as e.g. in Lev. 4.6), but a word that literally means ‘cause to touch’ (Heb. higgîaʿ, from nāgaʿ), which is used of the application of blood only once elsewhere, in Exod. 4.25 (cf. Blum, Studien, p. 12 n. 14). This confirms that these verses belong to the non-Priestly strand of the Exodus narrative, and the two passages actually describe two very similar, apotropaic, rituals (on some non-biblical parallels see Propp, p. 408).11 23. In most respects this verse is very close to features of vv. 12-13: see the relevant notes there on these points. The formulation is similar enough for some literary relationship to be probable, most likely with vv. 12-13 borrowing from here (see further the introduction to this passage). At one point a verbal similarity and a difference of religious conception coincide. ‘The destroyer’ here is the same Heb. word (mašḥît) as is used for ‘destruction’ in v. 13, except that the definite article is not present there. Both meanings are also found in other passages. The personal interpretation (which has long been accepted: see Text and Versions) is appropriate here because of the definite article, Yahweh’s permission and the mašḥît’s (normal) role to ‘smite’. In other places ‘destroyers’ are sometimes human foes (see Note m on the translation), but the reference here will be to an angelic figure like the one described in 2 Sam. 24.16 = 1 Chr. 21.15 as ‘the destroying angel’ (Heb. hammalʾāk hammašḥît), who brought a deadly plague in the time of David. The concept here, as there, is of a supernatural being who is thought to be used by Yahweh, and therefore under his control, to perform his will on earth. This bears some resemblance to a polytheistic world-view (and no doubt that is why the Priestly regulations subtly reformulate the expression at this point), though in the Old Testament such beings are not usually regarded as gods (see further ABD 1, pp. 248-53; DDD, 81-90, 456-63). The problems are similar 11   ‘Lintel’ and ‘doorposts’ are, as in v. 23, in the reverse order to v. 7. It is unlikely that this has any profound significance, but it may be another pointer, in this case linguistic, to the different origins of vv. 1-20 and vv. 21-27.

92

EXODUS 1–18

to those raised by mention of ‘the angel of Yahweh’ in 3.2-3 (see the Explanatory Note there) and elsewhere in Exodus (14.19-20; 23.20-21, 23; 33.2). Psalm 78.49-51, in referring to this episode (in its non-Priestly form) enlarges the single ‘destroyer’ to ‘a company of harmful [Heb. rāʿîm] angels’, but appears to equate them with Yahweh’s own fierce anger, rage and fury and the distress that they bring, so playing down the idea of a separate agent. Psalm 105.36 avoids the expression altogether. 24-25. The provision for future observance of Passover (unlike vv. 1-20 there is no mention of Unleavened Bread) in these two verses is somewhat repetitive (note the repeated ‘you shall maintain’ [Heb. ûšemartem] with two different words for the observance), and they define it in two different ways: v. 24 simply temporally, as ‘a statute…for ever’ and v. 25 spatially, from the arrival in the land which Yahweh has promised (Heb. dibber) and will ‘give’ to the Israelites.12 In addition, while v. 25 uses the second person plural forms that are found throughout the rest of vv. 21-27 (and in vv. 1-20), the second half of v. 24 stands out by its use of second person singular forms in ‘for you and your descendants’.13 Such references to the people by the singular form, whether understood collectively or with reference to each individual, are frequent elsewhere, especially in legal texts such as the Decalogue (e.g. Exod. 20.2-3). But here the variation jars and suggests that at least v. 24b and, since v. 24a on its own has little point, perhaps the whole verse is a secondary addition to the passage.14 The terminology ‘a statute…for ever’ is very similar, though not identical, to Priestly expressions which are used in vv. 1-20 (cf. vv. 14 and 17) and it is also in the Priestly ‘appendix’ to the Passover rules in vv. 43-49 that   The ‘promise’ could mean passages like Gen. 12.7 or Yahweh’s words to Moses in Exod. 3.8 and 6.8. Similar language is widespread in Deuteronomy (e.g. 27.3). 13   The closest parallels to the whole formula occur in provisions for the Aaronide priests (29.28; Lev. 7.34; 10.13-14). Other passages include later generations without using the word ‘statute’: Lev. 10.15; Num. 18.8, 9, 11, 19; Deut. 4.40; 12.25, 28; Josh. 14.9 (Propp, p. 409). 14   Houtman, p. 194, following Strack, cites some other examples of such variation within a passage (e.g. Exod. 23.25), but even if these are not also due to secondary redaction the additional evidence mentioned regarding Exod. 12.24 makes this a very probable case of editorial expansion. 12



12.21-27

93

several more second person singular forms occur (vv. 44, 46, 48: alongside, in MT, just one second person plural form, in v. 46b). By contrast, the location of future Passover celebrations specifically in the land of Canaan in v. 25 is found nowhere in P, and in a Priestly passage in Num. 9.1-14 Yahweh instructs the Israelites to keep the Passover while they are still in the wilderness. Verse 25 is linked by its use of the key word ‘service/worship’ (Heb. ʿabōdāh: see Note p on the translation) with the verses that follow (cf. v. 26), which have different affinities (see the notes on these verses and the introduction to the section as a whole). If v. 24 is indeed a redactional addition (cf. Blum, Studien, p. 39 n. 149), its use at the beginning of the same plural form ‘you shall maintain’ as in v. 25 was probably designed to make its alien origin less apparent. By placing such a general introduction before the narrower restriction to the land of Canaan, the redactor will have been aiming to make the latter only a particular case of a celebration that could potentially be held anywhere, an important concession for a time when a large number of Jews had, through exile and emigration, come to live outside the homeland. Both the technique and the aim find some parallels in Num. 15.22-29, where wording is taken over from an underlying law (in this case from further away, in Lev. 4) and the application of the law is widened to include ‘resident aliens’ (gērîm) as well as native Israelites (see Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, pp. 189-92).15 26-27. The preservation of the memory of the Exodus deliverance by means of the Passover ritual is, in general terms, a further example of continuity with the preceding Priestly regulations (cf. v. 14: the following verses are preoccupied with the week-long Festival of Unleavened Bread), but the terminology and the procedure differ. Here the occasion is elaborated into an opportunity for the teaching of children, sparked off by the expectation that they will   This kind of widening (which is of course quite distinct from that which seeks to include Israelites outside the land as well as those within it) also appears in the Passover laws of P (Exod. 12.19, 48-49, the latter verses being a clear modification of the principle stated in v. 43). A further example of the use of a repeated phrase to ‘key in’ additional material is noted in Lev. 23.39-42 by B. Levinson, ‘The Right Chorale’ (Tübingen, 2008), pp. 220-21: the date formula ‘the fifteenth day of the seventh month’ is repeated in v. 39 from its appearance at the beginning of the original section of the calendar which dealt with the Feast of Booths (v. 34). 15

94

EXODUS 1–18

question their parents about the meaning of the ‘service’.16 The form of these verses has attracted comparison with five other passages where children are to be instructed about their ancestral traditions: Exod 13.8 (about the Exodus, at the Feast of Unleavened Bread); 13.14-15 (about the Exodus, at the sacrifice of firstborn animals); Deut. 6.20-25 (about the Exodus, in connection with the laws of Deuteronomy); Josh. 4.6-7 (about the crossing of the Jordan, at the stones set up in Gilgal); and 4.21-24 (the same). On these passages and their likely origin see the Excursus in the introduction to this section. A more general instruction for the teaching of the Exodus story, and specifically the plague-narrative, appears in Exod. 10.1-2: see the notes there. The description of the ritual as a ‘service’ (Heb. ʿabōdāh) takes up the language of v. 25 (with which v. 26 is also linked by the initial ‘And it shall be’ in the Heb. [cf. AV, RV: in common with many other modern translations we have omitted this formula from our rendering above]). This word is widely used in P, Ezekiel, Chronicles and Nehemiah for the service and worship of Yahweh (but not apparently, as here, for a particular ‘service’ like Passover).17 The closest parallel is in 13.5, where it refers to the Feast of Unleavened Bread, in a non-Priestly passage, and the related verb ʿābad, which can also (like ʿabōdāh) refer to the ‘service’ of human masters, is used several times of worship in non-Priestly sections of Exodus (3.12; 7.16, 26; 10.26). The reply to be given by the parents makes explicit the etymological connection seen between the noun pesaḥ, ‘Passover’, and the verb pāsaḥ, ‘spare, pass over’, which is already suggested in the Hebrew in vv. 21 and 23 (cf. vv. 11 and 13). It   This is the origin of an important section of the Jewish Passover Seder or Haggadah which is still used. The question and answer structure is already mentioned in M.Pes. 10.4 along with other central features of the service, but the wording there is different. The ‘instruction of the four sons’, where Exod. 12.2627 is cited with three other biblical passages (Deut. 6.20; Exod. 13.14; 13.8), is referred to in MRI on 13.14 (Lauterbach, pp. 166-67) and in J.Pes. 34 (text and ET in H.W. Guggenheimer, The Jerusalem Talmud: Second Order, Moʿed. Pesachim and Yoma [Studia Judaica 74; Berlin, 2013], pp. 368-70) and may be of a slightly later origin. The question in Exod. 12.26 is assigned to the ‘Wicked Son’ because ‘What is this service to you?’ is understood as the words of a wilful outsider. 17   An important distinction has been made by Milgrom between the uses of ʿabōdāh in P and Ezekiel on the one hand and Chronicles and Nehemiah on the other (see further Note p on the translation). 16



12.21-27

95

also designates the animal as a ‘sacrifice’ (Heb. zebaḥ), a term which seems deliberately to be avoided in the Priestly version, even though some of its detailed features correspond closely to the tabernacle cult (see the notes on vv. 5, 6 and 10). This seems to reflect a situation in which domestic sacrifice, even if unusual, was not prohibited (e.g. Judg. 13.19; 1 Sam. 20.29), which is quite different from the legislation of P (e.g. Lev. 3.2; cf. 17.2-7) and Deuteronomy (12.8-14). Deuteronomy 16.5-7 very explicitly legislates that Passover is not to be offered anywhere except at the central sanctuary, just because it was a sacrifice, and 2 Kgs 23.21-23 is remarkably frank in its acknowledgement that this is not how Passover had been observed in earlier times. The response prescribed here, in other words, must antedate the centralising legislation of Deuteronomy. Its emphasis falls not so much on the slaughter of the Egyptian firstborn as on the sparing of the Israelites and their houses, which is mentioned twice – on deliverance rather than judgement (for ‘kept…safe’ [Heb. hiṣṣîl] cf. 3.8; 5.23; 6.6 and later 18.8-10). The response of the people is, as in 4.31, to an earlier announcement of Yahweh’s imminent intervention, one of prostration and worship, an anticipation of the hymns of praise that they will sing when the deliverance is complete (15.1-21). Since it is again here in hope of coming deliverance that they so respond, v. 27b may just as well be the continuation of v. 27a as of v. 23. Text and Versions There is strong indirect evidence that 4QpalExm began the section with an indented line, after v. 20 had filled the previous line; this corresponds to divisions in both MT and SP. No other Qumran mss survive at this point. ‫( זקני ישׂראל‬12.21) On the renderings of ‫ זקני‬in LXX and TgN see Text and Versions on 3.16. TgG has the literal rendering of the other Tgg here. Some LXX mss, Vulg and Sy insert ‘the sons of’ (cf. 4.29 MT) in line with the designation of the Israelites that is frequent elsewhere (e.g. v. 28). ‫( משׁכו‬12.21) Probably none of the Vss presupposes a different Vorlage from MT (and SP), but their varied renderings indicate uncertainty over its meaning. A majority see ‫ משׁך‬here as an intrans. verb of movement (cf. Note a on the translation: the Vss need not point to the [in any case easier] reading ‫[ לכו‬Ehrlich, Beer]), whether in a general way (LXX ἀπελθόντες; Vulg ite) or at speed (TgO,G, with different verbs; cf. Sy bʿgl, ‘quickly’): the latter has been taken up in the proposal to read ‫ מהרו‬instead (cf. DCH 5, p. 523). ‫ מהר‬is

96

EXODUS 1–18

certainly often used as an auxiliary before other verbs, as it would be here (cf. TWAT 4, 713-14 = TDOT 8, pp. 138-39; DCH 5, p. 166), but these Vss are probably guided by an Aram. meaning of ‫ משׁך‬rather than a different Vorlage. TgJ (cf. TgNmg) ‫ נגודו ידיכון‬presumes an ellipse of ‘hand’ as the object of ‫משׁכו‬, giving the sense ‘withdraw, cease’ and relating it to an abandonment of the worship of Egyptian gods (cf. Josh. 24.14; Ezek. 20.4-8). This interpretation is found already in the early midrashim (cf. AramB 2, p. 192 n. 39) and is connected to TgJ’s understanding of Exod. 6.9. MRI (ed. Lauterbach, p. 83) also records the view that ‫ משׁך‬is here a technical legal expression for acquiring a small animal, which is used in M.Kidd. 1.4 (cf. M.Sheb. 10.9), so that ‫צאן‬ would be its object. Finally TgN ‫אתמנון‬, ‘count yourselves’ (not ‘appoint [the participants]’ as in AramB), finds the key in v. 4, where it also uses the verb ‫מני‬: this has no etymological basis. ‫( וקחו‬12.21) SP omits the copula. None of the Vss certainly supports it, though the participial constructions of LXX and Vulg could be based on a Vorlage with or without the copula. Asyndeton is certainly frequent with two imperatives (GK §120g-h) and the copula seems often to be added second� arily, so the reading of SP deserves serious consideration, especially if ‫ משׁכו‬is interpreted as a verb of motion here. ‫( למשׁפחתיכם‬12.21) LXX κατὰ συγγενείας ὑμῶν takes up its first equivalent for ‫ משׁפחה‬in 6.14-25, which it uses again in Lev. 20.5 and Num. 1.2 before abandoning it for δημος: on the various equivalences see Text and Versions on 6.14-19, 24-25. ‫( הפסח‬12.21) TgJ (cf. TgNmg) prefixes ‘the lamb’, correctly specifying the sense which ‫ פסח‬has here; TgG, ‘sacrifice’, in the sense of ‘sacrificial animal’, likewise, with the phrase borrowed from v. 27. ‫( ולקחתם‬12.22) 4QpalExm preserves what may be the final letter of this word, but nothing else until v. 31. Vulg has no equivalent and takes ‫אגדת אזוב‬ with ‫וטבלתם‬. BHS cites a Genizah Heb. ms. which has ‫ולקחתם לכם‬, no doubt a secondary expansion based on expressions like ‫ וקחו לכם‬in v. 21. ‫( בדם‬12.22) LXX ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος, suggesting ‫ מן־הדם‬as later in the verse, but this is less appropriate here. ‫בסף‬bis (12.22) LXX παρὰ τὴν θύραν, i.e. presumably ‘outside’, is probably based on the understanding of ‫ סף‬here as ‘threshold’ (cf. Vulg in limine). This is the view taken in MRI (Lauterbach, p. 84), which sees it as a reference to a hole dug near (‫ )בצד‬the threshold, where the animal would have been slaughtered. But MRI also records R. Akiba’s opinion that ‫ סף‬here means ‘vessel’, which is found in all the Tgg (and approved by Rashi). TgJ adds that it should be a ‘clay’ vessel; TgNmg uses a more specific word meaning ‘bowl, cup’. Sy has ‘of the lamb’ the first time, but ‘vessel’ for the second. ‫( והגעתם‬12.22) The LXX reading preferred by Wevers καὶ θίξετε (cf. 19.18) is the most literal of the versional equivalents, both lexically and in the retention of καί for waw when the previous verb has been rendered by an



12.21-27

97

aor. part.18 TgN has ‫ותתנון‬, reflecting the wording of v. 7:19 the other Tgg have ‘sprinkle’, which often renders ‫ ִהזָּ ה‬in cultic contexts and is followed here by Sy and Vulg. This freer rendering was no doubt favoured because of the rare use of ‫ הגיע‬with a liquid. ‫( אל־המשׁקוף ואל־שׁתי המזוזת‬12.22) SP has ‫ על‬for ‫ אל‬both times (cf. perhaps LXX ἐπ’ἀμφοτέρων τῶν σταθμῶν and more clearly TgN,G and Sy ‫ על‬both times), whereas TgO,J and Aq follow MT and Vulg is inconclusive. The variant is most likely due to assimilation to the wording of v. 7 or v. 23: ‫ אל‬or ‫ ל‬is much more common after ‫הגיע‬, although ‫ על‬is occasionally found. On the versional renderings of ‫ המשׁקוף‬and ‫ המזוזת‬see Text and Versions on v. 7. TgJ again specifies that the sprinkling or daubing was done on the outside of the lintel: this reflects an interpretation that was known to, but rejected by, MRI (Lauterbach, p. 84). ‫( לא‬12.22) SP reads ‫אל‬, which is the more common negative with a specific prohibition (JM §113m). But BH seems to allow some flexibility of usage (cf. Deut. 19.14; 23.22 compared with Prov. 22.28; Qoh 5.3 and 1 Kgs 3.26-27, cited in JM): perhaps SP reflects a more rigid view of grammatical precision (compare the opposite variation in 5.9). ‫( ועבר‬12.23) TgN,G, as well as LXX and Vulg, render straightforwardly, but TgO,J avoid the anthropomorphism with ‘will be revealed’, as in 11.4, 12.12 and often elsewhere. Chester, Divine Revelation, pp. 146-48, notes that this practice is not universal with ‫עבר‬, which, with the lack of any periphrasis for ‫ וראה‬later in the verse (as also in v. 13), indicates that more than anti-anthropomorphism is involved. Chester identifies ‘theophany’ as the key element, which is reinforced in TgJ by the addition of ‫יקרא‬, ‘glory’, to the divine name (cf. TgN ‫איקר שׁכינתה‬, perhaps a secondary development in the Pal. Tgg, as TgG [cf. TgNmg] has ‫ ממרה‬here). ‫לנגף‬1o (12.23) Here and at the end of the verse the Tgg and Sy use words for ‘blot out’ and ‘kill’ for ‫נגף‬, to match the coming reference to ‘the Destroyer’ (cf. also 4.23). ‫( ופסח‬12.23) There is some shifting in the choice among possible renderings by the Vss compared with v. 13 (see Text and Versions there). LXX παρελεύσεται this time equates ‫ פסח‬with ‫עבר‬, while Vulg transcendet makes a slight variation with a clearer element of ‘pass over’. Among the Tgg it is TgJ,N,G2 which use ‫ גנן‬Aph, ‘protect’, while TgG simply uses the Heb. ‫פסח‬ 18   But against this see Desilva, ‘Five Papyrus Fragments’, p. 10. The uncials and most other mss (and editions) read καθίξετε (papyrus 866 καθίξεται). Wevers recovered his reading from a few miniscules (inc. the b-group) and the daughter versions (cf. OL et linietis in citations; also Theod καὶ θίξεσθε): see THGE, p. 263; Notes, p. 180. 19   The preceding ‫ ואתון‬is an error arising from its occurrence later in the verse after the second occurrence of TgN’s equivalent for ‫בסף‬.

98

EXODUS 1–18

(which also appears alongside ‫ גנן‬in TgG2 and in the text of TgN: the mg of the latter records ‫ויחוס‬, ‘spare’, the reading of TgO).20 The influence of Isa. 31.5 thus remains strong, if not total, in the Tgg here. LXX shows how early the sense ‘pass over’ or ‘pass by’ was adopted, and Brock (‘An Early Interpretation’, p. 27) adds further evidence from Ps-Ezekiel (Exagoge, 159, 187), Jub. 49.3-4, Philo and Josephus. Brock has provided a valuable comprehensive review of the evidence for the use and connotations of Aram. ‫גנן‬, in which he concludes that it was ‘richer in overtones’ than its Heb. cognate and could be ‘a technical term for divine activity of a salvific character’ (ibid., p. 34).21 Even if its sense in Exodus 12 does not go beyond ‘protect’, it is striking that its use there ‘brings the very specialised pāsaḥ of the Hebrew into the wider context of the covenantal theophanies of Gen xv and Exod xxxiii’ (ibid.). ‫יהוה‬2o (12.23) TgJ,N,G2 prefix ‘the Memra of’; TgG, having done so at the beginning of the verse, does not repeat it here. ‫( על־הפתח‬12.23) TgN adds ‘of the fathers of the Israelites’ (cf. 17.12 for a similar reference to the patriarchs added in TgN) : it can scarcely mean ‘of the fathers’ houses’ (Le Déaut, Exode et Lévitique, p. 90). AramB 2, p. 50 n. 19, plausibly sees an explanation for it in a rabbinic association of the ‘protection’ of the Israelites with Abraham’s ‘standing over’ (‫ )על‬his heavenly visitors in Gen. 18.8 (T.Soṭa 3.1). ‫( ולא יתן‬12.23) TgN and its mg variously bring out the sense of ‘permission’ more explicitly. ‫( המשׁחית‬12.23) All the Vss treat the ‫ משׁחית‬here as personal. Vulg percussorem softens the force of the Heb. to match its precise rendering of the first ‫ לנגף‬by percutiens. TgJ (cf. TgNmg) specifically identifies the Destroyer as an angel, as in v. 13. ‫לנגף‬2o (12.23) Vulg laedere is a notably mild rendering of the Heb., but has the effect of excluding even slight harm being done to the Israelites, in line with 11.7. TgNmg adds ‘you’ as the object. ‫( ושׁמרתם‬12.24) Vulg custodi, sing. imper. to match the sing. ‘you’ later in the verse, which is in fact the outlier in the passage as a whole. Presumably Vulg assumes an address to the individual Israelite here. ‫( לחק‬12.24) LXX’s νόμιμον, originally an adjective and an equivalent which is particularly favoured in phrases for an ‘everlasting’ statute (cf. vv. 14 and 17), must be the basis for Vulg’s legitimum (presumably via the OL), as the latter is not normally nominalised in classical Latin. ‫( לך ולבניך‬12.24) TgN,G have second person pl. suffixes to conform to ‫ ושׁמרתם‬and the remainder of the passage. TgJ adds ‫זכורייא‬, ‘male’, to make explicit what MRI (p. 89) also saw as implicit in the specification of ‘your sons’: the men bear responsibility for the observance of the rite. 20   ‘TgG2’ refers here to the second transcription of vv. 21-34 in ms. AA, which varies only slightly from the main text. 21   An additional attestation of this rendering appears in T.Soṭa 3.1 (AramB 2, p. 50 n. 19).



12.21-27

99

‫( והיה‬12.25) LXX and Vulg understandably have no equivalent. TgG has whwh (as also in v. 26), an unexpected perf. due to assimilation to the Heb. ‫( יתן‬12.25) Instead of a simple future LXX has (ἣν) ἂν δῷ (subjunctive), Vulg daturus est and TgJ ‫עתיד למיתן‬. The two latter renderings (which may be connected through Jerome’s consultation of Jewish advisers) could express the imminence of the gift of the land, but the LXX is more puzzling, as the construction normally has an indefinite sense (cf. NETS ‘whichever’ here and in 25.16, 21, where the Greek is very similar): so Wevers, Notes, p. 398, on 25.16. But this cannot be what the translator meant, either here or in ch. 25. BDF §380(2) observes that in a indefinite relative clause the future could be used instead of the subjunctive with ἀν, so perhaps the translator mistakenly thought that the reverse was also possible, as in the kind of temporal clause (with ἐάν) with which the verse begins. Wevers, Notes, p. 182, thinks the expression here shows ‘divine intentionality’, but that would be more appropriate to Vulg and TgJ. ‫( יהוה‬12.25) TgG (and TgNmg) adds ‘the Memra of’. ‫( את־העבדה הזאת‬12.25) Vulg caerimonias istas, with the pl. highlighting the individual aspects of the ritual. SP adds ‫ בחדשׁ הזה‬from 13.5, where it follows the same phrase; TgJ adds ‘from the time you arrive there’, probably (like MRI, Lauterbach, pp. 89, 94) underlining that Passover was only to be celebrated after the entry into the Promised Land (which creates [or exposes] a contradiction with Num. 9.1-14 in the Priestly legislation). Eventually this ruling was relaxed, but probably only after the destruction of the Second Temple in A.D. 70 (cf. ABD 6, pp. 760-64): at any rate the exceptional case of the Elephantine community seems to provide the only definite evidence of an earlier celebration outside the land. ‫( והיה‬12.26) Here, unlike v. 25, LXX has καὶ ἔσται, but Vulg again has no equivalent. On TgG see on v. 25. ‫( בניכם‬12.26) Traces of the final letter and the first letter of the next word may be preserved in 2QExb. The location of this small fragment is not completely certain, but the only possible alternative is at 14.13. TgJ adds ‘at that time’, presumably meaning ‘in the land’: the phrase does occur twice in MRI’s comment on v. 26 (Lauterbach, p. 94), but not in such a way as to suggest that TgJ is alluding to its exegesis here. ‫( לכם‬12.26) There is no equivalent in LXX* (the O and C texts have ὑμῖν from the Jewish revisers), Vulg and Sy, but it could have been omitted because of its awkwardness and absence from the similar question in 13.14. SP and TgO,J,G support MT: TgN lacks the whole verse through homoeoteleuton. ‫( ואמרתם‬12.27) Vulg and Sy dispense with ‘and’ in the apodosis, but it is retained in the Tgg and, more surprisingly, in LXX against normal Greek grammar. But the Hebraism is quite frequent (cf. Wevers, Notes, p. 182), although less so proportionately in Exodus than in the other books of the Pentateuch (cf. Aejmelaus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, in On the Trail, pp. 49-64 [57]). For a related example see Text and Versions on

100

EXODUS 1–18

‫ והגעתם‬in v. 22. After the verb here LXX, Vulg and Sy added ‘to them’, a popular kind of versional addition in dialogues. ‫( זבח־פסח הוא ליהוה‬12.27) LXX has θυσία τὸ πάσχα τοῦτο τῷ κυρίῳ, presumably ‘This Passover is a sacrifice to the Lord…’, with ‫ פסח‬as the subject and ‫ הוא‬probably taken mistakenly as attributive rather than as an independent pronoun. Both Vulg (domini) and Sy (dmryʾ) take ‫ ליהוה‬as a genitive after ‫פסח‬: ‘(the sacrifice of) the Lord’s passover’, a possible construal of the Heb. and only a little different in sense from a literal rendering. In their treatment of ‫ פסח‬the Vss generally repeat their equivalents in v. 11 (see Text and Versions there), but TgO exhibits the interpretation ‘sparing’ here (like TgJ here and in v. 11), to match its rendering of the verb later in the verse, while Symm and Vulg are briefer, the former now omitting its explanation (so far as our evidence goes) and the latter (as in v. 21) the transliteration of the Heb. (so perhaps also Aq). 2QExb (if the identification is correct) preserves ‫[ליה]וה‬ in palaeo-Hebrew script (on this unusual practice see Tov, Textual Criticism, p. 220: 4QExj should be added to his list, see DJD XII, p. 150). TgO,J,N render ‫ ליהוה‬by ‘before the Lord’ as often, but TgG has ‘for the name of the Lord’ as in v. 11 (see Text and Versions there). ‫( אשׁר‬12.27) 2QExb has ‫אשׁר‬, which would support MT and SP. Vulg quando, ‘when’, is perhaps dependent (via OL) on the Greek: the major LXX witnesses (followed by Rahlfs) have ὡς. Wevers (Notes, p. 182), perhaps correctly, regards this as an error by homophony for ὅς, the reading of numerous miniscules and the Ethiopic. ‫( פסח‬12.27) Here too (even if they diverged in v. 23) the Vss follow closely their renderings earlier in the chapter (v. 13: see Text and Versions there). ‘By his Memra’ is added in TgJ this time (cf. TgNmg), but not TgN,G. ‫( במצרים‬12.27) TgG (like TgG2, which resumes with this word after a lacuna) inserts ‘the land of’ as later in v. 39. Such additions are frequent and serve to distinguish the geographical and ethnic meanings of ‫מצרים‬. ‫( בנגפו‬12.27) On the renderings of Tgg and Sy see Text and Versions on v. 23. ‫( ויקד העם וישׁתחוו‬12.27) TgO reflects the variation from sing. to pl. forms in MT, but the other witnesses harmonise, either in the pl. (SP, TgJ,N,G, Sy) or in the sing. (LXX, Vulg). The inconsistent text of MT is to be preferred as the difficilior lectio (on the grammar cf. GK §145g, citing Exod. 1.20; 33.4). Sy adds ‘to the Lord’ at the end for completeness, as it did in 4.31. TgJ has a longer addition before these words (‘when the house of Israel heard this word from the mouth of Moses’), perhaps to clarify that they do not belong to Moses’ speech; while TgN,G,G2 replace ‫( וישׁתחוו‬as often elsewhere) with the combination ‫ואודו ושׁבחו‬, ‘and they gave thanks and praise’ (so also at 4.31 in TgN; cf. 15.1, 21 for ‫)שׁיר‬: the interpretation with ‘praise’ is found already in MRI (Lauterbach, p. 95).

C h ap t er 1 2 . 2 8 - 4 2 , 5 0-51 Th e Fi n a l P lagu e an d t h e Isr aelites’ R eleas e

The narrative of the Israelites’ departure from their settlement(s) in Egypt naturally includes some references to their fulfilment of the instructions about the Passover (vv. 28, 50), even if these references are less specific than might have been expected. No doubt for the biblical narrators it was more important to record the instructions themselves and the event which gave them their meaning for later generations. For the purposes of this commentary we have separated the additional instructions in vv. 43-49 (which will be dealt with in the next section) from their narrative context. The Masoretic section-divisions and the triennial reading-cycle recognised the boundaries of the main unit but placed its beginning at v. 29 rather than v. 28, thus associating the latter closely with the preceding instructions to which it refers. In addition there are divisions before vv. 37, 43 and 51 (so that, understandably, v. 50 too is connected with the verses to which it refers). From Qumran there is evidence for the divisions before v. 37 (4QpalExm, 4QExc and probably 2QExa), 43 (4QpalExl) and possibly 51 (4QDeutj). No Qumran evidence survives for the beginning of the unit, but the end of it is marked by an interval in the phylacteries and probably in one similar manuscript (4QDeutj). In addition there are divisions before v. 39 (4QpalExm; but not in 4QExc) and v. 40 (4QExc). The number of sub-divisions marked by the tradition is a reflec­tion of the number of, mostly short, sub-units out of which the passage is composed: (i) a summary note of the fulfilment of the instructions about Passover (v. 28); (ii) an account of the death of the Egyptian firstborn and the expulsion of Israel from Egypt (vv. 29-34); (iii) a recapitulation of the ‘plundering of the Egyptians’ (vv. 35-36); (iv) details about the departure of Israel (vv. 37-38) and the making of unleavened bread (v. 39, which is the direct sequel to v. 34); (v) another account of the Israelites’ departure and its association with the regular observance of Passover

102

EXODUS 1–18

(vv. 40-42); (vi) a further summary note of obedience and departure (vv. 50-51), which belongs with vv. 43-49. Critical scholarship has at least since Knobel been in substantial agreement about the distinction between a Priestly and a non-Priestly version of the episode: vv. 28, 40-42 and 50-51 belong to P (in the broad sense) and vv. 29-39 derive from another source or sources (so recently both Albertz [pp. 212-19], with an older [amplified] Exodus narrative [vv. 29-39] and two Priestly Bearbeitungen, and Schmidt [pp. 540, 545]). At one time it was common to attribute v. 37a to P, particularly because of its formal resemblance to other, more obviously Priestly, itinerary-notes later in the narrative (e.g. 16.1: so Knobel, Wellhausen, Holzinger, Baentsch, Gressmann [the whole verse]). But Wellhausen already observed that some such annotation was needed in JE (Composition, p. 72) and, probably because of the links between the names in v. 37a and 1.11 and 13.20 (on the latter cf. Smend, Erzählung, p. 133), first Dillmann and then the overwhelming majority of subsequent scholars attributed it to the non-Priestly narrative. Indeed for some recent critics it is the only or almost the only part of the passage that they regard as relatively early (see below).1 Finer sub-divisions within the two main strands have also been made. In the Priestly strand v. 42, with its reference to ‘night’, has been thought to be inconsistent with ‘day’ in v. 41, and Noth’s observation that it ‘falls lamely’ after vv. 40-41 (p. 72, ET, p. 92) has also been influential. The verse has therefore been ascribed to Ps or an even later redactor (Carpenter/HarfordBattersby [with vv. 40-41; likewise McNeile], Noth, Kohata, Levin, Ahuis, Graupner [p. 67 with n. 214], Gertz).2 Where vv. 43-49 were seen as an addition to the main Priestly account, a similar view was naturally taken of vv. 50-51 (Holzinger, Baentsch, Rudolph [but he saw v. 51, with an emendation proposed by Ehrlich, as originally the introduction to 13.1-2], Noth, Childs [pp. 201-202], Kohata, Houtman, Levin, Ahuis, Graupner, Gertz). Within the non-Priestly material a larger number of alternative sub-divisions have been envisaged. An early view, taken by Wellhausen and Dillmann, was that while vv. 29-30 were from J (cf. 11.4-8), the following verses must be from E because they contradicted earlier statements that Moses would not meet Pharaoh again and it would be his courtiers who would come and beg the Israelites to leave (10.28-29; 11.8). The majority of subsequent scholars have thought that the shift could be explained by a change of mind on Pharaoh’s   Propp attributes the whole of vv. 37-38 to a redactor (p. 375).   Following Wellhausen, a number of scholars saw v. 42 (Dillmann, Holzinger, Beer: Rudolph was unsure) or part of it (Baentsch) as associated with one of the non-Priestly sources. 1 2



12.28-42, 50-51

103

part (so already Holzinger, p. 34), but Baentsch maintained Wellhausen’s view for v. 31a, and it was also taken up for the whole of v. 31 by those who saw in vv. 33-39 further evidence of their ‘third early source’ (Smend, Eissfeldt, Beer, Fohrer), a view backed up initially by the shift from night to day as the time of departure, the unlikelihood, for different reasons, of the aetiology of Unleavened Bread being from J or E and the earlier attribution of 3.21-22 to J1 (Smend, Erzählung, p. 133; cf. Eissfeldt, p. 35). Not surprisingly, these arguments did not carry much weight with other scholars, who continued to regard most or all of vv. 29-39 as coming from J (so still Schmidt, p. 541). The main exception was vv. 35-36, which like 11.(1)2-3 came to be widely ascribed to E (Holzinger, Baentsch, Gressmann, McNeile, Hyatt, Childs [‘may be’ (p. 184); cf. Schmidt, Exodus, Sinai und Moses, p. 56]) or, especially in more recent analyses, to a later redactional layer (so already Carpenter/Harford-Battersby, then Rudolph, Noth, Kohata, Blum [Kd], Ahuis, Graupner, Gertz, Schmidt [p. 537]). For Propp, as usual, the attributions are reversed, with E being the main contributor here and vv. 35-36 possibly from J (p. 375). Most recently there has been a polarisation of opinion between those who see vv. 29-39 as a unity (Van Seters, Life, pp. 98-99; Dozeman, pp. 250-51), albeit from a quite late period, and an extreme redaction-critical approach which takes up older arguments that most had discarded. Ahuis is the closest to the older views, for he attributes vv. 29-33 and 37-38 to J, with his Deuteronomistic redactor (DtrT) adding vv. 34 and 39 as well as vv. 35-36 (and also vv. 42, 50-51: Exodus 11,16–13,16, pp. 67, 70-72). At least here there is an account of the slaying of the Egyptian firstborn in the older narrative. This is no longer the case in the analyses of Levin, K. Schmid and Gertz. Levin’s exilic Yahwist constructs a departure narrative consisting of vv. 35-37, 38b around the older itinerary-notice in v. 37a: the implication is apparently that Pharaoh has readily agreed to Moses’ request as stated in 3.18 and did not need any plagues to persuade him (p. 326). The basis for this reconstruction is not clear, unless it lies in vv. 35-36, which (with 3.21-22) Levin clearly sees as of fundamental importance. A first stage of amplification is the addition of vv. 30aα, 31-33, which for Levin embody the Egyptians’ response, not to the slaying of the firstborn, but to a repetition of the first four plagues, which is according to him threatened in 9.13-16 (pp. 337, 339: see the introduction to 9.13-35). The slaying of the firstborn (vv. 29, 30aβb: like its announcement in 11.4-7) was only added at the next stage, when the sequence of plagues was extended by additions in chs. 9–10. Verses 34+39 and 38a are also seen as redactional (pp. 339-40), on the one hand because of an association with 13.3-10 and the connection (to v. 33 presumably) made in v. 39b, and on the other because of the introductory ‘In addition’ (Heb. wegam). Konrad Schmid deals with verses from this section only in passing, and not every verse is commented on. But it is clear that he too regards the whole plague-narrative (including the slaying of the firstborn) as a later addition to the non-Priestly, once independent Exodus-story, accepting the superficial argument of Van Seters that Deuteronomy knows nothing of the plagues (p. 146:

104

EXODUS 1–18

cf. Van Seters, ‘The Plagues of Egypt: Ancient Tradition or Literary Invention?’, ZAW 98 [1986], pp. 31-39; Life, pp. 80-81).3 Particular verses are noted to have links with Genesis (v. 32 [pp. 64, 196]; vv. 35-36 [p. 249]) or to Exodus 3–4 (v. 39, via 5.22–6.1 [p. 251]) and the ‘life–death’ theme is seen as a reversal of ch. 1 (p. 338), which in Schmid’s view of the literary history of the Pentateuch only confirms their late origin. Only v. 33a and perhaps v. 36 (but see above: and Schmid does not discuss v. 37) remain as possible evidence of an older version of the story in which the Israelites were driven out without any pressure from plagues (p. 150: presumably v. 33b is regarded as a later addition after the inclusion of the slaying of the firstborn or some other plague[s]). Gertz’s discussion of the passage is also rather scattered, but he does have a view about the origin of every (half-)verse (cf. p. 396). For him only v. 37a certainly belongs to the old Exodus-story: it comes too early (i.e. before vv. 40-41) to be from P and is ‘unverzichtbar’ for the non-Priestly account (p. 203 n. 62; p. 208 n. 77, where v. 37b is regarded as dependent on the other passages which give a similar number). In places Gertz puts vv. 35-36 on a similar plane (its theme is older than the plague-narrative: pp. 303-304; cf. p. 187), but elsewhere he is clear that it comes from the Endredaktion (pp. 183, 184, 186). Unlike Levin he does not defer the slaying of the firstborn to a second stage of the plague-narrative,4 but he does regard the allusions to Pharaoh in vv. 30aα, 31-32 as a secondary development, mainly because of the supposed conflict with 10.29 (pp. 176, 183-84).5 Verses 33-34 are part of the (expanded) non-Priestly account, but curiously not v. 39, for similar reasons to Levin (p. 59 n. 130), or v. 38, which is said to depend on v. 37b and on 10.24ff., which Gertz has already assigned to the Endredaktion (p. 208 n. 77).

The attribution of vv. 28, 40-41 to P is generally agreed, for good reasons of continuity, language and duplication of the preceding narrative account (see the Explanatory Notes). A possible problem arises in relation to the chronology in vv. 40-41. It has been claimed that this forms part of a chronology that makes world history last for 4000 years, ending with the purification of the Jerusalem temple in 164 B.C.: if this were correct it would mean that vv. 40-41 were 3   The counter-evidence (at least some of it) is actually listed in Schmid, p. 146 n. 533, and not at all convincingly dealt with. 4   This because he holds that ‘all my plagues’ in 9.14 can refer to it (alone): see again the introduction to 9.13-35. 5   An additional reason for him is that Pharaoh’s request for a blessing and his permission for the Israelites’ animals to leave take up earlier passages which he has already (questionably!) ascribed to the Endredaktion (p. 176: cf. 8.4, 24; 9.28; 10.17, 24-26).



12.28-42, 50-51

105

only composed (or at least modified) after that date, much later than any plausible date for P (cf. G. Larsson, ‘The Chronology of the Pentateuch: A Comparison of the MT and LXX’, JBL 102 [1983], pp.  401-409; Schmid, Erzväter, pp. 20-22: for discussion see J. Hughes, Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology [JSOTSup 66; Sheffield, 1990], esp. pp. 234-35). However, it is impossible for the figure of ‘430’ to be this late, since it was already being modified in the Septuagint translation a century earlier (see Text and Versions on v. 40): this modification is presupposed by Demetrius in the late second century B.C. (Hughes, p. 241). If the figures in MT as a whole were designed to point to a climax in 164 B.C., it is most likely that this was done by modifications to the ages at which Jared, Methuselah and Lamech begot their sons according to Gen. 5.18, 25, 28, and the original ‘Priestly’ chronology (of which the figures in the P source in the Pentateuch, it is suggested, were only a part) envisaged the era of 4000 years continuing for another 720 years after the beginning of work on the post-exilic temple c. 538 B.C. (cf. Hughes, pp. 10-14, 44-45, 233-35, 265).6 On this view the figures could have been established at any time after 538 B.C. (Hughes, pp. 51-54, suggests ‘late 6th or early 5th century’). A somewhat earlier date might also be possible. Even supposing that the original chronology of P was based on the suggested 4000-year era (which is not completely certain, as the data for the history of Israel in Canaan come not from the Pentateuch but from the Deuteronomistic History), one might well conclude that the schematic fifty-year gap between the destruction of the first temple and its rebuilding was in origin an expectation (like the ‘seventy years’ in Jer. 25.11-12; 29.10, which relate to a different if overlapping period), which happened, at least if the date in Ezra 3.8 (cf. 5.13-16) is reliable, to be historically close to the truth. On the plausible assumption that vv. 43-49 are a later supplement to P (see further the introduction to the next section of the commentary) vv. 50-51 are best ascribed to the same stage of composition. 6   Schmid, who knew Hughes’s work, accepts this point (cf. p. 20 n. 116) and in a later article he sees no difficulty in viewing vv. 40-41 as part of P (‘The So-Called Yahwist and the Literary Gap between Genesis and Exodus’, in Dozeman and Schmid [eds.], Farewell, pp. 29-50 [31, 46]). But in Erzväter, pp. 21-22, he seems to maintain that the verses are part of a much later ‘Gen-2Kön insgesamt überblickende Redaktionstätigkeit (vgl. v.a. Ex 12,40f; 1 Kön 6,1)’.

106

EXODUS 1–18

They are clearly based on vv. 28 and 40-41 and simply provide a new finale to the Priestly Passover pericope.7 There is no reason to date them any later. There has been more discussion about v. 42, but it is evidently meant to connect to v. 41 (cf. the connective ‘It’ [for Heb. hwʾ]) and it ends with a distinctively Priestly phrase (‘throughout their generations’). The objections to the connection being original are not strong: the shift back from ‘day’ to ‘night’ conforms with the focus of the original Priestly instructions in vv. 6-14, where a similar shift in the opposite direction occurs in vv. 12-14; and the impression of ‘lameness’ may be due to a failure to recognise its function as a powerful finale to the original Priestly account of Passover and the departure, bringing together the event commemorated after its occurrence and the enduring celebration of it by a neat play on the different senses of Heb. šimmurîm (‘watching’ and ‘observance’: see the Explanatory Note). One other question that has been raised is whether P originally gave a fuller account of the process of departure, which was suppressed by the redactor who combined P with the non-Priestly account: so e.g. Holzinger, p. 35, with the specific observation that ‘on this day’ in v. 41 needs something to refer back to. Such a fuller account could (in part at least) be reconstructed from vv. 12-13 and from Num. 33.3-4, which is certainly based on some (surviving) features of the Priestly narrative (such as Exod. 14.8: see also the Explanatory Note on vv. 29-30). On the other hand, P may have deliberately curtailed the narrative at this point, to maintain attention on the central place of Passover in Israelite worship. The expression ‘on this day’ in v. 41 could easily be taking up the similar expression in v. 14, which in the original independent Priestly text would have been separated from it by only two verses; and Gertz has recently pointed out that the sequence of obedience and a date in vv. 28 and 40-41 is actually paralleled at some other points in P (p. 58 n. 126: see also the Explanatory Note). It was once popular to assign the itinerary-unit in v. 37a to P (see above), but it seems premature before v. 41 (cf. Gertz, p. 203 n. 62) and Holzinger’s proposal that it once stood after v. 41 (p. 31) is a counsel of desperation (see further below on the origin of this and similar texts). 7   On the device of Wiederaufnahme see C. Kuhl, ‘Die “Wiederaufnahme” – ein literarkritisches Prinzip?’, ZAW 64 (1952), pp. 1-11.



12.28-42, 50-51

107

As for the remainder of the passage (vv. 29-39), it is necessary first to discuss the recent fragmentation of it in the studies of Levin and Gertz (and less fully Schmid). It is, as earlier sections of the commentary have argued, based on some very questionable interpretations of this and other passages of Exodus. The attribution of the references to Pharaoh to late redactors relies on a pedantic, unimaginative understanding of the tension between them and 10.28-29 (and 11.8), as many commentators have recognised.8 Levin’s view that even the idea of the slaughter of the firstborn is secondary to the narrative is based on his interpretation of 9.14, which involves the unsupported conjecture that there was once a different ending to the non-Priestly plague-narrative which was displaced by what is now there. This is both unconvincing and unnecessary (see the introduction to 9.13-35).9 The further view of these scholars that even the first introduction of the plagues motif into the Exodus-story occurred only in the exilic period relies heavily on an argument of Van Seters which has not so far been addressed in detail (for references see the summary of Schmid’s views above). Van Seters argues that Deuteronomy knows nothing of any plagues narrative, so it must be a later development of the Exodus tradition. According to him, Deuteronomy speaks only of ‘the diseases of Egypt’ (7.15; 28.60) and they refer to ‘afflictions suffered by the Israelites’ (Life, p. 81): they are therefore quite different from the plagues inflicted on the Egyptians, which Van Seters considers to be the result of a drastic reinterpretation of the ‘disease’ tradition by the Yahwist, seen in Exod. 15.25, where the word ‘diseases’ is used to refer to the plagues. But is it so clear that Exod. 15.25 was wrong to understand the diseases of Egypt as (some of) the plagues suffered by the Egyptians? Van Seters’s statement that ‘the Israelites experienced’ them in Egypt is actually ambiguous: it might mean that they suffered from them or it might mean that they observed them. The two verses that mention them say that the Israelites ‘knew’ them (Deut. 7.15) or that they 8   It is significant that in outlining this argument Gertz has to begin with the word ‘Strenggenommen’ (‘Strictly speaking’), which betrays the preference for simple logic over literary sensitivity. 9   Gertz, who takes a similar view of 9.14 to Levin, evidently finds the implication unacceptable, but his way of reconciling 9.14 with the presence of the slaughter motif is also far from convincing.

108

EXODUS 1–18

‘were in dread of them’ (Deut. 28.60). Both these expressions can mean that they observed them; there is nothing in either that necessarily implies that they actually suffered from them. The evidence appealed to is at best inconclusive. But there is also strong evidence that Deuteronomy did know the plagues tradition in something like the form which we find in the non-Priestly narrative. The ‘signs and wonders’ which Deuteronomy repeatedly says accompanied the Exodus from Egypt could very well be a reference to it (4.34 [not 4.32 as Van Seters has]; 6.22; 7.19 [not 7.9]; 11.2-3; 26.8; 29.2). Taken alone the phrase could theoretically mean something else, for example a miraculous healing or provision of food. But Van Seters is positively misleading when he says, ‘There is no indication that within Deuteronomy this has specific reference to the plagues’ (Life, p. 81). In the passages mentioned, and several others, expressions are used which much more clearly point to repeated events which demonstrated Yahweh’s power against the Egyptians. Deuteronomy 6.22 actually speaks of ‘great and awesome [Heb. rāʿîm, ‘evil’] signs and wonders against Egypt, against Pharaoh and all his household’. 11.2 prefixes the reference to Yahweh’s ‘signs and deeds’ in v. 3 by speaking of ‘his greatness, his mighty hand and his outstretched arm’ (cf. 5.15; 6.21) and v. 3 particularises the signs and deeds as those ‘that he did in Egypt to Pharaoh the king of Egypt, and to all his land’ (cf. 34.11). This cannot be a reference to the drowning of the Egyptian army in the ‘Red Sea’, since the latter is mentioned separately in v. 4. 26.8 adds the expression ‘with great terror’, which might well be a specific reference to the slaying of the firstborn and its impact as they are described in Exod. 12.29-33. Deuteronomy 4.34, which uses this expression too, also adds the description of Yahweh’s ‘signs and wonders’ as ‘trials’ or ‘tests’ (Heb. massôt), a term that occurs in similar lists in 7.19 and 29.2 and probably points to the way that the plagues in the non-Priestly narrative in Exodus seek to shift Pharaoh from his obstinate unwillingness to ‘let Israel go’. In the face of all this evidence there can scarcely be any doubt that the plague-tradition is pre-Deuteronomic. More general arguments based on the history of Yahwism, such as the denial of belief in Yahweh as a god who could challenge a powerful foreign king in this way before the exile (Schmid, pp. 143-45), are no more persuasive, in the light of the ideas of prophets such as Amos and



12.28-42, 50-51

109

Isaiah and indeed the old Exodus tradition itself. It is noteworthy that not only a more ‘traditional’ German scholar like Graupner and an American such as Propp but also Erhard Blum (cf. Studien, pp. 13-19) have no hesitation in assigning the slaughter of the firstborn motif, like most of the non-Priestly plague-narrative, to a pre-exilic author.10 The close connection between vv. 29-32 and 11.4-8 should lead to their attribution to the same underlying source, in our view E. This need not be the case for vv. 33-39, and the duplication between v. 33 and vv. 31-32 perhaps supports its ascription to a different account, as envisaged by Smend, Eissfeldt, Beer and Fohrer. It is closely associated (by the emphasis on haste) with the aetiology of the Feast of Unleavened Bread in vv. 34 and 39. Since we have not hitherto found any need for the hypothesis of a ‘third early source’, the obvious candidate for these three verses is J. Verses 35-36 are a retrospective parenthesis with a similar content to 11.2-3 and ‘according to Moses’ word’ is probably a reference back to that passage, which we have found reason to attribute to a redactor who knew the combined non-Priestly (‘JE’) narrative. These verses cannot be any earlier. There is no more sign here than there of Deuteronomic affinities, so Blum’s derivation of these verses from Kd lacks any basis. In a previous study (‘The Wilderness Itineraries and the Composition of the Pentateuch’, VT 33 [1983], pp. 1-13) we have attributed v. 37a to a Deuteronomistic ‘itinerary-redaction’, in contrast to most scholars since Baentsch, who have seen it as part of an early narrative source (see the Excursus below). If this is correct, then v. 37b lacks a connection to the preceding context, but it is easy to suppose that a phrase like ‘They were’ (Heb. wayyihyû) was displaced when the itinerary-note was inserted. If so, then vv. 37b-38 could belong to the same parallel account as vv. 33-34 and 39. But it is also possible that they were originally linked to vv. 29-32, perhaps with a verb like ‘They departed’ (Heb. wayyēṣeʾû). 10   The arguments for a late date for particular verses in 12.29-39 brought forward by Levin, Schmid and Gertz are generally based on their association with other verses or passages to which they have already assigned a late date on grounds which we have contested elsewhere. In some cases the direction of any dependence is not clear, which further undermines the argument.

110

EXODUS 1–18

Excursus on the ‘Wilderness Itinerary’ Exodus 12.37a is the first of a series of statements (‘itinerary-notes’) which define the stages of the Israelites’ journey out of Egypt and through the wilderness (cf. 13.20; 14.9 [cf. v. 2]; 15.22-23a, 27; 16.1; 17.1; 19.1-2). This is part of a larger body of material which takes the journey on to the borders of Canaan (Num. 25.1; cf. Josh. 3.1; 4.19), with some duplication and variation (cf. Coats, ‘Wilderness Itinerary’). A comprehensive account of the journey is given in Num. 33.1-49, where the characteristic two-part formula for departure and arrival is used repeatedly, with occasional brief amplification to note conditions or events en route. It has been shown that itineraries of this and other forms were a type of administrative document that was widespread in the ancient Near East and the classical world (in my ‘The Wilderness Itineraries: A Comparative Study’; additional examples in A.R. Roskop, The Wilderness Itineraries: Genre, Geography and the Growth of Torah [HACL 3; Winona Lake, 2011], Chapter 3). It is also clear that such documents were used and imitated in more literary accounts of journeys in Mesopotamia, Egypt and the classical world (cf. Davies as above, pp. 57-70; Roskop, Wilderness Itineraries, Chapter 4). Within the OT Claus Westermann observed a similar use of itinerary-formulae in the patriarchal narratives (Genesis 12–36, pp. 49-51, 69-73). Such evidence naturally has a bearing on the interpretation of the ‘itinerarynotes’ in the narratives of Exodus and Numbers in particular. Do these sections comprise a single ‘wilderness itinerary’ or parts of several, which have been combined together like the other source-material in the Pentateuch? And what is the relationship between them and the continuous and apparently complete list of journey-stages in Numbers 33? Is Numbers 33 a compilation from the data in the main narrative of Exodus and Numbers, supplemented with other place-names which do not appear there? Or is it the source from which some at least of the data in the main narrative were drawn? At one time it was common to distribute the itinerary-notes among the main Pentateuchal sources, especially J and P. But this sometimes led to disagreement and to the allocation of adjacent itinerary-notes to different sources. It is therefore best to begin by associating the different notes into a series of connected ‘strings’, before considering the sources or redactional layers to which they belong. According to F.M. Cross and G.W. Coats the majority of the notes form part of the Priestly Work or a very late redactional layer (cf. Cross, Canaanite Myth, p. 308; Coats, ‘Wilderness Itinerary’, pp. 143, 146-47). Close examination of the duplicate accounts of the arrival at Mount Sinai (Exod. 19.1-2) and the departure from there (Num. 10.12, 33) suggests that the Priestly material runs parallel to two other strands of itinerary-notes.11 By extrapolation it is 11   For what follows see my unpublished dissertation ‘The Wilderness Itineraries in the Old Testament’ (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 47-119, and ‘The Wilderness Itineraries and the Composition of the Pentateuch’. An analysis along similar



12.28-42, 50-51

111

possible to distinguish: (a) a limited number of Priestly itinerary-notes (Exod. 19.1; Num. 10.12; 20.1aα; 22.1); (b) a series of passages related in some way to Num. 33.1-49 (Exod. 12.37a; 13.20; 14.2, 9; 15.27; 16.1; 17.1; 19.2a; Num. 11.35; 12.16; 20.1b, 22; 21.4a, 10-11; 25.1); (c) other itinerary-material, belonging either to one of the non-Priestly sources (Exod. 15.22-23a; 19.2b; Num. 10.33) or to a redactional layer (Num. 21.12-20; Deut. 10.6-7). The most likely explanation for the origin of group (b), in my opinion, is that it was taken from an earlier form of Num. 33.1-49, before it underwent supplementation by a redactor familiar with the Priestly Work.12 This original form of Num. 33.1-49 was probably a pre-exilic document modelled on Mesopotamian itineraries and making use of knowledge of routes, perhaps used by traders, in eastern Egypt, the Sinai peninsula and southern Transjordan.13 A study of the way in which extracts from Num. 33.1-49 have been incorporated into a passage which makes the Israelites travel to the east of Edom and Moab (Num. 21.10-20) reveals an affinity to parts of the speech of Jephthah in Judg. 11.14-18 and also to one strand of Deuteronomy 2–3, which suggests that the incorporation of the main sequence of itinerary-notes into Exodus and Numbers was the work of a Deuteronomistic redactor.14

This short narrative comprises one of the central episodes in the book of Exodus, along with the final defeat of Pharaoh at the sea in chs. 14–15 and the encounter with Yahweh at Mount Sinai in chs. 19–20 and 24. Now at last the tension set up in ch. 1 by Pharaoh’s measures to subdue and even eliminate Israel, Yahweh’s people, is resolved and they are free to leave Egypt and recover their liberty. The significance of this narrative is underlined by the regulations for the commemoration of the event which precede and follow it (Exod. 12.1-27, 43-49; 13.1-16) and are even hinted at within it (vv. 34, 39, 42). Two features of the deliverance are emphasised in both the Priestly and the non-Priestly accounts, as they are also in the regulations earlier in ch. 12: it is all Yahweh’s doing (vv. 29, 42: lines, but with different conclusions, was published by J.T. Walsh, ‘From Egypt to Moab: A Source-Critical Analysis of the Wilderness Itinerary’, CBQ 39 (1977), pp. 20-33. 12   On the special problems of Exod. 14.2, 9 see the notes on those verses in this commentary. 13   For an important recasting of the order of the list see my ‘The Wilderness Itineraries and Recent Archaeological Research’, in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Pentateuch (VTSup 41; Leiden, 1990), pp. 161-75 (172-74). 14   Cf. Davies, ‘The Wilderness Itineraries and the Composition of the Pentateuch’, pp. 9-12. For a different view of the relationship of the itinerary-notes to Num. 33.1-49 see Roskop, Wilderness Itineraries, Chapters 5–7.

112

EXODUS 1–18

cf. v. 36) and it takes place at night (vv. 29-31, 42). In various ways the narrative also looks to the future. The Israelites do not leave empty-handed: they take the flocks and herds that they had brought with them (vv. 32, 38: cf. Gen. 46.6) and also the ‘plunder’ which the Egyptians have freely given them (v. 36). The family which came into Egypt departs as a great multitude, joined by others who are glad to leave Egypt behind (vv. 37b-38). And in words which now ironically come from Pharaoh himself, they are going in order to worship Yahweh and they are bidden to call down his blessing on the very foreign ruler who has oppressed them (vv. 31-32: cf. Gen. 12.1-3). 28 The Israelites went and did as Yahweh had commanded Moses and Aarona—so they didb. 29 At midnight Yahweh, he struckc every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the prisonersd who were in the dungeone and all the firstborn of the (farm) animals. 30 Pharaoh got up in the night, he and all his servants and the whole of Egypt, and there was a great cry in Egypt, because there was no house where there was not someone dead. 31 He summonedf Moses and Aaron in the night and said, ‘Arise, departg from among my people, both you and the Israelites, and go, worshipg Yahweh as you have said. 32 Also your flocks and herds,h take them as you said and go—and give me too your blessing.’ 33 [The Egyptians pressedi the people, quicklyj sending them away from the land, for they said, ‘We are all dead men’. 34 The people carried their dough before it was leavened, with their kneading-bowlsk tied up in their garments, on their shoulders.] 35 [The Israelites had donel according to Moses’ word and asked the Egyptians for objects of silver and gold and for garments, 36 and Yahweh had givenl the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians: they had granted their requestm, and so they plunderedn the Egyptians.] 37 [The Israelites journeyedo from Ramessesp to Succoth,] [about six hundred thousand on footq, (counting) the menr without their dependantss. 38 In addition a large body of foreignerst went up with them, and flocks and herds, very many animals. 39 They baked the dough which they had brought out from Egypt into unleavened cakesu, because it was not leavened, since they were driven out of Egypt and they could not delay or even get provisionsv for themselves.] 40 The timew that the Israelites dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years. 41 At the end of four hundred and thirty yearsx, on



12.28-42, 50-51

113

this very dayy, all Yahweh’s tribal divisions departed from the land of Egypt. 42 It was a night of watchingz for Yahweh to bring them out of the land of Egypt. That is this nightaa for Yahwehbb, an observance for all the Israelites throughout their generations… 50 [All the Israelites did as Yahweh had commanded Moses and Aaron—so they didcc, 51 and on this very daydd Yahweh brought the Israelites out from the land of Egypt in their tribal divisions.]

Notes on the Translation a. Heb. ‫ואהרן‬, without repetition of ‫ את‬as in v. 50 (cf. ‫ ואל‬in v. 1). Such exceptions to the normal rule are rare, and this seems to be the only exception in Exodus. There are apparently none in Leviticus and only one in Numbers (32.35). In Chronicles the variation is a little more common, both in the genealogies (1 Chr. 1.32; 2.13; 5.41; 8.12) and in the narratives (1 Chr. 18.1; 2 Chr. 13.15; 28.18; 33.9; 34.3). b. The sentence structure, with resumption of the original statement at the end, is typically Priestly: see Paran, Forms of the Priestly Style, pp. 47-97 (‘the circular inclusio’: cf. summary, pp. viii-x), where he notes other examples in 12.8 and 12.14, and especially pp. 234-35 on its use in concluding formulae, as here and in v. 50. c. Heb. ‫ויהוה הכה‬. The S-P word-order here may simply introduce a new stage in the story as in 1.7 (3.1 is more complicated: see Note a on the translation of 3.1-12). But after the opening temporal expression it is more likely meant to highlight the intervention of Yahweh: for similar examples (but mainly in discourse) see Muraoka, Emphatic Words, p. 35; JM §155ne. The verb ‫ נכה‬Hiph. last appeared in the P section 12.12-13 and does not appear in the otherwise closely parallel passage 11.4-8, but see 3.20; 7.17, 20, 25; 9.15 in the non-Priestly narrative. d. Heb. ‫השׁבי‬, which is generally collective when it refers to people rather than a condition. e. Heb. ‫בבית הבור‬. ‫בור‬, lit. ‘pit, cistern’, alone can mean ‘dungeon’ (Jer. 38.6-13 [7x]), but the combination with ‫ בית‬also occurs at Jer. 37.16, where the context makes clear that a building had been converted into a prison. f. Taken alone ‫ ויקרא‬might have an indefinite subject and be equivalent to ‘(Moses and Aaron) were summoned’, but the following ‫ ויאמר‬and the suffixes referring to Pharaoh in vv. 31-32 make this less likely. g. In both cases of asyndeton here the first imperative (‫קומו‬, ‫ )לכו‬is one which GK §120g describes as equivalent to an interjection, but in the context of the departure narrative they probably retain their normal verbal force. h. The fronting of the objects in this clause draws attention to the contrast with Pharaoh’s previous refusal to let the Israelites’ animals accompany them (10.24).

114

EXODUS 1–18

i. Heb. ‫ותחזק‬. Names of countries which are used for the population can retain their fem. gender (GK §122i), but the m.pl. is much more common in Exodus (Propp, p. 413). For ‫חזק‬, ‘be strong’, in the sense ‘put pressure on (‫’)על‬ cf. Ezek. 3.14. Another possibility is ‘be determined’, as in Deut. 12.23 with a following inf. But the infinitives here can be rendered gerundivally. j. Heb. ‫למהר‬. Whichever sense is given to ‫ותחזק‬, ‫ מהר‬may here have its adverbial or auxiliary sense, as in Gen. 27.20 (cf. JM §102g and the Hiphil verbs treated in GK §114n, with n. 2). Alternatively (see Text and Versions) we may follow TgO,J and render ‘to hurry, so as to send them away’. k. Heb. ‫משׁארותם‬. The word is rare (elsewhere only in 7.28; Deut. 28.5, 17) and its root uncertain (see Note g on the translation of 7.26–8.11 and BDB, HAL). The present context gives the clearest indication of its meaning. It introduces an asyndetic circumstantial clause in which the part. gives a superficial resemblance to the genitive absolute construction in Greek and the ablative absolute in Latin (for the absence of waw cf. GK §156a,c). l. The S-P word-order here most likely indicates a pluperfect sense for the verbs (GK §142b; cf. 106f). On the idiom at the beginning of v. 36 see Note m on the translation of 3.16-22. m. The Hiphil of ‫ שׁאל‬occurs elsewhere in MT only at 1 Sam. 1.28, of Samuel’s dedication to Yahweh by Hannah, in close connection with the Qal pass. part. of ‫ ;שׁאל‬cf. the use of the Qal perf. and the noun ‫ שׁאלה‬in 1 Sam. 2.20, where 4QSama reads [‫ השׁאיל‬for the verb, which is surely to be completed to the ‫ השׁאילה‬that was first conjectured by K. Budde in 1902 (BDB, p. 982; cf. BHS) rather than the misformed ‫ השׁאילת‬proposed on the basis of the Vss in DJD XVII, pp. 39-42. The sense ‘lent’ has sometimes been favoured in these places (so still NRSV at 1 Sam. 1.28), on the basis of MH usage (for which see Jastrow, p. 1507) and occurrences in Nabataean and Palmyrene (BDB, p. 981; DNWSI, p. 1097). But the context in 1 Sam. 1.28 is strongly against the idea of a temporary loan (cf. P.K. McCarter, 1 Samuel [AB 8; Garden City, 1980], pp. 63, 80, 84: ‘dedicate’) and it is likely that the meaning is ‘grant a request’ and then more generally ‘give’ (cf. BDB, p. 982; H.P. Smith, The Books of Samuel [ICC; Edinburgh, 1904], pp. 14, 19). HAL, pp. 1278-79, accepts this for Exod. 12.36 but retains ‘lend’ for 1 Sam. 1.28; likewise Ges18, p. 1308 (both with ref. to an Ar. idiom in the former case). DCH 8, p. 216, is similar, but adds ‘perh. make over, consecrate, dedicate’ for 1 Sam. 1.28 and 2.20 (with reference to McCarter for support on p. 711). n. On the meaning of the Piel of ‫ נצל‬here see Note t on the translation of 3.16-22. o. Heb. ‫ויסעו‬, with ‫ נסע‬in its secondary but common sense of ‘make a journey’, marked by the association of a destination as well as or instead of the place of departure (cf. Gen. 12.9; 20.1). p. MT vocalises the name ‫ ַר ְע ְמ ֵסס‬here (as in Gen. 47.11; Num. 33.3, 5), in contrast to ‫ ַר ַע ְמ ֵסס‬in 1.11.



12.28-42, 50-51

115

q. Heb. ‫רגלי‬, used in the same expression in Num. 11.21. With one exception (Jer. 12.5, which may perhaps not be an exception: horses were mainly used in warfare in the ancient Near East [ABD 6, pp. 1136-37]) all the other occurrences of the term are in military contexts, so it may contribute to the picture of the Exodus as an army on the march (cf. my ‘The Wilderness Itineraries: A Comparative Study’, p. 80 and the note below on 13.18), though one that lacked a chariot-force like that sent to pursue them in 14.6-7 (cf. Schmidt, p. 539). r. Heb. ‫הגברים‬, as in 10.11 to designate the males clearly: ‫ אישׁ‬is not necessarily so specific. s. Heb. ‫מטף‬. On the meaning of ‫ טף‬see Note y on the translation of 10.1-20: the case for ‘dependants’, whose definition may vary according to the other terms mentioned in the context, is made strongly by P. Swiggers, ‘Paradigmatical Semantics’, ZAH 6/1 (1993), pp. 44-54 (45-47). t. Heb. ‫ע ֶרב‬.ֵ The word occurs elsewhere in Jer. 25.20; 50.37; Neh. 13.3; less certainly in 1 Kgs 10.15; Jer. 25.24; Ezek. 30.5. It is related to ‫ ערב‬II, ‘associate with, share in’ (HAL, p. 830; Ges18, p. 1008) at Ps. 106.35; Prov. 14.10; 20.19; Ezra 9.2 (and at Qumran: DCH 6, pp. 546-47), which BDB wrongly includes under the homonym for ‘give a pledge’ (p. 786). In Neh. 13.3 ‫ ֵע ֶרב‬may mean the children of mixed marriages (H.G.M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah [WBC; Waco, 1985], p. 488) or more generally people of non-Israelite descent (e.g. NRSV), who were to be excluded from the community in future. In Jer. 25.20; 50.37 it seems to refer to non-Egyptians and non-Babylonians who had attached themselves to these peoples. Here it presumably means non-Israelites who also took the opportunity to leave Egypt. A similar recognition of the presence of such people among Israel’s ancestors is found in Num. 11.4 (Heb. ‫)אספסף‬, but not in Priestly texts. See also Text and Versions. The S-P word-order may again imply a pluperfect sense for the verb (cf. Note l) or it could simply be drawing extra attention (like ‫ )גם‬to the (unexpected?) presence of foreigners in the Exodus group. u. Heb. ‫עגת מצות‬. The phrase (which occurs only here) is a second accusative of the product (cf. GK §117ii: after ‫ אפה‬also in Lev. 24.5; 1 Sam. 28.24 [here also ‫ )]מצות‬and ‫ מצות‬is in apposition for closer specification of ‫( עגת‬GK §131b). v. Heb. ‫וגם צדה‬. This time the object is fronted to underline the people’s haste (GK §142f[a]), again with ‫גם‬: not only could they not wait to bake bread, they could not even collect food that was ready to eat. The disturbance of the normal word-order is unusually widespread in this lively passage. w. Heb. ‫ מושׁב‬does not mean ‘period of residence’ (BDB, HAL, Ges18, DCH) elsewhere, so the abstract meaning ‘residence’, as in Lev. 25.29; Num. 15.2; Ps. 107.4, should perhaps be preferred here, with the temporal expression then understood not as a simple complement but as an ‘accusative of duration’ (GK §118k), ‘for 430 years’.

116

EXODUS 1–18

x. Lit. ‘thirty years and four hundred years’, as also in v. 41: the repetition of ‘years’ (‫ )שׁנה‬is characteristic (apart from 1 Kgs 6.1) of the Priestly writings and the placing of the smaller number before the larger one is also normal there, with some occurrences also in Kings and Ezekiel (cf. GK §134h-i). The origin of these distinctive patterns remains unclear: they do not seem to correspond to epigraphic, Aramaic or Babylonian practice. y. Heb. ‫בעצם היום הזה‬: see Note ss on the translation of 12.1-20. z. Heb. ‫ליל שׁמרים‬. ‫ליל‬, ֵ from the shorter form ‫( ַליִ ל‬as at Isa. 16.3), is the only construct form used for ‘night’ (elsewhere only at Isa. 30.29) and sometimes serves for the absolute state as well (Isa. 15.1; 21.11). ‫( שׁמרים‬for the pl. form see JM §136i) occurs in BH only here and in the second half of the verse, with a play on two different senses of ‫שׁמר‬, ‘keep’: first ‘watch, keep vigil’ (as in the nominalised part. ‫שׁ ֵֹמר‬, ‘watchman’, Ps. 127.1 etc.) and then ‘observe’, as of a festival (e.g. v. 17; 31.13). The past tense (RSV, JB, NJPS, NRSV) is preferable to a present (LXX, Vulg, Luther, AV, RV), which would duplicate v. 42b. aa. Heb. ‫הוא הלילה הזה‬. The exact grammar of this verbless clause is difficult to penetrate, although the overall sense seems clear enough: the correlation in identity and meaning between the night of Israel’s deliverance and Passover night throughout the ages, as in vv. 17, 41 and 51. EVV. tend to paraphrase. BDB curiously groups ‫ הוא‬here with cases like Ezek. 3.18 [it mistakenly has 3.8] and 33.8 where it is unusually an adjective placed before a noun (p. 215) but none of the other examples has another demonstrative after the noun. 6.27 (which BDB also includes there) and 6.26 are also different: there ‫ הוא‬is a neuter ‘it’ (cf. Note s on the translation of 6.10-7.5, and the exx. in BDB, p. 216, s.v. 5) and ‘it’ or better ‘that’ also fits here well, probably best with the copula supplied immediately after it, rather than later in the sentence as in NRSV (cf. JB). The ‘this’ seems to imply either a close association with the Passover laws in vv. 1-14 or the intention that these words should be read on Passover night (or both). bb. Heb. ‫ליהוה‬, here with the same implication of something set aside ‘for’ Yahweh as in vv. 11 and 14 (in v. 42a the sense is different). The Masoretic accents place a minor break in the verse here, which the paraphrases of RSV, JB and NRSV ignore (NJPS, NEB and REB observe it). cc. See Note b above. dd. See v. 41 and Note ss on the translation of 12.1-20.

Explanatory Notes 28. A short section of narrative begins, before the introduction of further legal material from v. 43 onwards. First the Israelites’ fulfilment of the instructions about Passover is recounted in summary form. The mention of Yahweh and Aaron (cf. v. 1) indicates an original connection with vv. 1-20 (and see Note b on the translation



12.28-42, 50-51

117

for the Priestly style of v. 28), but the placing of the verse after vv. 21-27 now integrates the two sets of instructions and presents Moses’ words to the elders as the way in which Yahweh’s instructions were transmitted on this occasion (cf. Childs, Houtman). Such summary statements of obedience commonly follow the divine instructions immediately (cf. 12.50; Num. 1.54; 2.34; 5.4) and no doubt this was originally the case here too. 29-30. Now the promised intervention of Yahweh and the immediate reaction of the grieving Egyptians are described, in words that follow closely Moses’ warning in 11.4-6: but the wording at the beginning of v. 29 is actually closer to 12.12 than 11.4-5, which may indicate that the compiler preserved a few words of the Priestly narrative here. Again it is emphasised that every Egyptian family was affected, though with a different counterpart at the opposite extreme from Pharaoh’s family (the narrator may have combined variant versions of the story to heighten the picture of widespread distress) and an explicit statement at the end of v. 30. 31-33. Still ‘in the night’ (mentioned for the third time here in v. 31) Pharaoh and the Egyptians take urgent action to let the Israelites depart at last, indeed they command them to leave (cf. 11.8). Pharaoh’s own intervention is contrary to what he had said (10.28) and Moses had expected (10.29; 11.8); but, as argued earlier (in the introduction to 11.1-10), this need not be a sign of different versions of the story: it is one way in which the impact of the slaying of the firstborn is accentuated. It is only by Pharaoh’s own involvement that the complete turnaround from earlier episodes in the narrative (5.1-4 and the earlier plague-stories) can be shown. This is also accomplished by the repeated statement that it is the words of Moses and Aaron (‘as you said’ in vv. 31 and 32: cf. 7.16 etc.) that are to be determinative of the future, not Pharaoh’s own.15 What Pharaoh now says contrasts directly with the limitations which he had earlier placed on who would be permitted to take part in the journey to worship Yahweh: instead of excluding the Israelites’ families (10.10-11) or their animals (10.24) so that he would have hostages to guarantee their return, Pharaoh’s willingness to let everyone go is expressed by no fewer than four occurrences of the Heb. particle 15   The wording that Pharaoh uses here, however, is also very close to his own earlier qualified agreement in 10.8, 11, 24.

118

EXODUS 1–18

gam, ‘also’, in vv. 31-32 (cf. Propp, p. 411). There is some debate over whether Pharaoh is still expecting the Israelites to return after ‘three days’ as Moses had said (8.23) or is letting them go for ever. The reference to worship (v. 31) and the twofold ‘as you said’ could be taken to suggest the former (cf. Houtman, p. 199; Propp, p. 411), but it is probably an unreal alternative: Pharaoh and his people now just want to be rid of the Israelites. Since blessing was commonly a kind of farewell (cf. Gen. 24.60; 47.10; 2 Sam. 13.25; 1 Kgs 8.66), Pharaoh’s final words to Moses may be understood in this way. No doubt there is more to them than this: Pharaoh had earlier asked Moses and Aaron to ‘pray’ for the removal of the plagues (e.g. 10.17), and now in an even greater crisis he has to recognise that it is with Moses’ God that the power to bless and curse really lies. It is a total capitulation. It also recalls Jacob’s blessing of an earlier Pharaoh in the Joseph story (Gen. 47.7, 10). On the language of blessing and cursing in general see J.K. Aitken, The Semantics of Blessing and Cursing in Ancient Hebrew (ANESSup 23; Leuven, 2007). 34. The verse belongs closely with v. 39, which might once have followed it immediately, before the insertion of the parenthesis in vv. 35-36 and the details in vv. 37-38 (see the note below). The haste of the Israelites’ departure (cf. v. 33, to which this verse is also connected by the designation ‘the people’) is, in a homely touch, taken to have interrupted the preparation of food for the journey, so that at the earliest opportunity bread is baked from unleavened dough. The point is undoubtedly to provide an aetiology for the association of the festival of Unleavened Bread with the Exodus (for which cf. 13.3-10 and the notes there), although no explicit connection with that observance is made here. The legal texts that deal with worship in the Book of the Covenant (23.15) and the second collection of ‘covenant laws’ (34.18) make the same association of the Exodus with this festival, rather than with the Passover, and it is likely that this was the practice at one or more of the major Israelite sanctuaries for much of the monarchy period.16

16   On the celebration of the Exodus at Bethel cf. 1 Kgs 12.28 and other evidence discussed by J.F. Gomes, The Sanctuary of Bethel and the Configuration of Israelite Identity (BZAW 368; Berlin and New York, 2006), pp. 173-80.



12.28-42, 50-51

119

35-36. The Heb. word-order marks these verses as an interruption of the narrative relating an earlier event (see Note l on the translation). The episode is more briefly narrated in 11.2-3a, to which ‘according to Moses’ word’ refers back. As was argued in the introduction to 11.1-10, these related passages seem to represent an addition to the non-Priestly account of the Exodus which draws on both its major sources. Compared with 11.2 there is one notable difference here: the Israelites request and receive ‘garments’ from the Egyptians (this feature is also picked up in Yahweh’s words to Moses in 3.22). It can scarcely be coincidental that this is related immediately after the same Heb. word has been used for the ‘wrapping’ of the dough in v. 34. The recapitulation of the ‘plundering of the Egyptians’ (on this phrase see the Explanatory Note on 3.21-22) at just this point and with this addition could well be designed to explain the origin of the additional ‘garments’ which the Israelites had available to carry their dough.17 On the (improbable) view that the Israelites were simply ‘borrowing’ what they took see Note m on the translation. 37-38. These verses specify more precisely three kinds of detail about the Israelites’ departure from Egypt: their route, their number and their ethnic composition. Verse 37a is the first of a sequence of ‘itinerary-notes’ which stretches all the way to Mount Sinai (cf. 13.20; 14.2, 9; 15.22, 27; 16.1; 17.1; 19.1-2) and indeed beyond (Num. 10.12, 33 etc.). The classic form, which has close parallels in ancient Near Eastern descriptions of journeys, including military campaigns, is represented in 13.20: ‘they set out from Succoth and camped at Etham, on the edge of the wilderness’. Here the second verb is omitted and the point of arrival is marked by a directional ending rather than the preposition ‘in’ or ‘at’ (Heb. be). On such documents and their use in the composition of the Exodus and wilderness narrative see the introduction to this section and works referred to there. The first of the names mentioned here, Rameses, is presumably identical to the store-city of that name in 1.11: it was the Egyptian capital in the 19th and 20th Dynasties, during which the events lying behind the biblical Exodus-story are generally

17   The different spelling of ‘garments’ in 4QExc in vv. 34 and 35 (see Text and Versions) might, if original, give additional support to a redactional origin for vv. 35-36.

120

EXODUS 1–18

thought to have taken place (see further the Explanatory Note on 1.11; Bietak and Forstner-Müller, ‘Topography’, give an extensive synthesis of current archaeological knowledge). The second name, Succoth, which appears again in 13.20 (and like Ramesses, in the summary of the whole wilderness journey in Num. 33.5-6), has the appearance of being a Heb. (f. pl.) form, ‘booths’, as in one name for the Israelite autumn festival (Deut. 16.13 etc.), and the name is so explained where it is applied to a different place in the Jordan valley (Gen. 33.17). But since 1875 Succoth in Exodus has been associated with a place-name Ṯkw that occurs several times in Egyptian texts (H. Brügsch, ‘Geographica’, ZÄS 13 [1875], pp. 5-13 [7-9]; cf. E. Naville, The Store-City of Pithom [London, 1885], pp. 5-6, 23).18 The occurrences include two well-known texts relating to the eastern border of Egypt (cf. ANET, p. 259) and objects inscribed with the name have been found at two sites suggested for identification with Pithom in 1.11, Tell Maskhuta and Tell er-Retabeh (on these see the Explanatory Note there: for full reviews of the Egyptian evidence for Ṯkw see LexAeg 6, p. 609; E. Bleiberg, ‘The Location of Pithom and Succoth’, Ancient World 6 [1983], pp. 21-27; Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, pp. 179-81). The evidence points to a location for Ṯkw in the Wadi Tumilat, west of Ismailiya: it was the name both of a region and of a city (either is possible here), the latter certainly from the 22nd Dynasty (c. 945–715 B.C.), possibly earlier. It was important militarily and the existence of a route between it and Ramesses is no surprise, only the fact that the departing Israelites are supposed to have travelled on it. It could have been another name for Pithom, but this is not certain. The number of ‘about six hundred thousand’ correlates broadly with the figures from the two Priestly censuses in Numbers 1, 3 and 26, where again only adult males are counted (except for the Levites), but the direction of dependence between Exodus and Numbers is not entirely certain. There is no sign of Priestly vocabulary in the present verse or its immediate context (for aspects of the wording cf. 10.10-11 and Num. 11.21), and it is perhaps most   The spelling Ṯkwt seems to occur only in texts from the last centuries B.C.: cf. H. Gauthier, Dictionnaire des noms géographiques (Cairo, 1925–31) 6, p. 83, where an extensive list of occurrences is given. Gauthier, like some others at the time, rejected any connection of Ṯkw with biblical Succoth. 18



12.28-42, 50-51

121

likely that the very precise census figures in Numbers were created so that the totals would match the round figure in Exodus, which could itself be much older: already in 2 Sam. 24.9 a much larger figure was being given for the population of David’s kingdom. The figures are in any case impossibly high (and they cannot plausibly be reduced by suggestions that, for example, Heb. ʾelep here means not ‘thousand’ but ‘clan’ or ‘military unit’: see for references Propp, p. 414, to which add E.W. Davies, ‘A Mathematical Conundrum: The Problem of the Large Numbers in Numbers i and xxvi’, VT 45 [1995], pp. 449-6919) and are meant to magnify the wonder of the events of the Exodus and the wilderness journey, and perhaps also the growth of the people during their time in Egypt (Dozeman, cf. 1.5). The mention of ‘a large body of foreigners’ who accompanied the Israelites on their departure from Egypt is surprising and finds no parallel in the Priestly version of the story, where only ‘the tribal divisions’ of Israel/Yahweh are involved (vv. 41, 51: cf. the layout of the wilderness camp in Num. 2.1–3.39).20 But such a group is referred to again in Num. 11.4 (Heb. hāʾsapsup, lit. ‘the gathered company’), Deut. 29.10 and Josh. 8.35 (both times haggēr, ‘the resident aliens’). Thus the non-Priestly texts trace back to the Exodus period the mixed ethnic composition of Israel which is evident at various points in the later biblical narrative (e.g. Uriah the Hittite in David’s army in 2 Sam. 11.3 etc.) and has been emphasised much more by modern historians, who have come to view the later Israelite population as composed partly or even largely of former ‘Canaanites’ (so already W.F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion, p. 99; more recently W.G. Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? [Grand Rapids, 2003], chs. 9–11). The Heb. word used here (ʿēreb: see Note t on the translation) generally refers to foreign minorities in large states, and Egypt throughout most of the second millennium B.C. had groupings of this kind, especially in the Delta region (cf. Aldred, The 19   The subsequent exchanges between C.J. Humphreys and other scholars in VT 48 (1998), pp. 196-211; 49 (1999), pp. 131ff., 262ff.; 50 (2000), pp. 250-52, 323ff.; 51 (2001), pp. 392ff. do nothing to make these suggestions more plausible. 20   Some Priestly legal texts do include the ‘resident alien’ (Heb. gēr: e.g. Exod. 12.19, 43-44, 48-49), but these are generally held to be secondary additions to P which refer to a later time.

122

EXODUS 1–18

Egyptians, pp. 139-40). It is not made clear whether the ‘flocks and herds’ belonged to the Israelites, the foreigners or both, but passages earlier in Exodus assume assume that the Israelites had their own animals (9.4, 6; 10.9, 24-26; 12.3ff., 21: cf. Gen. 45.10; 46.6, 32-34; 47.1, 4; 50.8). 39. See the notes on v. 34. This verse clearly also presupposes the narrative in v. 33. On the textual problem of ‘they were driven out of Egypt’ see Text and Versions. The same verb ‘driven out’ (Heb. grš) is used in 6.1 and 11.1 (and, in a more restricted sense, in 2.17 and 10.11). 40-42. The story of the Exodus is brought to a conclusion here by a note of the duration of the Israelites’ residence in Egypt (vv. 40-41) and a carefully constructed ‘diptych’ which relates Yahweh’s deliverance of Israel to Israel’s ongoing observance of Passover night (v. 42).21 The figure of ‘four hundred and thirty years’ is not a computation from figures already given in the narrative. It presumably begins with the arrival of Jacob in Egypt in Genesis 46 and he is said to have lived in Egypt for seventeen years (Gen. 47.28; cf. v. 8). At the end of the period Moses, who was born in Egypt, is said to have been eighty years old at the beginning of his confrontation with Pharaoh (Exod. 7.7). The length of the intervening period is nowhere specified with any precision: it was simply long enough for the family of Jacob to grow into a numerous people (Gen. 47.27; Exod. 1.7, 9). The genealogy in Exod. 6.14-25 includes some lifespans which between them (more than) cover this period, but despite the longevity of the persons concerned they could not have given rise to the total figure of 430 years. In fact the genealogy was responsible, together with the reference to ‘the fourth generation’ in Gen. 15.16, for some early attempts to reduce that figure by a half (for details see Text and Versions on v. 40).22 There is more likely some connection with the round figure of ‘four hundred years’ in Gen. 15.13, but it is not certain whether that is the basis for the figure here (as Propp supposes, p. 415) or derived from 21   The sense of finality is now rather spoiled by the partial repetition of these verses in vv. 50-51, not to speak of the further conclusions of a different kind in 14.31 and 15.1-21. 22   The genealogy seems in any case to be a secondary insertion into the Priestly narrative (see the introduction to 6.10–7.5), so it may well not even have been available to the author of vv. 40-41.



12.28-42, 50-51

123

it, and if the former what its own rationale is (four generations of a hundred years each is a possibility that would match Gen. 15.16). A different approach relates the figure of 430 to the idea that there is a larger chronological scheme underlying various eras in the Old Testament (cf. 1 Kgs 6.1 and the more coherent series of dates in Genesis). According to one such view an era of 4,000 years from creation culminated in the rededication of the Jerusalem temple in 164 B.C. (Larsson, ‘The Chronology of the Pentateuch’: see the introduction to this section). It is known that chronological calculations were being made around that time (cf. Dan. 9 and the book of Jubilees), but it is unlikely that all the figures in the Old Testament are this late.23 A more plausible suggestion is that the figure ‘430’ is modelled on significant figures in earlier biblical literature. Two possibilities are the combined period symbolised by Ezekiel’s lying on his side for first 390 days and then 40 days (Ezek. 4.4-8) and the time that Solomon’s temple stood in Jerusalem as calculated from figures given in Kings (which might even be connected): see briefly Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, pp. 47-50, and Propp, pp. 415-16, where other suggestions are noted. Such chronological interest is chiefly characteristic of the Priestly source-material in the Pentateuch, and there are other features of vv. 40-41 which confirm such an origin for them. ‘On this very day’ and ‘Yahweh’s tribal divisions’ are both distinctively Priestly phrases (see respectively 12.17 [cf. Gen. 7.13; 17.23, 26] and 7.4 [cf. 6.26; 12.17]): see also Note x on the translation. The formal structure of the verses, with the duration of a period followed by a statement of what happened ‘at the end of’ it, also matches closely a sequence in the Priestly version of the Flood story (cf. Gen. 7.24; 8.3b-4: between these verses is the statement that ‘God remembered Noah’, which recalls Exod. 2.24; 6.5).24 This implies an original literary connection between vv. 40-41 and vv. 1-20 (and 28), so that ‘On this very day’ will pick up the extended focus there on the

23  The figure in question here was already being corrected in the Septuagint translation of Exodus a century earlier. 24   On the original reading at Gen. 8.3b see BHS. A similar sequence appears in the non-Priestly version of the Flood story (Gen. 7.12; 8.6; cf. also Deut. 9.9, 11), and the formula ‘At the end of…’ (Heb. miqqēṣ or miqqeṣēh) followed by a period of time is itself quite widespread.

124

EXODUS 1–18

Passover night and its rituals.25 This is certainly how v. 42 understands vv. 40-41: its initial ‘It’ must refer back to ‘this very day’, and it very clearly (cf. ‘that is this night’) equates the night of Yahweh’s deliverance of Israel with the night to be observed by the Israelites as a memorial throughout their generations. On the play on words between ‘watching’ and ‘observance’, which are the same word in Heb. (šimmurîm) see Note z on the translation. The necessity for the ‘observance’ of Passover gains its grounding here from the fact that Yahweh himself had ‘watched’ for Israel on that night long ago. 50-51. Just as vv. 43-49 add further regulations for the observance of Passover (see the next section of the commentary), so they too receive added authority from the statement that they were carried out by the Exodus generation itself (v. 50, which is practically identical to v. 28) and from Yahweh’s deliverance of his people ‘on this very day’ (v. 51, which draws all of its wording, with small variations, from vv. 41-42). The repetitions are a sure sign that the preceding regulations were added by a later writer in the Priestly tradition. Text and Versions ‫( יהוה‬12.28) TgNmg adds ‘the Memra of’. ‫( ואהרן‬12.28) Von Gall erroneously records no variation from MT (cf. Baillet, ‘Corrections’, p. 28) but ‫ ואת־אהרן‬is read by Tal, Sadaqa, all Crown’s mss and Camb. 1846, which amply justifies regarding this as the standard SP reading. It may still of course be secondary, whether by ‘grammatical improvement’ or by assimilation to v. 50. No Qumran evidence is available. TgJ,G have ‫ וית‬and Sy wl-, but they may merely be following standard Aramaic practice. LXXA,B omit the καὶ Ἀαρών of the other mss, but Wevers (Notes, p. 183) simply regards this as ‘odd’ and follows the majority, probably rightly (so also Rahlfs): the omission may perhaps be due to the fact that Moses   Cf. Num. 33.3-4. This is more likely than the early Jewish interpretation which saw ‘On this very day’ as locating the deliverance from Egypt exactly ‘four hundred and thirty years’ to the day from some previous episode(s) in the biblical narrative (see Text and Versions) and the view that the final day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (cf. v. 18) is meant (so Noth, p. 78, ET, p. 100; cf. Blenkinsopp, p. 157). The verses about Unleavened Bread relate to later times and are probably a secondary addition to the passage (see the introduction to 12.1-20). The phrase ‘on this very day’ in v. 17 must also refer to the Passover night, which is seen there as the beginning of the feast (cf. v. 8 and the Explanatory Note on vv. 15-17). 25



12.28-42, 50-51

125

has just been speaking. On the other hand the omission of ‫ את‬in MT is very unusual (see Note a on the translation) and it is at least possible that the reference to Aaron was only added by a careless scribe. ‫( כן עשׂו‬12.28) Vulg has no equivalent, probably because of the repetitiveness of the statement. TgJ prefixes ‫( אזדרזו‬from ‫)זרז‬, which means ‘hastened’ (AramB) or ‘were zealous’: the latter at least might be an attempt to explain the repetition (MRI [Lauterbach, p. 96] mentions a view that it refers to Moses and Aaron specifically). ‫( הלילה‬12.29) TgJ adds ‘of the fifteenth’: compare its additions to vv. 8, 10 and 18 and Text and Versions there. ‫( ויהוה‬12.29) Tg J,G,Nmg add ‘the Memra of’. ‫( הכה‬12.29) Tgg and Sy render ‘killed’, making the outcome clear as earlier in vv. 12-13, 23 and 27. ‫( כל־בכור‬12.29) TgN,G and Sy render according to the sense in the pl. (TgNmg restores the sing. of MT). ‫( בארץ מצרים‬12.29) Most Sy mss have ‘of the land of Egypt’, which might be related to discussions about whether Egyptian firstborn living abroad were affected (as in MRI [Lauterbach, p. 97]). ‫( מבכר‬12.29) TgJ ‫מביר בוכריה‬, ‘from his firstborn son’, as in 11.5, probably to accord with the full wording of 4.23. ‫( הישׁב‬12.29) Tgg as in 11.5 relate this to Pharaoh’s son and understand it of his future accession to the throne. ‫( על־כסאו‬12.29) On LXX’s reading, which Aq, Symm and Theod, followed by the O-text and Vulg, assimilate to MT, see Text and Versions on 11.5. Most Tgg have as there ‘upon the throne of his kingdom’, but TgN reads here ‘all the throne(s?) of the kingdoms’ (for ‘all’ instead of ‘upon’ cf. TgNmg at 11.5), a phrase which occurs (without ‘all’) in MT at Hag. 2.22. ‫( עד‬12.29) On SP’s reading ‫( ועד‬cf. LXXmss, Sy) see Text and Versions on 11.5. ‫( בכור־השׁבי‬12.29) TgO,N,G and Sy render with Aram. equivalents to Heb. ‫ שׁבי‬which can also have a collective as well as an abstract meaning (see Note d on the translation). LXX αἰχμαλωτίδος and Vulg captivae, ‘woman prisoner’, are probably harmonising with 11.5 (cf. BAlex, p. 151). TgJ has a long expansion: ‘the firstborn of the sons of the kings who were captured and kept as hostages by Pharaoh in the pit [for ‫]בבית הבור‬, and because they rejoiced at the enslavement of Israel they suffered punishment too’. The midrash combines the idea that foreigners in Egypt were included and the justification given here, both of which appear separately in MRI (Lauterbach, pp. 97-98), with a practice commonly used by powerful states to ensure the loyalty of their vassals (cf. 2 Kgs 14.14, with the comment on Assyrian practice in M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings [AB; New York, 1988], p. 157; also Caesar, B.G.1.9). ‫( אשׁר‬12.29) TgG (AA, first version) amplifies with ‫דהוה יתיב‬: cf. TgNmg ‫דאית‬.

126

EXODUS 1–18

‫( בבית הבור‬12.29) LXX ἐν τῷ λάκκῳ and TgJ ‫בי גובא‬, ‘in the pit’, give literal renderings of ‫ בור‬and ignore ‫( בית‬or take it to mean ‘within’), and Aq and Theod extend such literalism with ἐν οἴκῳ τοῦ λάκκου. Symm ἐν τῷ δεσμωτηρίῳ takes up a word used by LXX for another expression in Genesis 39–40 (cf. Vulg in carcere), providing an apt interpretation of the Heb. here which is also found in TgO,N,G and Sy. The alternation between ‫ בור‬and other clearer expressions in Genesis 39–41 should have left no doubt about the meaning. ‫( וכל בכור בהמה‬12.29) LXX has καὶ ἕως for the initial waw, a Hebraising variation. Sy and TgNmg have a (logical) pl. form for ‫בכור‬, which must be collective here, as it is at the beginning of the verse. TgJ adds at the end ‘died, whom the Egyptians worship’, providing a justification found also in MRI (Lauterbach, p. 99) and perhaps based on the association between firstborn and gods in v. 12. ‫( הוא‬12.30) LXX and Vulg have no equivalent, deeming it unnecessary to reproduce exactly the Heb. idiom. ‫( וכל‬12.30) Both times TgJ adds ‫שׁאר‬, ‘the remainder of’, to take account of the Egyptians who had been killed (so again in 32.12). There is some LXX evidence for the omission of ‫ כל‬before ‫עבדיו‬, which (with two Heb. mss) leads Propp to delete it here (p. 363) in line with other passages that do not have it. But the other witnesses all support MT. ‫( ותהי‬12.30) Vulg ortus est, varying its equivalents for ‫ היה‬as it will again with non iaceret for the second ‫ אין‬later in the verse. orior is used several times in this way: e.g. Gen. 2.5; 17.16; 26.1; Exod. 10.6. ‫( במצרים‬12.30) LXX ἐν πάσῃ γῇ Αἰγύπτου, emphasising the totality as elsewhere and following the wording of 11.6: SP read ‫ במצרים‬there. The variation between the two passages in MT is likely to be more original: the inclusion of ‫ כל‬here may have seemed unnecessarily jarring after ‫וכל־מצרים‬ just before. The expression is omitted altogether in both witnesses to TgJ, probably by accident at an earlier stage of the tradition, unless it is connected with the addition of ‘of the Egyptians’ in the next clause (see the next note: for occasional omissions in the Tgg cf. Flesher and Chilton, Targums, pp. 51-52). TgG and Sy have ‘in the land of Egypt’, conforming to the fuller phrase found in v. 29. ‫( בית‬12.30) All the Tgg add ‘there’, i.e. in Egypt. TgJ and TgNmg also add ‘of the Egyptians’, since the Israelites were spared. ‫( שׁם‬12.30) So TgJ,N, but the other Vss and and TgNmg have ‘in which’, ‘in it’ or (LXX) both, since the antecedent is a specific noun (‫)בית‬. The second version in TgG combines both renderings. ‫( מת‬12.30) TgJ, again anxious for total precision, prefixes ‫בכור‬. TgN has the pl. form ‫מיתין‬, which also appears in the second version in TgG along with TgJ’s ‫ בכור‬in the pl. This version had evidently suffered from more contamination by other texts than the first one (compare the previous note). The pl. is



12.28-42, 50-51

127

surprising, but it is perhaps due to acceptance of the interpretation of v. 33 in MRI (Lauterbach, p. 103), which infers that all the Egyptians’ children were firstborn, due to adulterous relationships, the double negative being read as equivalent to ‘in all houses there were dead people’. TgNmg corrects to the sing. Before its rendering of v. 31 TgJ has a long addition about the size of the land of Egypt and the locations within it of Goshen and Pharaoh’s capital, which implies that there was a great distance between them. On TgJ’s location of Ramesses see Text and Versions on 1.11. His estimate of the size of Egypt as 400 parasangs (about 1400 miles) also appears in the Talmud (see AramB 2, p. 193 n. 50); this is over twice the actual distance from Aswan, usually regarded as the southern boundary of Egypt, to the Mediterranean. Josephus, on the other hand, greatly underestimated the distance as 2000 stades (about 230 miles): BJ 4.10.5(610). Herodotus’s figures (2.7, 9) add up to about 1000 miles; Strabo (17.1.2) cites Eratosthenes for 5300 stades (c. 650 miles), which is close to the true figure (c. 550 miles as the crow flies). ‫( ויקרא‬12.31) LXX and Sy add ‘Pharaoh’ as the subject. ‫( לילה‬12.31) TgJ specifies that it was the night of Passover (cf. TgN in vv. 8 and 12). TgJ then inserts ‘his voice was heard as far as the land of Goshen. Pharaoh was pleading in a anguished voice’ (cf. v. 33). No exact parallel to these motifs is known. MRI (Lauterbach, p. 100) records the view that Pharaoh went all over Egypt looking for Moses and Aaron. ‫( ויאמר‬12.31) LXX adds αὐτοῖς (cf. Sy) to specify the unnamed addressee, as it has already done at Exod. 2.18; 3.6-7, 12; 5.17 (but not everywhere). TgJ prefixes ‘So’. ‫( קומו צאו‬12.31) LXX inserts ‘and’ here, but not later in the verse. Wevers (Notes, p. 184) suggests that its Vorlage may have read ‫ וצאו‬by dittography. ‫( מתוך עמי‬12.31) LXX ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ μου and Vulg a populo meo ignore ‫תוך‬, as they sometimes do elsewhere (e.g. 2.5; 9.24). ‫( ולכו‬12.31) LXX has just βαδίζετε, creating an even more staccato sequence than MT. ‫( את־יהוה‬12.31) Tgg and Sy as usual have ‘before the Lord’. LXX adds τῷ θεῷ ὑμῶν to conform to the fuller wording used earlier in MT (8.22 etc.) and already introduced in LXX at 10.9, 26b. ‫( כדברכם‬12.31) Most of the Vss have finite verbal forms, either present (LXX, Vulg) or past (TgO,J,N, Sy), which are likely to represent MT’s inf. constr. SP has ‫כדבריכם‬, ‘according to your words’, and both versions in TgG(AA) give the same sense. 4QpalExm preserves enough of the word to show that it read the same consonants as MT. In theory they could be vocalised ‫ ִכּ ְד ַב ְר ֶכם‬, ‘according to your word’, and this may have given rise to the reading attested in SP and TgG, which has a precedent in Gen. 44.10. It is less easy to see how the SP reading would have been changed to that of MT, and LXX provides early evidence for the MT vocalisation. 4QExc preserves only ‫[כם‬, so adds nothing relevant (cf. DJD XII, p. 115).

128

EXODUS 1–18

The beginning of v. 32 is omitted in TgN due to homoeoteleuton in its renderings of ‘you said’. The other Pal. Tg. texts (in TgG) are unaffected because their renderings differ (see the previous note). ‫( גם־צאנכם גם־בקרכם‬12.32) LXX and Vulg each ignore one of the pron. suffixes for reasons of style. TgJ adds ‘and of mine’ in accordance with Moses’ request in 10.25, which MRI specifically sees as the point of ‫ כאשׁר דברתם‬here (Lauterbach, p. 102). ‫( כאשׁר דברתם‬12.32) LXX has no equivalent, probably deliberately to avoid repetition after the end of v. 31 (Wevers, Notes, p. 185). The omission was rectified by Aq, Symm and Theod, and in the O-text. Vulg ut petieratis responds to the same stylistic problem by using a more specific verb in the pluperfect rather than the present. ‫( וברכתם‬12.32) LXX, Vulg, Sy and TgG (first version) follow MT, but TgO,J,N and the second version in TgG have ‘pray (for me)’, the interpretation given in MRI (Lauterbach, p. 102). ‫( אתי‬12.32) The first version in TgG adds ‫ אנא‬for additional emphasis; it is not certain whether the second version had this too, as the ms. is damaged. At the beginning of v. 33 TgJ has an addition to say that the Israelites initially ignored Pharaoh’s command, presumably to explain why (as it must have seemed) the Egyptians now urged them again to depart. ‫( ותחזק‬12.33) Most of the Vss take ‫ חזק‬in the sense ‘pressed’, but the use of the Ithpaal of ‫ תקף‬in TgN,G suggests the alternative interpretation ‘were determined’ (cf. Note i on the translation). ‫( העם‬12.33) TgJ adds ‘the house of Israel’ to avoid any ambiguity. ‫( למהר לשׁלחם‬12.33) LXX, Vulg and Sy all take ‫ למהר‬as an auxiliary verb and render it by an adverb, but through failure to recognise that the infinitives may have a gerundival character (see Notes i and j on the translation) they are left with a difficult grammatical connection, which Vulg eases by a free rendering of ‫ לשׁלחם‬by exire. TgN,G’s different rendering of ‫( ותחזק‬see above) avoids this problem, but it is less likely to be correct. TgO,J do not render ‫למהר‬ by an adverb and apparently view ‘the people’ as its subject and the Egyptians themselves as the subject of ‫( לשׁלחם‬so AramB 7, p. 33; 2, p. 193), which is a possible understanding of the sequence. ‫( כי אמרו‬12.33) LXX adds a ὅτι recitativum, as it also does in 4.1 and 13.14 (cf. Sy dkln: 7a1 follows MT). TgF and TgNmg supply ‘the Egyptians’ as an explicit subject. TgJ,N,F (but not TgG) then insert a clause, with slight variations in the wording (TgNmg is virtually identical to TgF), which makes any further delay in the Israelites’ departure lead to the even worse catastrophe taken to be implied by ‫כלנו מתים‬. ‫( כלנו מתים‬12.33) Rather than treating the statement in the present tense, as we have done, the Vss render it as present continuous (LXX; Sy?) or future (so also, e.g., JB, NRSV). TgN,F (like TgJ) introduce the statement with an exclamatory ‫הא‬, ‘look’, and replace ‘all of us’ with ‘all the Egyptians’: the latter reflecting the liturgical practice of not reproducing words that might be an ill omen (cf. Michael Klein on the Targums, p. 194).



12.28-42, 50-51

129

‫( וישׂא‬12.34) Vulg igitur makes an explicit link with the haste required in v. 33, in line with the recapitulation in v. 39. ‫( את־בצקו‬12.34) LXX follows the Greek idiom of indicating possession by the def. art. alone, as it does with ‫ על־שׁכמם‬later: in both cases the O-text adds αὐτῶν, following the Three in the latter case (and probably in the former). Vulg too does not represent the suffix here, as also in the next clause, but it has umeros suos at the end. Its equivalent to ‫ בצק‬is conspersam farinam, lit. ‘sprinkled flour’, presumably with water: compare its rendering of Jer. 7.18. TgJ adds ‘upon their heads’, to distinguish the dough from what it takes to be the meaning of the following word (see the next note). ‫( משׁארתם‬12.34) Neither LXX nor Vulg uses the (genitive or ablative) absolute construction, which would have been the most idiomatic equivalent to this clause: LXX has it in e.g. 2.10; 5.20 and 40.32 (LXX 38.27), cf. BDF §423, but here both noun and participle are in the nominative; Vulg neatly turns the clause into the active and can then attach the participle grammatically to the main subject of the sentence. On the interpretation of ‫ משׁארת‬see Note k on the translation and Text and Versions on 7.28. Here TgO,N have the probably correct meaning ‘kneading-bowls’ (cf. Ibn Ezra [longer commentary], Rashbam), but TgO combines it with the interpretation ‘remainder’ (cf. ‫ )שׁאר‬which also appears in TgJ,Nmg (with the amplification ‘of [their] unleavened bread and bitter herbs’: cf. TgF, MRI [Lauterbach, p. 104] and Rashi) and TgG. LXX and Sy again have ‘dough’, which Vulg seems to presume here by its omission of any equivalent, although in the three other occurrences of ‫ משׁארת‬it follows the ‘remainder’ view. One does wonder whether the Masoretic pointing of the second letter is not just a (mistaken) result of this peculiar interpretation (cf. Propp, p. 326): if originally read with śin it would allow a much more plausible association with the practice of baking (cf. ‫שׂאר‬, ְ ‘leaven’, and ‫ ַמ ְשׂ ֵרת‬in 2 Sam. 13.9). ‫( בשׂמלתם‬12.34) So also SP, but 4QExc has the alternative (and apparently secondary) spelling ‫[ב]שׂלמתם‬, as in MT at 22.8, 25 and in fourteen other places. SP has standardised the spelling as -‫מל‬- everywhere: in the one place where von Gall reads -‫למ‬- (Deut. 24.13) this is a clear error (cf. Sanderson, Exodus Scroll, p. 61: also BHS ad loc. and the editions of Sadaqa and Tal).26 The reading of 4QExc has no obvious explanation and is the more surprising since it reads ‫ ושׂמלות‬in v. 35 with MT and SP. It may have the original reading here (cf. Propp, p. 364): J.E. Sanderson has suggested (ibid., pp. 61-62) that in another place where the two forms occur in adjacent verses (MT at 22.2526), this could be the result of the redactional use of ‫שׂמלה‬. The same might be the case here: see the Explanatory Note and the introduction to the section. ‫( על־שׁכמם‬12.34) TgJ,F (cf. TgNmg) add ‘they carried’ or ‘were placed’, probably as a result of their taking ‫ משׁארתם‬to refer to something unconnected with the ‫( בצק‬cf. above).   This error in von Gall is apparently overlooked by Baillet in his ‘Corrections’.

26

130

EXODUS 1–18

‫( כדבר משׁה‬12.35) LXX renders a little freely with καθὰ συνέταξεν αὐτοῖς Μωυσῆς: on the divergences from MT see Wevers, Notes, p. 187; and v. 31 for the use of a verb instead of a noun (also Vulg). There is therefore no need to envisage a Vorlage different from MT, with which SP, Tgg and Sy agree. In 4QExc ‫ משׁה‬is the first word preserved in a line and there seems to be more space before it than would be required for the preceding words in MT. Possibly 4QExc had a longer text at this point, more like v. 28 perhaps (cf. DJD XII, p. 115). TgN,G have ‘the words of Moses’, but TgNmg records the sing. rendering of TgO,J. ‫( ממצרים‬12.35) 4QExc omits, apparently by carelessness, which is apparent elsewhere in the ms. (cf. DJD XII, pp. 102-103). ‫( כלי כסף וכלי־זהב‬12.35) On the idiomatic renderings of LXX and Vulg see Text and Versions on 3.22 and 11.2. Here, as in 11.2, all the earliest mss of Sy follow the order of MT. ‫( ושׂמלת‬12.35) Both witnesses to TgJ have no equivalent to this word (cf. Text and Versions on v. 30), probably through accidental omission in transmission. Vulg vestem plurimam seems an over-correction of OL vestem, itself based on LXX’s collective sing. ἱματισμόν. But classical Latin prose did not use the pl. of vestis (LS, pp. 1981-82), so this may have seemed the best way for Jerome to do justice to the pl. of the Heb. However, elsewhere he uses the pl. (including 3.22) as well as the sing. ‫( ויהוה‬12.36) TgG adds ‘the Memra of’ (cf. TgNmg). ‫( נתן את־חן העם‬12.36) The Vss follow MT with the same small variations of idiom as in 11.3 (see Text and Versions there). TgJ has ‫ חן וחסד‬here instead of ‫רחמין‬. ‫( וישׁאלום‬12.36) Tgg and Sy employ the cognate Aram. verb, for which the meanings ‘borrow’ and ‘lend’ are much more prominent than in BH (22.13 is one example, but see Note m on the translation of this section) and ‘lent’ is probably intended. This is certainly the meaning given by LXX ἔχρησαν (for the distinction from giving cf. Arist., EN 1162b33) and Vulg ut commodarent (with this as the consequence of the divine intervention), presumably on the basis of familiarity with later Heb. and Aram. usage. This widespread interpretation gave rise to ethical embarrassment (cf. Childs, Exodus, pp. 175-77), and at least some Hellenistic Jews did not share it (Ezek.tr., Exag. 162-66; Jos., AJ 2.14.6 [314]: see further Jacobson, Exagoge, pp. 126-27). ‫( וינצלו‬12.36) The Vss generally render as in 3.22 (see Text and Versions there), but Sy ḥlṣw lines up with the interpretation ‘despoil’ (cf. CAL). TgG, presumably by accident, omits ‘the Israelites’. ‫( את־מצרים‬12.36) TgJ,N add ‘of their possessions’ here (not in 3.22), to clarify the meaning. After v. 36 2QExa, 4QExc and 4QpalExm all had a long space and v. 37 began on a new line – early evidence of the division marked in the much later Masoretic and Samaritan mss.



12.28-42, 50-51

131

‫( ויסעו‬12.37) TgN accidentally omitted the equivalent ‫ וינטלו‬which is present in all the other Targum texts. ‫( מרעמסס‬12.37) LXX, Vulg, Sy and TgO reproduce MT. TgJ,N,G have ‘from Pelusium’, erroneously identifying the site with an important Delta city of Greco-Roman times as TgJ,N do in 1.11 (cf. my Way of the Wilderness, pp. 1213, 19). ‫( סכתה‬12.37) It seems likely that 4QExc read ‫[סכו]ת‬, without the directional ending (DJD XII, p. 115); cf. 13.20 and Num. 33.5-6. 2QExa and SP agree with MT. The abbreviated expression here really requires the fuller form, which appears (with reference to a different place of the same name) in Gen. 33.17. The LXX reading preferred by Rahlfs and Wevers, Σοκχώθα, also attests the ending, though many mss lack the -α, perhaps for the same reason as 4QExc. The straightforward transcription as a place-name is also found in Vulg, Sy, TgO,J,N and is one of the interpretations cited in MRI (Lauterbach, p. 108, cf. 182). But MRI also records Akiba’s view that the meaning is ‘the clouds of glory’ over Mount Zion mentioned in Isa. 4.5-6 (cf. Exod. 13.20-21, where ‫ סכת‬is mentioned again) and TgJ has a long addition here to the same effect. Symm εἰς σκηνάς and TgG ‫ למטלין‬gave the etymological meaning ‘booths’, as in MRI’s opening comment, ‘there were real booths’. TgJ also adds that it was a distance of 130 miles from Ramesses/Pelusium to Succoth (cf. MRI’s figure of 160 miles, a long distance which it seeks to justify [Lauterbach, p. 107]). It is unclear where such figures came from, unless they are perhaps based on the distance from Pelusium to the other Succoth in the Jordan valley. ‫( כשׁשׁ־מאות אלף‬12.37) It is possible that 4QExc did not have the initial ‫כ‬, so conforming with Num. 11.21 (and cf. Sir. 16.10; 46.8), where ‫ רגלי‬also occurs. TgN ‘about sixty myriads’ reflects an interpretation which correlates the figure with Song 3.7-8 (cf. MRI [Lauterbach, p. 109]). ‫( רגלי‬12.37) The correct SP reading is ‫( רגלאי‬not ‫רגלי‬, as in von Gall’s text), in line with the Sam. pronunciation (GSH §16a) which is close to the Aram. form (GSH §139a: cf. TgO). TgG omits. In TgJ the exclusion of the ‘children’ is related to this word, not the total number, and ‘five per family’ is added in accordance with TgJ’s interpretation of 13.18 (see Text and Versions there). ‫( מטף‬12.37) The Vss render ‫ טף‬as they do in 10.10, 24 (see Text and Versions there). ‫( וגם‬12.37) Vulg sed et, introducing an element of contrast. ‫( ערב רב‬12.38) A few SP mss (including Tal’s and Camb. 1846) write the phrase as a single word, a reduplicated form from the root ‫‘ = ערב‬mix’, which occurs in MH and later Aram. but not in BH. Albright independently favoured this reading (cf. Archaeology and the Religion, p. 201 n. 9 [for the form see GK §84bn]), but the textual support for it is very slight: on the other side, besides MT, 4QpalExm has ‫ ערב ר[ב‬and the Vss all have ‘large’. LXX ἐπίμικτος (sc.

132

EXODUS 1–18

ὄχλος: the word seems to be attested as a noun only in LXX) associates ‫ערב‬ with the sense ‘mix’ (cf. Vulg, TgF,G,Nmg, Sy), perhaps mistakenly: TgO,J ‫נוכראין‬ and TgN ‫ גיורין‬point instead to the sense ‘foreigners’ (see further Note t on the translation). For ‫ רב‬TgJ has ‘more than them [sc. Israel], 240 myriads’ (cf. MRI [Lauterbach, p. 109] for this and other large figures), and Vulg’s innumerabile (a word which elsewhere usually has some basis in the Heb. text: e.g. 10.28) is probably based on knowledge of this interpretation. ‫( מקנה‬12.38) LXX, Vulg, TgJ and Sy prefix ‘and’, apparently not seeing the appositional connection: Vulg even adds diversi generis to distinguish these animantia from those just mentioned. TgG’s ‫ נכסין‬helps to identify one source of TgNmg as a variant Pal. Tg. ms., perhaps a more authentic one than TgN itself, which here has the rendering of TgO. ‫( מאד‬12.38) 4QpalExm has ‫( מאדה‬4QExc ‫מאד‬, likewise SP), followed by an interval within the line which is not attested elsewhere. The longer form in ‫ה‬- appears to be a feature of Qumran Hebrew (cf. Qimron, pp. 69, 117; HAL, p. 511; DCH 5, p. 103), which can be compared to the use of final he as an adverbial ending in later Aram. (Stevenson, p. 25; Rosenthal §88[4]). ‫( ויאפו‬12.39) TgJ rewrites the beginning of the verse so that the dough laid on the Israelites’ heads (as it understands v. 34) was baked by the heat of the sun—a logical deduction perhaps from the statement that ‘they did not get provisions for themselves’. ‫( את־הבצק‬12.39) Most Vss render as in v. 34, with even the addition of ‘their’ here in TgN,G, but TgN has ḥmyʿh, ‘leavened bread/dough’, and so makes the statement that ‘it was not leavened’ due to a delay in the fermentation process. ‫( ממצרים‬12.39)1o TgG adds ‘the land of’ as it did in v. 27, to match the common formula (e.g. v. 41). ‫( עגת‬12.39) The Vss use a variety of equivalents, several of which reflect the practice of baking bread in the ashes of a fire (LXX, Vulg, Sy: cf. 1 Kgs 19.6 and MRI [Lauterbach, p. 110]). TgG’s ‫ חלון‬is the strangest, as the word is usually found in the context of temple ritual. ‫( גרשׁו ממצרים‬12.39) SP and 2QExa divide the words differently, ‫גרשׁום‬ ‫מצרים‬, making the Egyptians the subject and the verb Piel instead of MT’s Pual. LXX, TgG (cf. TgNmg), Vulg (cf. OL) and the earliest mss of Sy render with active verbs and point to the same reading of the Heb. But the reading of Kennicott ms. 129 cited in DJD III, p. 51, ‫גרשׁו מצרים‬, without the first mem, is probably a haplographic corruption of MT. MT is supported by TgO,J,N: no other Qumran mss preserve this phrase. Both readings make sense and both can be explained as secondary, MT to keep the same subject throughout and SP etc. to conform to the use of the active earlier in 6.1; 11.1, so it is difficult to decide which is the more original. The Piel reading is early and more widely attested and picks up v. 33 well; on the other hand the use of the rare Pual of ‫( גרשׁ‬only elsewhere in Job 30.5) makes MT arguably the difficilior



12.28-42, 50-51

133

lectio, which should then be preferred. Most commentators tend to follow MT, but Propp (p. 365) notes ‫ ממצרים‬earlier in the verse as an argument that it might be secondary here. ‫( וגם צדה לא עשׂו להם‬12.39) LXX adds, reasonably enough, εἰς τὴν ὁδόν (for the fuller expression cf. Gen. 42.25; 45.21). TgJ goes further, picking up the inference of MRI (Lauterbach, p. 110) that the unleavened cakes met the Israelites’ needs for thirty days, until the provision of manna began (cf. Exod. 16.1-4). After v. 39 4QExc has an open section which is not paralleled elsewhere. ‫( ומושׁב‬12.40) TgJ ‘And the days (which)…’, with ‘the Israelites’ in the relative clause (cf. Sy), gets round the unique temporal use of ‫מושׁב‬. ‫( בני ישׂראל‬12.40) SP adds ‫ואבותם‬, referring to (some of) the patriarchal period in line with the addition discussed in the next note. Many LXX mss have αὐτοὶ καὶ οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν for the same reason, the main O-group and papyrus 866 (cf. Desilva, ‘Five Papyrus Fragments’, pp. 13-15) after κατῴκησαν = ‫ ישׁבו‬and the uncials AFM and the Catena group at the end of the same clause, but LXXB does not have it and both Rahlfs and Wevers exclude it from their text of the original LXX. There is no trace of a Heb. equivalent in 2QExa and 4QExc or in the renderings of the other Vss. The varied locations and wording of the plus where it does occur suggest that it belongs to a secondary stage of the amplification of the text. ‫( במצרים‬12.40) 4QExc, TgG (as in v. 39) and later mss of Sy have ‘in the land of Egypt’, a common expansion. SP and LXX (except for the O-text and the longer retroversion in MRI [Lauterbach, p. 112]) also have this expansion but as part of a more substantial variant which either adds ‫בארץ כנען ו‬ before the expression (SP) or καὶ ἐν γῇ Χανάαν after it (LXX). In this case it does seem to be part of the original LXX translation (cf. Rahlfs, Wevers), and Paul’s reference to ‘430 years’ from Abraham to Moses (Gal. 3.17) evidently presupposes it. Although 2QExa as preserved does not exhibit the variant, a reconstruction based on MT would be about 12 letters/spaces too short (cf. DJD III, p. 51) and it is very likely that it originally had both ‫במצרים‬ and ‫בארץ כנען‬, though whether it followed the order of SP or LXX cannot be determined. The reasoning behind the longer text is that 430 years was too long for the four-generation sojourn in Egypt foretold in Gen. 15.16 (cf. Exod. 6.16-20 and 13.18LXX: Wevers, Notes, p. 190). The problem is raised in MRI (Lauterbach, p. 111) but solved in a different way (for other rabbinic treatments see the next note). The ‘solution’ adopted in SP and LXX must have been evolved in the course of discussions about biblical chronology in the Hellenistic period, on which see B.Z. Wacholder, ‘Biblical Chronology in the Hellenistic World Chronicles’, HTR 61 (1968), pp. 451-81. But there was only a problem because of some late additions to the biblical narrative (Exod. 6.13-30 and Gen. 15.16, which is dependent upon it) and MT here, which shows no awareness of the ‘problem’ and is followed in TgO,N,G, Vulg

134

EXODUS 1–18

and Sy, undoubtedly preserves the most ancient version of the text (see further Dillmann, Ex.-Lev., pp. 120-22; P. Grelot, ‘Quatre cents trente ans [Exode 12.34 (sic!)]: À propos de la chronologie du Pentateuque’, in G. Braulik [ed.], Studien zum Pentateuch [FS W. Kornfeld; Vienna, 1977], pp. 91-98 [for early evidence in Hebrew and Aramaic texts]; S. Kreuzer, ‘Zur Priorität und Auslegungsgeschichte von Exodus 12,40MT: Die chronologische Interpretation des Ägyptenaufenthalts in der judäischen, samaritanischen und alexandrinischen Exegese’, ZAW 103 [1991], pp. 252-58 [252-55]). ‫( שׁלשׁים שׁנה וארבע מאות שׁנה‬12.40) For the time spent ‘in Egypt’ TgJ has ‘(were) thirty sabbatical years, whose sum is 210 years, and the counting of 430 years is from when the Lord spoke to Abraham, from the time when he spoke to him on the fifteenth of Nisan between “the pieces” until the day when they came out of Egypt’: in other words TgJ adopts the chronology followed in SP and LXX (as does e.g. Gen.R. 44.18) and accommodates MT to fit it by changing the numeral (cf. Gen.R. 91.2 [citing R. Abba b. Kahana, third–fourth cent.]; PRE 48 [tr. Friedlander, pp. 374-76]; Exod.R. 18.11). The figure of ‘210 years’ had become traditional by the time of Rashi, Rashbam and Ibn Ezra and was correlated with the numerical value of ‫( ודר‬200+4+6) in Gen. 42.2. The date of the revelation to Abraham was deduced from ‘on this very day’ in v. 41 (see further below). ‫( מקץ‬12.40) LXX renders freely with μετά (cf. Sy). Vulg quibus expletis avoids the repetition of the numeral, but its choice of verb does show some trace of MT’s ‫קץ‬. ‫( שׁלשׁים שׁנה וארבע מאות שׁנה‬12.41) TgJ has a midrashic expansion, dividing the two parts of the numeral in the order of MT at the birth of Isaac, in a refinement of the SP/LXX chronology which is found also in MRI (Lauterbach, p. 111). TgG (as in v. 40) also follows the MT wording of the numeral, against normal Aram. practice, which is to put the larger numeral first, perhaps with this midrash in mind. TgJ has no equivalent to the second ‫שׁנה‬, perhaps assuming that it could be understood from the context. ‫( בעצם היום הזה‬12.41) LXX did not render this phrase which was so important to rabbinic exegesis here (e.g. MRI [Lauterbach, pp. 112-13]: see the notes on v. 42): compare its weak equivalents for the same phrase in vv. 17 and 51. Vulg’s eadem die perhaps shows knowledge of the significance that was seen in it. ‫( כל־צבאות יהוה‬12.41) LXX is again free, as elsewhere using a sing. form; likewise Vulg, although the Three had corrected to the pl.27 TgJ,N,G add ‫פריקין‬, ‘redeemed’, as often elsewhere after the verb ‘go/bring out’ (see Text and Versions on 3.10 and 6.26).

27   Wevers (Notes, p. 190 n. 55) oddly credits Theod with the rendering πάντες οἱ ἄνδρες, apparently misreading the Latin equivalent to Syh’s reading in his own apparatus (vires) as the pl. of vir: in fact it must represent αἱ δυνάμεις.



12.28-42, 50-51

135

‫( ליל‬12.42) SP has ‫לילה‬, the more common form and the only one used elsewhere in biblical prose—a clear case of SP’s tendency to normalise unusual forms. 4QExc, the only Qumran ms. to preserve the word, tantalisingly reads ]‫ ליל‬before a lacuna, so its original reading is uncertain. LXX νυκτός took the word adverbially with v. 41, ‘…by night’, recalling vv. 29-31 and perhaps Deut. 16.1, 6, but the nominative forms in Aq, Symm and Vulg agree with the MT verse-division and syntax, like the other Vss. Some SP mss also begin the new verse after ‫( לילה‬cf. von Gall, Tal), but many do not (Sadaqa, Crown, Camb. 1846; cf. SamTg and perhaps the SamGk, which had φυλαξεώς for the next word). All that can be said is that the longer spelling permitted the interpretation found in LXX. The latter was scarcely the original intention, as is generally recognised: both the form ‫ ליל‬and the neat balance of v. 42 in MT are against it. TgO,N,G(AA,FF) render with ‫לילי‬, intending the sing., probably constr. st. (cf. TgJ,F(V) ‫)ליל‬, but it is a form that looks like and often is the pl. constr. (Jastrow, p. 707: cf. TgJ in its expansion [below]) and it is possible that this ambiguity generated the ‘Poem of the Four Nights’ which was added in the middle of v. 42 in the Pal. Tg. and in an abbreviated form in TgJ (see below). ‫שׁמרים‬1o (12.42) LXX προφυλακή is generally taken to mean ‘vigil’ here (cf. LSJ, NETS), but the great majority of its occurrences in LXX and more widely are in military contexts and mean ‘advance guard’ or more generally ‘defence, protection’, a sense which is found for the second occurrence of ‫ שׁמרים‬in this verse (Theod, TgJ). Here and there the most popular view was that it meant ‘observance’ (Aq, Symm, Tgg, Sy; Vulg), whether in the sense of (God) ‘watching over’ or of religious observance. Curiously both LXX and Vulg supply the unexpressed verb in the present tense here, as if the verse were part of a speech rather than of the narrative. TgF(V),G(AA) add ‘and appointed for redemption’: TgJ has just the latter expression.28 ‫( ליהוה‬12.42)1o TgO,J,F(V),G(AA,FF) have ‘before the Lord’, TgN ‘for the name of the Lord’. ‫( להוציאם‬12.42) TgN,F(V),G(AA,FF) have ‘(at the time) when he brought the Israelites out redeemed’ (cf. Vulg quando eduxit eos); TgJ ‘to bring out the name of the Israelites’, but ‫ שׁמא‬is probably a scribal error for ‫עמא‬, ‘the people’. ‫( מארץ מצרים‬12.42) After their equivalents to this phrase all the Pal. Tg. mss except for the oldest one (TgG(AA)) and TgF(P) (on which see below) insert in slightly divergent forms ‘The Poem of the Four Nights’. In TgF(P) the poem appears before Exod. 15.18; TgJ has an abbreviated version of it before 12.42. The poem is also included in the Mahzor Vitry (cf. Chester, p. 196 n. 45), whose origins go back to the eleventh century (but it has many later additions), and it was very likely designed for liturgical use in celebrations of the Passover. According to the poem the creation of the world, the covenant 28   TgG(FF) has ‘and trustworthy for redemption’, but this is probably due to scribal error (cf. Klein 2, p. 61): this text has ‘appointed’ in v. 42b.

136

EXODUS 1–18

with Abraham and/or the birth of Isaac and his (near-)sacrifice in the Aqedah and the deliverance from Egypt all took place on the same night and the coming of the Messiah (omitted in TgN,G(FF)) and the final redemption of Israel would do so too. The same dating for the covenant with Abraham was widely current and the view that it would also be the day of future deliverance is reported, but contested, in MRI (Lauterbach, pp. 115-16). The date of creation was also disputed, but one view was that it occurred in the month of Nisan (Gen.R. 22.4, cited in J.W. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature [Cambridge, 1969], p. 166). The first detailed modern study of the Poem was R. Le Déaut, La Nuit Pascale (AnBib 22; Rome, 1963); see also G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition (Leiden, 2nd ed., 1973), pp. 193-227, and Chester, Divine Revelation, pp. 192-99, who provides an English translation (with notes of variant readings, but not from the more recently published Genizah mss) on pp. 192-94. The poem is widely thought to be ‘early’, possibly even pre-Christian (cf. Le Déaut, pp. 339-71). The use of Aramaic would support this up to a point, but the absence of the poem from the earliest relevant ms. of the Palestinian Targum (AA: ninth to mid-eleventh cent.) and the lack of early citations or references should counsel caution in regard to some of the claims that have been made.29 ‫( הוא הלילה הזה‬12.42) The Tgg generally follow the wording of MT closely here, but TgN,G(FF),F(V) have ‘it [or ‘that] (is) the night of Passover’, giving what is surely the sense of MT without its awkward demonstrative. LXX ἐκείνη ἡ νὺξ αὕτη most likely means ‘that night, it is…’ (BAlex): a poor analysis of the Heb. even though the words are in the right order. Vulg hanc observare debent… glosses over the difficulty. ‫( ליהוה‬12.42)2o See on the occurrence earlier in the verse: here TgJ and Vulg have no equivalent. ‫( שׁמרים‬12.42)2o Again the Vss generally follow their renderings earlier in the verse. TgJ adds ‘from the destroying angel’: here, as probably in LXX and perhaps elsewhere, the sense of ‘protection’ by Yahweh enduring into the future has displaced the original reference to a continuing obligation on Israel to observe the Passover ‘for Yahweh’. This is taken furthest in the rewriting of v. 42b in TgG(FF), which equates Passover with the fourth night as well as the third in the poem. ‫( לכל־בני ישׂראל‬12.42) TgJ also introduces an ongoing hope by inserting here ‘who were in Egypt and also for their redemption from their exiles’. ‫( לדרתם‬12.42) 4QpalExl certainly and 4QExc possibly (cf. DJD XII, p. 116) had an interval after v. 42, corresponding to those in MT and SP. 29   Towards the end of the poem, which it knew from a ms. of TgF, in the section about the coming of the Messiah the 1517 Rabbinic Bible introduced a reference to the accompanying ‘clouds’, erroneously reading ‫ עננא‬for ‫ענא‬, ‘the flock’, which is the reading of all the Pal.Tg. witnesses now known (see further Michael Klein on the Targums, pp. 235-37).



12.28-42, 50-51

137

Verses 50-51 are preserved, along with vv. 43-49, in several Qumran phylactery mss (XQ1, 8Q3, 4Q128, 136, 140) and in 4QDeutj: see Lange, Handbuch, pp. 116-22, which draws attention to the (at least later) practice of writing out such copies from memory (p. 121). Variants are therefore less significant for textual criticism, but will nevertheless be recorded. ‫( ויעשׂו‬12.50) 8Q3 has ‫יעשׂו‬, which might be seen as a deliberate jussive to conclude the preceding laws. But there is a careless error in the next line, so this may be another. TgN has no equivalent, probably again due to carelessness. ‫( כל‬12.50) 4Q128, a Genizah ms. and LXX omit, probably to conform to v. 28. The O-text supplies πάντες. ‫( כאשׁר‬12.50) XQ1 has instead the stronger ‫ככל־אשׁר‬, which occurs in Gen. 6.22; 7.5 and several more times in the Pentateuch. ‫( יהוה‬12.50) TgNmg prefixes ‘the Memra of’. ‫( ואת־אהרן‬12.50) A Genizah ms. omits ‫ את‬according to BHS, which also unjustifiably presumes that the absence of τῷ in LXX reflects a similar omission in its Vorlage (cf. 5.20; 6.20; 10.8). The omission in the Genizah ms. is probably due to assimilation to v. 28. LXX pedantically adds πρὸς αὐτούς, ‘for them’ (sc. the Israelites), as MT, SP and LXX have at Deut. 1.3 (cf. Exod. 6.13; 25.22; Lev. 27.34). Its omission here by mss AFM and the O-text (but not by papyrus 866) is probably a correction towards MT, not merely a matter of style (against Wevers, Notes, p. 194). ‫( כן עשׂו‬12.50) Vulg has no equivalent, probably regarding the repetition as otiose, as in v. 28. 8Q3 has the past tense like the other witnesses here. DJD XIV, p. 89, thinks it possible that 4QDeutj had an interval after v. 50, as in MT. ‫( בעצם היום הזה‬12.51) The Vss mostly render as in v. 41. LXX, which had no equivalent there, has ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ, ignoring ‫ עצם‬as it did in v. 17 and rendering ‘historically’ here. ‫( הוציא‬12.51) 8Q3 has ‫הוציאך‬, a form which occurs in 13.9 in a partly similar expression. But it does not fit the narrative context here. ‫( את־בני ישׂראל‬12.51) TgN adds ‫פריקין‬, as the Pal. Tg. often does elsewhere (see the note on v. 41). ‫( על־צבאתם‬12.51) Most Vss render ‫ צבאת‬as in v. 41, but Vulg reverts to its more precise equivalent turmas, as in 6.26, 40.34 and often afterwards. Sy replaces ‫ על‬by kwl, ‘all’, as it did in 6.26 (cf. v. 41). After v. 51 all the Qumran phylacteries and 4QDeutj have an interval, whether before a different passage (8Q3) or, as in MT and SP, before the continuation in 13.1 (4QDeutj, 4Q128, 136, 140).

C h ap t er 1 2 . 4 3 - 4 9 F u rther I n s tr u cti o n s fr om Y a hwe h abou t th e P as s over M e a l

The boundaries of this section, as in the rest of the chapter, have been defined in this commentary according to the distinction between narrative and law. The beginning does correspond to an interval in the major Masoretic mss, which also appeared in 4QpalExl and perhaps in 4QExc, but at the end there is, understandably, no interval until after v. 50. The section has a heading in v. 43a (see the Explanatory Note) but no formal closure: v. 49 is, as the recurrence of the words ‘native’ and ‘resident alien’ shows, specifically linked to v. 48. Verses 43b-49 comprise a series of short commandments (only in vv. 48-49 is there anything like the ‘story’ structure1 that is found in vv. 1-14[20]), in which the presence of a number of prohibitions is a notable feature (Childs, p. 202: cf. vv. 43, 45-46, 48b), though they are not entirely missing earlier in the chapter (vv. 9-10, 16b, 19-20, 22b). Another recurrent element is the expression ‘may/shall (not) eat of it’ (Heb. [lōʾ] yōʾkal bô), which draws attention to the main (but not exclusive) topic of these verses, i.e. who may and who may not participate in the Passover meal. Attempts have been made to identify seven laws within the series. Cassuto (p. 150) listed them as vv. 43b, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48a and 48b, with v. 49 as ‘a general law in regard to the sojourner’, which looks like eight: moreover the combination of two laws in one in v. 46 and the subdivision of v.  48 are artificial (although they cancel one another out numerically). Propp (p. 375) notes the distinction in form between vv. 43b-47, 48b (apodictic) and 48a (casuistic: it is not clear what he thinks about v. 49) and detects in the former sequence an older ‘Pesaḥ Rule’, in which positive and negative prescriptions alternate. This was then expanded with the casuistic law in v. 48a. The supposed pattern does break down in v. 46a, where an additional (supplementary) negative command 1

  I owe this expression to Dr N.A. Wormell.



12.43-49

139

appears, and again the subdivision of v. 48 is artificial. If there is an alternating pattern, it is easier to see it in the subject matter: who may/may not eat (vv. 43b-45), how the meal shall be eaten (v. 46), who may/may not eat (vv. 47-49). Within the two outer sub-units there is more of a linear progression, with in each case a statement of principle (vv. 43b, 47) followed by qualification(s) introduced by the conjunction (Heb. we), translated here as ‘But’ (vv. 44, 48). It is also notable that two different Hebrew verbs, rendered here ‘eat’ and ‘celebrate’, are central to vv. 43b-45 on the one hand and vv. 47-49 on the other (for the likely significance of this change see the Explanatory Note on v. 47). The relationship of this section to other passages dealing with Passover has been clarified by Houtman’s table (pp. 152-53), although its positive relations with Num. 9.1-14, 2 Chr. 30.1-27 and perhaps Ezra 6.19-22 are underplayed through the lack of a column for references to non-Israelites. In general it is striking how little it shares with other passages: there is nothing in it about the blood-rite, the final plague (or the Exodus more generally), the date, the eating of unleavened bread or the period for which that is prescribed. As is frequently observed, the regulations here seem completely detached from the Exodus situation and to relate to a later situation after the settlement in Canaan (though nothing would actually exclude their application to Diaspora Jews). Given what they omit, and the very limited topics with which they do deal, they cannot have been intended to stand alone (which only makes the heading in v. 43 more anomalous) and they must have been designed to be a supplement to the regulations earlier in ch. 12, particularly to vv. 1-20, with which they share a number of features (the introductory address to Moses and Aaron, the terms ‘statute’ [Heb. ḥuqqāh] and ‘congregation’, the references to a ‘house’, the rules about the preparation and eating of the animal, the contrast between ‘resident alien’ and ‘native’ [cf. v. 20]). The emphasis on circumcision and the language of v. 44 connect them with Genesis 17, but at the same time the terminology and point of view that are shared with passages later in Leviticus and Numbers must also be noted (see the Explanatory Notes on vv. 45 and 48-49). The contacts with Num. 9.1-14, which adds further new provisions to the Passover law, are particularly close: just as this section presupposes and goes beyond Exod. 12.1-14(20), so Num. 9.1-14 presupposes what is found in Exodus 12 as a whole and extends it further.

140

EXODUS 1–18

Critical analyses have agreed since Knobel that the section is in the broad sense from P. Its introductory formula and its language point strongly this way and the home setting for Passover presupposed in v. 46 both fits the earlier Priestly Passover regulations in vv. 1-14 and contradicts the Deuteronomic requirement for a centralised celebration (Deut. 16.1-8).2 Some scholars say no more, whether to avoid the complexities of further sub-division of P or because they see no need to separate this passage from the rest of the Priestly Passover material (Wellhausen, Carpenter/Harford-Battersby, Gressmann, McNeile, Eissfeldt, Beer-Galling, Van Seters, Dozeman). Propp is a recent example of the latter group (pp. 374-75): although he makes a point of observing that ‘the terse style is not at all Priestly’, he attributes this to the use of an older ‘Rule’ by P (see above), who then ‘explicitly quotes’ it again in Num. 9.12-14. But the majority of scholars, beginning with Knobel and Dillmann, have seen the section as a secondary development within the Priestly corpus (Ps), for reasons that were summed up by Noth in his Exodus commentary (pp. 72, 78-79, ET pp. 92, 100-101): the provisions are not connected to the historical (i.e. narrative) situation but presuppose conditions in the land of Canaan (esp. vv. 47-49), and the repetition of v. 41b in v. 51 (Wiederaufnahme) implies that what comes in between is a later addition. It is possible to strengthen this argument by noting that the language of vv. 48-49 (and also the expression tôšāb in v. 44) and the concern to place the ‘resident alien’ on the same footing as the native Israelite is characteristic, not of the main body of P but of the Holiness Code and passages in the book of Numbers which also appear to be later. Israel Knohl (Sanctuary, pp. 21-22) has deduced from this that the passage is the work of ‘the Holiness School’, but this is difficult to reconcile with the domestic setting of v. 46 and, as noted, the expressions and ideas involved occur in Numbers as well as in the Holiness Code (for tôšāb see also Gen. 23.2).3 A later origin, after the combination of the Priestly and non-Priestly Exodus accounts, would need to be envisaged if the passage, or at least its location, were seen as dependent upon the mention of the ‘foreigners’ in v. 38 (cf. Levin, p. 339), but the placing of such an addition immediately after the Priestly ‘finale’ in vv. 40-42 is intelligible enough by itself, without the need to see any original connection with v. 38. Rendtorff compared the passage (apparently without v. 48a) to the pattern of priestly Daat-collections which he found underlying Leviticus 6–7 and 11–15 (Gesetze, p. 58: cf. pp. 33-38, 55). What he had in mind was the   Ahuis’s attribution of these verses to a Deuteronomistic layer (his DtrT) therefore cannot be sustained (Exodus 11,1–13,16, pp. 112-13, cf. p. 71), and the argument based on a connection with vv. 3aα, 6b-8 is in any case worthless. 3   Smend (Erzählung, p. 137) found an additional argument for Ps in the dependence of v. 44 on an addition to P in Gen. 17.12b-13a, but commentators such as Gunkel and Westermann have seen no need to regard this section as secondary. 2



12.43-49

141

‘allmähliche Anfügung einzelner Sätze zu einem bestimmten Thema, wobei z.T. eine einheitliche Stilform Verwendung findet’. In this case, however, the epithet ‘priestly’, in the sense that the knowledge was for the priests alone rather than the laity, scarcely fits: one could perhaps better think of priests formulating guidance for the laity mainly in the same form as they used for their own ‘manuals’. But the third-person verbs here all relate (except for v. 47) to foreigners and when the Israelites themselves come into play (as in vv. 44, 46 and 48-49) they are addressed directly in the second person. This then resembles rather what Rendtorff called ‘priestly Torah’ for the laity, such as he found in Leviticus 11 and also in parts of Exod. 12.1-20 (Gesetze, pp. 12, 22-23; cf. 56-58). One may also doubt whether there really was a process of ‘gradual accretion’ in vv. 43-49: the rulings about the participation of foreigners in the Passover provide what seems to be a planned comprehensive coverage of the various categories of foreigner and the transition already noted from issues about ‘eating’ to those about ‘celebration’ provides an adequate explanation for the separation of the gēr from the others here.4

It is easier to recognise a progression between this passage as a whole and the other Priestly texts that deal with Passover. Since it does not give any basic information about how Passover is to be celebrated, it must be seen as a supplement to Exod. 12.1-14. Equally clearly Num. 9.1-14, which adds the possibility of a later celebration of Passover in the second month, knows the regular practice of Passover in the modified form introduced by the present passage, so it must be later than it. What is more difficult is to see where Exod. 12.14b-17 and 18-20 fit into this development. None of the ‘Passover’ passages gives any hint that Passover formed the prelude to a seven-day festival of Unleavened Bread, so it is probable that even vv. 18-20, which we have argued to be the earlier of these two sections (see the introduction to 12.1-20), was added after 12.43-49 and Num. 9.1-14.5 Exodus 12.14b-17, which introduced the centralised celebration of the whole two-part festival as prescribed in the Holiness Code (Lev. 23.4-8), will be later still. If this sequence is correct, the admission of gērîm to the Passover as well as slaves (provided they were circumcised) was not due to the Holiness Code but to an innovation within the Priestly tradition 4   Linguistic reasons may, however, suggest that vv. 46b and 49 were added secondarily to the main unit (see the Explanatory Note on v. 46). Both provisions are present in Num. 9.1-14. 5   12.18-20 shares with these passages the inclusion of the gēr.

142

EXODUS 1–18

that preceded it. It was an innovation that found its legitimacy within the context of the family unit which had once again become, after Josiah’s short-lived imposition of the centralisation required by Deuteronomy (2 Kgs 23.21-22: cf. Deut. 16.1-8), the main locus for this ancient and inspiring memorial of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt.6 The solidarity of the family unit (perhaps in the Diaspora as much as, or even more than, in the homeland) allowed, and even demanded, that a welcome to the community’s celebrations be extended to those who were willing to share in its mark of identity, circumcision. So, for some, might the hopes of prophets and psalmists (Isa. 49.6; Ps. 98.4-6) begin to become a reality. 43 [Yahweh said to Moses and Aarona, ‘This is the statute for the Passover meatb. No one of foreign birth shall eat any of itc. 44 But every slave who isd bought with money you shall circumcisee, thenf he may eat of itc. 45 A settlerg who is a hired man shall not eat of itc. 46 In one house it shall be eaten: you shall not take any of the meath outdoorsi from the house. You shall not break any of its bones. 47 All the congregation of Israel shall celebratej it. 48 But if a resident alien is dwelling with you and celebratingk Passover to Yahweh, all his males shall be circumcisedl and then hem may come near to celebrate it and hem shall be like a native of the land. But no one uncircumcised may eat of itc. 49 There shall ben one law for the native and the resident alien who resides in your midst.’]

Notes on the Translation a. Unlike v. 1, which is otherwise similar, the preposition ‫ אל‬is not repeated in MT (but see Text and Versions). This is most unusual: in the Pentateuch there seem to be only two other such instances (Gen. 30.40; Num. 16.25), compared with 45 places where ‫ אל‬is repeated (or, twice, followed by ‫)ל‬. G.A. Rendsburg, ‘The Nature of Qumran Hebrew as Revealed Through Pesher Habakkuk’, in E. Tigchelaar and P. Van Hecke (eds.), Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period (STDJ 114; Leiden, 2015), pp. 132-59 (143-44), has 6   The celebration of Passover and Unleavened Bread in connection with the dedication of the Temple in 516 B.C., which is recounted in Ezra 6.19-22, would if historical provide a terminus ante quem for the insertion of Exod. 12.18-20 and so (on our reconstruction) a fortiori for vv. 43-49 and Num. 9.1-14. But the account in Ezra may (like 2 Chr. 30) be an anachronistic retrojection of later practices.



12.43-49

143

noted a trend towards such omissions in LBH, but they are occasionally found already in the classical language: in addition to the parallels cited above see 12.28 and Note a on the translation of 12.28-42, 50-51. b. Heb. ‫חקת הפסח‬. On ‫ חקה‬see Note hh on the translation of 12.1-20: the nomen rectum here provides ‘nearer definition’ (GK §128f) of a kind which is not easily subsumed under the usual categories in the grammars but is quite common with words for ‘law’ etc. in headings as here or in colophons: cf. Lev. 6.18; 7.1, 11; 11.46; 14.2 (cf. 54, 57); 15.32; Num. 5.29; 6.13, 21; 19.14 (all with ‫)תורה‬. It seems to be a distinctively Priestly usage but occurs only here and in Num. 9.12, 14 (a related passage) with ‫חקה‬.7 In view of what follows ‫ פסח‬must refer here (as in vv. 11 and 21) to (the meat of) the slaughtered animal. c. Heb. ‫בו‬, as again in vv. 44, 45 and 48: in v. 9 the common ‫ מן‬was used for the same sense, but for ‫ ב‬cf. Lev. 22.11, 13; Judg. 13.16; Job 21.25. BDB, p. 88 (s.v. I.2.b), compares the meaning ‘among’, implying a part of a whole, as with ‫ שׁתה‬and ‫ לחם‬in Prov. 9.5. d. Heb. ‫אישׁ‬, lit. ‘a man’, with ‫ מקנת־כסף‬in apposition to it, lit. ‘a purchase of money’, giving a closer definition like many other words that follow ‫ אישׁ‬in apposition (cf. BDB, p. 36; GK §131b), as in 2.14. The alternative is to see ‫ עבד‬as in the construct state, ‘a man’s slave’, i.e. ‘someone’s slave’, which the MT accents seem to support (cf. the suffix added in ‫ כספו‬of SP: see also Text and Versions): AV, RV and JPS render thus, while the other modern EVV. (and Luther) seem to follow the first view. e. For the form of the sentence, with the anteposed object resumed by the pronoun ‫ אתו‬cf. GK §112mm, 143d; JM §156a, c. f. Heb. ‫אז‬, which is here used in a logical sense, as again in v. 48 and elsewhere (cf. BDB, p. 23, s.v. 1.b); probably with a degree of emphasis (ibid.), implying ‘only then’. g. Heb. ‫תושׁב‬. The word is evidently related to ‫ישׁב‬, ‘dwell’, but its frequent association with Heb. ‫גר‬, ‘resident alien’ (e.g. Gen. 23.4), shows that it is by no means a synonym of ‫ישׁב‬, ֵ ‘inhabitant’. Its genuine occurrences (in 1 Kgs 17.1 MT is clearly corrupt and should be emended with LXX: cf. BHS) are limited in their distribution and probably time of origin: BDB, p. 44, describes it as ‘only P (H) and late’. Eight of the thirteen occurrences are in Leviticus 22 and 25 (mainly the latter): the others are Gen. 23.4; Exod. 12.45; Num. 35.15 (all P); Ps. 39.13; 1 Chr. 29.15. The word does not occur in Deuteronomy, where ‫ גר‬is of course common. Cognates are attested in various forms of Aram., but not elsewhere: the earliest occurrence of a cognate by some way is ‫ תותב‬in Ahiqar, l. 112/160 (DNWSI 2, p. 1207; TAD 3, pp. 46-47), where it is said in a fable that ‘there is nothing taken more lightly (‫ )קליל‬than a foreigner (‫’)תותב‬ (tr. Lindenberger, in Charlesworth [ed.] 2, p. 501, with a note that the literal meaning is ‘sojourner, resident alien’). The date of the sayings of Ahiqar is   1 Sam. 10.25 perhaps provides an analogous (and non-Priestly) use of ‫משׁפט‬.

7

144

EXODUS 1–18

currently placed c. 600 B.C. and their likely origin in Syria (ibid., p. 482). The lowly status of such persons corresponds to (most of) what is found in the OT occurrences. A precise definition of the socio-economic position of a ‫ תושׁב‬has proved difficult to attain (see briefly TWNT 5, p. 846 with n. 35 [ET, p. 848]; F. Horst, Gottes Recht: Gesammelte Studien zum Recht im Alten Testament [Munich, 1961], p. 220; de Vaux, Institutions 1, pp. 116-18, ET pp. 74-76; HAL, pp. 1578-79); the comment in DCH 8, p. 616, represents a widespread view: ‘similar to the ‫ גֵּ ר‬but with fewer rights’. The problem may be that the word did not have a precise meaning, but needed an associated word to give it one. In legal texts it is almost always associated with either ‫( שׂכיר‬as here: cf. Lev. 22.10; 25.6, 40) or ‫( גר‬Lev. 25.23, 35, 47 [2x]; Num. 35.15), and it has been plausibly suggested that these pairings are examples of hendiadys: so K. Elliger, Leviticus (HAT; Tübingen, 1966), p. 293 n. 32, for the latter pairing, apparently unaware that E.Z. Melamed had much earlier argued that both pairings should be understood in this way (‘Hendiadys [ἓν διὰ δυοῖν] in the Bible’ [Heb.], Tarbiz 16 [1944–45], pp. 173-89 [175-76, 179]), as Houtman was also to do, apparently independently (cf. 1, pp. 287, 305 n. 28; 2, p. 207). Melamed is followed by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, pp. 1861-62 (on 22.10); Leviticus 23–27, pp. 2187, 2206-208 (on 25.23, 35), 2221-23 (on 25.40), who among other arguments points to the use of a sing. verb with the combined phrase here in Exod. 12.45 and in Lev. 22.10. A telling additional argument is that in Lev. 25.35-43 two successive stages in the destitution of an Israelite are to be remedied by treatment first as a ‫( גר ותושׁב‬v. 35) and secondly ‫כשׂכיר‬ ‫( כתושׁב‬v. 40). This surely implies that in these laws ‫ תושׁב‬is a general word for a ‘settler’ (as ‫ גר‬had been in Deuteronomy and as ‫ תותב‬seems to be in Ahiqar), but that a distinction is now being made between the ‫גר ותושׁב‬, who has the more generous rights previously afforded to the ‫( גר‬cf. Exod. 12.48 here and the notes below), and the ‫( שׂכיר ותושׁב‬or vice versa, as here), who is simply a foreign hired labourer, without additional privileges. In Lev. 25.45 the pl. is probably being used to cover both these categories, and the metaphorical uses in Ps. 39.13 and 1 Chr. 29.15 (and possibly also Lev. 25.23) are likewise imprecise. h. Heb. ‫מן־הבשׂר‬, with partitive ‫ מן‬as in vv. 7 and 22. i. Heb. ‫חוצה‬, ‘to outside’, more commonly has the article, but for its absence cf. Num. 35.4; 1 Kgs 6.6; Isa. 33.7; Prov. 5.16; 2 Chr. 24.8; 29.16. The sense is perhaps not ‘to anywhere away from the house’, but ‘outdoors’ (cf. v. 22, though a literary relationship with that verse need not be presumed). j. Heb. ‫יעשׂו‬. ‫ עדה‬as a collective generally takes a pl. verb (cf. 16.1-2; 17.1; 35.20: GK §145b-c). k. Heb. ‫ועשׂה‬. The perfect consecutive is presumably to be understood in the same way as the imperfect ‫יגור‬, whether as a future or as iterative. In either case this creates a difficulty, as the law goes on to insist that it is only after the ‫ גר‬and his male relatives have been circumcised that he or they are permitted to participate in the Passover meal. Some translations (e.g. NRSV:



12.43-49

145

cf. Houtman, pp. 208-209; Joosten, Verbal System, p. 300) therefore take the perfect consecutive as desiderative (‘wants to celebrate…’), but while such a usage is well attested for the imperfect (JM §113n), it is rare with the perfect consecutive (JM §119w; Joosten cites Exod. 5.5 and 2 Kgs 14.10, but the latter is not a real parallel).8 Perhaps, therefore, the iterative interpretation is best, so that the law seeks to tighten up a hitherto lax attitude to the celebration of Passover. l. Heb. ‫המול‬. The inf. abs. (Niphal) is here similar to a jussive, with ‫כל־זכר‬ most simply regarded as the subject (cf. GK §113cc,gg). m. Heb. ‫יקרב לעשׂתו והיה‬. The first verb at least is a permissive imperfect (like ‫ יאכל‬in v. 44: cf. GK §107s). The subject in both cases could theoretically be either the ‫ גר‬himself or ‫ כל־זכר‬as a collective singular. n. Heb. ‫יהיה‬, with gender discord even though the subject precedes: so also in the same formula in Num. 15.29 and the similar one in Num. 9.14: more examples in GK §145u and JM §150k.

Explanatory Notes 43. The opening address to Moses and Aaron recalls 12.1 (see the Explanatory Note there, where numerous parallels in legal material in Leviticus and Numbers are mentioned) and is itself referred back to in v. 50: the section thus forms a supplement to the divine instructions in vv. 1-20. The heading ‘This is the statute for Passover meat’ (see Note b on the translation) is of a type which is used to introduce both legal material (cf. 21.1) and various kinds of list (e.g. Num. 33.1-2). Here it begins a series of prescriptions which are all concerned with the eating of the Passover animal and especially with who is permitted (or required) to eat it and on what terms. It is in fact not one ‘statute’, at least in its present form, but the common theme allows it to be referred to as such, both in v. 49 (‘one law’, a different Heb. word) and in Num. 9.12, 14. The first prescription (to which vv. 44-45 seem to be attached as clarifications) is a ban on participation in the meal by any foreigner. In a celebration which was to commemorate a decisive event in the early history of Israel it was natural enough to restrict the meal to those who could claim to be direct descendants of those who came out of Egypt. 8   Num. 15.14, where NRSV also translates ‘wishes to’, is not an example: ‘and offers’ is quite adequate there.

146

EXODUS 1–18

44-45. But such a general ban was bound to raise some questions about its exact application. One that is not dealt with here is whether a person with only one Israelite parent could be admitted (Deut. 23.3 may have originally ruled against such a person: in Priestly narratives Gen. 28.2 and Num. 25.6-18 could form the basis for a similar exclusion). The cases that are dealt with here (and also in vv. 48-49) are based on the socio-economic status of the persons concerned. The first is a slave acquired by purchase (on the precise grammatical structure of the Heb. see Notes d and e on the translation), who is thereby distinguished from a slave born in the household: cf. Gen. 17.12-13 for this distinction (only the latter was presumably subject to the ‘eighth day’ rule). The need for circumcision implies that the purchased slave was a foreigner, and in the Holiness Code it is specifically laid down that Israelites may only take foreigners (including ‘resident aliens’) as slaves (Lev. 25.39-46), a change from the older legislation later in Exodus (21.11) and in Deuteronomy (15.12-18). Slaves are evidently regarded here as so much part of the family that, as long as they were circumcised, they could participate in the Passover meal (a similar way of thinking seems to lie behind Lev. 22.11). By contrast, another group of foreigners (the context implies that they were foreigners) were not to be admitted: as the Heb. literally has it, ‘a settler and a hired man’. The first expression is not the more common word gēr, ‘resident alien’, which comes later in vv. 48-49 (on it see 2.22 and Note dd on the translation of 2.11-22), but tôšāb, a derivative of the root yšb, ‘dwell’, which is applied to what might be called ‘settlers’ as distinct from the ordinary ‘inhabitants’ (Heb. yōšebîm) of the land. tôšāb is a much rarer word than gēr (only thirteen occurrences in Biblical Hebrew) and unlike gēr it never occurs in the Book of the Covenant or in Deuteronomy. It appears to be a later word from the exilic and post-exilic periods and eight of its occurrences are in the Holiness Code, mostly in Leviticus 25 (see further Note g on the translation). In meaning it cannot be very different from gēr, as they are used together several times in a metaphorical sense (Ps. 39.13; 2 Chr. 29.15; perhaps Lev. 25.23), but the separate, and more generous treatment of the gēr in vv. 48-49 suggests that they are not identical.9 The ‘hired man’ (Heb. 9   So also J. Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code (VTSup 67; Leiden, 1996), pp. 73-74, with the suggestion that the words belong to different ‘spheres’: gēr is a juridical term, while tôšāb describes a social condition.



12.43-49

147

śākîr) is more widely referred to (including Deut. 15.18; 24.14) and occurrences of the related verb and nouns in narratives and poetry show that such paid workers performed a variety of tasks, acting as shepherds (Gen. 30.32; 31.7), nurses (Exod. 2.9), craftsmen (1 Kgs 5.15; Isa. 46.6) and soldiers (Jer. 46.21), for example. In a number of cases they were working away from their homeland and probably did not own any land. Most commentaries and other studies (e.g. C.J.H. Wright, God’s People in God’s Land [Grand Rapids and Exeter, 1990], pp. 99-103) have treated tôšāb and śākîr here as two distinct categories (Wright, p. 102, sees them as two different types of gēr), but the possibility should be seriously considered that they form a hendiadys, as in our translation, ‘a resident alien who is a hired man’. This is particularly likely in the light of Lev. 25.35-43, where two distinct situations of an Israelite who falls on hard times are compared respectively to the gēr wetôšāb (v. 35), ‘the resident alien and settler’, who has better conditions, and the śākîr wetôšāb, ‘the hired man and settler’ (v. 40), who is little better than a slave: tôšāb, the newer and broader term, has its precise meaning specified by gēr or śākîr in these later laws. For further references and arguments in favour of this view (which is already found in TgN: see Text and Versions) see Note g on the translation. This category of person (or each of these categories, on the more common view) is excluded from the Passover, being a foreigner who lacks the close ties with an Israelite family which a slave has. 46. The two prescriptions in this verse are addressed directly, as in vv. 48-49, to the worshipping community (‘you’) and the variation between sing. (vv. 46a, 48 – cf. v. 44) and pl. (vv. 46b, 49) forms of the pronoun in MT may indicate a composite origin for these verses (see further Text and Versions). The mention of the ‘house’ reaffirms the family setting of the celebration that was already presumed earlier (cf. vv. 3-4, 7, 13: also vv. 22-23), and the warning against taking any of the meat outside recalls the danger on the first Passover night to anyone who was outside the protected doors of the house (cf. vv. 7, 13: also v. 22). Even in a safer situation the celebrating group was to remain together. The wholeness of the animal was also to be safeguarded: just as it was to be cooked whole, ‘roasted by fire’ (vv. 8-9), none of its bones must be broken (cf. Num. 9.12). This may be a specific prohibition related to the process of cooking, as preparation for cooking by boiling in a pot would be likely to lead to the breaking of some of the animal’s bones (cf. Mic. 3.3:

148

EXODUS 1–18

Propp, p. 418). Or it may refer to the search for additional nourishment after the meal from the marrow in the bones (so TgJ: see Text and Versions): for further suggestions see Houtman, pp. 207-208; Propp, pp. 418-19. An early interpretation saw v. 46b as related to Israel’s own promised preservation (Jub. 49.13-15). 47. The final verses of the section turn to a concern with those who may (or must) not merely eat the Passover meal, but celebrate it (Heb. ʿāśāh, lit. ‘do’, in vv. 47, 48 [2x]: the verb is not used in this sense in vv. 1-20, but it occurs repeatedly in Num. 9.1-14), that is take charge of the preparation and the eating of the meal (cf. Houtman, p. 134). First it is prescribed that the whole ‘congregation’ of the people is to take part, as already stated in vv. 3 and 6 (see the notes there): it is not just for selected representatives, it has ‘become a test case of membership in the ʿēdāh’ (Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, p. 156). This requirement is presumably what lies behind the provision in Num. 9.1-14 for a second Passover in the following month for anyone who with good reason was unable to participate at the normal time. There, though not here, punishment (of an unspecified nature) is prescribed for others who fail to take part in this important observance (Num. 9.13). 48-49. The final provisions of this section permit the ‘resident alien’ (Heb. gēr) too, if he and his household are circumcised, to celebrate the Passover, apparently as an independent family head. With Joosten (People and Land, pp. 54-73) and some others I do not regard gēr as having a meaning in Priestly texts which differs from that which it has elsewhere in BH. Excursus on Laws about ‘Resident Aliens’ Already in the Book of the Covenant the gēr was protected against ill-treatment and expected to share in the Sabbath rest (Exod. 22.20; 23.9, 12: cf. 20.10). In Deuteronomy the Israelites’ duty to care for the gēr was extended (or at least spelt out more clearly) to include just treatment in the law courts (1.16; 24.17; 27.19), provision of food (with other personae miserabiles) from the tithe of each third year (14.29; 26.12-13: cf. 10.18-19), payment of wages on time (24.14) and a welcome into the celebration of the festivals of Weeks and Booths (16.11, 14: cf. 26.11; 31.12). As non-Israelites they were not bound by the food-laws (14.21); among the tasks assigned to them might be wood-cutting and fetching water (29.11). The Priestly source in its original form seems to ignore the existence of gērîm in Israelite society, just as it does most other features of life outside



12.43-49

149

the ambience of the tabernacle/temple cult (Exod. 12.19 and Lev. 16.29 are both parts of secondary additions to P). It does, however, extend the status of gērîm to the patriarchs in Genesis (23.4; 37.1: cf. Exod. 6.4), and regulations about the gēr are frequent in the later parts of the Priestly corpus. Some of the Deuteronomic and older provisions are repeated (Lev. 16.29; 19.10 [cf. 23.22], 33-34; 25.6) and the Deuteronomic motivation based on Israel’s time as gērîm in Egypt is taken up (Lev. 19.34). A number of laws are said to apply equally to ‘native’ Israelites and to gērîm: about sexual relations (Lev. 18.26), about Molech worship (20.2), about blasphemy (24.16), about equal retribution (24.22) and about accidental homicide (Num. 35.15). Of particular relevance to the present passage are those laws about worship and ritual which are said to apply to gērîm as well, because they imply that the latter are permitted to participate in the practices of the cult on an equal footing, which is quite remarkable (Lev. 17.8, 10, 12, 13, 15; 22.18; Num. 15.14, 21, 29, 30; 19.10). It is revealing that Lev. 25.47-55 envisages the possibility that ‘resident aliens’ (the Heb. is gēr wetôšāb) may become so prosperous that they can acquire slaves of their own, and this is presumably only mentioned because it was a reality in the time when the chapter was compiled. Wealthy gērîm may have been particularly ready and able to participate in the worship of the Jerusalem temple, and it seems that their participation was welcomed by the circles who were responsible for elaborating the Priestly legislation, just as their poorer predecessors had been welcomed by the authors of Deuteronomy. It is not so different after all from the spirit of the prophecy in Isa. 56.3, 6-7.

If we are right in our interpretation of v. 45, the gēr here corresponds to the gēr wetôšāb, whose status is made the model, in Lev. 25.35-38, for the first stage of dependency of an Israelite who falls on hard times. Such foreigners too will have been permitted to ‘live with’ a family, not necessarily in the same house but as part of the same community and sharing in the protection and kindness which that brought (for the strong sense of ‘with’ as carrying such implications see Wright, op. cit., pp. 64, 102, and TWAT 1, 486 = TDOT 1, p. 450; the same may be true of ‘in your midst’ in v. 49). As part of such a close association the gēr was permitted to participate in the sacrificial worship of the temple (see the Excursus) and these verses also specifically allow the possibility of full participation, even as a family head, in the Passover celebration.10 This is only paralleled   On ‘he may come near’ McNeile commented: ‘The priestly writer here betrays himself. The expression must mean that the worshipper is to come near to the Temple at Jerusalem, where the lambs were killed and offered…’ (p. 77). Possibly: but 36.2 would support a translation like ‘join in’ (sc. with the Israelite family heads). 10

150

EXODUS 1–18

in Num. 9.14, 2 Chr. 30.25 and possibly (the text is uncertain) Ezra 6.21, and it looks like an advance beyond Deuteronomy, which has nothing in 16.1-8 (the Passover legislation) corresponding to the provisions for the participation by the gēr in the feasts of Weeks and Booths in vv. 11 and 14: perhaps the Passover was too closely tied up with Israel’s history and divine election for the Deuteronomists to be able to envisage the participation of foreigners in it. Even here a strict condition is attached: both the gēr himself (presumably the family head) and all male members of his household must be circumcised. If they were to participate in a festival so closely bound up with Israel’s origins and identity, they must also accept the sign of membership in the people as it had been strictly laid down in the covenant with Abraham in Gen. 17.9-14 (cf. Lev. 12.3; and also Josh. 5.2-10).11 Such an extension of circumcision and all that it implied to ‘resident aliens’ was a major step beyond what had been said in Deuteronomy and the original Priestly Writing (even if the circumcision of Ishmael in Gen. 17.25 might be seen as a partial precedent), and it was taken further in the later regulations for the admission of proselytes to the Jewish people (cf. the ‘minor tractate’ Gerim, and M. Ohana, ‘Prosélytisme et Targum palestinien: Données nouvelles pour la datation de Néofiti 1’, Bib 55 [1974], pp. 317-32 [322-23]; J. Jeremias, Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu: kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur neutestamentlichen Zeitgeschichte [Göttingen, 3rd ed., 1962], pp. 354-70, ET, pp. 320-34; E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. – A.D. 135), rev. ed. by G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Goodman, III/1 [Edinburgh, 1986], pp. 159-76 [esp. 169-76]). The full acceptance of the circumcised gēr is confirmed by the words ‘he shall be like a native of the land’, a statement paralleled in Lev. 24.16; Num. 15.15; Ezek. 47.22 (where it even applies to the allotment of land), as well as in a larger number of places which make laws applicable to both ‘gēr and native’ (Exod. 12.19; Lev. 16.29; 17.10, 12, 13; 18.26; 20.2; 24.22; 25.6; Num. 19.10; 35.15; 11   This law may have been designed to regulate more strictly a situation in which some gērîm were already celebrating Passover: see Note k on the translation (on ‘[are] celebrating’). Another possibility (cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, p. 1055) is that the law thereby spares gērîm who are not celebrating Passover from the need for circumcision.



12.43-49

151

Josh. 8.33; 20.9). The equality is specifically brought out in v. 49, ‘There shall be one law for the native and the resident alien…’, and similar expressions in Lev. 24.22; Num. 9.14; 15.15-16, 29. Both rights and duties are covered in these laws. The full expression ‘the resident alien who resides in your midst’ (with minor variants) is also widespread in the later strata of the Priestly corpus (Lev. 16.29; 17.10, 12, 13; 18.26; 19.34; 20.2; 25.6, 45; Num. 15.15-16, 26, 29; 19.10; Josh. 20.9), as well as occurring in Ezek. 47.22-23. It is hard to see how the words ‘who resides’ (haggār) would add anything to the meaning of gēr itself: their purpose is presumably to attach the prepositional phrase ‘in your midst’ (etc.), which underlines the close spatial association of the gēr with the Israelite community and the corresponding duties and privileges which go with it. Text and Versions Before v. 43 4QpalExl and perhaps 4QExc had an interval; so also possibly 4QDeutj and 4Q136, but in them v. 43 follows a different passage altogether (Deut. 11.21). On these two mss and the other phylactery mss which preserve part or all of vv. 43-49 see Text and Versions on 12.28-42, 50-51, before the notes on v. 50. ‫( ויאמר‬12.43) Almost all witnesses agree with MT, but the erratic phylactery text 8Q3 apparently read ‫)[וי]דב[ר]( וידבר‬. ֯ ‫( ואהרן‬12.43) SP has the more regular ‫( ואל אהרן‬cf. Note a on the translation), which is taken in BHS to be supported by the wlʾhr(w)n of TgO,J and Sy (also TgN). But this may simply reflect the requirements of the target language, not a divergent Vorlage. LXX and Vulg seem to presuppose MT, which is supported by XQ1: as the difficilior lectio this is to be preferred. LXX adds λέγων as in 3.12; 6.6; 7.1; 9.8; 10.1. ‫( חקת‬12.43) On the spelling ‫ חקות‬in some SP mss see Text and Versions on v. 17. For LXX (cf. Sy) νόμος cf. 13.10 (and v. 49); for Vulg religio (here in the sense ‘taboo, rule’?) 29.9; Num. 19.2 (and above in v. 26, where it renders ‫)עבדה‬. Tgg have ‫גזירת‬, having previously used ‫ קים‬in vv. 14, 17, 24; TgN adds ‫ אורייתא‬from v. 49. ‫( בן־נכר‬12.43) The expected translation appears in LXX, Vulg, TgN and (in pl.) Sy, but TgJ adds ‘or an Israelite who has apostasised and not returned’ and TgO has the first part of this in place of MT. MRI suggests that comparison with Ezek. 44.9 may have been the basis for this looser interpretation (Lauterbach, p. 118). M. Ohana regards TgN’s literal translation as very early (before the persecution of Antiochus), as in v. 48 (‘Agneau pascal et circoncision: le problème de la halakha prémishnaique dans le targum palestinien’, VT 23 [1973], pp. 385-99).

152

EXODUS 1–18

‫( בו‬12.43) Only TgO,J render precisely, but the ‘from it’ of the other Vss gives the correct sense. ‫( וכל־עבד‬12.44) 8Q3 seems to have omitted the first half of the verse, which had the effect of making the second half apply to the foreigner in v. 43. XQ1 and possibly 4Q140 omit the initial waw. TgJ makes explicit that the slave is a foreigner (and that the purchaser is an Israelite), in line with Lev. 25.39-46. ‫( אישׁ‬12.44) The connection to ‫( עבד‬see Note d on the translation) is explicit in LXX (τινός), TgJ,N and Sy, but not in TgO (cf. AramB, ‘male’, of the slave) and Vulg, which has no equivalent. Some variants in the Heb. of the next phrase also imply that the ‫ אישׁ‬is the owner (see the note). ‫( מקנת־כסף‬12.44) LXX ἢ (or καὶ) ἀργυρώνητον implies a Vorlage ‫ומקנת־כסף‬, a reading which appears in XQ1 and also in the early SP ms. Camb. 1846 (‫)ומקנות‬, so including both homeborn slaves and those purchased, as in the similar prescription in Gen. 17.13 (cf. Wevers, Notes, p. 191). The effect is also to rule out any connection with ‫ אישׁ‬and to indicate that it was being taken closely with ‫עבד‬. The same is implied by the standard SP reading ‫כספו‬ (the antecedent of the suffix must be ‫ אישׁ‬understood as the owner), which also appears (spelt ‫ )כשׂפו‬in 4Q136, perhaps due to independent occurrences of dittography.12 Vulg and TgNmg, like LXX, render by a single word, the other Vss more literally; in 4Q128 the whole phrase may have been omitted. According to DJD XII, p. 116, the traces that follow ‫ [אי]ש‬in 4QExc do not fit ‫מקנת‬. MT should probably be retained. ‫( ומלתה אתו‬12.44) SP, 4QpalExl (though faint), XQ1, LXX and TgO agree with MT. The omission of the clause in 4Q136 (and possibly 4Q128) is clearly an error, as it is presupposed by what follows. The subordinating translations of Sy and TgNmg, the passive formulation in Vulg (cf. v. 48) and the pl. verb in TgN (cf. v. 46) will be due to stylistic factors. TgJ has the interesting but certainly secondary addition ‘and bath him’, which MRI (Lauterbach, p. 127) suggests has the effect of manumission (cf. B.Yeb. 47b): it became a regular part of the admission of proselytes. In place of ‫ אתו‬8Q3 seems to have had ‫[את ער]לתו‬, probably another sign of the influence of Genesis 17 (cf. vv. 11, 14, 23-25), although the precise phrase does not occur there (or anywhere else). ‫( אז‬12.44) So also SP, 4QDeutj, XQ1, 8Q3, 4Q136, Vulg, Tgg, Sy: LXX καὶ τότε could be due to dittography in the Vorlage or the translator’s desire to avoid asyndesis. ‫( תושׁב‬12.45) The Vss mostly use words, here and elsewhere, which were, or had come to be, general expressions for foreign settlers in a place: LXX πάροικος, Vulg advena, TgO ‫( תותבא‬cf. Sy). A distinction is generally preserved between ‫ תושׁב‬and ‫ גר‬in vv. 48-49, as elsewhere, but Sy has twtbʾ again in v. 48 (cf. 2.22; 18.3; 20.10; on the whole, however, as in v. 49, it   As Propp has seen (p. 366), this reading could also be based on Gen. 17.23.

12



12.43-49

153

uses other expressions for ‫)גר‬. The other Tgg make additions to clarify the legal situation (as they do with ‫שׂכיר‬: see below). TgJ prefixes ‫דייור‬, which means ‘lodger, traveller’, but was used in v. 19 to render ‫( גר‬so also in Gen. 23.4; Exod. 2.22; 18.3; 22.20; 23.9b; Deut. 10.19b; 27.19), so that TgJ probably follows MRI (Lauterbach, p. 121, with n. 5) in interpreting as ‫תושׁב גר‬, an expression which was taken by the rabbis to mean a ‘semi-proselyte’, a person who had renounced idolatry but remained uncircumcised (cf. B.Abodah Zarah 64b and further G.F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era in the Age of the Tannaim (Cambridge, 1927–30) 1, pp. 338-41 and 3, p. 112; also JE 10, pp. 220-22). TgF (cf. TgNmg) has ‫תותבא דגבר‬, indicating a status of possession, and may be based on the rabbinic interpretation of ‫ תושׁב‬as a life-long slave (see refs. in Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, p. 1861). Finally TgN, anticipating a modern interpretation (cf. Note g on the translation), combines ‫ תושׁב‬with ‫שׂכיר‬: ‫תותב בר עממין לאגירא‬, a ‘gentile sojourner for wages’ (AramB 2, p. 36). ‫( ושׂכיר‬12.45) Apart from TgN (see the previous note) the Vss either render straightforwardly (LXX, Vulg, TgO, Sy) or add the specification ‘foreign’ (TgJ,F,Nmg). ‫( בבית אחד‬12.46) TgO,J read ‘in one company’ and TgN ‘by companies’ in accordance with post-biblical practice (cf. M.Pes. 9.10; MRI [Lauterbach, pp. 122-23]; Jos., AJ 2.14.6[312]; 3.10.5[248]; BJ 6.9.3[423]), and correspondingly later in the verse. ‫( לא תוציא‬12.46) Sy makes a connection by prefixing ‘and’, as do many LXX mss (cf. Rahlfs). SP reads the pl., as do XQ1 and perhaps 8Q3; 4QExc most likely had the sing. (DJD XII, p. 116). No other Heb. evidence survives, but the Vss all have the pl. Since assimilation to ‫ תשׁברו‬later in the verse may well be the cause of all the pl. readings, and the second person sing. was used in v. 44 (cf. v. 48), MT should probably be retained (so also Propp, p. 366): the variation could well be due to the process of composition. ‫( מן־הבית‬12.46) XQ1 reads the longer form ‫(מן) הביתה‬, with the ending ‫ה‬- no longer indicating direction towards (cf. Qimron, p. 69). Vulg ignores the phrase, probably seeing it as redundant, while Sy places its equivalent after ‘outside’ and has an anticipatory ‘from it’ here. TgN expands with ‘from one house to another or even from one company to another’ (the tr. in the editio princeps is preferable to that in AramB 2, p. 53), probably recognising that two companies might meet in a single room, as in M.Pes. 7.13. ‫( מן־הבשׂר‬12.46) XQ1 omits the ‫ ;מן‬in LXX it is reflected in the (partitive) genitive τῶν κρεῶν. ‫( חוצה‬12.46) XQ1 agrees with MT, but SP has ‫ החוצה‬and 4QDeutj ‫לחוץ‬. The def. form is more common, especially in the Pentateuch (9x vs. 2x), and SP probably modified the form here accordingly, as it did in Num. 35.4. ‫לחוץ‬ is found in MT only at Ezek. 41.17; 42.7; Ps. 41.7; 2 Chr. 32.5, but at Qumran it seems to displace ‫ חוצה‬except in combination with other prepositions (cf. 11QT 41.12; 46.5, 14) and this may account for its appearance in 4QDeutj.

154

EXODUS 1–18

After this word TgJ has a further addition about not sending presents to friends, which according to AramB 2, p. 195 n. 78, has no parallel elsewhere. ‫( ועצם לא תשׁברו־בו‬12.46) 8Q3 cannot have had these words at this point but it may perhaps have interchanged them with the preceding prohibition. TgJ adds ‘in order to eat what is within it [i.e. the marrow]’, an explanation which alludes to the discussion in MRI (Lauterbach, p. 124); TgNmg has a more general warning about not annulling a commandment. ‫( כל‬12.47) 4Q128 has ]‫ [ישראל יעשו‬and there is room for ‫ עדת‬before it, but DJD VI, p. 51, says that there are no traces of ‫כ(ו)ל‬. If it was omitted (and it is just possible that what has been read as [ ]‫ בו‬from the end of the previous verse preserves it), it can only be an error, as the verse has no point without it. ‫( ישׂראל‬12.47) LXX, OL and Vulg prefix ‘the sons of’ as they do in vv. 3 and 6, to conform to the widespread formula. Only later mss of Sy have this addition. TgJ adds ‘shall mix together, one with another, one family with another (to celebrate it)’, deducing with MRI (Lauterbach, p. 127) that after the first Passover the celebrations need not be restricted to single families. ‫( יעשׂו‬12.47) LXX and Vulg have sing. verbs, reflecting as elsewhere a stricter view of grammatical concord: pl. verbs with ‫ עדה‬are common in MT (see Note j on the translation), but appear in the LXX Pentateuch only at 16.1; Lev. 24.14; Num. 14.2; 15.36 (2x); 35.25 and apparently never in Vulg. ‫( אתו‬12.47) TgN has ‘the Passover’ for complete clarity. ‫( וכי־יגור‬12.48) 4Q136 omits the waw, but it is present or represented in all other witnesses (including XQ1) and should be retained. 8Q3 has a lacuna between ‫ יגור‬and near the end of the verse and the space available indicates omission of much that is in MT (cf. v. 44 and perhaps v. 46 for other careless omissions in 8Q3). TgN and Sy render ‫ יגור‬according to its regular meaning: LXX προσέλθῃ is a development in sense from προσήλυτος, its rendering for ‫( גר‬see below), which appears also in v. 49. It is unclear whether TgO ‫יתגייר‬ and TgJ ‫ איתגייר‬make reference to conversion,13 as the Ithpaal is used both for this and for the residence of a foreigner. On Vulg see the next note. ‫( אתך‬12.48) All the extant witnesses except MT have a second person pl. suffix/pron. here. SP, 4QExc, XQ1 and 4Q136 all read ‫( אתכם‬cf. ‫ אתכםה‬in 4QDeutj, with the ‘Qumran ending’: Qimron, p. 64) and the Vss follow suit. This could of course be due to assimilation to ‫ תשׁברו‬in v. 46 (and/or ‫ בתוככם‬in v. 49), and MT may well be original.14 For the whole clause Vulg has quod si quis peregrinorum in vestram voluerit transire coloniam, ‘But if any of the foreigners wishes to transfer to your (pl.) colony’, a vivid rendering that draws   So M. Ohana, ‘Agneau pascal’, pp. 392-93, deducing that the full ritual process is implied, whereas TgN reflects the earlier less developed view which required only circumcision (see further id., ‘Prosélytisme et targum’, pp. 324-29). 14   In Num. 9.14 the same expression as here recurs with ‫אתכם‬: there the second person pl. is used throughout vv. 1-14 (cf. vv. 3, 8, 10), in MT at least. 13



12.43-49

155

on the occasional equation of ‫ גר‬with a colonist in Vulg (cf. v. 49 and Lev. 18.26). There is nothing religious in the language it uses. ‫( גר‬12.48) The renderings in the Vss maintain at least the possibility of the sociological sense of the Heb. word, even LXX προσήλυτος (cf. NETS, ‘guest’), on which see Text and Versions on 12.19. A distinction from ‫ תושׁב‬in v. 45 is also mainly carried over by the use of different equivalents, but Sy uses twtbʾ for both (despite the availability of ʿmwrʾ, which it has in v. 49). ‫( ועשׂה‬12.48) LXX ποιῆσαι (aor. inf.) oddly makes the celebration of Passover the purpose of the outsider’s approach. ‫( ליהוה‬12.48) Tgg as often render ‘before the Lord’. LXX and Sy follow MT, but Vulg’s ‘(the Passover) of the Lord’ may have a Christian liturgical background. ‫( המול‬12.48) The sense of the Heb. Niphal inf. is only precisely rendered by Vulg’s circumcidetur. TgO reproduces the Heb. construction in Aram., presumably with the same jussive sense (see Note l on the translation) but in an active form, and TgJ represents this in a more straightforward way; likewise TgN and Sy, with the clause subordinated to the next one. LXX περιτεμεῖς, with its surprising return to a second person sing., perhaps read ‫ המול‬as an imper. sing. Hiphil (which would really be ‫)ה ֵמל‬ ָ or even, like the original writing of 4Q136, the imper. sing. Qal ‫מול‬. ‫( ואז‬12.48) TgN ignores the waw. ‫( יקרב לעשׂתו‬12.48) TgJ,N ‘shall be fit to celebrate it’, which is probably behind Vulg’s rite celebrabit, another example of Jerome drawing on Jewish sources. ‫( כאזרח‬12.48) 4Q128 (mis)spells ‫כיא[זר]ח‬, LXX ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ αὐτόχθων perhaps underlines the identity of treatment by adding καί, and TgO,N and Sy render by a pl. noun. ‫( וכל‬12.48) XQ1 and LXX ignore the waw; Vulg si quis autem matches the opening words of the verse in a quasi-legal contrast. ‫( ערל‬12.48) TgJ and TgN limit the scope of the prohibition by contradictory additions, the former asserting that uncircumcised Israelites are meant here (with MRI [Lauterbach, pp. 127-28] and B.Shabb. 87a: cf. also Gen. 17.14), while the latter gives the contextually more likely application to Gentiles.15 Verse 49 suggests that these are false alternatives. ‫( תורה‬12.49) TgN prefixes ‫גזירת‬, a common equivalent for ‫( חקה‬cf. v. 43 and Text and Versions there): the combined expression makes a harmonious frame for the whole unit. TgNmg preserves a reading which uses the rare word ‫ חוזיה‬on its own for ‫( תורה‬cf. TgF at Lev. 7.7).

  M. Ohana, ‘Agneau pascal’, pp. 395-96, argues that the application to Israelites was a reaction to the persecution of Antiochus and that TgN’s more natural interpretation is earlier than this. 15

156

EXODUS 1–18

‫( יהיה‬12.49) 4Q140 ‫ תהיה‬tidies up the grammar (see Note n on the translation), as the Vss naturally do also. TgJ generalises the statement to include all the commandments, with MRI (Lauterbach, p. 128). ‫( לאזרח‬12.49) TgO,N and Sy have pl. equivalents for both this and the next word. LXX uses its rarer equivalent ἐγχώριος here, probably for variety after αὐτόχθων in v. 48. 8Q3 appears to have read ‫ לנכרי‬against all other witnesses, perhaps assuming the ‘Gentile’ interpretation of v. 48b and following the occasional alignment of ‫ גר‬and ‫ נכרי‬elsewhere (Lev. 25.44-45; Deut. 14.21). ‫( ולגר‬12.49) 4Q140 ‫( להגר‬and probably ]‫)לה[אזרח‬ ֯ unusually does not assimilate the article after the preposition: for examples in MT (‘almost exclusively in the later books’) see GK §35n. ‫( הגר‬12.49) LXX προσελθόντι is a unique equivalent to the participle, which is clearly based on the rare use of the verb for ‫ יגור‬in v. 48. The same uncertainty about the understanding of these expressions exists as in v. 48 (see the notes there): Vulg peregrinatur and Sy dʿmryn at least take them in a sociological sense here. ‫( בתוככם‬12.49) LXX ἐν ὑμῖν follows a common tendency not to represent ‫ תוך‬explicitly (cf. 2.5; 3.2, 4; 9.24; 12.31) and provides no basis for assuming a different Vorlage. The locational renderings of the phrase in all the Vss reinforce the case for a non-religious understanding of the preceding words.

C h ap t er 1 3 . 1 - 1 6 Laws ab ou t t h e C on s ecr ation of th e F i r s t b or n an d t h e Festiva l of U n leav en ed B r e a d

This further section of law is separated from the preceding one by the concluding formulae of 12.50-51 and by a change of subject: instead of Passover the topic is now the treatment of Israel’s firstborn and the festival of Unleavened Bread. Unlike ch. 12 (vv. 1, 28, 43, 50), Aaron has no place here in the reception or transmission of the law: Moses alone is involved (vv. 1, 3).1 The beginning and end of the passage are marked by Masoretic divisions, and 13.1 begins a new synagogue reading in the triennial cycle. In the annual lectionary cycle the passage concludes the reading that began at 10.1, thus emphasising the transition at its end from legal to narrative text. No evidence survives for these boundaries in the main biblical manuscripts from Qumran, but they are recognised in the selection of passages in the phylacteries and probably in the related mss 4QExodd (for the end) and 4QDeutj (for the beginning). In cases where both 12.43-51 and 13.1-16 occur in the same phylactery, there is a vacat between them in 4Q128, 136, 140 and XQ1, while in 8Q3 the two passages are on separate fragments and were clearly not adjacent to one another. Divine instructions to Moses (vv. 1-2) are followed by words of Moses addressed to ‘the people’, first about the festival of Unleavened Bread (vv. 3-10) and then about the treatment of animal and human firstborn (vv. 11-16). Thus in chs. 12–13 as a whole Passover, Unleavened Bread and the firstborn are each treated in both formats, divine instructions (12.1-14[, 28, 43-51], 15-20; 13.1-2) and words of Moses (12.21-27; 13.3-10, 11-16), with the order being the same in each sequence and the divine instructions always preceding. Here

1   Aaron takes no further part in the departure from Egypt and is next mentioned in 15.20 and 16.2.

158

EXODUS 1–18

again, as we noted for the Passover in ch. 12, what is said in the two formats is by no means the same, so that it is likely that two parallel versions of this legal material have been combined by the compiler. The curious separation of the two sections about the firstborn here is probably due to a wish not to break up the closely parallel paragraphs of Moses’ words in vv. 3-16 (cf. Propp, p. 381). It is the more surprising that there is a Masoretic division between these two paragraphs but not after v. 2. But vv. 1-10 and 11-16 were treated as separate sections for inclusion in phylacteries, and a division at this point is widely attested in the Judaean desert phylacteries, either by a vacat or by inclusion on separate pieces of leather (4Q129, 130, 132+133, 134+136, 140, 144, 145, 155; 8Q3; XQ1+3; 34SeyPhyl; Mur4).2 In these texts there are isolated instances of an interval after v. 2 (34SeyPhyl) and v. 4 (4QDeutj, inferred). The ‘words of Moses’ begin with a preamble (vv. 3-4) which is, apart from the end of v. 3, a general exhortation to remember the ‘day’ of the Exodus that is relevant to the whole of vv. 5-16. These verses are distinguished from those that follow by the use of second person plural forms rather than the sing. Formally, where the content allows, vv. 5-10 and vv. 11-16 are very similar: each section begins with (i) a temporal clause that defines the land of Canaan as the place where the law is to apply (vv. 5a, 11), followed by (ii) the central requirement (vv. 5b-6, 12), (iii) additional provisions (vv. 7, 13), (iv) a command to instruct the children about the meaning of the ritual (vv. 8, 14-15) and (v) a concluding association of the ritual with the Exodus by means of a comparison to visual ‘reminders’ worn on the body (vv. 9, 16). Verse 10 extends the conclusion of the first part to emphasise that the festival is a regular annual occasion, which the birth of a firstborn might well not be. In contrast to the elaborate, almost sermonic, character of vv. 316, the divine instructions in vv. 1-2 are a succinct command which takes no account of complications. In this it resembles v. 12 if it is seen in isolation and verses later in Exodus which also prescribe the dedication of the firstborn (22.28b-29). Parts of vv. 3-16 are also paralleled later in Exodus: for vv. 6-7 compare 23.15 and 34.18 (and Lev. 23.6-8; Deut. 16.1-8), and for vv. 12-13 compare 2   The only case where there was clearly no interval (in some cases evidence is lacking) is XHev/Se5.



13.1-16

159

34.19-20 (and Num. 18.15-18; Deut. 15.19-23). In addition to the central legal requirements, the ‘words of Moses’ have formulaic and vocabulary parallels both elsewhere in Exodus and in Deuteronomy (see the Explanatory Notes, especially on vv. 3, 5, 8-9, 11, 14-16). These features of the passage have been used by critical scholars to determine the process by which it was composed. Knobel already made the basic distinction between vv. 1-2 and vv. 3-16, ascribing the former to P (his E), because of references back to it in Leviticus and Numbers and aspects of the language, and the latter to JE (pp. 127-28), later more specifically to his Rechtsbuch (our E: cf. Num.-Jos., p. 532). Dillmann took a similar view, except that he attributed vv. 3-16 to J (his C). But Wellhausen had already arrived at the more complex view of these verses which was to be developed further by subsequent scholars (Composition, p. 74): ‘Der Verfasser…ist, wenn nicht der Jehovist [i.e. RJE] selber, ein deuteronomistischer Bearbeiter desselben’. He stressed especially the author’s debt to ‘the sources’ of JE, including Exodus 34, which he regarded as distinct from J and E (pp. 95-96). But the end of v. 7 and of v. 8 and the words ‘you shall hand over’ (Heb. wehaʿabartā) in v. 12 came not from these sources but from Deuteronomy or ‘the writers of the seventh century and the exile’. Several scholars of the following decades took a similar composite view of these verses, while generally maintaining the attribution of vv. 1-2 to P (Carpenter/Harford-Battersby, Holzinger, McNeile). But an increasing emphasis on their Deuteronomistic affinities can be seen in the works of Baentsch, Smend (Erzählung, pp. 132-35), Gressmann, Eissfeldt, Rudolph, Beer, Noth, Fohrer and Hyatt. Alongside this the attribution of vv. 1-2 to P received an initial (and isolated) challenge from Holzinger and then, from Rudolph onwards, was generally rejected in German scholarship in favour of either a Deuteronomistic or late Priestly origin. Outside Germany, however, its place in the main Priestly document (or layer) has continued to be upheld, with only a little hesitation (cf. Hyatt, Childs, Houtman [p. 148, in effect], Van Seters, Propp, Dozeman). The tendency to play up the Deuteronomistic affinities of vv. 3-16 was itself subjected to a challenge similar to that discussed earlier in relation to 12.24-27 (see the introduction to 12.24-27), which has remained an important element in the scholarly debate. First Lohfink, in his study of Deuteronomy 6, questioned whether the vocabulary and style of Exod. 13.3-16 were in fact fully representative of the classic Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic conventions, although he acknowledged that they were related to them. The presence of features that are not found in Deuteronomy and of others which are similar but not identical to the standard formulations led him to propose that Exod. 13.3-16 be described as ‘proto-Deuteronomic’, that is a stage on the way to the production of Deuteronomy rather than a later text exhibiting

160

EXODUS 1–18

influence from Deuteronomy (Das Hauptgebot, pp. 122-24).3 A later study by M. Caloz examined the linguistic evidence in painstaking detail and added some observations on structural and legal comparisons between this passage and the Deuteronomic and other laws that deal with the same subjects.4 Caloz was able to give an even clearer perspective on the numerous elements in the passage which were alien to Deuteronomy, showing that it occupied an intermediate position between the older Pentateuchal sources (especially J) and Deuteronomy itself. A particularly valuable distinction which he drew was between the source-material and the editorial sections of the Deuteronomistic History, since it was more often in the former that parallels to the language of Exod. 13.3-16 could be found. All in all, Caloz concluded, the evidence pointed rather to a pre-Deuteronomic origin than to a post-Deuteronomic one. The ‘words of Moses’ have played a major part in the influential works of Blum and Konrad Schmid. For Blum they are a key part of the network of passages which he comes to define as the ‘Deuteronomistic composition layer’ (Kd: Studien, pp. 16, 19, 35-36, 103, 106, 167-68, 172-76). The passage is ‘closely [bündig] attached to 12.39 and makes explicit the aetiology of Unleavened Bread’ which is implied there and in 12.33-34 (pp. 37-38). The divine oath to the ‘fathers’ is an important link to other parts of the ‘network’ in Exodus (33.1-13) and elsewhere (pp. 103, 106) and is seen as speaking of a future for the early post-exilic community which was both already being realised and yet to be fully realised (p. 191). As for the dating of the passage, Blum sought to address the arguments brought forward by Lohfink, Caloz and others and argued that they were insufficient to undermine the presumption of a post-Deuteronomic origin (pp. 167-68, 172-76).5 For Konrad Schmid it is really only the ‘oath to the fathers’ in vv. 5 and 11 that concerns him, since it forms a key feature of the ‘chain’ of passages which with Rendtorff he regards as a later redactional layer that helped to make the Pentateuch (Hexateuch?) into a theological unity (Erzväter, pp. 13, 239). Unlike T. Römer, who thought that the reference was to Exod. 3.17 (p. 74), and Blum, who had seen Gen. 15 as being meant, Schmid concluded that no particular passage need be in mind. Other recent scholars have dealt with the passage more in passing, and in different ways. Graupner, whose interests lie elsewhere, followed the now traditional arguments for seeing vv. 3-16 as Deuteronomistic, adding only that the plural forms in vv. 3-4 point to a two-stage origin (Elohist, p. 68 n. 216). 3   Cf. more generally C.H.W. Brekelmans, ‘Die sogenannten deuterono­ mistischen Elemente in Genesis bis Numeri. Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte des Deut­eronomiums’, in Volume du Congrès Genève (VTSup 15; Leiden, 1966), pp. 243-68, which proposed criteria to identify pre-Deuteronomic material. 4   M. Caloz, ‘Exode, XIII, 3-16 et son rapport au Deutéronome’, RB 75 (1968), pp. 5-62. 5   See also Blum’s Komposition, pp. 374-75.



13.1-16

161

Dozeman and Propp acknowledge that the passage is ‘D-like’ (Propp, pp. 37778), but this does not prevent them from associating it with, respectively, the ‘non-P work’ (Dozeman, pp. 291-98) or the E source (Propp, ibid., but with variant introductions in vv. 3-4 and later additions in v. 10 and either v. 6 or v. 7). Van Seters too rejects the idea of a separate Deuteronomistic redaction and attributes vv. 3-16 to J. He is thus able to retain its links to the wider narrative context and explain the differences from Deuteronomy, but his exilic dating of J means that the passage is still detached from older developments in the tradition. In Germany there has been a growing tendency, which picks up brief comments made by Kohata (Jahwist, p. 275), to make much of what are seen as connections with P as well as Deuteronomy and so to regard the passage as very late. The ‘today’ of v. 3 is taken to connect to 12.41(P) rather than to 12.39. Levin (pp. 339-40) found three stages of growth in (i) vv. 3a, 4, (ii) vv. 3b, 5-6 (with vv. 7-10 as a succession of additions) and (iii) vv. 1-2, 11-16, all post-Priestly. Ahuis attributed the whole section, including vv. 1-2, to his DtrT, who combined the older source-material with P (pp. 71-73). Gertz seeks to strengthen the case by finding what he sees as Priestly vocabulary in the expressions ‘remember’ (v. 3), ‘service/worship’ (v. 5), ‘reminder’ (v. 9) and ‘statute’ (v. 10) and making the separation of Passover and Unleavened Bread and the inclusion of animals in Yahweh’s judgement (v. 15) dependent upon the Priestly rather than the older traditions (pp. 63, 67, 68-69). Most recently Albertz has attributed the whole of vv. 1-16 to his D redaction (although he repeatedly mentions the possibility that vv. 3-4 may contain the continuation of the older Exodus narrative: pp. 198 n. 1, 201, 220, 221), but he places this after the first two Priestly Bearbeitungen, because the language of the passage is a Mischsprache containing Priestly as well as Deuteronomic features (pp. 201-202; cf. Schmidt, pp. 557-58). This is of course largely due to the inclusion of vv. 1-2, which is true of all the scholars in this group.

The older view that vv. 1-2 come from the Priestly tradition is surely to be preferred. The only parallel with Deuteronomistic language is the use of ‘consecrate’ in v. 2 and in view of its use so widely in P and specifically in passages about the firstborn (Num. 3.13; 8.17: cf. 18.17) there is no reason to speak of ‘mixed’ language here. The same passages also clearly refer back to this one. It is more difficult to be sure whether vv. 1-2 are from the original Priestly document or from a later redaction of it. Against the former view it has been argued that the verses are isolated in the context and that the fuller treatment of the subject in Num. 18.15-18 is more likely to be the original one. It is also suggested that the requirement to consecrate the firstborn to Yahweh is unlikely to have been made at a time when it could not yet be fulfilled. None

162

EXODUS 1–18

of these arguments is conclusive: the later elaboration of the law is in a passage that is addressed specifically to priests (cf. Num. 18.8) and could well presuppose a basic principle intended for the whole people and uttered in the narrative context where the firstborn of Egypt were certainly a central concern of P (12.12). Nevertheless one cannot be confident about the stage in the Priestly tradition to which it belongs and it may have been added in one of the later strata of the tradition. Verses 1-2 are so different from the treatment of the same topic in vv. 11-16 that it is most improbable that they were originally composed to be the introduction to them, as some recent commentators have supposed. The order of the paragraphs in 13.1-16 is also difficult to square with such a view and makes it much more likely that vv. 1-2 were attached to 12.42 or 12.51. Verses 3-16 therefore need to be treated separately. Two preliminary remarks may be made. One is that affinities to the Deuteronomic tradition are much more evident here than in 12.25-27, so that even among those who deny dependence upon Deuteronomy the description of the passage as ‘proto-Deuteronomic’ is common. The second is that, while there is a very close parallelism of structure and wording between the two main parts of this section (vv. 3-10 and 11-16), it is not total – vv. 3-4 lie outside the parallel structure and v. 10 has no corresponding verse in the second part. This second observation may well be relevant to the choice that has to be made between three main kinds of explanation of the section: (a) a single author composed it all, drawing on material from a variety of sources; (b) an underlying parenesis was expanded by a redactor; (c) a combination of both these conceptions. To begin with literary-critical analysis, the formal anomalies noted above combine with linguistic data to suggest that vv. 3-4 and 10 are not part of the main composition of the passage. Verses 3-4 are very likely the original continuation of the old J narrative that ends in 12.39 (see the Explanatory Note and Albertz above).6 As they stand they read somewhat strangely, with v. 4 not being a natural continuation of v. 3. Propp’s suggestion that two alternative openings for the passage have been preserved is hard to parallel 6   A possible indication of Deuteronomic provenance for these verses is the phrase ‘from the house of bondage’ in v. 3, but the surrounding phraseology is in several ways distinct from Deuteronomy (see the Explanatory Note).



13.1-16

163

and does not work if, as seems likely, these verses originally stood alone, without any continuation. It is more probable that at this stage v. 4 preceded (most of) v. 3: when the law about Unleavened Bread was expanded (and the law about firstborn was added) it was moved to its present position to correlate more closely the (from a narrative point of view) present experience of deliverance and its timing with the future commemoration of it. This also enabled the keynote of ‘remembering’ (cf. v. 9) to appear at the very beginning of the now extended parenesis. Verse 10 includes the Priestly use of ‘statute’ (Heb. ḥuqqāh) in the singular with older vocabulary later in the verse. Propp attributes the whole verse to the (final) redactor. If ḥuqqāh is not simply an alternative or updating for the masculine form ḥōq (which is attested in the sing. in some older texts: 5.14; 15.25; Pss. 2.7; 81.5-6), this may well be true for where it now stands: and there would be a close parallel to the addition in 12.24. But the older wording could have been taken from the end of v. 5, where it fits well. The main parenesis is characterised by the address of Moses to the people in the second person singular, a form of address which emphasises their collective unity. It is typical of passages in Exodus in which Moses or more often God is instructing the people and especially giving them laws (cf. 10.2; 12.44, 46, 48; 15.26; 19.23; 20.2-17, 24-26; 21.2, 14, 23; 22.17-29; 23.1-33; 34.12-26). It is also very frequent in Deuteronomy. Second person plural forms are found sporadically in such texts, but they are more characteristic of dialogue in the narrative (e.g. Exod. 1.22; 3.12, 14-15, 21-22; 5.11, 18, 19; 13.19; 14.2, 13-14; 16.6, 23, 25-26; 17.2; 19.5-6, 15; 20.20, 22; 32.30). The Priestly source seems to prefer the plural even in parenesis and law (Exod. 6.6-8; 12.1-20 passim; 25.9, 19 etc. [the many cases of the second person singular in chs. 25–31 are addressed to Moses]). The instruction that is given here has as its specific concern to bring regularly to mind the mighty power which Yahweh had shown in bringing his people out of Egypt (cf. vv. 8-9, 14-16). As such it expands what had probably already been said in the older narratives about the slaying of the Egyptian firstborn (11.5; 12.29) and the festival of Unleavened Bread (12.33-34, 39; 13.3-4). If, as we have argued, these sections originally belonged to two parallel accounts of the Exodus, this passage presupposes their combination together. It is most closely related to the short instructions about Unleavened

164

EXODUS 1–18

Bread which precede it (from which it draws its major theme: v. 3), but it introduced a further ritual which it makes into a reminder of the Exodus, the special treatment of the firstborn of humans and animals. In both cases it is concerned to incorporate, and perhaps modify, legal provisions which were already in circulation. In the case of Unleavened Bread a seven-day festival in the month of Abib is already prescribed as a memorial of the Exodus in the Book of the Covenant (23.15a) and in Exod. 34.18. The key words (which are the same in both passages) are reproduced exactly in v. 6a: ‘For seven days you shall eat unleavened bread’. The same formula appears in Deut. 16.3, where the second occurrence of ‘with it’ (Heb. ʿālāyw), referring to the Passover lamb, must be a scribal error, as Deut. 16.4b would prohibit the eating of the meat after the first day/night.7 The Deuteronomic law is, however, much fuller, partly because of the integration of Unleavened Bread with Passover and the insistence that the latter at least be celebrated at ‘the place which the Lord will choose’ (vv. 2, 6, 7). But some of the additional material is independent of that new setting and may well go back to an older form of the law. This includes vv. 4a and 8b, which are closely paralleled in Exod. 13.6b and 7bβ: it is quite possible that a closer parallel to v. 7bα also appeared in the pre-Deuteronomic form of the law and was adapted in Deut. 16.3aα.8 If so, then this is presumably the text on which the author of Exod. 13.6-7 also drew. He shows no sign of knowing the law as it was expanded and rewritten in Deut. 16.1-8. A similar conclusion seems to follow for the law about the firstborn in Exod. 13.12-13. In this case the Book of the Covenant (22.28b-29) and Exod. 34.19-20 differ considerably, because the former has no provision for the redemption of the firstborn (human or animal). In fact the intentions of the two forms of the law may not have been as different as they seem, as Exod. 22.28b-29 has nothing to say about any animal except for cattle, sheep and goats, which could not be redeemed, and it is hardly likely that it envisaged the actual sacrifice of human firstborn, even if some ‘extremists’ understood it in that way (cf. Ezek. 20.26). Most likely Exod. 34.19-20   So e.g. A.D.H. Mayes, Deuteronomy (NCB; London, 1979), p. 258; B.M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York and Oxford, 1997), pp. 84-85, 88. 8   This is broadly in line with the argument of Levinson, ibid., pp. 81-89. 7



13.1-16

165

represents a development of the original practice, which added the requirement for a substitute in the case of firstborn, animal and human, which could not be sacrificed, and it is the law in this form that the author of Exod. 13.12-13 adopted, in this case bringing it into connection with the Exodus for the first time. The Deuteronomic law about firstborn (15.19-23) is quite different. It says nothing about redemption, and follows the basic pattern of Exod. 22.28b-29, with additional provisions about the eating of the slaughtered animal, either at the central sanctuary or ‘within your towns’ (vv. 20-23), which are related to Deuteronomy’s specific concerns. The expression used for the firstborn in Exod. 13.12-13 and 34.19-20 is literally ‘the opener of the womb’ (Heb. peṭer reḥem: see Note b on the translation). Outside these two passages it appears only in Priestly texts (Exod. 13.1-2; Num. 3.12; 8.16; 18.15) and in Ezek. 20.26, but it is unlikely that it was derived by our author from the Priestly tradition itself, as his treatment of the subject is so different (and almost certainly older). The expression may well derive from older cultic terminology (which would explain why Ezekiel, a priest, used it), whereas the Book of the Covenant and Deuteronomy use the more widespread bekōr for ‘firstborn’, as does v. 15 here as well as the Exodus narrative in 11.5; 12.12, 29. In terms of legal history, then, it seems that Exod. 13.5-16 is not based on the corresponding legal texts in Deuteronomy, but on laws that are older than it but later than those in the Book of the Covenant. In utilising these legal texts for his own purpose the author has used language and formulae which help to determine further his setting and method of working. To some extent he draws on material already present in the text of Exodus itself. The names in v. 5 have all occurred, with the epithet ‘flowing with milk and honey’, in 3.8, 17 and recur in 33.2-3 (cf. 23.23). The divine oath to ‘your fathers’ appears just before those last verses in 33.1, as well as in some passages in Genesis (Exod. 32.13 may be of later origin). The instruction of children could be modelled on 12.2627, and the introductory words of each paragraph, ‘When Yahweh brings you…’, are only a theological interpretation of ‘When you come…’ in 12.25, where the future gift of the land is also mentioned (cf. v.  11). The specific sense of ‘service/worship’ in v. 5 occurs elsewhere only in 12.25-26 and may well come from there. 13.3 provided the unusual phrase ‘by strength of hand’ (vv. 14, 16) and the keyword ‘Remember’, which is recalled in v. 9 before the visual

166

EXODUS 1–18

comparison is extended in v. 16 with the mention of ‘frontlets’. Possibly ‘the house of bondage’ in v. 14 is drawn from the same verse, if it is original there. But other vocabulary is new. Some of it is well known from older narrative works like those used as sources in the Deuteronomistic History, such as ‘Because of’ in v. 8 and ‘from year to year’ in v. 10 (see the Explanatory Notes). Elsewhere words that otherwise occur only in Deuteronomy are used, as with ‘young’ in v. 12 and ‘frontlets’ in v. 16, while in some other cases specific uses of words find their closest parallels in Deuteronomy or in later laws: ‘hand over’ (v. 12), ‘make difficult’ (v. 15) and ‘sacrifice’ of firstborn (v. 15). None of this need imply dependence on Deuteronomy or the later laws, since the words were presumably in use in the spoken language before and after Deuteronomy (if not, Deuteronomy would not have been understood), but they suggest like other aspects of the passage that its authors may have been related in some way to the circles that produced Deuteronomy. On the other hand, some features of its language, like the consistent use of ‘Egypt’ without a preceding ‘the land of’ and the absence of ‘your God’ as an epithet of Yahweh, which is widespread in Deuteronomy, and the lack of any trace of Deuteronomy’s concerns with a conditional covenant and the centralisation of worship warn against a hasty categorisation of the passage as ‘Deuteronomistic’. The recent tendency to date it to a very late stage of the composition of the Pentateuch has no foundation at all. ‘So that the teaching of Yahweh may be in your mouth’ (v. 9) is the reason given for remembering the Exodus at the festival of Unleavened Bread, and the didactic purpose of the whole passage is very clear. Like the addition in 10.1b-2, it is concerned to ensure that the story of the Exodus is handed on from generation to generation, so that Israel will continue to be confident in the mighty power of their God to protect and provide for them and ‘know that he is Yahweh’. Similarly both hymns of praise and other kinds of psalm show how the memory of the Exodus as a demonstration of Yahweh’s ‘strength of hand’ did indeed become a popular theme of worship. Some of the evidence may be very early (see below on 15.1-21). While this theme appears to have been especially prominent in the northern kingdom (Pss. 77, 80 and 81), it is also attested in Judah. It is presumably instruction at the cultic centres that the authors of Exod. 13.3-16 particularly have in mind, whereas the Passover



13.1-16

167

provided an opportunity for it in the home (12.21-23, 25-27). No doubt this is why both Amos and Hosea felt a need to undercut the dangerous over-confidence which it could inspire (Amos 9.7; Hos. 9.3). But it continued to be sung of even in late psalms (e.g. Pss. 135; 136) and such memories and worship provided a basis for prophetic hope after the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians (Isa. 42.10-13; 43.16-19; 63.11-13). 1 Yahweh spoke to Moses as followsa: 2 ‘Consecrate to me every firstborn, what opens every wombb among the Israelites, of both humans and animalsc: it is mine’. 3 [Moses said to the people, ‘Rememberd this day on whiche you came out of Egypt, from the house of bondage, for by strength of hand Yahweh has brought you out from here, and no leavened bread shall be eatenf. 4 Today you are coming out in the month of Abib:] 5 [when Yahweh brings youg into the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, which he swore to your ancestors to give you, a land flowing with milk and honey, you shall perform this service/worshiph in this month. 6 For seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there shall be a festival for Yahweh. 7 Unleavened Bread shall be eateni for the seven daysj, and no leavened bread shall be seen with youk and no leaven shall be seen with youk, throughout your territory. 8 You shall tell your son on that day as follows: “It is becausel Yahweh acted in my favourm when I came out of Egypt”. 9 It shall be a signn for you on your hand and a reminder on your foreheado, so that the teaching of Yahweh may be in your mouth, for by a mighty hand Yahweh brought you out of Egypt.] 10 [You shall observe this statute at its regular time from year to yearp.] 11 [When Yahweh brings you into the land of the Canaanites, as he swore to you and your ancestors, and gives it to you, 12 you shall hand overq to Yahweh all that opens the womb, and every firstborn (lit. opener) of the youngr of animals which shall be yours, the males that is, shall belong to Yahweh. 13 But every firstborn (lit. opener) of a donkey you shall redeem with an animal from the flock – if you do not redeem it you shall break its neck – and every human firstborn among your children/ sons you shall redeem. 14 When your son asks you in futures as follows, “What does this mean?”t, you shall say to him: “By strength of hand Yahweh brought us out of Egypt, from the house of bondage, 15 and because Pharaoh made letting us go a difficult thingu, Yahweh killed every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from

168

EXODUS 1–18 human firstborn to the firstborn of animals. Therefore I sacrifice to Yahweh all that opens the womb, the males that is, and every firstborn of my children I redeemv.” 16 It shall be a sign on your handw and frontlets on your foreheadx, that/because by strength of hand Yahweh brought us outy of Egypt.]’

Notes on the Translation a. Heb. ‫לּאמר‬: see Note b on the translation of 6.10–7.5. The majority of cases in Exodus are where ‫ לאמר‬is the final word of a verse. b. Heb. ‫פטר כל־רחם‬. The phrase, which recurs in v. 12a, is here in explanatory apposition (or permutation: GK §131k) to ‫בכור‬, which is now defined for the first time as a woman’s or female animal’s first offspring. ‫ פטר‬is sometimes used alone with the same meaning, but where the fuller phrase has already appeared (below, vv. 12b, 13 and in 34.19b-20): the reference to a womb can therefore always be presumed. Here and in Num. 3.12; 8.16 (‫ ;)פטרה‬18.15 and Ezek. 20.26 the phrase applies to human firstborn as well as animals, whereas in vv. 11-16 below and in 34.19-20 this is not so clear, and HAL, p. 874, and Ges18, p. 1049, claim that there an older usage, restricted to animals, appears. But in the first occurrences in v. 12 and in 34.19 humans are likely to be at least included, otherwise the verses would be unduly repetitious. The exact meaning of ‫ ֶפּ ֶטר‬is disputed: according to BDB, p. 809, it is that which ‘separates’ and then ‘first opens’ the womb (cf. the meanings given for the verb ‫ פטר‬and its cognates, ‘separate, remove, set free’), whereas HAL and Ges18 have ‘was durchbricht’, i.e. ‘breaks through’ or ‘breaches’ the womb, which is more closely related to the Ar. cognate, ‘split’, and an occurrence in Ugaritic which may mean ‘breach’ (KTU 1.16.6.8; cf. DULAT, p. 687). Neither explanation fits the occurrences of the Heb. verb very well: there may be more to be said for an association with the sense ‘open’ which is likely in Ps. 22.9 (of lips, in Hiphil) and 1 Kgs 6.18-35 (of flowers, in a sculptured decoration). Despite the etymological difficulties, the context leaves little doubt about the meaning (see also Text and Versions). c. Heb. ‫באדם ובבהמה‬. The phrase also occurs in 8.13-14, but there ‫ ב‬has the sense ‘on’ rather than ‘among’, as here and in a similar inclusive phrase, ‫בגר‬ ‫ובאזרח הארץ‬, in 12.19. d. On the use of the inf. abs. as a substitute for an imperative (here pl.) see GK §113bb. e. Heb. ‫אשׁר‬. For the sense ‘on which, when’ especially after ‫ יום‬cf. BDB, p. 82. f. Heb. ‫ולא יאכל‬. The translation as a prohibition assumes that these words are the continuation of ‫זכור‬. They could, however, be understood (against the Masoretic accents) as the continuation of ‫הוציא‬, indicating the ‘attendant circumstances’ of that past event (cf. 12.34, 39): ‘with nothing leavened being



13.1-16

169

eaten’ (GK §156f). This makes the structure of the passage simpler: v. 4 continues to speak in the (narrative) present and only v. 5 begins the instruction about what is and is not to be done in the future. g. Heb. ‫כי־יביאך‬. From here onwards the second person sing. is used, not the second person pl. as in vv. 3-4, and this continues throughout the next sub-section in vv. 11-16, which begins in a very similar way to v. 5. h. Heb. ‫ועבדת את־העבדה הזאת‬. The waw marks the beginning of the main clause of the sentence after the temporal clause introduced by ‫( והיה‬cf. ‫והעברת‬ in v. 12): GK §112ff, oo. For the sense of ‫ עבדה‬see Note p on the translation of 12.21-27. Here the cognate verb ‫ עבד‬is naturally used with it, instead of ‫ שׁמר‬in 12.25. i. Heb. ‫מצות יאכל‬. ‫מצות‬, repeated from v. 6, is placed before the verb for additional emphasis, but here the verb is passive and strangely in the third person masc. sing. The passive form may prepare for the use of the passive later in the verse (and pick up the same passive form in the negative in v. 3). Despite the lack of concord, ‫ מצות‬could be meant as the subject of ‫יאכל‬, as such anomalies sometimes occur even when the subject precedes the verb (GK §145u). Alternatively ‫ מצות‬may be the object (unmarked because it is not definite), retained even with a passive verb, as earlier in 10.8 (so GK §121a-b). j. Heb. ‫את שׁבעת הימים‬. The ‘accusative of time’, already used in v. 6, is here marked as such by the object-prefix ‫ את‬because of its (retrospective) determinate form (cf. Deut. 9.25 and GK §118k). k. Heb. ‫לך‬, lit. ‘belonging to you’ and serving as a virtual possessive adjective as in many occurrences cited in BDB, p. 512 (s.v. 5a: the examples with ‫ מצא‬in Deut. 22.14; 1 Sam. 13.22 are especially close). l. Heb. ‫בעבור זה‬. On a straightforward reading this should mean ‘because of this’ (so LXX, TgO, Sy). The question is: what does ‘this’ refer to and how is it connected with what follows? A traditional Jewish interpretation (see Text and Versions), endorsed by Rashi and Ibn Ezra, took ‘this’ to mean the celebration of Passover and Unleavened Bread (according to one view representative of obedience to all the commandments) and held that this was being presented as the purpose of the Exodus deliverance (cf. Cassuto). This does, however, seem to be at variance with the commemorative intention for future celebrations implied here (v. 9) and elsewhere, and already Rashbam and Nachmanides were suggesting that this intention could be found here too if it were supposed that a relative pronoun was understood after ‫זה‬, as seems necessary in some other passages (Rashbam cited Ps. 118.24)9. This is the view that found its way into the German and English versions of the Reformation period (e.g. Luther, Tyndale, AV) and it has remained standard in EVV. ever since: cf. 9   Even earlier Ibn Janaḥ had proposed that the same result could be achieved by inverting the words ‫ בעבור‬and ‫זה‬, a view that was strongly contested by Ibn Ezra, who disputed the alleged parallels and added: ‘How can we invert (i.e. the sequence of) the words of the living God?’ (Rottzoll [ed.], p. 360).

170

EXODUS 1–18

GK §155n and the similar construction in 4.13 and 1 Chr 15.13. A (perhaps preferable) variation on it would be to see ‫ עשׂה יהוה לי‬as in explicative apposition to ‫זה‬: so apparently BDB, p. 260, comparing Gen. 42.18; 43.11, with ‫זאת‬ (cf. also Exod. 9.16); but ‫ זה‬is sometimes used in the same way. In this case ‫ עשׂה…לי‬would have to be translated ‘acted for me, dealt with me’ (for which cf. 1 Kgs 8.32, 39; Ezek. 31.11).10 Another possibility is to see ‫ זה‬as not a demonstrative pronoun but a relative particle (or even an enclitic), so that ‫ בעבור זה‬becomes equivalent to ‫ בעבור אשׁר‬in Gen. 27.10 and ‫ בעבור‬alone elsewhere (so GK §138h; Gibson, Syntax, p. 7; Houtman, p. 213): but ‫ זה‬as a relative is only attested in poetry and it seems that )‫ בעבור (אשׁר‬as a conjunction always means ‘in order that’, which would not fit here. Both GK and Houtman therefore recognise that the text may be corrupt. m. Heb. ‫לי‬. For ‫ ל‬indicating favour towards someone see BDB, p. 515, s.v. 5h (b) (α): with ‫ עשׂה‬used absolutely as here in 1 Sam. 14.6; Isa. 64.3 (cf. Ps. 68.29). n. Heb. ‫לאות‬. Gen. 4.15 refers to a literal ‫אות‬, ‘mark’, on Cain (its location is not specified): for such practices Gunkel compared Lev. 19.28; Deut. 14.1-2; Isa. 44.5; Ezek. 9.4; Gal. 6.17; Rev. 13.16-17; 14.9 (Genesis, 3rd ed., p. 46), where other words are used and the significance varies. On the significance here see the Explanatory Note. o. Heb. ‫בין עיניך‬, lit. ‘between your eyes’, is apparently a way of referring to the forehead (elsewhere ‫מצח‬: cf. Ezek. 9.4) or the front of the scalp (Deut. 14.1; Dan. 8.5, 21), as in the passages similar to this one (v. 16; Deut. 6.8; 11.18). p. Heb. ‫מימים ימימה‬. The pl. of ‫( יום‬here on the second occasion with the ‘directional he’ unusually in a temporal sense: cf. GK §90h) is used in a number of ways without further definition. It can mean simply ‘some days’ (e.g. Gen. 40.4); in Num. 9.22 the progression suggests that it is a period longer than a month (cf. Judg. 19.2). But the specific sense ‘a year’ is required in Lev. 25.29; Judg. 17.10; 1 Sam. 1.21; 2.19b; 20.6; 27.7 and apparently always in the expression found here: Judg. 11.40; 21.19; 1 Sam. 1.3; 2.19a; cf. 2 Sam. 14.26. q. Heb. ‫והעברת‬. The Hiph. of ‫ עבר‬has a secular legal background in Num. 27.7-8, where it is used of transferring an inheritance (cf. MRI ad loc.; Rashi), and it appears in a religious context in Ezek. 48.14Q. A similar metaphorical use is probably also involved here and in the more numerous occurrences where children were ‘delivered over’ to a god such as Molech (Jer. 32.35 etc.): so BDB, p. 718, ‘devote’. Against the common literal interpretation ‘make… pass through (fire)’ see J. Day, Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament (UCOP 41; Cambridge, 1989), pp. 15-20. The same expression is used with reference to child sacrifice to Yahweh in Ezek. 20.31 according 10   A similar interpretation is suggested for LXX by Wevers, Notes, p. 198: ‘(It is) because of this, (namely that) the Lord God did to me’.



13.1-16

171

to Day (p. 19), but this is not completely certain: there is, however, some connection with the present passage in the reference to firstborn (‫)כל־פטר רחם‬, although here (cf. vv. 13b, 15b) human firstborn are explicitly excluded from the sacrificial slaughter which Day rightly argues is intended for the firstborn of animals (pp. 19-20). r. Heb. ‫שׁגר‬. The word occurs only here and in Deut. 7.13; 28.4, 18, 51 in BH (also in Sir. 40.19). The meaning ‘young’ (of animals, specifically oxen)’ is clear in Deuteronomy and Sirach (cf. the parallel ‫ )ילד‬and must be correct here. It might seem to be equivalent to ‫ רחם‬in v. 12a here (cf. Cassuto), but the collocation with ‫ פטר‬is not decisive as the latter could be used alone for a firstborn (cf. v. 13; also 34.19b-20). ‫ פטר שׁגר‬therefore means ‘firstborn among the young of…’: for the partitive use of the construct relationship see GK §128i and e.g. Gen. 22.2. Like ‫עשׁתרות‬, with which it is associated in Deuteronomy, ‫ שׁגר‬is now known to have also been the name of a deity in non-biblical texts (cf. DDD, 1437-40; the presence of this deity in DAPT I 7-8, 12, 16, a text from the Jordan valley, is plausible but not certain), but there is no trace of this in the OT passages. s. Heb. ‫מחר‬, which was used earlier in its narrower sense ‘tomorrow’ (8.6, 19, 25; 9.5, 18; 10.4; cf. 16.23; 17.9; 19.10; 32.5), also has an extended sense in which it means the indefinite future (Gen. 30.33; Deut. 6.20; Josh. 4.6, 21; 22.24, 27, 28). t. Heb. ‫מה זאת‬: see Note q on the translation of 12.21-27. u. Heb. ‫הקשׁה‬. The object is ‫( לשׁלחנו‬cf. BDB, p. 904; GK §53d-f), not an understood ‫לב‬, which would make the idiom the same as in 7.3 (although there the subject is Yahweh, not Pharaoh): if it were, the continuation would more likely be ‫ ִמ ְלּשׁלחנו‬or ‫לבלתי־שׁלחנו‬. A very close parallel (of substance as well as language) is the use of the Qal in Deut. 15.18 to refer to reluctance to release a slave. The point here is Pharaoh’s unwillingness to release Israel, not his (self-imposed) stubbornness. v. For the iterative imperfect see GK §107g. The use of the part. ‫ זבח‬in the same sense earlier in the verse is rare. w. Heb. ‫לאות על־ידכה‬. For the rare plene spelling of the second person sing. m. suffix in MT cf. 7.29 and GK §91d, 103g. On ‫ אות‬see above Note n. x. Heb. ‫ולטוטפת בין עיניך‬. On ‫ בין עיניך‬see Note o above. ‫ טוטפת‬occurs in BH only here and in Deut. 6.8; 11.18, always vocalised as a plural. In Deuteronomy the word is applied to the commandments, perhaps originally as a metaphor but certainly eventually understood as referring to the tefillin or phylacteries, small boxes in which portions of the Torah were enclosed (see Text and Versions). In post-biblical Heb. and JAram. this is generally the meaning (cf. Jastrow, p. 523; CAL), but not always: Tg at 2 Sam. 1.10 has ‫( טוטפתא‬sing.) for MT ‫אצעדה‬, ‘armlet’, and M.Shabb. 6.1 uses the word of an item of women’s finery (Jastrow, ibid.; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, p. 334). The word may also have occurred in such a sense in Sir. 36.3 (ms. B), but too little of the context survives for this to be certain. A similar Mandaean word ṭuṭipta (HAL; Ges18 s.v.) is said to mean ‘amulet’ (Weinfeld, ibid.), and

172

EXODUS 1–18

etymologies based on Heb. ‫נטף‬, ‘drip’ (hence of drop-shaped beads: cf. ‫)נטיפה‬, or Ar. ṭāfa, ‘go round’ (Akkadian ṭaṭāpu, cited in BDB, p. 377, is not in AHw and should be discounted), have been suggested: cf. also the very speculative proposal of E.A. Speiser, ‘ṬWṬPT’, JQR 48 (1957–58), pp. 208-17. The present passage gives no hint of a reference to phylacteries and a metaphor based on some kind of head decoration is presumably intended here: for iconographical references see TWAT 3, 341-43 = TDOT 5, pp. 319-21, where other relevant bibliography is cited, to which should be added the learned studies of O. Keel, ‘Zeichen der Verbundenheit: Zur Vorgeschichte und Bedeutung der Forderungen von Deuteronomium 6,8f. und Par.’, in P. Casetti (ed.), Mélanges Dominique Barthélemy (OBO 38; Fribourg/Göttingen, 1981), pp. 159-240, and J.H. Tigay, ‘On the Meaning of ṭ(w)ṭpt’, JBL 101 (1982), pp. 321-31, which cite further iconographical evidence from the ancient Levant and maintain that the form was originally singular and meant ‘headband’, perhaps with an inscribed plate (cf. Text and Versions). y. Heb. ‫הוציאנו‬. The change from second person m.s. suffixes earlier in the verse is at first sight surprising (and see Text and Versions) – in v. 14 ‫הוציאנו‬ is within the words which the father is to speak to his child, whereas here Moses again addresses the people as a whole – but Moses could be envisaged as including himself with the people in the ‘us’ (cf. 3.18; 33.16 and often in Deut. 1–3).

Explanatory Notes 1-2. The introduction to Yahweh’s new instructions about the consecration of the Israelite firstborn differs from the introductions in ch. 12 (vv. 1, 43) in two ways: now Moses alone is addressed, without Aaron, and the verb is the more formal ‘spoke’ (Heb. dibber) rather than ‘said’ (ʾāmar).11 Probably neither variation is of great significance. Aaron is also included with Moses at the beginning of some of the Priestly plague-stories (7.8; 9.8: cf. 6.13), but generally in Exodus Moses is addressed alone in both Priestly (e.g. 6.2; 11.9; 14.1; 25.1) and non-Priestly (e.g. 7.14; 10.1; 11.1; 14.18) contexts; and ‘spoke’ appears several times in introductions to divine speech (e.g. 6.2; 14.1; 16.11; 25.1). Laws about the dedication of the firstborn occur in most of the Pentateuchal legal collections: Exod. 22.28-29; 34.19-20; Lev. 27.26-27; Num. 18.15-18; Deut. 15.19-23, as well as vv. 11-16 11   The common adjunct to ‘spoke’, ‘as follows’ (lit. ‘saying’, Heb. lēʾmōr), appears afterwards in MT, which may account for NRSV’s ‘said’ here.



13.1-16

173

below here. It was apparently an ancient and persistent custom in Israel, comparable to the dedication of the firstfruits of the harvest to Yahweh (cf. 22.28) and expressing both gratitude to him and the desire for his continued blessing, and similar practices are known all over the world (cf. J. Henninger, DBS 8, pp. 461-82; more briefly de Vaux, Institutions 1, p. 73; 2, pp. 329-31, 390, ET pp. 42, 443-44, 489). A distinctive turn is given to the custom in two passages in Numbers (3.11-13, cf. 40-51; 8.16-18), where the Levites are taken by Yahweh as a substitute for all the Israelite firstborn. On this and other details of the legislation see the notes below on vv. 11-16. It is fact only in this chapter and in the two passages just mentioned in Numbers that the practice is specifically connected with the Exodus.12 Even in v. 2, where there is no explicit association with the death of the Egyptian firstborn and the sparing of Israel, the location of this law must imply some such connection and it is reinforced by the use of the word ‘firstborn’ (Heb. bekôr) as well as the legal expression ‘what opens every womb’.13 The latter phrase, which recurs in vv. 12 and 15 (and abbreviated in v. 13), has been variously explained (see Note b on the translation), but it clearly defines those to whom the law applies as the firstborn of the female rather than the male parent. Later in the chapter (vv. 12, 15) only male offspring are covered by the law (cf. 22.28; Deut. 15.19; in Exod. 34.19 the text is uncertain) and this is probably assumed here. The law applies to humans as well as to animals: at this stage no indication of how it was to be applied is given. The word used here is ‘consecrate’ (Heb. qaddeš), which is a regular expression of Priestly cultic vocabulary (e.g. 28.3; 29.36; 40.9), and the related noun qōdeš (‘sacred’, lit. ‘sacredness’) is used of the firstborn in Num. 18.17(P). In two other Priestly passages in Numbers which refer back to this passage Yahweh himself is said to have ‘consecrated’ the Israelite firstborn (3.13; 8.17), using a different form 12   It is possible that the compiler of Exod. 34.11-27 also had this in mind, as he attached the law about the firstborn to the feast of Unleavened Bread (vv. 18-20): in the Book of the Covenant the two laws are still separate (Exod. 22.28-29; 23.15). 13   Earlier in Exodus a different kind of connection is made with the narrative (cf. 4.22-23): there it is the familial relationship between Israel as son and Yahweh as Father that is in view, not the duty of human fathers to present their firstborn to Yahweh, and there is no justification for seeing the former (which is a later addition) as the reason for the latter (cf. Propp, pp. 457-58).

174

EXODUS 1–18

of the same Heb. verb (the Hiphil), and this form is also used in the corresponding law in Deuteronomy (15.19).14 Since the verb is often used of the consecration of priests (e.g. 28.3), it clearly need not imply that human firstborn were to be sacrificed. The form of the verb here is generally analysed as a singular masc. imperative and in the context the subject or agent is most naturally taken to be Moses. He may be thought of as acting in a representative capacity for the people as a whole, perhaps by ‘declaring holy’ the firstborn of all the people (cf. ‘among the Israelites’). Another possibility is that the form in the text is an infinitive absolute (cf. GK §52o), which could then stand for a pl. imperative as well as a sing. Then all the people would be addressed. It is, however, much more usual for this to be made explicit (cf. 12.3ff.). 3-4. Moses does not immediately speak to the people about the dedication of the firstborn – this is deferred until vv. 11-16 – but instead takes up the topic of abstinence from leavened bread, which was introduced as a divine instruction in 12.15-20. Two features of vv. 3-4 distinguish them from the fuller prescriptions on the same topic in vv. 5-10: here second person pl. forms are used, there second person sing.; and vv. 5-10 have an almost identical structure to vv. 11-16 (see the introduction to the section), while vv. 3-4 remain outside this pattern. As they stand they can be seen as a scene-setting introduction to what follows, but they could well have been originally (part of) a brief older law about abstinence from leavened bread when the Exodus was commemorated (on the last words of v. 3 see Note f on the translation). As Albertz has seen (pp. 220-21), the verses share some features with the last non-Priestly narrative section in 12.29-39: the reference to Israel as ‘the people’ recalls vv. 33, 34 and 36; the avoidance of leaven repeats what the haste of departure brought about according to vv. 34 and 39; and the use of ‘came out/are coming out’ continues the language already found in 12.31 (cf. 11.8). Verse 4 may have originally stood before v. 3 – it looks more like the opening of a speech than a conclusion (Propp, p. 378: cf. Deut. 2.18; 29.9; Josh. 3.7) – and been moved to its present position when vv. 5-10 were added.15   It also appears in Lev. 27.26, but there (cf. vv. 14-19) it is used of a process like mortgage which is not to be applied to firstlings. 15   The Samaritan text takes ‘Today’ as the final word of v. 3, but this is unlikely: see Text and Versions. 14



13.1-16

175

The phrase ‘house of bondage’ (Heb. bêt ʿabādîm, lit. ‘house of slaves’) occurs for the first time here: cf. v. 14 and 20.2, both like this verse in discourse rather than narrative. Most famously in the Decalogue (see also Deut. 5.6), it is almost always an evocative rhetorical expansion of the phrase ‘the land of Egypt’ and associated with either the verb ‘bring out’ (yāṣāʾ Hiphil) or a close synonym. It thus adds a description of the trouble from which Yahweh had delivered his people to the purely geographical formula found elsewhere. The distribution of the fuller expression is most concentrated in Deuteronomy (5.6; 6.12; 7.8; 8.14; 13.6, 11) and Deuteronomistic literature (Josh. 24.17; Judg. 6.8; Jer. 34.13): only the two occurrences in Exodus 13 and Mic. 6.4 (possibly) stand outside that corpus. Here two variations of expression may be significant: a different form of the verb yāṣāʾ is used (Qal rather than Hiphil; but the Hiphil follows in the next clause) and ‘Egypt’ rather than ‘the land of Egypt’ (as again in v. 14) precedes. ‘By strength of hand’ (as in vv. 14 and 16) is another small variation from a much more common phrase, ‘by a strong hand’ (beḥōzeq yād instead of beyād ḥazāqāh). The latter is again most common in Deuteronomy and related literature (9x; 5x in Exodus; 2x in Ezekiel, 4x elsewhere), but the wording used here occurs nowhere else. Again the variation may be a reason for not too quickly assuming dependence on Deuteronomy. As the name of a month, Abib is always associated with the Israelites’ departure from Egypt and the celebration of Passover (Deut. 16.1) or Unleavened Bread (Exod. 13.4; 23.15; 34.18). In Hebrew it has the definite article, hāʾābîb, ‘the Abib’, which reflects the use of the word as a common noun for ‘ears’ of grain (Exod. 9.31; Lev. 2.14). The first of these verses dates the plague of hail to the time when the barley crop was already ‘in the ear’ (ʾābîb) and so shares the same chronological view of the Exodus as is presupposed here. In Lev. 2.14 fresh ears of grain (ʾābîb) are roasted and crushed to form an offering of firstfruits, again indicating a connection with the beginnings of harvest.16 Since Abib is not one of the Babylonian month-names, it is generally presumed to be a name of Canaanite origin, but unlike other ‘older’ names for months it 16   Roasted grain (Heb. qālûy, qālî) was a common kind of food (1 Sam. 17.17; 25.18; 2 Sam. 17.28), apparently especially in the spring (cf. Lev. 23.14; Josh. 5.11; Ruth 2.14).

176

EXODUS 1–18

is not so far attested outside Hebrew (cf. de Vaux, Institutions 1, p. 279, ET, p. 183; the possible occurrence in one of the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions is very doubtful [see J. Naveh, The Early History of the Alphabet (Jerusalem, 1982), p. 33, for a different reading]) and it has been suggested that it was not a name at all, but simply a description like those in the Gezer calendar (Propp, p. 422). But the formula ‘in the month of X’ implies that it had become a name, and it could easily be one of the several month-names that are not so far known from Canaanite sources.17 5. The words ‘in this month’ at the end of the verse make a formal connection with ‘in the month of Abib’ in v. 4, but from this verse onwards (to v. 16) the pronouns are second person sing. instead of second person plural. This could well mean that vv. 5-16 are a later amplification of the brief instruction in vv. 3-4. The structure of vv. 5-10 and 11-16 is very similar (see the introduction to this section): both paragraphs begin with a long temporal clause which states that the practice concerned is to be observed when the Israelites reach the land of Canaan (vv. 5a, 11: cf. 12.25a), which is natural for agricultural rituals. In v. 5 the land is described by three phrases which refer to its inhabitants, its guarantee by a divine oath and some of its produce. In different ways these all go beyond the briefer description of the land in 12.25 and take up expressions which are found elsewhere, both in the book of Exodus and outside it. The list of inhabitants corresponds almost exactly to that given in 3.8 and 17: only the Perizzites are omitted (in MT: see Text and Versions for variations in other witnesses). Lists with six peoples (including the Perizzites) but with some difference in their order also appear in 23.23, 33.2 and 34.11. On the various versions of the list elsewhere in the OT see the Explanatory Note on 3.7-8. The Perizzites are omitted only here and, since there is no obvious reason for this being deliberate, it may be due to scribal error. The divine oath to the patriarchs is a frequent theme in Genesis, Exodus (13.5, 11; 32.13; 33.1) and   Even the large corpus of Ugaritic texts has not so far permitted the reconstruction of a full list of month-names: those that are known are different from the extant Hebrew and Phoenician names (see provisionally C.H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook [AnOr 38; Rome, 1965], pp. 414-15; P. Xella, I Testi rituali di Ugarit I [Rome, 1981], p. 370 etc.: Xella’s Parte II on the calendar seems not to have appeared). 17



13.1-16

177

especially Deuteronomy, as well as some later books, and represents a strengthening of other passages (including Exod. 12.25) which refer simply to Yahweh’s ‘word’ of promise. A variety of views have been taken about the authorship of the passages in which it occurs: it is probable that some of them (including Gen. 50.24; Exod. 33.1; Num. 11.12) belong to a pre-exilic narrative work and that the theme was then developed further in Deuteronomy (with the addition of a strong conditional qualification) and later literature (for a review of the occurrences in the Pentateuch and a discussion of recent scholarship see my ‘Covenant, Oath and the Composition of the Pentateuch’, in A.D.H. Mayes and R.B. Salters [eds.], Covenant as Context [FS E.W. Nicholson; Oxford, 2003], pp. 71-90 [esp. 73-82]). The produce of the land is summarised in the phrase ‘flowing with milk and honey’, which like the list of its inhabitants has already appeared twice in Exod. 3.8, 17 (see further the Explanatory Note on 3.8; for a full list of occurrences and discussion of their origin see my ‘Kd in Exodus: An Assessment of E. Blum’s Proposal’, in M. Vervenne and J. Lust [eds.], Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature [FS C.H.W. Brekelmans; Leuven, 1997], pp. 407-20 [esp. 410-11]). The Israelites’ arrival in this land is said not only to be promised by Yahweh but brought about by him: ‘When Yahweh brings you into the land…’ (cf. v. 11), so that it is in response to this further action on their behalf that the Israelites are to celebrate the festival of Unleavened Bread as a memorial of the Exodus (and also to offer their firstborn to him). Almost identical introductory formulae appear three times in Deuteronomy (6.10; 7.1; 11.29; with different verbal forms in 11.31; 12.20; 12.29; 17.14; 18.19; 19.1; 26.1; 31.20) in other contexts, and many scholars see this as particularly clear evidence of a Deuteronomistic hand at work in this section. A perhaps significant difference here is the absence of the characteristic Deuteronomic addition of the epithet ‘your God’ to the divine name (which is emphasised especially by Caloz, ‘Exode, XIII,3-16’ [above n. 4], p. 46). The demand for the annual abstinence from leavened bread is presented first in general terms (v. 5b) and then in detail (vv. 6-9) and finally in a generalising conclusion (v. 10). The wording here, ‘this service/worship’, is identical to that used of the Passover in 12.25-26 (on the otherwise unparalleled use of Heb. ʿabōdāh see the Explanatory Notes there). ‘This’ may either refer backwards to

178

EXODUS 1–18

the basic demand in v. 3b (as ‘this month’ refers back to ‘the month of Abib’ in v. 4) or forwards to the specific prescriptions in vv. 6-9 (which are then recapitulated by the phrase ‘this statute’ in v. 10). 6-7. The central requirement of a seven-day period of eating unleavened bread occurs twice, but the repetition is not without point: the order of words and the continuation in each case show that in v. 6 (where the wording is identical to the ‘cultic calendars’ in Exod. 23.15; 34.18, and [except for the curious, and possibly secondary, addition of ‘with it’] Deut. 16.3) the primary concern is with temporal aspects of the festival, while in v. 7 it is with what is or is not to be done. The continuation in each case (the holding of a ‘feast’ [Heb. ḥāg] on the final day and the ban on even the possession of any trace of leaven) corresponds to a requirement in Deuteronomy (16.8; 16.4), with small variations of wording: in neither case does the addition appear in Exodus 23 or 34. The removal of all leaven is also required in Exod. 12.15, 19 (where the basic requirement is again similar, though not identical), and in Exod. 12.16, Lev. 23.7-8 and Num. 28.18, 25 ‘holy occasions’, with no work to be done, are prescribed for both the first and the last day of the festival. There is clearly evidence here for a development in the celebration of this festival (cf. de Vaux, Institutions 2, pp. 383-94, ET, pp. 484-93, though he curiously omits this passage). While there are significant similarities to Deuteronomy 16, in two important respects the rulings here are different and closer to the lists of festivals in Exodus 23 and 34: the festival of Unleavened Bread is not integrated with Passover and there is no trace of the demand for celebration at a single sanctuary. On these grounds one might well see Exod. 13.3-10, or at least its legal provisions, as representing a stage of development between the older ‘cultic calendars’ and Deuteronomy (cf. Levinson, Deuteronomy [above, n. 7], pp. 68-69).18 8. The ‘remembering’ (v. 3: cf. v. 9) of the Exodus at the festival of Unleavened Bread is not left to depend solely on the action (or abstinence) that is prescribed – the more so as other associations 18   As Levinson points out (p. 67), the words ‘as I commanded you’ in Exod. 23.15 (and 34.18 is the same) must refer back to this passage, but that need not mean that it (or even its nucleus) is older than the Book of the Covenant: the cross-reference may be an addition from the compiler of the non-Priestly Exodus narrative (cf. the similar, but probably later, additions in Deut. 5.12, 16).



13.1-16

179

may well have been present in the worshippers’ minds, such as the beginning of the new harvest – but is to be formulated in words, very like those provided for the explanation of the Passover in 12.27, addressed by parents to their children. In this case it is not assumed (as it is below in relation to the treatment of the firstborn) that the children will ask for an explanation of the festival, although the wording of the explanation is an incomplete sentence which seems to presuppose the Kinderfrage again (for discussion of the Kinderfrage passages in general see the Excursus in the introduction to 12.21-27). Perhaps there is a reflection here of the formalised liturgy of the festival (on the final day?), which may also lie behind the rather strange wording of the explanation which has been so much discussed (see Note l on the translation). In any case the handing on of the Exodus tradition to the next generation is here too at the centre of the remembering, just as it was in an earlier episode of the story (10.1-2). 9-10. The paragraph concludes with an indication of the purpose of the festival (this time for ‘you’, that is for the whole people, not just the children), which is closely paralleled at the end of the law about the firstborn, and (in v. 10) a further command about its regular observance. Its purpose is explained by reference, probably, to marks or jewellery on the hand and forehead (see Notes n and o) which must have had some symbolic significance, perhaps as family or tribal mementoes. The festival is said, metaphorically, to have a similar intention, which is to keep Yahweh’s mighty deliverance of Israel in the people’s minds, and indeed on their lips. ‘The teaching’ (Heb. tôrāh) of Yahweh elsewhere usually refers to his commandments (so in all its other occurrences in Exodus: 16.4, 28; 18.16, 20; 24.12), and it is commonly so understood here (e.g. BDB, p. 436), to refer to the law about the festival. But it would be odd for the festival to be designed to make people talk about the law that prescribed it. Some verses in Psalm 119 (13, 43) use different words of speaking about the law in general, but the final clause of this verse points rather to talk of Yahweh’s past action than his law.19 A.B. Ehrlich therefore suggested that the genitive ‘of Yahweh’ is objective, not subjective, meaning ‘teaching about Yahweh’ (Randglossen 1, p. 314; cf. Houtman, p. 214; Propp, p. 425). This would 19   In this clause ‘by a mighty hand’ is the common beyād ḥazāqāh (see the Note on v. 3).

180

EXODUS 1–18

be an unparalleled sense for the phrase, but it is grammatically possible and it fits the context here much better.20 The reference could be to the psalms of praise sung at the festival (for ‘mouth’ in the context of praise cf. Ps. 34.1 [where ‘his praise’ is an objective genitive] etc.) or to the kind of ‘instruction’ (Heb. tôrāh) about the Exodus introduced by Ps. 78.1 (cf. v. 4). ‘Statute’ (Heb. ḥuqqāh) in v. 10 occurs elsewhere in the sing. only in Priestly texts (e.g. 12.43). On the other hand ‘at its regular time’ (Heb. lemôʿadāh) seems to be based on the festival calendars in Exod. 23.15; 34.18, and the expression ‘from year to year’ is characteristic of older narrative style (see Note p on the translation). Perhaps just the words ‘You shall observe this statute’ are a late addition to the passage (compare the Explanatory Note on 12.24) and the rest of the verse originally stood at the end of v. 5. 11-12. The beginning of the law about the male firstborn corresponds closely to v. 5, but the description of the land is briefer (with only ‘the Canaanites’ being mentioned among its inhabitants, as several times in Genesis) and differently worded at the end. The initial demand, on the other hand, is more specific and longer, in fact this law completely lacks the ‘framing’ clauses found in vv. 5b and 10 and proceeds straight to the central requirements. Whereas in v. 2 a single verb covers both human and animal firstborn, the repetition of ‘to Yahweh’ here probably points (as in the translation) to two separate clauses, one using a rare verb which is not exclusively cultic in its meaning (see Note q on the translation), and the other being a nominal clause.21 The second clause clearly refers to animals; the first clause may either apply generally to all firstborn, human and animal, or specifically to humans (so e.g. Holzinger, Cassuto). In v. 12 the terminology for the firstborn (literally ‘opener’) uses the language that has already appeared in v. 2 (see the notes there) and will occur again in 34.19-20 (but not in what is probably the oldest law on the subject in 22.28b-29 or in 20   If it were secure, the understanding of the unique phrase tôrat hāʾādām in 2 Sam. 7.19 as ‘the manner of men’ (so Gesenius, Thesaurus, p. 628; BDB, p. 436) could provide an alternative basis for the likely meaning here. But both S.R. Driver and H.P. Smith rejected this interpretation of 2 Sam. 7.19 and the phrase is now generally emended or understood differently (cf. e.g. BH3, NEB, NRSV). 21   Most of the ancient translations did not recognise this and added a verb (see Text and Versions).



13.1-16

181

Deut. 15.19-23). The word ‘young’ (Heb. šeger) occurs elsewhere in Biblical Hebrew only in Deuteronomy (see Note r on the translation). In Deut. 15.20 the owner is permitted to eat the meat of the animal at the central sanctuary (cf. 12.6-7, 17-18; 14.23). Nothing is said of this here, and in Num. 18.18 it is explicitly ruled out. 13. Here and in 34.19-20 (but again 22.28b-29 and Deut. 15.19-23 are different) provision is made for ‘redemption’ in the case of a donkey and a human child.22 ‘Redemption’ (Heb. pādāh) here, as in the case of a slave who is to be set free (Exod. 21.8-11), means ‘liberation by means of a ransom’ (A.R. Gray, SAHD, ‘‫’ ָפּ ָדה‬, Conclusion), i.e. a compensatory payment (Heb. pedûyim, pidyôn). The donkey, unlike most other domestic animals, could not be sacrificed because it was unclean (it has undivided hooves and does not chew the cud), and so a sheep or a goat may be sacrificed in its place (on ‘animal from the flock’ see 12.3 and Note e on the translation of 12.1-20). But if he wishes its owner may simply kill it, in a way that was designed to prevent any of its blood being shed. It is not stated here or in Exod. 34.19-20 how a human firstborn was to be redeemed (most likely it was originally in the same way), but the option of killing it is not offered. In Priestly legislation the provision for the donkey is extended to all unclean animals and the price is set, as also for human firstborn, at five shekels of silver (Num. 18.15-16; cf. Lev. 27.27). Whether (and if so when) there was a time when human firstborn in Israel were regularly killed depends on the interpretation of Exod. 22.28 (see the commentaries on that verse) and some other passages: see J.D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son (New Haven, 1993), pp. 1-52. 14-15. Unlike v. 8, but like 12.26, the instruction of the children is introduced by a question about the meaning of the rite, which is notable for its brevity. What is being explained is indicated with a corresponding fullness in v. 15b (the special case of the donkey is ignored), and the explanation itself extends beyond the general reference to the Exodus (v. 14b) to the specific connection with Pharaoh’s recalcitrance and the final plague (v. 15a: for the latter cf. 12.27). The scope of the plague is defined in terms which are closer to the Priestly expression in 12.12, without the elaboration about the 22   In Exod. 22.28b-29 and Deut. 15.19-23 the law about firstborn animals only applies to cattle, sheep and goats, which suggests that donkeys (and other animals) were not affected by it.

182

EXODUS 1–18

range of human victims that is found in 11.5 and 12.29. But such abbreviation is natural enough in a legal text. The verb translated ‘made…a difficult thing’ earlier in v. 15 (Heb. qāšāh Hiphil) also occurs in a Priestly passage (7.3), but the idiom is different there and closer parallels are found elsewhere. 16. The concluding declaration of the purpose of the ritual (which is probably not its original meaning: see the notes on vv. 1-2) is very similar to v. 8, though somewhat shorter: see the notes there. The main difference is the replacement of ‘reminder’ by the rare word ṭôṭāpōt (cf. Deut. 6.18; 11.18), which probably originally meant a kind of ornament worn, in the custom referred to in the biblical passages at least, on the forehead (see Note x on the translation). The application to phylacteries like those which have been found at Qumran (small boxes containing portions of the Law) is later and unlikely to be referred to here, whatever conclusion is reached about the occurrences in Deuteronomy. The expression is a metaphor for something which is prominent and attracts attention, and serves to identify the ritual as another way in which the Exodus and the role of firstborn in it is meant to be brought to mind. Although other passages connect the institution of the practice with the time of the Exodus, this is the only place where it is seen as having a similar function to Passover and the festival of Unleavened Bread (contrast especially Exod. 22.28b-29). Text and Versions The passage is preserved, in part at least, in some twenty mss from phylacteries and mezuzot found at Qumran or nearby (see further Lange, Handbuch, pp. 116-22) as well as the related 4QDeutj.23 ‫( וידבר‬13.1) LXX εἶπεν δέ is its standard rendering for ‫( ויאמר‬likewise Sy wʾmr): see Wevers, Notes, p. 49 (on 4.15) for some statistics. It is not clear whether occasional variations like this reflect the translator’s initiative or a different Vorlage: either way ‫ ויאמר‬in 12.43 may have contributed in this case. SP, Qumran mss and the other Vss all support MT. ‫( יהוה‬13.1) TgNmg as often adds ‘the Memra of’.

  These include XQ4, but its readings remain in some doubt (see, in addition to Yadin’s editio princeps, M. Baillet, ‘Nouveaux Phylactères de Qumran [XQPhyl 1-4] à propos d’une edition récente’, RdeQ 7 [1970], pp. 403-15 [412-14]) and will not be cited here. 23



13.1-16

183

‫( קדשׁ לי‬13.2) TgO,J preserve the divine distance with ‘before me’ (cf. Tg ); TgN has ‘to my name’, which AramB 2, p. 54 n. 1, suggests may reflect the original priestly role of the firstborn according to rabbinic tradition. ‫( כל־בכור‬13.2) TgJ adds ‘the males’ in line with v. 12 (cf. also MRI [Lauterbach, p. 129]), while retaining MT’s sing. with ‫בוכרא‬. TgN has the pl. as it does in subsequent phrases (likewise the mg). LXX adds πρωτογενές to its usual equivalent for ‫( בכור‬πρωτότοκον), perhaps to clarify the next word. ‫( פטר כל־רחם‬13.2) XHev/Se 5 has the phrase after v. 4 in the next line: there is another example of its carelessness later in this v. Space considerations suggest that 4Q128 had an omission here, but since it has ‫ רחם‬this was more likely through homoeoarkton arising from the repeated ‫( כל‬cf. DJD VI, p. 51). All the Vss have ‘opening/that opens’ for ‫פטר‬. TgO,J,Nmg unusually have ‫( ולדא‬normally ‘child’) for ‫( רחם‬but cf. v. 12 and 34.19); it is probably an abbreviation for the fuller equivalent ‫בית ולדא‬. TgN adds another common equivalent, ‫מעייה‬, to its ‫( וולד‬sic). ‫( באדם ובבהמה‬13.2) XHev/Se 5 writes the second word ‫ובה בהם‬. 4QDeutj seems to have had a slightly longer text between ‫ לי‬and ‫( באדם‬cf. DJD XIV, p. 89): perhaps the most likely explanation is that it inverted this pair of words. LXX ἀπὸ ἀνθρώπου ἕως κτήνους renders freely after the equivalent phrase in 9.25; 11.7; 12.12 (cf. also v. 15 below). ‫( לי הוא‬13.2) TgN again has ‘(belong) to my name’ for ‫ ;לי‬the mg reading adds at the end ‘Thus says/said the Lord’, which is TgN’s rendering for ‫אני הוא‬ at the end of a verse twelve times in Leviticus 18–23 (so also TgG(F) at Lev. 23.22). ‫( ויאמר‬13.3) Vulg as often (e.g. 12.31) uses the vivid historic present ait as a variant for dixit. ‫( זכור‬13.3) SP typically substitutes the straightforward imperative ‫זכרו‬ for the idiomatic inf. abs. of MT, which several Qumran mss attest: there is no trace there of this SP variant. The Vss naturally use imperatives in their renderings but this has no bearing on the readings of their Vorlagen. Sy ʾtdkrw may be used to give the sense ‘commemorate’. ‫( אשׁר יצאתם‬13.3) SP adds ‫ בו‬in line with the requirements of strict grammar, and two Qumran phylacteries (4Q136 and 4Q140) follow suit: so also 4QDeutj originally acc. to DJD XIV, p. 89. LXX ἐν ᾗ need not imply such a Vorlage, especially as LXX in Exodus several times reproduces the retrospective pronoun separately when it is present: likewise Vulg in qua and even Sy d…bh, which may simply follow Syriac idiom. In any case ‫ בו‬is more likely to have been added (it is by no means essential: GK §138b-c) than omitted, and 4QExe, 4QDeutj, XHev/Se 5, Mur 4, 8Q3, 4Q145, 34Sey and XQ1 all agree with MT. TgJ,N add ‫ פריקין‬as they often do after forms of ‫ יצא‬referring to the Exodus (see e.g. later in this verse). ‫( ממצרים‬13.3) The reading ‫ מארץ מצרים‬appears in SP, 4QExe and some Qumran phylacteries (4Q128, 136, 140), and it is reconstructed in a lacuna in 4QDeutj. Some LXX mss, including B, have ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου: this reading Nmg

184

EXODUS 1–18

was followed by Rahlfs but not Wevers (see THGE, pp. 238-39, for his reasons). Only later mss of Sy have the addition here. ‫ מצרים‬alone seems to be characteristic of such expressions in 13.3-16 (so also SP in vv. 8, 9, 13, 16) and ‘the land of’ here is probably due to influence from 12.51. ‫( מבית עבדים‬13.3) The phrase is omitted, no doubt accidentally (homoeoteleuton? – cf. Propp, p. 367), in 4QExe. LXX ἐξ οἴκου δουλείας, replacing the personal expression with an abstract one, occurs here for the first time and became standard: similar expressions are adopted in most other translations, ancient (TgJ combines one with ‘of slaves’) and modern. ‫( בחזק יד‬13.3) Again most of the Vss render freely, ‘with a strong hand’, assimilating to the more common expression in v. 9: TgO,J follow MT’s wording, TgJ with a double rendering of ‫( חזק‬as in vv. 14, 16), perhaps to highlight its strangeness (it does not occur outside this passage). ‫( יהוה‬13.3) TgNmg as usual adds ‘the Memra of’. ‫( אתכם‬13.3) TgN again adds ‫ פריקין‬following a form of ‫יצא‬. ‫( ולא‬13.3) Vulg ut non (comedatis), which seems for Jerome to be a free variant for ne (cf. Gen. 3.1; 4.15 etc.), makes abstinence the purpose, perhaps of the remembering rather than the deliverance (though see the note below on ‫ בעבור זה‬in v. 8). ‫( היום אתם‬13.4) SP ‫היום ואתם‬, with the clear implication (exhibited in the punctuation of many SP mss) that ‫ היום‬was to be read with v. 3, thus requiring immediate abstinence from leavened bread as in 12.8. But this seems not to be the concern of this passage, and the non-Priestly narrative attributes such abstinence at the Exodus to the haste of the departure rather than a prior command (cf. 12.39). ‫( יצאים‬13.4) The spelling with a yodh after the ṣade in 4QpalExm and XHev/Se 5 is probably not an error but an orthographical variant, in view of the forms ‫ אנישי‬and ‫ משיחה‬cited by Qimron, p. 66 (§330.1d). ‫( בחדשׁ האביב‬13.4) The def. art. with ‫ אביב‬prompted LXX (τῶν νέων: cf. Aq. τῶν νεάρων), Vulg (novarum frugum) and Sy (dhbbʾ, ‘of flowers, blossoms’) to identify the meaning (cf. the Explanatory Note) rather than simply transliterate. TgJ prefixed ‘on the fifteenth of Nisan, that is’, adding the exact date and (as in ch. 12 several times) the later name of the month. TgN adds ‫זמן‬, ‘the time of’, which it used in 12.17, 41 where MT has ‫עצם‬, and may have intended a similar emphasis here and in 23.15; 34.18; Deut. 16.1, where the same addition is made. But it may just be its way of recognising the obsoleteness of the name Abib. ‫( והיה‬13.5) Vulg, as in v. 11, recognises the ancillary role of the formula and renders simply by (cum)que. ‫( יבאיך‬13.5) Here and throughout the verse, and indeed throughout the rest of the passage to v. 16, TgN uses second person pl. forms as in MT of vv. 3-4; likewise Sy to v. 8.



13.1-16

185

‫( יהוה‬13.5) SP, LXX, 4QExe, probably 4QDeutj, two Qumran phylacteries (4Q140, 145) and TgJ add ‘your God’, probably by assimilation to the similar Deut. 7.1 (cf. v. 11). ‫( אל־ארץ‬13.5) 4QDeutj and 4Q130 have the inappropriate ‫( אל־הארץ‬the latter also in v. 11), probably through recollection of Deut. 6.10 or a similar passage. ‫( הכנעני‬13.5) Apart from Vulg all the Vss render this and the following gentilics in the pl., but the Heb. texts all support MT’s sing. In LXX the def. art. is used only on this first occasion, but its force can extend to the coordinated nouns that follow (cf. BDF §276[1]). ‫( והחתי‬13.5) SP omits the waw as in 3.17, making the first three names into a group (cf. 4Q136). In 4QExe none of the names has waw, and omissions also occur in 4QDeutj, 4Q140, 144 and 145. LXX and the other Vss agree with MT, as does 4QpalExm (for once not supporting SP): this reading is probably original. After ‫ והחתי‬4QExe and LXX have ‘(and) the Hivite(s)’, moved forward from later in the list, as in LXXF,M in 3.17, where Wevers thinks it is the original LXX reading. Whatever the reason for this (cf. perhaps Josh. 3.10), it is unlikely to be the original Heb. order here. ‫( והאמרי‬13.5) After this SP has ‫והפרזי הגרגשׁי‬, making the full list of seven peoples in exactly the same way as it did in Exodus 3 (see Text and Versions on 3.8, 17): there would be room for the same addition here in 4Q145, but the actual words do not survive. 4QDeutj and some other phylactery texts (4Q128, 140; 4Q144 is not so clear) had only ‫ הפרזי‬at this point, as in MT in Exodus 3, and added ‫ הגרגשׁי‬at the end to make up the seven names. In LXX mss various orderings are attested, but in that which Rahlfs and Wevers consider most ancient (cf. THGE, pp. 157-58) the Perizzites also occur after the Amorites, and the Girgashites before them (as in Deut. 7.1). Sy just adds wdprzyʾ at the end of the list. While omission by parablepsis is always a possibility in lists such as this, the varied locations of the names which are not in MT here and the probability of influence from other passages makes it most likely that the ‘short’ text of MT is the oldest that is extant. But its unique omission of the Perizzites may be due to a scribal slip. ‫( אשׁר‬13.5) 4QExe, 4QDeutj, 4Q140 and a Genizah ms. (acc. BHS) have ‫ כאשׁר‬as in v. 11 (cf. Sy), a clear case of secondary assimilation. ‫( נשׁבע‬13.5) TgN repeats the subject ‘the Lord’ and TgJ adds ‘by his Memra’. ‫( לך‬13.5) 4QDeutj seems to have read ‫ לה[ם‬and DJD XIV, pp. 89-90, reconstructs [‫ ]ולזרעם‬in the lacuna at the end of a line, as in Deut. 11.9. But this probably does not leave sufficient space for the following phrase at the beginning of the next line, and it is more likely that ‫ להם‬was immediately followed by ‫ארץ‬. For ‫ להם לתת‬cf. Deut. 11.21, which probably appeared in the previous column of 4QDeutj (DJD XIV, p. 88). In any case the variant is due to contaminatio from a similar passage.

186

EXODUS 1–18

‫( זבת‬13.5) For Tgg’s ‘producing’ see Text and Versions on 3.17. ‫( חלב ודבשׁ‬13.5) For TgN’s generalisation of the blessings of the land see Text and Versions on 3.8, 17: here TgNmg records the variant ‘tasty’ for TgN’s ‘sweet’, a word which TgN and TgF use elsewhere in the same expression (e.g. Deut. 6.3): for Talmudic parallels to it see AramB 2, p. 55 n. 4. ‫( ועבדת‬13.5) The ‘redundant’ waw is reflected in LXX (καὶ ποιήσεις) as well as Tgg, but not in Vulg or Sy. The sacral nature of the ‘service’ is conveyed by the use of the root plḥ in Tgg (cf. LXX λατρείαν; Vulg morem sacrorum). ‫( שׁבעת ימים‬13.6) SP, LXX and several Qumran phylacteries (4Q132, 136, 140, 144, 145) read the numeral as ‘six’, but 4QpalExm does not anticipate the SP reading in this case. The variant makes no substantial difference, but it does bring the wording into conformity with Deut. 16.8. One might at least consider whether ‘six’ was the original reading here and was changed to conform to Exod. 12.15 (cf. the next note): so Propp, p. 368. ‫( תאכל‬13.6) LXX ἔδεσθε contrasts with its second person sing. forms in v. 5 and v. 7b (on v. 7a see below): the pl. forms in Sy and TgN are less surprising, as they fit the practice of these Vss throughout vv. 5-8. LXX or its Vorlage must be harmonising with the pl. form in 12.15: the same has happened in two phylactery texts (4Q140 and 34Seyphyl). ‫( ליהוה‬13.6) Tgg have ‘before the Lord’, as often elsewhere. ‫( יאכל‬13.7) There is no Heb. evidence for a variant and Tgg follow MT. But LXX and Sy ease the difficult grammar by repeating their second person pl. forms from the previous verse, and Vulg takes the same route – oddly after its vesceris before, but in line with its earlier rendering of ‫ יאכל‬in v. 3. Propp reads ‫ תאכל‬to avoid the grammatical difficulty (p. 369: cf. Note i on the translation), but the argument is weak. ‫( את שׁבעת הימים‬13.7) Sy renders as in v. 6, ignoring the def. art. here. ‫( ולא‬13.7) SP24 and 4Q144 omit the waw and LXX and Vulg also have no ‘and’: since the tendency of scribes was to add the conjunction and the asyndeton is rhetorically effective, this could well be the original reading. ‫( לך‬13.7) Whereas most Vss render literally but clumsily ‘to you’, Vulg apud te and Sy bkwn give the likely sense. Both these versions also abbreviate the end of the verse, ignoring the distinction between ‫ חמץ‬and ‫( שׂאר‬cf. Text and Versions on 12.19). The second occurrence of ‫ לך‬is omitted by XHev/Se 5, no doubt through carelessness (cf. its spelling ‫ ירארה‬earlier). ‫( גבלך‬13.7) LXX τοῖς ὁρίοις σου and Vulg finibus tuis use the pl. as Greek and Latin idiom prefer: TgN ‫ תחומיכון‬is more surprising. ‫( והגדת‬13.8) TgJ,N ‘and you shall teach’ gives a more specific equivalent.

24   Von Gall gives the MT reading here, with no mention of a variant: the error was pointed out by Baillet, ‘Corrections’, p. 29. Sadaqa, Tal and Crown all read ‫ולא‬, as does Camb. 1846.



13.1-16

187

‫( לאמר‬13.8) XHev/Se 5 omits; in Sy the d with the next word may serve as its equivalent. ‫( בעבור זה‬13.8) LXX διὰ τοῦτο, TgO ‫ בדיל דא‬and Sy mtl hnʾ render ‫ בעבור‬by ‘because of’. Wevers suggests that LXX means ‘(It is) because of this (namely that) the Lord God did to me…’ (Notes, p. 198: the OL propter takes it this way) and he thinks that Vulg hoc est quod (fecit…) implied this too. But Vulg probably just ignored ‫בעבור‬. The meaning of LXX, TgO and Sy could alternatively be related to the interpretation that is more fully spelt out in TgJ,N (see Note l on the translation: also MRI [Lauterbach, p. 149]). They have ‘because of this commandment’: TgN adds ‘of the unleavened bread’ and TgNmg also has ‘and of the bitter herbs and the Passover meat’. That is, the ritual is the reason for the Exodus. AramB 2, p. 196 n. 4, notes the similarity of ‫מצוותא‬, ‘the commandment’, and ‫ מצות‬in v. 7 and plausibly suggests that this could have given rise to the interpretation (cf. MRI on 12.17 [Lauterbach, p. 74]). ‫( יהוה‬13.8) LXX κύριος ὁ θεός is a rare expansion of the divine name in Exodus, only certainly attested elsewhere in 34.14 (Wevers, THGE, p. 241, argues against Rahlfs that in 13.9 it is secondary). In MT ‫ יהוה אלהים‬appears in 9.30, but it is probably a conflation of two older readings (see Text and Versions there). Sy ʾlhy, ‘my God’ (5b1 ʾlhʾ), and the addition of ‘the Memra of’ (TgJ,Nmg) are further variations.25 ‫( לי‬13.8) After ‫ לי‬TgJ ‫ניסין ופרישׂן‬, ‘signs and wonders’ (cf. 15.11), and TgN ‫נצחני קרבינן‬, ‘victories in our battles’, supply what they saw to be the missing object(s) of ‫( עשׂה‬but see Note m on the translation). ‫( בצאתי‬13.8) TgN ‫ באפקותן‬looks like an Aphel inf. (cf. Stevenson §20), which would mean ‘when (he) brought us out’: cf. the causative forms in vv. 3 and 9. TgN also adds ‫ פריקין‬as in vv. 3-4 and elsewhere. ‫( ממצרים‬13.8) Some LXX mss insert ‘the land of’ as elsewhere and the phylactery texts 8Q3 and 4Q145 may also have done so. ‫( והיה‬13.9) SP ‫והיו‬, with the pl. perhaps referring to the ‫( מצות‬or [cf. Houtman, p. 213 n. 140] ‫ )?הימים‬in v. 7. Phylacteries are another possibility (Propp, p. 370), but there is no specific word for them in the context and ‘there is no evidence that they were used at any time’ by the Samaritans (Crown et al., A Companion, p. 185).26 ‫( לך‬13.9) Vulg has no equivalent. ‫( לאות‬13.9) Vulg quasi signum clearly identifies the sense as metaphorical (as again below). By contrast TgN’s pl. ‘signs’ fits a reference to the use of phylacteries (see the next note); TgJ ‘(you shall have) this miracle (clearly inscribed)’ has the same interpretation in mind and renders freely here.

25   The simple substitution of ὁ θεός for ‫ יהוה‬in LXX is much more common: see 5.21; 6.26; 8.25-26; 9.5; 10.11, 18; 13.21; 14.31. 26   The SamTg has no reference to phylacteries here.

188

EXODUS 1–18

‫( על־ידך‬13.9) Mur4, LXX, Vulg, TgO and Sy agree with MT, but TgJ has ‘on the phylactery of the hand, at the upper part of the left (hand)’, in exact accord with the rulings given in MRI (Lauterbach, pp. 150-52); likewise more briefly TgN, ‘upon your arms’. The pl. ‫ ידיך‬is attested here in Heb. by SP (where the sense must be metaphorical) and in several of the Qumran phylactery texts (XQHev/Se5; 4Q130, 132, 136, 140, 145; XQ1): so also in v. 16 and in Deut. 6.8 and 11.18, presumably with reference to all the individuals in the community.27 ‫( ולזכרון‬13.9) Vulg again prefixes quasi; TgN adds ‫ טב‬again, as in 12.14 (see Text and Versions there). XHev/Se5 has the variant spelling ‫ולאזכרון‬, on which see Qimron, p. 39. ‫( בין עיניך‬13.9) LXX πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν and Vulg ante oculos are free renderings that imply a metaphorical understanding here too (cf. Wevers, Notes, p. 198; BAlex, p. 157). By contrast TgJ gives a very full practical guide: ‘clearly inscribed on the phylactery of the head, fixed before your eyes, at the upper part of your head’ (cf. MRI [Lauterbach, pp. 152-53]). ‫( למען‬13.9) Vulg et ut might simply intend a further purpose for the celebration (so the Douay tr.), but the omission of ‘and’ at the beginning of v. 10 suggests that Vulg may have taken the purpose clause with what follows it, with v. 9b understood as a parenthesis. This is easier in Latin than in Heb. ‫( יהוה‬13.9)1o TgN adds ‘constantly’ for emphasis, as does Vulg (semper). ‫( ביד חזקה‬13.9) Camb. 1846 and two SP mss cited in von Gall read ‫ביד‬ ‫החזקה‬, presumably influenced by the definite phrase that occurs four times in Deuteronomy. 4Q130 has ‫בחוזק יד‬, assimilating to the unusual phrase in vv. 3, 14 and 16, while TgJ (as in v. 3) uses its composite equivalent ‘by the strength of a mighty hand’. ‫( יהוה‬13.9)2o TgN adds (as elsewhere after a form of ‫ יצא‬referring to the Exodus) ‫פריקין‬. ‫( ושׁמרת‬13.10) LXX surprisingly has the pl. form φυλάξεσθε after the sing. in v. 9: either the translator or his Vorlage presumably had 12.17 in mind. On Vulg custodies (without et) see the note on ‫ למען‬in v. 9: the alternative to the explanation given there would be that v. 10 is seen as simply an elaboration of v. 9aβb (cf. the addition of semper there). ‫( את־החקה הזאת‬13.10) The rendering of ‫ החקה‬in LXX (τὸν ν́ομον) seems to equate it with the ‫ תורה‬in v. 9 (for the equivalence see 12.43 and Wevers, Notes, p. 191), while those of Aq, Symm, Vulg (cultum), TgN (‘the statute of this law’: cf. 12.49) and Sy (pwqdnʾ hnʾ wnmwsʾ [Sy’s word for ‫ תורת‬in v. 9] hnʾ) distinguish them. TgJ’s addition ‘of the phylacteries’ very clearly takes v. 10 as further guidance about their use (see the detailed discussion in   GSH §55bγ (pp. 244-45) lists a number of other places where MT and SP differ similarly over the second person m.s. suffix, enough perhaps to suggest that ‫יך‬- might be a phonetic/orthographical variant rather than a pl. form. 27



13.1-16

189

MRI [Lauterbach, pp. 154-57], which takes the same view but in the process exposes its difficulties). ‫( למועדה‬13.10) Some Qumran phylacteries read ‫ למועדו‬or ‫( למועדוה‬4Q129, 140, 145), but this is only a phonetic variation: see Qimron, pp. 39-40 and also the next note. LXX κατὰ καιροὺς ὡρῶν combines two of its renderings for ‫( מועד‬cf. the variation in Num. 9.2-3), perhaps in an attempt to specify ‘the right times’. TgNmg has ‘to be doing it’ (sc. the statute), freely following Deuteronomic usage (e.g. Deut. 5.1). ‫( מימים ימימה‬13.10) 4Q129, 136, 140, 145 have the same unusual substitution of ‘o’ for ‘a’: see the previous note. Most Vss render literally, without attempting to interpret the idiom, but TgO ‘from (right) time to (right) time’ does so. TgJ ‘on workdays but not on sabbaths or festivals, by day and not by night’ finds here the rulings specified in MRI (see above). TgF,Nmg ‘from those days to those months’ mix possible senses of ‫ ימים‬in a way that remains obscure. ‫( יהוה‬13.11) LXX and SP add ‘your God’ as they do in v. 5 (see the note there). TgNmg prefixes ‘the Memra of’. Vulg has no equivalent to the divine name here, no doubt presuming that it can be supplied from the end of v. 9. ‫( אל־ארץ הכנעני‬13.11) 4Q130 again has ‫( הארץ‬see the note on v. 5) and also replaces ‫ אל‬with ‫על‬, perhaps a slip due to a common phrase. As in v. 5 most of the Vss render the gentilic in the pl., but Vulg has MT’s sing. ‫( לך ולאבתיך‬13.11) LXX has simply τοῖς πατράσιν σου, matching the most common formula elsewhere (esp. in Deuteronomy but also in v. 5). ‫לך‬ is of course justified by verses like 3.8 and 6.8 (the latter is cited by MRI here [Lauterbach, p. 158]). The O-text (cf. Syhex) adds σοι καί. Propp (p. 370) adopts the shorter LXX reading, but it is probably a secondary assimilation to v. 5. ‫( והעברת‬13.12) LXX* (again with an ‘unnecessary’ καί as in v. 5b) and TgO rendered with words meaning ‘remove’, a possible sense of ‫העביר‬, but a well attested LXX variant and the other Vss recognised the sense ‘set apart’ (see Note q on the translation and MRI [Lauterbach, p. 159]). ‫( כל פטר רחם‬13.12) The Vss generally render as expected from v. 2 but TgN, its mg (with which cf. TgF(VN) at 34.19) and Sy expand with words corresponding to the prefixed ‫ בכור‬there. LXX adds τὰ ἀρσενικά, ‘the males’, here to match the second half of the verse or, as Propp suggests (p. 370), v. 15. ‫( ליהוה‬13.12)1o TgO,J as often have ‘before the Lord’ and TgN repeats its ‘to the name of the Lord’ from v. 2 (see the note there), both here and at the end of the verse. ‫( שׁגר בהמה‬13.12) For ‫ שׁגר‬LXX has its usual ἐκ τῶν βουκολίων, ‘from the herds’, which clearly does not fit here. Vulg ignores ‫שׁגר‬, as it does in Deut. 7.13 (but not in Deut. 28), while TgO,N and Sy treat it as an equivalent to ‫רחם‬. TgJ, ‘which its mother bears (prematurely?)’, explains from a sense which the verb ‫ ְשׁגַ ר‬can have in Aram.: so also MRI (Lauterbach, p. 160), though apparently of an animal which is not subject to the law. For ‫ בהמה‬some Qumran

190

EXODUS 1–18

texts (4Q130, 155; possibly 4Q134) read ‫( בבהמה‬cf. v. 2), and 8Q3 may have had ‫בבהמתך‬, though only the last letter survives and the text seems to be abbreviated (DJD III, pp. 150-51). LXX ἢ ἐν τοῖς κτήνεσιν σου may well therefore be based on a Vorlage different from MT (but scarcely preferable to it): in v. 2 it has ἕως κτήνους. ‫( יהיה לך‬13.12) SP has ‫יהיו‬, an inferior reading that is influenced by the context (perhaps esp. the pl. ‫ הזכרים‬that follows). The omission of ‫ לך‬in XHev/ Se5 is a simple error of copying. ‫( הזכרים‬13.12) Sy has dkrʾ, maintaining the earlier collective sing. wording. All the other Vss except TgN add ‘you shall consecrate’ on the basis of v. 2, but this is unnecessary: either the force of ‫ והעברת‬is carried over or, as in our translation, v. 12b is a nominal clause. ‫( וכל־פטר חמר‬13.13) LXX and Vulg do not represent the initial waw and Vulg does not render ‫ כל‬either (cf. v. 12b). LXX and TgJ,N repeat their formulae for ‘opening the womb’ (as in v. 12b), but TgO, Vulg and Sy substitute the simpler ‘firstborn’, with ‘male’ added by Sy according to 7a1. For ‫חמר‬ Sy has dbʿyrʾ, ‘of cattle’, thus allowing redemption of all animals with a lamb and ignoring the special provision for the (unclean) donkey. Weitzman (Syriac Version, p. 155) thinks a copying error (cf. v. 12) is a more likely explanation than the influence of non-rabbinic interpretation; similarly Propp, p. 371. ‫( תפדה‬13.13)1o LXX ἀλλάξεις, ‘you shall exchange’, followed via the OL by Vulg, is a rare rendering of ‫פדה‬, found only in this verse (twice) and in Lev. 27.27, all cases where substitution of one animal for another is involved. Aq, Symm and Theod replaced it with the normal equivalent λυτρόω. ‫( בשׂה‬13.13) Most of the Vss render with words for ‘lamb’, but the Three seem, in slightly different ways, to have allowed for the wider meaning implied in 12.3-5 (cf. O’Connell, Theodotionic Revision, p. 154, and for parallels to Theod’s ἐκ ποιμνίου Lev. 27.26 and Isa. 66.3). ‫( ואם לא‬13.13) One phylactery ms. from Qumran (4Q130) omits the waw. ‫( תפדה‬13.13)2o SP reads ‫תפדנו‬, with the suffix pedantically added to specify the object: the same reading appears already in two Qumran texts (4Q130, 155). In BH the suffix is often dispensed with in such cases (cf. GK §117f), but SP adds it in a number of other places (cf. GSH §55bγ [pp. 245-46]). Traces of the same addition appear in some LXX witnesses, Sy, TgN and more surprisingly in Symm and Theod (cf. O’Connell, Theodotionic Revision, pp. 117, 120-21), but it is not certain that they are based on a different Vorlage from MT. LXX again uses ἀλλάσσω, but Vulg has redemeris this time. ‫( וערפתו‬13.13) SP and all the other Heb. evidence (XHev/Se5, Mur4, 4Q130, 133 (damaged), 155, 34SeyPhyl, XQ3) agree with MT. LXX, however, has λυτρώσῃ αὐτό, ‘you shall redeem it’, which is quite contrary to the Heb. and will reflect a less drastic (monetary) alternative to killing the donkey (cf. LXX on 34.20). This presumably represents the contemporary practice of Alexandrian Jews: cf. Z. Frankel, Über den Einfluss der



13.1-16

191

palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinischen Hermeneutik (Leipzig, 1851, repr. 1972), pp. 98-99, with a reference to Philo, Spec. Leg. 1.135, where the same provision is applied to horses and camels. Propp (p. 372) suggests that LXX read the Heb. as ‫וערבתו‬, but λυτρόω is never used for ‫ערב‬. The Three correct this in line with the different interpretations given elsewhere (cf. Salvesen, Symmachus, pp. 87-88): Symm ἀποκτενεῖς, ‘you shall kill’, corresponds to TgN,F, Vulg and Sy, and more distantly to TgO,J, ‘strike’, while Theod νωτοκοπήσεις (cf. Isa. 66.3) and Aq τενοντώσεις (in 34.20 τενοντοκοπήσεις, where Symm has τραχηλοκοπήσεις) perhaps both mean ‘cut the neck’ (for νωτοκοπήσεις O’Connell, Theodotionic Revision, p. 289, usefully compares the use of νῶτος for ‫ ע ֶֹרף‬in the καιγε sections of Samuel– Kings [2 Sam. 22.41; 2 Kgs 17.14]), as later in Rashi and Ibn Ezra (cf. M.Bek. 1.7, TgNmg and TgJ on 34.20, all mentioning a ‫קופיץ‬, ‘axe’). ‫( וכל־בכור אדם‬13.13) LXX again does not represent the waw. ‫( בבניך‬13.13) TgJ adds ‘but not among your slaves’: according to E. Levine, ‘A Study of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Exodus’, Sefarad 31 (1971), pp. 27-48 (44-45; cited in AramB 2, p. 197 n. 12), the extension of this requirement to slaves by the early Karaites is here rejected. ‫( תפדה‬13.13)3o Both TgJ and Vulg (pretio) specify that a monetary payment was to be made, in line with Num. 18.16. ‫( והיה‬13.14) Vulg again (see the note on v. 5) dispenses with an equivalent to ‫ היה‬and here LXX and Sy (and a Genizah ms. acc. BHS) also do so, as they do with ‫ (ו)יהי‬in v. 15: perhaps in mid-paragraph such elaboration seemed especially unnecessary. ‫( ישׁאלך בנך‬13.14) TgN renders in the pl., ‘your sons…’, just as it has used a pl. ‘you’ ever since v. 3 (but see below on ‫)ואמרת אליו‬. ‫( מחר‬13.14) Most Vss stay woodenly with their words for ‘tomorrow’, but here LXX, which has αὔριον elsewhere, uses μετὰ ταῦτα. This renders the similar word ‫ אחר‬in 5.1 (cf. 3.20; 11.1, 8; 34.32), so LXX might have found this in its Vorlage here. However, it is also possible that the Exodus translator recognised the extended sense of ‫( מחר‬see Note s on the translation): ‘μετὰ ταῦτα carries this sense much better than αὔριον would have done’ (Wevers, Notes, p. 201). ‫( לאמר מה זאת‬13.14) Sy unusually turns ‫ לאמר‬into a finite verb, wnʾmr lk; TgJ specifies that ‘the commandment of the firstborn’ is meant (cf. its less happy expansion in v. 10). The misspelling ‫ מא זת‬in XHev/Se5 is particularly slipshod. ‫( ואמרת אליו‬13.14) Here uncharacteristically (see the note above on ‫ )ישׁאלך בנך‬TgN has sing. forms, presumably as part of its patchy correction to MT (the mg records the more usual pl. here). Early variants read ‫ לו‬for ‫אליו‬ (4Q130: LXX αὐτῷ and Vulg ei could be representing this or ‫ )אליו‬and add ‫כי‬ afterwards (4Q130, 135, possibly 133: again LXX [ὅτι] and Sy [d] could, but need not, reflect knowledge of such a reading). MT probably has the original text in each case.

192

EXODUS 1–18

‫( בחזק יד‬13.14) On the slight variations in some of the Vss see Text and Versions on v. 3. ‫( יהוה‬13.14) TgNmg prefixes ‘the Memra of’. ‫( ממצרים‬13.14) TgJ,N add as often ‫פריקין‬, but TgN accidentally omits ‫ממצרים‬ (its mg corrects this). LXX ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου is a rare departure from MT in the original translation of this expression: Wevers, THGE, pp. 238-39, considers a different Vorlage (for which there is some evidence in v. 3) the likely cause. ‫( מבית עבדים‬13.14) XHev/Se5 carelessly omits, perhaps by homoeoteleuton. On TgJ’s double rendering see Text and Versions on v. 3. ‫( ויהי כי־הקשׁה‬13.15) In addition to ignoring ‫ (ו)יהי‬Vulg has nam cum for ‫כי‬, adding a causal connection which could be derived from ‫כי‬. For ‫ הקשׁה‬TgO,N have exactly corresponding renderings which can bear what is probably the sense of MT, ‘refused’ (cf. Note u on the translation). LXX’s ἐσκλήρυνεν (followed by an inf.) was presumably intended in the same sense, as Wevers proposes (Notes, pp. 201-202), but the intrans. use of the active is most unusual: only 2 Kgdms 2.10 (also with inf.) is at all similar. The other Vss variously work from 7.3, the only other occurrence of ‫ קשׁה‬Hiphil in Exod., and either supply ‘the Memra of the Lord’ as the subj. (TgJ: cf. MRI [Lauterbach, p. 167]) or render ‘was hardened’ in the passive (Sy and Vulg, the latter with the addition of et nollet after TgO,N). ‫( יהוה‬13.15) LXX has no equivalent, regarding the subj. as clear enough from v. 14b: it would be even more so if LXX, like TgJ, had meant Yahweh to be cause of the hardening. ‫( כל־בכור‬13.15) TgN and Sy have the pl., the former as throughout the remainder of the verse and the latter only as in the final occurrence. ‫( בארץ מצרים‬13.15) Sy prefixes d, ‘which (were)’. ‫( מבכר אדם‬13.15) LXX has the pl. here and in the next phrase (for both nouns). ‫( ועד‬13.15) SP omits the waw, as it did in similar phrases in 9.25 and 12.12: so here also XHev/Se5 and 4Q130 (whereas Mur 4, 34SeyPhyl, XQ3 and 4Q129 agree with MT). The omission of ‘and’ in LXX (and Vulg) is not significant: see Wevers, THGE, pp. 164-65. ‫( בהמה‬13.15) Vulg oddly has pl. iumentorum after hominis in the previous phrase. ‫( אני זבח‬13.15) 1Q13 ‫( ואני‬if this placement of fr. 44 is correct) and 4Q135 ‫ [זבח] אני‬must be careless errors, whereas the substitution of ‫ אנכי‬for ‫ אני‬in 4QExd, 4Q129, 130 suggests a minority local variation, with its origin perhaps in copying from memory. TgN characteristically has the pl. ‘we sacrifice’ (as later ‘we redeem’, for which the mg has ‘I…’). ‫( ליהוה‬13.15) TgO,J,N as usual have ‘before the Lord’: TgNmg ‘to the name of the Lord’, reverting to the main text’s formula in v. 2.



13.1-16

193

‫( כל־פטר חמר‬13.15) Another recurrent Qumran variant, this time an impossible reading, is ‫ וכול‬here in 4Q129, 130 and 135 (this time 4QExd agrees with MT). TgNmg inserts ‫קדמי‬, its word for ‘firstborn’ (pl.) in v. 2, and then has the sing. like MT instead of TgN’s pl. ‫( וכל־בכור בני‬13.15) SP, assimilating to v. 13, reads ‫וכל־בכור אדם בבני‬: so also 4Q129, 130 and very likely 4QExd (on the basis of the length of the preceding line: DJD XII, p. 128). The shorter (and surely original) MT reading appears in XHev/Se5, Mur 4, 8Q3, 4Q135, 155 and XQ3 and is reflected in all the Vss. Vulg again has the pl. primogenita here. ‫( אפדה‬13.15) The (presumably) iterative sense of the imperfect is accurately represented by Vulg’s present redimo and TgN’s part., but missed in LXX (λυτρώσομαι!), TgO,J,Nmg and Sy.28 TgJ, as in v. 13, adds ‘with money’. ‫( והיה‬13.16) As in v. 9 SP has ‫( והיו‬so also perhaps 4Q133, 135), with the pl. here referring to the firstborn. SP also has ‫ לך‬afterwards (likewise 4Q129, 130 and Sy [but not 5b1]), no doubt an addition to match v. 9. ‫( לאות‬13.16) TgJ amplified, as in v. 9, with ‘clearly inscribed’. ‫( ידכה‬13.16) The unusual plene spelling of MT is reproduced in a number of phylacteries from Qumran and its surroundings (XHev/Se5, Mur 4, 8Q3, XQ3 and apparently 34SeyPhyl), where it is more normal (cf. Qimron, pp. 58-59). SP and other phylacteries (4Q129, 130, 135) have ‫( ידיך‬or ‫)ידיכה‬, apparently a pl. form (cf. TgN ‘your arms’), but see the note on v. 9. LXX, Vulg, TgJ (with the addition of ‘left’ as in v. 9) and Sy all have the sing. like MT, which is probably original. ‫( ולטוטפת‬13.16) TgO,J,Nmg explicitly equate the ‫ טוטפת‬with phylacteries, as they do in the other two occurrences of the word (Deut. 6.8; 11.18). The other Vss all provide an explanation or a substitute for it. TgN (with the addition of ‘good’ as in v. 9) and Sy use the term that is parallel to ‫ אות‬in v. 9, ‘reminder’. Vulg adspensum quid ob recordationem, ‘something hung up as a reminder’, is partly related to this, but seems to draw on another line of interpretation (possibly based on an etymology) which appears in Philo, Spec. Leg. 4.13739, the OL in Deut. 11.18 (mobilia), Vulg at Deut. 6.8 (et movebuntur) and in a Greek rendering σαλευτόν, ‘shaken’, which appears in Syhex and in two Greek mss (cf. BAlex, pp. 52-55). The latter equivalent is also given (in the pl.) for Theod at Deut. 6.8. Symm had the obscure διεσταλμένοι there, while Aq both there and here had νακτά, ‘solid things’, which Salvesen following Field plausibly connects with the phylacteries (Symmachus, pp. 150-51, in a full review of the ancient evidence for the Deuteronomic occurrences). The word was evidently a mystery to the translators, and LXX’s ἀσάλευτον here (and in the pl. in Deuteronomy), ‘immoveable, unchangeable’, a word that is applied to laws (Philo, Vita Mosis 2.14) and legal documents and decisions, could 28   LXX shows some awareness of the iterative imperfect in 1.12; 5.4-15; 33.7-11. Evans (Verbal Syntax) does not discuss this issue.

194

EXODUS 1–18

be a guess from the context. BAlex, pp. 54-55, alternatively suggests that it is a deliberate inversion of σαλευτόν, which had become unacceptable as a description for the law, by an exegetical process known from the Targumim and elsewhere in the LXX. On this view σαλευτόν would be the original LXX reading, largely suppressed in the tradition. The use of sing. equivalents in some Vss adds weight to Propp’s argument from Qumran orthography (p. 373) for seeing ‫ טוטפת‬as sing. (see also Note x on the translation). ‫( בין עיניך‬13.16) TgJ here has ‘between your eye-lids’ (or ‘eye-brows’?). ‫( בחזק יד‬13.16) Once again some of the Vss diverge from the unusual expression in MT: see Text and Versions on v. 3. ‫( הוציאנו‬13.16) SP reads ‫הוציאך‬, ‘brought you out’, which matches the pronouns earlier in the verse and also the end of v. 9 (similarly LXX, Sy). No Qumran ms. has this variant, while XHev/Se 5, Mur 4, 4Q130, 133, XQ3, Vulg and Tgg agree with MT, which as the difficilior lectio should be preferred (see also Note y on the translation). TgN adds ‫פריקין‬: its mg prefixes the verb ‫ פרק‬instead, with the same theological effect.

C h ap t er 1 3 . 1 7 - 2 2 Aspec t s of I s r ael’ s D epa rtur e Between the legal provisions of 12.43–13.16 and the dramatic narrative of events at the ‘sea’ in ch. 14 a short narrative section deals (mainly: v. 20 is an exception) with general aspects of the Israelites’ onward journey. In this it is similar to 12.34-42 (the itinerary-notes in 12.37 and 13.20 make an explicit link between the two passages) and there are links to topics that were central to the earlier narrative: Pharaoh’s eventual agreement to let the Israelites depart (v. 17a) and the departure from Egypt itself (v. 18b, with the verb ‘went up’ [Heb. ʿālāh] as in 12.38: cf. also ‘from here’ [sc. Egypt], again with ʿālāh, in v. 19). But, while this is still a transitional passage, the journey ahead through ‘the wilderness’ is now very much in view, both in the description of the route that was taken (v. 18a) and in the location of Etham ‘on the edge of the wilderness’ (v. 20b). The presence of Yahweh, in the pillar of cloud and fire, as his people’s guide (vv. 21-22) introduces a new theme which will recur in different forms in the following narrative (see the Explanatory Note). It is therefore not surprising that the possibility has been raised, and vigorously debated, that this section and, more significantly, the sea narrative which follows it, belong not to the Exodus story itself but to the wilderness narrative. G.W. Coats especially contested Noth’s version of the common view that the sea-narrative had once been the heart of the Exodus story and in the written narrative remained its finale or ‘postlude’ and even its ‘goal and climax’ (cf. Noth, p. 82, ET, pp. 104-105; Coats, ‘Traditio-Historical Character’: so still in Exodus 1–18, pp. 99-122). Childs agreed with Coats as far as the J narrative was concerned, but held that in P the sea-narrative was tightly bound into the Exodus story by a series of theological as well as thematic motifs (‘A Traditio-Historical Study of the Reed Sea Traditions’, VT 20 [1970], pp. 406-18; cf. his Exodus, pp. 221-24).1 1   Coats’s view was rejected outright e.g. by D. Patrick, ‘Traditio-History of the Reed Sea Account’, VT 26 (1976), pp. 248-49; Kohata, Jahwist, p. 296 n. 113; Houtman 2, pp. 233-34.

196

EXODUS 1–18

Much of the debate naturally centres on the analysis and contents of the following chapter and can better be dealt with in the next section of the commentary: here we shall be concerned only with arguments based on 13.17-22, to which Coats devoted a separate study (‘An Exposition for the Wilderness Tradition’, VT 22 [1972], pp. 288-95; more briefly in Exodus 1–18, pp. 107-108). Coats argues that 13.17-18 relate to the whole wilderness journey, citing the expressions ‘lead’, ‘way’ and ‘armed for battle’, which recur in the later narrative, as well as ‘wilderness’ itself. But this is not conclusive and the mention of Yam Suf in v. 18 in fact suggests that the route of the departure from Egypt and the journey to the next significant point is meant, no more. Coats also takes the itinerarynote in v. 20 to support his argument, because it forms part of the ‘wilderness chain’, but since its range only extends to ‘the edge of the wilderness’ it seems that entry into the wilderness still lies ahead. His best argument comes from the reference to the pillar of cloud and fire in vv. 21-22, which is certainly often associated with the journey through the wilderness. But, as with the itinerary, it is perhaps with the people’s movement as such that this motif is to be associated and so it is not necessarily decisive for where the wilderness theme begins.2 It is in any case doubtful whether the varied components of the present passage add up to anything that could be called an ‘Exposition’ in the way that Gen. 12.1-3 and Exodus 1.1-14 can perhaps be so described (on them see Coats, ‘Structural Transition’, pp. 129-38). It may therefore be better to recognise, as Coats does elsewhere (e.g. ‘Traditio-Historical Character’, pp. 254, 265; Exodus 1–18, p. 103), at least as far as this passage is concerned, that the wilderness narrative is not sharply demarcated from the Exodus story: one may do better to speak of a gradual transition which begins already in 12.37-42 and continues here.3 The beginning of the section is marked by a Masoretic division and the opening of a new reading in the one-year lectionary, and the end by a Masoretic division. A vacat in 4QExc marks the end of the passage: at the beginning the only evidence from Qumran is in 2   One might even argue that the effect of the itinerary-note, covering a specific stage of the journey, is to tie down any hints of a longer-term reference in vv. 17-19 and 21-22 to a limited section of the route. 3   Cf. Coats’s more recent description of the passage as ‘A Transition to the Wilderness Traditions’ (Exodus 1–18, p. 107).



13.17-22

197

those phylactery manuscripts which include 13.11-16 as an extract from the biblical text (on them see the introduction to 13.1-16). Sub-division of the passage can proceed on the basis of both form and content: (i) a theological explanation for the route of the Israelites’ departure from Egypt (‘God’ as subject: vv. 17-18a); (ii) a further description of the manner of the Israelites’ departure (v. 18b: cf. 12.37b-38); (iii) a report of Moses’ fulfilling of Joseph’s adjuration of the Israelites to take his ‘bones’ with them when they leave Egypt (v. 19); (iv) an itinerary-note describing the next stage of the Israelites’ journey (v. 20); (v) a report of Yahweh’s guiding presence in the pillar of cloud and fire (vv. 21-22). The grammatical subject changes repeatedly from sub-section to sub-section, but in such a way as to form a chiastic pattern: God (vv. 17-18a); the Israelites (v. 18b); Moses (v. 19); the Israelites (‘they’: v. 20); Yahweh/the pillar of cloud and fire (vv. 21-22). Its coherence is complicated by the use of different expressions for God and also for the Israelites (‘the people’ in vv. 17-18a; ‘the children of Israel’ in vv. 18b-19; ‘they’ in vv. 20-22). It is not surprising that critical scholars have generally regarded the passage as composite in origin. Knobel distinguished between the Grundschrift’s itinerary-note in v. 20 and the Jehovist’s addition of vv. 17-19, 21-22, all of which he later attributed to his Rechtsbuch (or E: Exod.-Lev., p. 111; Num.-Jos., p. 532). Wellhausen’s detachment of vv. 21-22 for J (cf. the different expressions for God) established a pattern of analysis (17-19 = E; 20 = P; 21-22 = J) which was widely followed subsequently and is in essence the view of Graupner and Baden still today (Elohist, pp. 71-77; Composition, pp. 124-25, 199, 207).4 In their quest for evidence of a ‘third early source’ Smend (pp. 137-40) and his followers attributed v. 20 to J1 (L, N). Apart from this the first main divergence from Wellhausen’s analysis came, not surprisingly from Rudolph, who argued (pp. 27-28) that vv. 17-19 could not be E because they were isolated from the rest of the Exodus narrative: he saw them as comprising a redactional ‘commentary’ on the change of route described (according to him by J) in 14.1-2 and a late addition (v. 19) based on Gen. 50.24-25 (as Gressmann, Anfänge, p. 55 n. 3, had suggested earlier). He assigned v. 20 (as well as vv. 21-22) to J, as he had done with the earlier itinerary-note in 12.37. In this (but not in his elimination of E) he was followed by Noth, Hyatt and initially   Early on (cf. Holzinger) it was suggested that the temporal clause at the beginning of v. 17 was an addition of RJE because it used the terminology of J, and a minority of scholars have continued to take this view (e.g. Noth, Kohata, Gertz, Graupner). 4

198

EXODUS 1–18

Coats (‘Traditio-Historical Character’, p. 255), but the idea then lost favour until its recent revival in a different form (see below). Coats had abandoned it by 1972, as part of a more radical fresh analysis of the passage (‘Wilderness Itinerary’, pp. 145-47; cf. ‘Structural Transition’, pp. 138-39; still maintained in Exodus 1–18, pp. 102-108), which also denied that vv. 17-19 were from E. In the case of vv. 17-18 this was because E had no wilderness narrative (which may seem irrelevant, but for Coats the whole of vv. 17-22 was an ‘exposition of the wilderness theme’ [see above]).5 Coats attributed these verses to P or PS, noting that Gen. 50.22-26 (to which v. 19 refers) was also ‘secondary P’ and so anticipating what has become recently a much more common view (see further below). By contrast Kohata (rather like Dozeman more recently) saw vv. 21-22 as a late redactional addition related to Deuteronomistic and secondary Priestly passages elsewhere (pp. 292-93). These views form a transitional stage to the most recent developments, which are characterised by diversity and, as elsewhere, a growing tendency to date components of the passage to a late period. Particularly influential has been Rendtorff’s inclusion of v. 19 among texts deriving from a very late theological redaction of the Pentateuch (Problem, pp. 75-77), which Blum described more precisely already in 1984 and now identifies as part of a ‘Josua 24 Bearbeitung’ (see also Studien, pp. 363-65), to which Gen. 33.19; 50.25; Josh. 24.32 also belong. Both Blum himself and others who have followed him (K. Schmid, Gertz, Albertz) find here evidence of a ‘Hexateuchal’ dimension to the editing of Israel’s traditions at a very late stage. Levin, Gertz and Albertz also regard vv. 17-18 as very late in origin (it is not clear where Blum and Schmid would place them – but for Blum see now his ‘Die Feuersäule in Ex 13-14 – eine Spur der “Endredaktion”?’, in his Textgestalt und Komposition. Exegetische Beiträge zu Tora und Vordere Propheten [ed. W. Oswald, FAT 69; Tübingen, 2010, pp. 137-56), where he argues that they must belong to a pre-Priestly version of the route-description, because they exclude the very route by Lake Sirbonis which [he believes] is implied by 14.1-2). For these scholars the oldest elements of the passage are the itinerary-note in v. 20 and the beginning of v. 21 (all of 21-22 according to Albertz), some of which may be pre-exilic. Equally different from the older consensus, but in the opposite direction, is the unitary treatment of the older components of the passage (vv. 17-18[a], 21-22) by Vervenne (‘The “P” Tradition’, pp. 77-79: 5   Coats could have simply been following Rudolph in this, but he was in Heidelberg in 1970–71 for research leave (cf. the beginning of ‘The Wilderness Itinerary’) and it is more likely that he was influenced by ideas that were already beginning to take shape there at this time: R. Kessler submitted his Querverweise as a dissertation (in which he concluded that v. 19 was a late redactional addition: his view of vv. 17-18 is not so clear) in 1972 and has confirmed privately that he and Coats were in close contact during its preparation. See also below on Rendtorff.



13.17-22

199

JE), Van Seters (Life, pp. 128-31: J) and Propp (p. 476: E, probably). Both Vervenne (pp. 85-86: P) and Propp (ibid.: R) regard v. 20 as later. Dozeman assigns vv. 17-18a, 19-20 (but not vv. 18b, 21-22) to ‘Non-P’.

It is somewhat artificial to separate the analysis of these verses from that of ch. 14, to which they are connected in various ways. But a striking feature of them is the reappearance of ‘God’ (Heb. ʾelōhîm) as a divine title four times in vv. 17-19 alongside ‘Yahweh’ in v. 21, which recalls the situation in chs. 3–4 especially. There the variation corresponded in our view to a distinction between two accounts, traditionally called J and E, extracts from which had been intertwined by a redactor. Subsequently there has continued to be evidence to support such a distinction, but without this particular variation being present. Scholars of an earlier generation, and some still today (e.g. Graupner, Baden), have had no hesitation in assigning vv. 17-19 to E and vv. 21-22 to J. It could be said that no better explanation of the variation here has been forthcoming. Both sections deal with the same topic, the journey of the Israelites, albeit in different ways, and if they had a common origin one might have expected them to be adjacent to one another. Their separation could be due to v. 20 being a later insertion, and below that will be seen to be likely. However, the ‘them’ of v. 21 has no obvious antecedent in v. 19, so once again there is a difficulty. This too might be overcome if v. 19 were also a later insertion, as a significant group of scholars now suppose. We will return to this issue later too. For the moment it is sufficient to note that there is a rather similar situation in 14.1920. Here the pillar of cloud and fire is mentioned again, moving from in front of the Israelites to behind them, but in v. 19a ‘the angel of God’ (Heb. malʾak ʾelōhîm) is said to do exactly the same. Such an angel appears as an alternative mode of guidance for the Israelites in 23.20 and 33.2. The duplication in 14.19-20 is remarkable and probably due to the combination of different accounts, one of which uses ‘God’, ʾelōhîm, while the other speaks of the pillar of cloud and fire, exactly as here. Indeed the second account seems to make a specific reference back (‘from before them’) to v. 21 here, implying that it comes from the same account. With some confidence, therefore, we might conclude that vv. 17-19 are from the same parallel account which uses ‘God’ in 14.19a. The objections to deriving these verses from a continuous source made by Rudolph and Coats, for example, are not strong. The opening words of v. 17 in fact

200

EXODUS 1–18

make an explicit link to the earlier narrative in 12.31-32, which we have argued is, like the main non-Priestly account of the plagues, from E (see the introduction to 12.28-42, 50-51).6 Verses 17-19 also connect well to the following episode of the deliverance at the sea in ch. 14. It is true that the expression Yam Suf in v. 18 does not occur again in the narrative until 15.22, but after the identity of the sea concerned had been stated once ‘the sea’ would be quite sufficient to refer back to it (in the non-Priestly narrative [see the introduction to 14.1-31] in 14.9aα, 21aβ, 30). In v. 19 there is also a connection (and an explicit one) to the earlier non-Priestly narrative, in this case to Gen. 50.25, where Joseph makes his brothers swear to bring his bones with them when they leave Egypt. The connection is confirmed by the use of Heb. ʾelōhîm, ‘God’, there too as well as here: and consequently in the older source-analysis Gen. 50.25 was also generally attributed to E. Since the 1970s (with isolated antecedents in Gressmann and Rudolph), as we have seen, this very connection between Gen. 50.25 and Exod. 13.19 (as well as Gen. 33.19 and Josh. 24.32) has come to be regarded as an argument for assigning both verses to a late redactional layer which presupposes the join between the Pentateuch (or Tetrateuch) and the Deuteronomistic History. The fact that these verses also link the patriarchal traditions and the Exodus traditions is naturally a further argument for a late date in the eyes of those who regard the combination of these traditions as exilic or later. In themselves the closing verses of Genesis (50.2226) are also now often regarded as a string of late additions to the main narratives in this part of Genesis (the Joseph-story and P), though not necessarily for compelling reasons.7 It is clear that Josh. 24.32 is dependent upon Gen. 33.19 as well as Gen. 50.25 and/or Exod. 13.19 and probably Gen. 48.22. One possible interpretation of this is certainly that all these verses were added as a single process of ‘Hexateuchal’ redaction. Another possibility, which should not be dismissed too quickly, is that all   This is another place (cf. also 12.21-27) where our view actually makes for a more straightforward analysis of the Exodus-story than the usual older view that the main narrative was from J. 7   See e.g. C. Westermann, Genesis 12–50 (BKAT; Neukirchen, 1982), pp. 23442; Gertz, Tradition, pp. 358-65. Against such views see briefly my remarks in ‘Transition’, pp. 73-75. 6



13.17-22

201

these verses belonged to a continuous old narrative extending from Genesis to Joshua. Since the work of Martin Noth the idea of ‘Pentateuchal’ sources continuing into Joshua has lost its former popularity. But there are some signs of a renewal of interest in it, and with good reason.8 Along with the itinerary-link between Num. 25.1 and Josh. 2.1; 3.1, Josh. 24.32 has such strong connections with older ‘Pentateuchal’ tradition that it could well have formed the conclusion to a narrative account which included the conquest of Canaan. Graupner, who attributes v. 19 to E, has a different approach to the issue, which also deserves further consideration. In the first place, he objects to a redactional origin because in (what are to him) clearly redactional passages the divine name is used, not ʾelōhîm, ‘God’.9 Secondly, he observes, following Noth and Fritz, that the links in the chain are not all strong. Genesis 50.25 and Exod. 13.19 show no clear sign of a reference to Gen. 33.19 and Josh. 24.32 and it could very well be the case that Josh. 24.32 is an isolated and late combination of data found in the older narratives in the Pentateuch.10 In that case the sequence of verses in Genesis and Exodus need be neither ‘Hexateuchal’ nor redactional. As for v. 20, its links to 12.37a require that it be understood as part of the same itinerary-chain, which we have argued is most likely to derive from a Deuteronomistic redactor (see the introduction to 12.29-42, 50-51). There is no more reason here than before to consider a Priestly origin for it. It has no narrative attached to it and intrudes into the more general statements about the Israelites’ journey in vv. 17-19 and 21-22. Verses 21-22 are somewhat verbose, but there is no justification for regarding any part of them as secondary. If (as seems likely) they are not the original continuation of vv. 17-18/19, they have no direct connection to the immediate context and serve mainly to prepare for what is said in 14.19b-20, 24. If we are right that 12.33-34 (37b-38?), 39 are from J, then 13.21-22 may have followed them (or rather 13.3-4: see   Cf. Kratz, Komposition, pp. 286-304.   Graupner, Elohist, p. 71, with n. 271 (cf. p. 74 n. 242). This observation does seem to be generally true, but Exod. 20.1 (which Graupner and others regard as a secondary addition to the Sinai narrative: p. 126) looks like an exception, which is a problem, unless the reasons for discounting the E origin of Exod. 20.1-17 are weaker than Graupner thinks. 10   Graupner, Elohist, p. 75 n. 249; so now Schmidt, p. 578. 8 9

202

EXODUS 1–18

the introduction to 13.1-16), either immediately or closely, in the original sequence. It is understandable that, with their concern with the continuing journey rather than the departure itself, they should have been placed after vv. 17-19 in the combined non-Priestly narrative. It is appropriate that as the Israelites’ journey gets under way the theme of divine guidance should be prominent in both the older narrative accounts, though with what is perhaps a characteristic difference of emphasis. In vv. 17-19 it is the providential, unseen direction of events by God that is prominent, an insight that could be generated by nothing more than informed reflection on the tradition that Israel’s journey into the wilderness was to have as its preliminary goal ‘the mountain of God’ (cf. 3.1, 12) in (probably the southern part of) the Sinai peninsula. They therefore did not take the coast road and even a slight familiarity with Israel’s early history would indicate that this would avoid the need to pass through ‘the land of the Philistines’, where Israel’s traditional enemies would have been a serious obstacle to progress and a cause of discouragement and even rebellion against God. A deeper reflection on God’s care for his people would see the detour as part of his plan to spare them from such problems. In vv. 21-22 the guidance is direct and visible, and also unpredictable: it derives from the actual presence of Yahweh himself at the head of his people, just he had earlier ‘come down’ to deliver them from Egypt (3.8), and as they knew him in later times to be present in their midst, especially in the Jerusalem temple (e.g. Ps. 46.6). These different theological perspectives are combined together here without difficulty, just as they are also combined with the more mundane itinerary-note which traces another stage in the people’s progress away from the authority of Egypt – or so it seems. 17 When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead thema by the wayb to the land of the Philistines, althoughc it was near; for God thought, ‘In cased the people change their minde when they see war and return to Egypt’. 18 But God made the people go roundf by (the?) wayg of the wilderness to the Yam Suf h. Armed for battlei the Israelites went up from the land of Egypt. 19 Moses took the bonesj of Joseph with him, for he had made the sons of Israel swear, as follows: ‘God will indeed show concernk for you



13.17-22

203

and you shall bring my bonesj up from here with you’. 20 [The Israelites departedl from Succoth and camped at Etham on the edgem of the wilderness.] 21 [Yahweh was goingn before them by day in a pillar of cloud to guide themo on the wayp, and by night in a pillar of fireq to give them light, to travelr by day and by night. 22 The pillar of cloud would not departs by day nor the pillar of fire by night before the people.]

Notes on the Translation a. Heb. ‫ולא נחם‬. The Qal of ‫ נחה‬is less than half as common as the Hiphil, which has the same meaning (cf. v. 21), but it occurs twice more in Exodus, at 15.13 and 32.34. Both forms are more frequent in poetry (esp. Psalms) than in prose. b. Heb. ‫דרך ארץ פלשׁתים‬. ‫ דרך‬can be used as a preposition to mean ‘towards’ (cf. 1 Kgs 8.44, 48), but the pronoun ‫ הוא‬in the next clause confirms that it is here a noun, which is used adverbially, as often with the names of routes. c. Heb. ‫כי‬. ‘Although’ is the only sense of ‫ כי‬that fits here (cf. Childs, p. 217; Houtman, p. 249): for a fuller list of exx. than BDB’s otherwise purely poetic occurrences (p. 473) see DCH 4, p. 387 (but AHI 1.004.4 is probably not an example). Genesis 8.21 is surely another case. A. Aejmaleus sought to discount this meaning of ‫ כי‬altogether (‘Function and Interpretation of ‫ כי‬in Biblical Hebrew’, JBL 105 [1986], pp. 193-209 [205-207]), but her view is only partly supported in JM §171a-b. d. Heb. ‫ פן‬usually follows a main clause, but this is one of several passages where it occurs idiomatically at the beginning of an utterance to indicate that what has been done is a precaution against some undesired outcome (BDB, p. 814): cf. Gen. 26.9; 31.31; 38.11; 42.4. In all these cases, as here, the clause is introduced by a form of ‫( אמר‬it is omitted in Gen. 26.7), which can best be translated ‘thought’ (BDB, p. 56). e. Heb. ‫ינחם‬. The sense ‘repent’ which has become traditional for ‫ נחם‬Niphal is only rarely applicable, only in Jer. 8.7 and perhaps Job 42.6 (cf. TWAT 5, 368-78 = TDOT 9, pp. 342-50). In many cases an ‘affective dissociation’ from a previous attitude, leading to a change of purpose, is involved, hence the senses ‘be sorry, regret’ and ‘be consoled’. ‘Change of mind’ alone is most often found in theological contexts, whether affirmed or (in 1 Sam. 15.29a, like the Hithpael in Num. 23.19) denied in relation to God. 1 Samuel 15.29b regards it as a weakness of human beings and that comes closest to the usage here. The paronomasia with ‫ נחם‬earlier in the verse is perhaps deliberate (cf. Cassuto, p. 156; Houtman, p. 250). f. Heb. ‫ויסב‬. The Hiphil of ‫ סבב‬has causative meanings related to the senses ‘turn, rotate’, ‘go around (in an area)’, ‘go round (a city or an area)’ and

204

EXODUS 1–18

‘surround’. Only the second and third of these come into consideration here, and the addition of ‫ דרך המדבר ים־סוף‬makes the third most probable: 2 Kgs 3.9 is another example where the area is not explicitly defined, although the context indicates the route and destination. The ‘going round’ may involve a complete circuit (Josh. 6.11: cf. 6.3 etc.; Ps. 48.13), but not necessarily: a part of a circuit (Gen. 2.11, 13; 2 Sam. 5.23 par.; Ezek. 47.2; 2 Chr. 13.13) or the avoidance of the most direct route (Num. 21.4; Deut. 2.1, 3; Judg. 11.18; 2 Kgs 3.9) may be meant. The latter is evidently intended here. g. ‫ דרך‬could, as in v. 17, mean ‘way, road’ here, but ‘the way of (to? through?) the wilderness’ is too vague to be a likely name of a route, so a prepositional use, either ‘through’ (other, at least possible, cases are 2 Sam. 4.7; 18.23; Jer. 39.4a) or ‘towards’, is probable. h. ‫ ים־סוף‬is an adverbial ‘accusative’ of direction (GK §118f) indicating the next important destination. It can scarcely modify ‫ המדבר‬in view of its def. art.: alleged exceptions (cf. GK §127f) are dubious. On the sense of ‫ ים־סוף‬see the Explanatory Notes on 10.19, 13.17-18 and 15.4. i. Heb. ‫חמשׁים‬. A military sense for this word (with its three other occurrences in MT: Josh. 1.14; 4.12; Judg. 7.11) has long been recognised (see Text and Versions; cf. Luther ‘gerüstet’, Tyndale and AV ‘harnessed’, RV ‘armed’ [avoiding what is now an archaic sense of ‘harness’]). BHS recognises two further instances by emendation in Num. 32.17 (cf. LXX, Vulg) and Neh. 4.11 (cf. LXX). The use of ‫ חלוצים‬in Num. 32.20 (cf. also v. 17) reinforces the contextual support for this meaning. Ar. ḫamīsun, ‘army’, and ESA ḫms, ‘bearers of arms’, show a similar meaning in related languages; according to some also ‫ חמשם‬in Moabite (KAI 181.28: see DNWSI, p. 386), but most tr. ‘fifty’ there. On the basis of Ar. some see the form as derived from a denominative of ‫חמשׁ‬, ‘five’: cf. BDB, p. 332, ‘in battle array’; HAL, pp. 317-18; Ges18, pp. 368-69, where evidence of such denominatives in Ug., Ar. and Eth. as well as Heb. is cited. The sense might then be ‘in five divisions’, ‘in ranks of five’ or ‘in groups of fifty’ (DCH 3, p. 259), but the Vss give no support to such refinements and for Heb. at least the sense ‘armed’ or ‘in marching order’ is preferable. Propp (p. 488) favours ‘resolute’, but the argument is weak. See further Ska, Le passage, pp. 14-17. Syntactically ‫ חמשׁים‬is a ‘predicative accusative of state’ (JM §126a-b: cf. GK §118-p), placed before the verb for emphasis. j. Heb. ‫את־עצמות‬, perhaps better ‘body’ (cf. BDB, p. 782), as Joseph had been embalmed (Gen. 50.26). k. Heb. ‫פקד יפקד‬, as in Gen. 50.25 (cf. v. 24): for the meaning see Note b on the translation of 3.16-22. l. Heb. ‫ויסעו‬. In the full itinerary formula here ‫ נסע‬has its standard meaning ‘departed’ (contrast 12.37). m. Heb. ‫קצה‬, ‘end’, is often used of the ‘edge, extremity’, for example, of a region: Num. 20.16 and 22.36 show, respectively, how ‘on the edge’ may mean ‘just outside’ or ‘just within’ the region (BDB, p. 892). Here the former is perhaps more likely.



13.17-22

205

n. Heb. ‫ויהוה הלך‬. The word-order is regular for a nominal subject followed by a participle (JM §154fc). The clause is probably independent rather than circumstantial in the narrow sense (against Childs, p. 234): its length and the close connection with v. 22 would suggest this, and JM §159f provides some parallels. Of course the wider context determines the tense as past durative (examples in JM §121f and Joosten, Verbal System, p. 247). o. Heb. ‫לנחתם‬, ַ understood in the MT vocalisation as the Hiphil inf. cons. with the prefix unusually elided (cf. GK §53q). In this case (but not in all) the Qal inf. could have been read without change to the consonantal text or the sense, and the Qal appears in v. 17 (see Note a). Possibly the Masoretes chose to read the Hiphil here because it was the more common form (and cf. Neh. 9.19: Propp, p. 465); alternatively they may, like Rashi, have understood it in a causative sense so as to identify the pillar of cloud as the intermediary (first object) used by God to guide the Israelites. p. Heb. ‫ הדרך‬cannot be a direct obj. of ‫( נחה‬Qal or Hiphil) and must be understood adverbially, as is more common with names of routes (cf. v. 17 and Note b). q. Heb. ‫ולילה בעמוד אשׁ‬. The participle ‫ הלך‬is understood with this clause too. r. Heb. ‫ללכת‬. Presumably this is not parallel to the two preceding infinitives but gives the reason for the dual provision of cloud and fire. s. Heb. ‫ימישׁ‬. The Hiphil of ‫ מושׁ‬can be intransitive (cf. 33.11) like the Qal. The imperfect is clearly iterative as, e.g., in 13.15.

Explanatory Notes 17-18. The narrative resumes with the first of two observations about God’s leading or guidance of ‘the people’: a second, with a different focus, follows in vv. 21-22. Here, as again in 14.1-2, where God (Yahweh) is said to give Moses instructions for the people about their next camping-place, the direction in which God led his people is at the centre. If Canaan was the eventual destination, there were several possible routes to there from eastern Egypt. The shortest and most favoured way was the coastal road, which is described here as ‘the way to the land of the Philistines’, since as both biblical evidence (e.g. Josh. 13.2-3) and archaeology (e.g. T. Dothan, The Philistines and their Material Culture [New Haven and London, 1982]) indicate the Philistines with their five famous cities occupied the coastal plain in the south-west of Palestine.11 In biblical narrative, 11   Recent discoveries and studies of Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions from Aleppo and nearby have indicated the existence of a ‘land of Palistin/Walistin’ in

206

EXODUS 1–18

especially in the books of Samuel, they are often at war with Israel and Judah. So the prospect that encounter with them might deter the escaping Israelites from proceeding further would have been a plausible reason, in the minds of the passage’s original audience, for God to have chosen a different route out of Egypt for his people. In fact such considerations would have been anachronistic, because at the likely time of the Exodus events, in the thirteenth century B.C., the Philistines were not yet settled in the region: their arrival occurred, as Egyptian evidence shows (especially Papyrus Harris I and inscriptions and reliefs from Medinet Habu: Dothan, pp. 1-13; ANET, pp. 262-63), early in the twelfth century. But already before this the coast road, known as ‘the Way(s) of Horus’ had often been used by Egyptian armies and was heavily fortified (see the classic study by A.H. Gardiner, ‘The Ancient Military Road between Egypt and Palestine’, JEA 6 [1920], pp. 99-116, supplemented from more recent exploration in Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, pp. 164-75, 182-98, and further in Ancient Israel in Sinai, Chapters 4 and 5). Still there must be some doubt whether an Israelite writer, even of the monarchy period, would have been as well informed about the presence of Egyptian forces along this route as modern archaeologists are now.12 The route which the Israelites were thought to have taken is described here in terms that are either vague in the extreme (‘the wilderness’) or highly contested in their interpretation (‘Yam Suf’). It is at least clear that it was seen as a detour (see Note f on the translation), in contrast to the way that was ‘near’, which suggests a route either east or south-east into the Sinai peninsula. It is curious that nothing is said here about the need to visit Mount Horeb/Sinai (cf. 3.1, 12) or ‘the mountain of God’ (cf. 18.5), but perhaps Yam this region of northern Syria in the eleventh and tenth centuries: for a convenient summary with references see T.P. Harrison, ‘Recent Discoveries at Tayinat (Ancient Kunulua/Calno) and their Biblical Implications’, in C.M. Maier (ed.), Congress Volume: Munich 2013 (VTSup 163; Leiden, 2014), pp. 396-425 (402405), where mention is also made of occurrences of ‘the land of the Peleset’ in inscriptions of Rameses III (p. 405). On the latter see D. Kahn, ‘The Campaign of Rameses III against Philistia’, JAEI (online) 3:4 (2011), pp. 1-11 (to which Harrison refers), where this ‘land’ is identified with the region in Syria, not with south-west Canaan (as most scholars have thought hitherto). 12   There is evidence for contact with the Delta region, presumably along the coast road, in Isa. 30.1-5; 31.1-3.



13.17-22

207

Suf is mentioned as the next significant place on the journey. In 10.19 (see the Explanatory Note) it is where the swarms of locusts are driven from the Nile Delta by a ‘west’ (lit. ‘sea’) wind: either the Gulf of Suez or one of the lakes east of the Delta is probably meant there, and the same possibilities exist here. Recently renewed credence has been given to the suggestion that in antiquity the Gulf of Suez may have extended further north than today, perhaps as far as the Bitter Lakes and Lake Timsah (Van Seters, ‘Geography’, pp. 258, 272-75; Albertz, pp. 27-29, 184; cf. earlier my Way of the Wilderness, pp. 73-74). More detailed discussion must await the Explanatory Notes on 14.1-4 and 15.4. A different kind of question is raised by the use of the title ‘God’ (Heb. ʾelōhîm) in place of the divine name Yahweh three times in these verses (and again in v. 19, where it is related to Gen. 50.24-25: see further below on this). Apart from what may be appellative uses (‘a god’) in 8.15 and 9.28, this is the first time that ʾelōhîm has been used in this way in Exodus since a series of occurrences in chs. 1–6 (1.17, 20, 21; 2.23, 24, 25; 3.1, 4, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15; 4.20, 27; 6.2). There it has traditionally been seen as a marker of either the Priestly source (in 2.23-25; 6.2) or the Elohist source (the other passages) of the Pentateuch (so still, in essence, Graupner, Der Elohist). More occurrences of this feature appear in 14.19; 17.9; 18.1, 5, 11, 12, 15, 19, 21, 23; 19.3, 17, 19; 20.1, 19, 20, 21; 24.11, 13 and occasionally in the Book of the Covenant and later. The contrast in this regard with 13.21 and 14.1 is particularly notable and is discussed further in the introduction to this section. The statement that the Israelites left Egypt ‘armed for battle’ (Heb. ḥamušîm: the other occurrences and most of the renderings in the ancient Versions firmly support this interpretation [see Note i on the translation]) is at first sight surprising, especially so soon after God has been said to wish to prevent his people from facing a battle. But a battle is described in 17.8-13 and more follow in Numbers (14.40-45; 21.1-3, 21-35; 31. 1-12) and of course in Joshua. The formal itinerary notes scattered through the narrative (e.g. 12.37; 13.20) belong to a genre which was particularly favoured in descriptions of military campaigns (see the Excursus in the introduction to 12.28-42, 50-51). The same conception has even influenced the Priestly tradition, both in the expression ‘in their tribal divisions’ (Exod. 6.26; 7.4; 12.17, 41, 51) and in the organisation of the camp and the order of march described in Num. 2.1-34; 10.14-28.

208

EXODUS 1–18

19. The plural subjects (vv. 18b, 20; cf. ‘the people’ in vv. 17-18a) are interrupted by a statement about Moses in the singular which adds a further detail about the Israelites’ departure: he takes Joseph’s ‘bones’ (ʿaṣmôt: the broader sense ‘body’ is perhaps more appropriate, as in Note j on the translation) with him. Joseph, who is clearly the ‘he’ of the explanatory clause (some versions of the text add his name), had made ‘the sons of Israel’ swear that they would do this (Gen. 50.25): the phrase is conveniently ambiguous, as it could mean Joseph’s brothers (cf. Gen. 50.24), who were like him literally sons of Israel (Jacob’s other name), or the whole family, which had already begun to increase in numbers before Joseph died (cf. Gen. 50.23). This important motif of continuity reaches its goal in Josh. 24.32, where the Israelites (Moses having already died) bury Joseph’s ‘bones’ at Shechem in land which his father Jacob was said to have bought long before from the Canaanite inhabitants of the place (cf. Gen. 33.19; also 48.21-22, where the means of acquiring the land is different). There is thus a genuinely ‘Hexateuchal’ character to this series of passages, whether (as long supposed) as part of the Elohist source-document or (as has recently become a widely held view) as a later redactional layer added to the older narrative (on the debate see the introduction to this section). The verse also repeats Joseph’s assurance to his family that ‘God’ would ‘show concern’ for them and bring them back to Canaan from the land of Egypt where they had first come in a time of famine (Gen. 50.24-25), an assurance which Moses had also given, in the same words, as part of his original message from Yahweh in Exod. 3.16. As the Israelites leave Egypt, the providential care of their God for them over the generations is once more underlined. 20. Now another stage in their itinerary (cf. 12.37 and the notes there) takes the Israelites on to ‘the edge of the wilderness’, in parallel to the larger-scale description of their route in v. 18. Again there is a close equivalent in the continuous itinerary in Num. 33.6. On Succoth see the note on 12.37: Etham has not been convincingly identified with a toponym known from ancient Egyptian (or other texts). Geographically the Egyptian word ḫtm, ‘fort’, is an attractive possibility, as it not surprisingly occurs in a number of references to the eastern border area, including the famous ‘Report of a Frontier Official’ in Papyrus Anastasi VI and another model letter (in



13.17-22

209

Papyrus Anastasi V) reporting the escape of two runaway slaves: in both it occurs with the likely equivalent of Succoth.13 But the correspondence of Heb. aleph (as in Etham) and Egyptian ḫ would be very irregular. A more recent suggestion is that Etham represents the name of the god Atum and is a (probably late) shortened from of the name Pithom (on which see the Explanatory Note on 1.11), without the Egyptian prefix ‘house/temple of’ (so M. Görg, ‘Etham und Pitom’, BN 51 [1990], pp. 9-10; conveniently summarised in ABD 2, p. 644). But neither of the places commonly identified with Pithom (see again the note on 1.11) is likely to represent a campingplace beyond Succoth ‘on the edge of the wilderness’. Even though a convincing identification remains elusive, the description of this part of the route as a whole and especially the words ‘on the edge of the wilderness’ strongly suggest that the itinerary envisages a place at or beyond the eastern end of Wadi Tumilat in the vicinity of Lake Timsah.14 21-22. The closing verses of the section return to the subject of divine guidance of the Israelites, here throughout their journey (cf. v. 22) and with the emphasis now on the way in which this divine guidance was made known. Later, after the departure from Mount Sinai, this ‘pillar of cloud and fire’ is associated respectively with the Priestly desert shrine or ‘tabernacle’ (40.36-38; Num. 10.11-12) or with the ark of the covenant (Num. 10.33-36; cf. 14.44; Josh. 3.2-6, 14-17). At this stage only the pillar of cloud and fire is mentioned, with Yahweh ‘in’ it (cf. 14.24) at the front of the people as they travel, as their ‘leader’ in a very precise sense. The separation of these verses from vv. 17-18 and, probably, the use of the name of God itself rather than the title ‘God’ suggest that they derive originally from a different strand in the composition in the narrative, one which reappears in the account of the sea-crossing in 14.19b-20, 24 as well as in Num. 14.14, Deut. 1.33 and the summaries of the Exodus story in Pss. 78.14; 105.39; Neh. 9.12, 19. A related but distinct tradition associated the pillar of cloud (but not fire) with ‘the tent of meeting’ in non-Priestly passages (33.9-10; Num. 12.5;

13   For further details and discussion of this possibility see Cazelles, ‘Les localisations de l’Exode’, pp. 358-60; Hoffmeier, Israel, p. 182. 14   Cf. Hoffmeier, Israel, p. 182.

210

EXODUS 1–18

Deut. 31.15: cf. Ps. 99.7).15 The Priestly version of the ‘guidance’ theme (cf. above) evidently combined the two traditions and applied them to its much larger tent-shrine. The specific concept of a ‘pillar’ of cloud or fire draws on the more widely attested ideas of divine appearance or presence in cloud and fire (cf. 3.2-6; 16.10; 19.9, 16-18; 24.15-18: see the fuller discussion in T.W. Mann, ‘The Pillar of Cloud in the Reed Sea Narrative’, JBL 90 [1971], pp. 15-30, and Houtman 2, pp. 254-56). A variety of suggestions have been made about the origins of this motif (ibid.): most likely it arose from the combination of common practices of travel in desert areas with the theological ideas already mentioned, which find close parallels in portrayals of the storm-god in particular (cf. Clements, God and Temple, p. 22; J. Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan [JSOTSup 265; Sheffield, 2000], pp. 91-98). The final words of v. 21 imply that the Israelites travelled by night as well as by day, which goes beyond the statement that the pillar of fire was ‘to give them light by night’. The same implication is evident in Deut. 1.33, Ps. 78.14 and Neh. 9.12, 19, but there is no indication in the main wilderness narrative that this was generally the case, only in the immediately following instance of the episode at the Red Sea, where the pillar of cloud is in fact behind the Israelites rather than in front of them and Yahweh protects and fights for them rather than showing them the way (14.19b-20, 24). Of course travelling by night in a desert region would have avoided the heat of the day (cf. perhaps 1 Kgs 19.8) and the narrator may have had such a practice in mind here. Text and Versions ‫( ויהי‬13.17) As often LXX, Sy and Vulg have no equivalent, for stylistic reasons. Vulg begins the verse with igitur, scarcely to make a connection with what has just preceded, but resumptively (cf. OLD, p. 822, s.v. 5) to pick up the earlier narrative in 12.31-32 which was interrupted by the legal texts in 12.43–13.16: ‘So, when…’ ‫( אלהים‬13.17) Both here and later in the verse SP, LXX and Sy agree with MT, but the Tgg all use forms of the divine name (TgNmg even has ‘the Memra of…’) as they regularly do throughout chs. 1–3 where the absolute form occurs. Vulg follows suit here, though not always elsewhere (e.g. v. 19). 15   Blum, Studien, pp. 140-41, tentatively suggests that this may be a ‘transformation’ of the ‘pillar of cloud’ tradition here.



13.17-22

211

‫( דרך‬13.17) The Vss all render with a noun (on the problem see Note b on the translation). ‫( כי‬13.17)1o Equally the Vss all have words for ‘because’, except for Vulg which renders freely with the rel. pron. quae and so avoids the problem discussed in Note c on the translation. ‫( קרוב הוא‬13.17) TgF(P),G(X)16 add here their version of the long haggadic expansion which TgJ (cf. MRI) has after ‫( בראותם מלחמה‬see the note there), where it fits better. Placed here the explanation follows the sequence of events more closely but its relevance is obscured, the more so as TgF(P),G provide no lead-in to the narrative of an earlier war (see below). ‫( כי אמר אלהים‬13.17) TgNmg makes the reference to God’s thoughts explicit by adding ‫במחשבת דליה‬. ‫( ינחם‬13.17) LXX, Vulg and TgJ preserve the sense of MT: TgO (which is followed exactly here, as throughout the translation of the verse itself, by TgF(P),G) and Sy in different ways give the contextually apt sense ‘be afraid, tremble’, while TgN has ‘their heart be broken’, presumably in disappointment or grief (for the form cf. Jastrow, p. 1645). ‫( בראותם מלחמה‬13.17) TgJ inserts here an interpretation which understands the war to be not a Philistine attack on the main Exodus group but an earlier event which affected only a large group of Ephraimites. This legend is found already in MRI (Lauterbach, pp. 170, 172-73: after an alternative explanation based on Num. 14.45), where its origin in a combination of 1 Chr. 7.21b-23 and Ps. 78.9-10 is clearer. It is from the latter passage that the idea of a transgression of a divine command is taken, but it is made to refer to a refusal to wait for the time of the Exodus prescribed by God (cf. TgJ on Gen. 50.25). In TgJ a connection is also made with Ezekiel 37, and this was developed further in the generally very similar forms of the legend which appear in TgG (Klein 1, pp. 222-23; cf. 2, pp. 61-62) and TgF(P) (see more fully J. Heinemann, ‘The Messiah of Ephraim and the Premature Exodus of the Tribe of Ephraim’, HTR 8 [1975], pp. 1-15 [esp. 10-15]; M.J. Mulder, ‘1 Chronik 7.21B-23 und die rabbinische Tradition’, JSJ 6 [1975], pp. 141-66 [esp. 149-54; on pp. 160-63 Mulder even supposes that the origin of the legend is not exegetical but based on old oral tradition]). ‫( ושׁבו מצרימה‬13.17) TgJ inserts ‘and when they see this they fear’ between the end of its addition and these words of MT, recalling and virtually repeating its translation of the previous clause of MT. TgF(P),G have the same insertion here, but because they place the major addition earlier in the verse (cf. above) it immediately follows the words that it was designed to recall, which is another sign that the placement of the addition in TgF(P),G is not original. ‫( ויסב‬13.18) TgF and Sy wdbr lacks the element of ‘around’ and makes the contrast with ‫ ולא נחם‬in v. 17 more direct. 16   Klein 1, p. xxxvii, accepts a date for ms. X in the ‘Middle Period’ (mid-eleventh to late fourteenth cent.).

212

EXODUS 1–18

‫( אלהים‬13.18) TgNmg again has ‘the Memra of the Lord’, as does TgF(VN) here. ‫( המדבר‬13.18) So also 4QExc, but SP reads ‫מדבר‬, i.e. constr. st. to be taken with the following ‫ים־סוף‬: ‘the wilderness of the Yam Suf’. Sy and TgJ have dymʾ, implying the same understanding and possibly the same text as SP; the other Vss in various ways avoid such a connection and presumably reflect MT’s wording. The choice between the two readings is difficult: both make sense and neither is clearly derivative from the other. ‘The wilderness of the Yam Suf’ occurs nowhere else, but such naming of desert areas is widespread (e.g. 15.22; 16.1). Some weight might be given to the fact that 14.3 speaks of ‘the wilderness’, but it is scarcely decisive. It is, however, possible to argue that ‫ ים־סוף‬was misunderstood because it lacks an explicit indication of direction (contrast 10.19) and this led to its being taken as a defining genitive, hence the change to ‫ ;מדבר‬and the combined evidence of MT, LXX and 4QExc, along with most of the Tgg, would also favour, on balance, seeing ‫ המדבר‬as the original reading. ‫( ים־סוף‬13.18) As elsewhere (cf. 10.19) LXX and Vulg equate with ‘the Red Sea’, while the other Vss simply reproduce the Heb. expression. ‫( חמשׁים‬13.18) Von Gall and Sadaqa give the same reading for SP, but most mss (including the older ones in von Gall, Crown, Tal and Camb. 1846) have ‫( חמישׁים‬likewise the older SamTg text [J]) and this should be adopted as the SP text. What it was taken to mean remains uncertain, though the later SamTg text (A) has ‘armed’. This is also the interpretation of TgO, Aq, Symm, Sy and Vulg here (cf. MRI [Lauterbach, pp. 174-75]), and the ‘armed with good work(s)’ of TgN,F is a moralising elaboration of it. LXX has military interpretations in Josh. 1.14 and 4.12 (as well as Num. 32.17 and Neh. 4.11, where ‫ חמשׁים‬may well be the original reading), but its πέμπτῃ δὲ γενεᾷ here relates the word to the numeral ‘5’, as do Theod’s πεμπταίζοντες (apparently ‘on the fifth day’) and TgJ’s ‘each with five children’. The reason for LXX’s decision here is presumably the ‘four generations’ of Gen. 15.16, which also affected LXX’s (and SP’s) interpretation of 12.40: perhaps, therefore, the SP variant was originally also intended to bring out a connection with ‘5’ and the correct interpretation ‘armed’ was only adopted later. On the opposed views in early Jewish interpretation see S.E. Loewenstamm, The Evolution of the Exodus Tradition (Jerusalem, 1992), pp. 228-32. ‫( בני ישׂראל‬13.18) TgN,F add ‫פריקין‬, as the Pal.Tg. often does after ‫יצא‬ when it refers to the Exodus. Sy has dbyt ʾysr(ʾ)yl as it does occasionally for ‫( בני ישׂראל‬again in v. 19). ‫( מארץ מצרים‬13.18) Propp reads ‫( ממצרים‬p. 464), but with very little support. ‫( ויקח‬13.19) TgO,J,F have ‫ואסיק‬, ‘and…brought up’, making Moses’ action correspond exactly to what is prescribed later in the verse. The other witnesses agree with MT: Vulg’s quoque for waw is a frequent stylistic feature and rarely represents the presence of ‫גם‬.



13.17-22

213

‫( את עצמות יוסף‬13.19) TgJ has ‘the coffin within which were Joseph’s bones from the Nile, and he was taking (it) with him’, so reading more into ‘brought up’ and alluding to a legend that Joseph had been buried in the Nile (TgJ on Gen. 50.26). MRI (Lauterbach, pp. 176-77) mentions this tradition along with a different one which is also found in T.Sim. 8.3-4. ‫( השׁבע השׁביע‬13.19) SP, LXX and TgF(P) add ‘Joseph’, the latter with ‘in his lifetime’. There is a lacuna at this point in 4QExc but probably no room for the addition (DJD XII, p. 116). Its purpose will have been to make absolutely clear that there has been a change of subject. ‫( פקד יפקד‬13.19) Tgg and Sy have ‘will surely remember’, with the addition of ‘in his goodly compassion’ in TgN,F; LXX and Vulg have ‘will surely visit’ which has influenced many EVV. (cf. Text and Versions on 3.16 and 4.31: also J.W. Wevers, ‘An Early Revision of the Septuagint of Numbers’, in Harry M. Orlinsky Volume, EI 16 [1982], pp. 235*-39* [238*]). ‫( אלהים‬13.19) So also SP, Vulg and Sy (4QExc does not survive), but this time LXX joins the Tgg in reading ‘the Lord’. This particular variation between LXX and MT is very rare and elsewhere it only occurs where ‫יהוה‬ closely precedes or follows (3.4; 9.30; 18.1; 20.1). In this case (as Propp [p. 465] points out) it involves a divergence from LXX’s own precise rendering of Gen. 50.25MT: and it is not due to the influence of v. 21 below, since there LXX has ὁ θεός for MT’s ‫יהוה‬. Perhaps the translator (or his Vorlage) is recalling (3.16 and) 4.31, where ‫ יהוה‬is used in connection with ‫פקד‬. ‫( והעליתם‬13.19) Most mss of Sy have, a little freely, ʾsqw (imper. without waw), but 5b1 agrees with MT, as it tends to do. ‫( ויסעו‬13.20) LXX ἐξάραντες δέ, with the frequent participium coniunctum for the first of two finite verbs in the Heb. (see further Aejmaleus, ‘Participium Coniunctum as a Criterion of Translation Technique’, VT 32 [1982], pp. 385-93 = On the Trail, pp. 7-16). ἐξαίρω is used for ‘depart’ again in 14.19 and 19.2, and often in Numbers 1–12, but this sense appears to be post-classical (LSJ, p. 582, cites only Polybius 2.23.4 outside LXX): ἀπαίρω, which is more common for ‫( נסע‬cf. 12.37 and repeatedly in Num. 33.1-49), is the classical expression (LSJ, p. 175). LXX adds οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραήλ as the subject because there is no direct connection with v. 19. ‫( מסכת‬13.20) The second corrector of LXXF (Fb) records συσκιασμοί/ ῶν, ‘shady places’ and σκηναί, ‘tents, booths’, as alternative renderings of ‫סכת‬: the latter will be, as in 12.37, from Symm, the former probably from Aq, to whom it is attributed in Pss. 27.5; 31.21; 60.8; Amos 5.26. TgJ (like MRI here) recalls the legend of the ‘clouds of glory’ which it introduced at greater length at 12.37 (see Text and Versions there) and will repeat later (AramB 2, p. 194 n. 62). ‫( באתם‬13.20) LXX ἐν Ὀθόμ is far from the vowels of MT, but these are attested in the spellings of Aq, Symm, Theod and Vulg (as well as TgO). An interpretation in LXXF (ἐν σημείῳ), which was known to Origen (cf. BAlex, p. 161), was based on a reading with at least the first of LXX’s vowels.

214

EXODUS 1–18

‫( בקצה המדבר‬13.20) SP prefixes ‫ אשר‬to make the connection explicit (cf. MT and SP in Num. 33.6), as do TgO,J,F,Nmg with )‫( ד(אית‬cf. Sy).17 Most of the Vss assume that the near ‘edge’ of the desert is meant, but Aq, Symm, Theod τὴν ἐρημοτάτην (followed by Vulg in extremis finibus solitudinis) oddly indicate its farthest limit. ‫( ויהוה‬13.21) SP and most of the Vss agree with MT (with the addition of ‘the Memra of’ in TgN,F), but LXX has ὁ δὲ θεός, a variation that is quite frequent (see Text and Versions on 13.8): here it could be due to the use of ‘God’ several times in vv. 17-18. TgJ amplifies as in 3.6 (cf. 12.12) with ‘the glory of the Shekinah of’). ‫( הלך לפניהם‬13.21) LXX and Tgg aptly paraphrase with ‘led (before) them’. ‫( לנחתם‬13.21) 4QExc agrees with the consonants of MT, but some important SP mss (including Camb. 1846 and those used by Sadaqa, Tal and Crown [except for his Chester Beatty ms]) have ‫להנחתם‬, the full spelling of the Hiphil form indicated by MT’s vowels. The renderings of TgO,J,N derive it from ‫נחה‬, but TgF and Sy saw a form of ‫נוח‬, ‘(give) rest’, here. LXX δεῖξαι αὐτοῖς, ‘to show them’, is a free rendering, perhaps designed to enable ‫ הדרך‬to be taken as the object: Vulg followed this and is probably the source of ‫ למחווי להון‬in TgNmg. ‫( הדרך‬13.21) SP omits the def. art. (cf. SamTgJ), against all the other witnesses (inc. 4QExc ]‫)הדר[ך‬, for no obvious reason: maybe a mechanical (but inappropriate) assimilation to vv. 17-18 is involved (cf. below on ‫ ענן‬and ‫ אשׁ‬in v. 22). ‫( ולילה‬13.21) TgF ‘and also (‫ )ואוף‬in the night’ need not imply a different Vorlage. ‫( בעמוד אשׁ‬13.21) TgN has ‫ דעננא דאישׁתא‬‫א‬‫בעמוד‬, ‘in a pillar of fiery cloud’, implying that there was a single pillar of cloud which became fiery in the night, as 14.20 seems also to suggest. TgJ elaborates in a different way on the basis of 14.19-20. ‫( להאיר להם ללכת יומם ולילה‬13.21) LXX has nothing for this: its Vorlage may have suffered omission by homoeoarkton (‫להאיר‬‫)לא‬, as Wevers suggests (Notes, p. 207), or alternatively the translator may have made the same error. There is no reason to suppose that the shorter text is more original, as M. Vervenne has proposed (‘The Question of “Deuteronomic” Elements in Genesis to Numbers’, in A. Hilhorst et al. [eds.], Studies in Deuteronomy [FS C.J. Labuschagne; VTSup 53; Leiden, 1994], pp. 243-68 [267]). Symm and Theod supplied the missing text and it was taken up into the O-text. Vulg ut dux esset itineris utroque tempore is probably a free rendering of MT, avoiding unnecessary repetition. TgNmg cites an abbreviated version of the final phrase which seems to continue the theme of light on the journey (see AramB 2, p. 57). 17   4QExc preserves only the first word of the verse, but Sanderson (DJD XII, p. 116) considers that ‘spacial reconstruction favours the shorter reading’.



13.17-22

215

‫( לא ימישׁ‬13.22) The Hiphil is probably also the reading of 4QExc (cf. DJD XII, p. 116), but SP has the Qal imperf. ‫ימושׁ‬: the same divergence from MT occurs at 33.11. The sense is intransitive in either case (see Note s on the translation). The variant could have arisen from the similarity of yodh and waw in early forms of the square script (in Prov. 17.13 the Qere and Kethiv vary in the same way), but it is more likely that SP made a deliberate change (or choice) to ensure the consistent use of the Qal throughout the Pentateuch (cf. ‫ משׁו‬in Num. 14.44) and avoid any ambiguity which the Hiphil might cause. The Vss divide over the sense which they give to the verb here, between ‘fail, cease’ (LXX, Vulg, TgJ,N,F: cf. Jer. 17.8) and ‘depart’ (TgO, Sy), which is more regular in BH.18 ‫( עמוד הענן‬13.22) 4QExc omits the article with ‫ענן‬, no doubt through miscopying from the previous verse (see also the next note). Von Gall prints ‫ עמוד ענן‬as the SP reading, but it appears only in a few of his mss, all of the fifteenth cent., and the majority (inc. Camb. 1846 and all those used by Sadaqa, Tal and Crown) like LXX agree with MT. The error evidently took place within the Samaritan tradition and not at its source. TgF prefixes ‫מאור‬, ‘the light of’. ‫( ועמוד האשׁ‬13.22) For the waw TgO,F have ‫וא(ו)ף לא‬, ‘and also not’. 4QExc again omits the article and this time all SP mss do so too. As before the reason will lie in miscopying from the previous verse (for SP cf. the note on ‫הדרך‬ in v. 21).19 LXX again agrees with MT. TgF prefixes ‫נהור‬, ‘the brightness of’. ‫( לילה‬13.22) TgN adds ‘leading and making ready and shining’ to specify what the cloud and fire do not ‘cease’ to do. ‫( לפני העם‬13.22) LXX adds παντός, ‘all’, as it does frequently in Exod. (e.g. 7.5; 9.23; 10.4-5, 15, 23; 11.3; 12.30; 14.4, 6, 17-18). TgO and Sy have ‘from before the people’ in line with their interpretation of ‫ ימישׁ‬as ‘depart’. TgNmg adds ‫בית ישׂראל‬, specifying which people is meant, an addition which (in Exodus at least) is most frequently found in TgJ and TgF, though not here.

  In early post-biblical Heb. the sense ‘cease, be lacking’ is better attested (DCH 5, p. 189). 19   Or do the indeterminate forms in 14.24 play a part in the variants here and in the preceding phrase? 18

T H E D E L IV E R A N C E AT T H E SEA (14.1–15.21)

C h ap t er 1 4 . 1 - 3 1 T he C ros s i n g of th e S ea a nd t he D est r u cti on of th e E g y pt i a ns

The boundaries of this chapter are marked by intervals in MT (which also has one after vv. 14 and 25) and SP (with further divisions after vv. 10a, 14, 18 and 25). At Qumran the beginning of the new chapter is marked in 4QExc, but there is no evidence in regular biblical mss for or against a division at the end of ch. 14. All we have is the curious manuscript 4QExd, which appears to have continued directly (after an interval) from 13.15-16 to 15.1, thus omitting 13.17–14.31 altogether, at least at this point. While it is conceivable that the omission was accidental, there is no obvious explanation for it (by parablepsis, for example) and it is more probable that 4QExd only contained excerpts from the biblical text, probably made for liturgical purposes (cf. Lange, Handbuch, p. 61). It would then be more informative about the boundaries of 13.1(10)-16 and 15.1-18(?) than about those of 14.1-31. A division after v. 14 is likely in 4Q365 and one possibly occurred there in 4QpalGen-Exl, which probably also (like SP) had one after v. 18. 4QpalExm had a division after v. 25. 4Q365 additionally had one between vv. 12 and 13, before the words ‘and stood behind them’ (wyʿmwd mʾḥryhmh) at the end of v. 19 and perhaps after ‘Israel’ in v. 20. 4QpalGen-Exl, which survives for vv. 19-20, did not have divisions at these latter points.1   4QExc probably did not have a division where SP has one in v. 10. According to DJD XII, p. 118, 4QExc had divisions after vv. 14, 18, 25 and 31, but they are reconstructed in a long section for which no text survives and the suggestion is unduly speculative. 1



14.1-31

217

The divisions of the chapter which are best attested in the manuscript tradition (before v. 1 and after vv. 14 and 25) all coincide with the beginning of a divine speech which initiates a new stage in the action: the encampment of the Israelites by the sea and the Egyptians’ pursuit (vv. 1-14); the dividing of the waters and the entry of the Israelites and the Egyptians into the sea (vv. 15-25); and the overwhelming of the Egyptians by the returning waters (vv. 26-31).2 Each of these sections could be further divided between the divine speeches (vv. 1-4, 15-18, 26) and what follows from them in a combination of narrative and human speeches (vv. 5-14, 19-25, 27-31). An alternative analysis might seek to do more justice to the theological elements of the narrative in its canonical form, which are not limited to the ‘instruction and obedience’ pattern of the explicit divine speeches: vv. 30-31 in particular deserve greater attention, but so does the succession of divine actions in vv. 21, 24, 25 and 27. H.C. Schmitt therefore proposed the following sub-division of the chapter (‘ “Priesterliches” und “prophetisches” Geschichtsverständnis’, pp. 149-52): 1-4 (with 13.17-22): Exposition (divine guidance) 5-29: Corpus/main narrative 5-9 Egyptian pursuit 10-12 Fear and lament of Israel 13-18 Promise of Yahweh’s intervention 19-29 Yahweh’s intervention, first for Israel (19-23), then   against Egypt (24-29) 30-31: Conclusion (deliverance and faith)

For Schmitt, the ‘main narrative’ can then be seen to exhibit ‘a linear narrative development’, from crisis (Not) to promise (Verheissung) and deliverance (Rettung). Here too of course smaller units in each section could be distinguished, as in the sub-divisions of our Explanatory Notes. When this is done, it becomes more obvious that the chapter has been put together by the combination of two, and possibly three, different versions of the story.

2   The division of the chapter into two main parts (vv. 1-14 and 15-29, with vv. 30-31 as an ‘Epilogue’) by Gertz (pp. 193-95) in effect combines the second and third Masoretic sections into one.

218

EXODUS 1–18

We can again begin our survey of critical analysis of the text with Knobel, who had already separated out a Grundschrift in a form that was very close to later definitions of the Priestly account (similarly Nöldeke in 1869) and (by 1861) had distinguished (in a way that did not stand the test of time) sections of the ‘JE-Bearbeitung’ which derived respectively from his Rechtsbuch and his Kriegsbuch (cf. Num.-Josh., pp. 532, 548). A variety of attempts were made over subsequent decades to identify J and E components through most of the narrative, but with only limited agreement: only vv. 16aα (Moses’ staff) and v. 19a (the angel of God) were regularly assigned to E. Holzinger acknowledged that in vv. 5b-7 and 20 the assignment of the material between the sources J and E was impossible (p. 44). Wellhausen had even doubted whether P was preserved in the second half of the chapter: he attributed most of vv. 15-18, 21-23 and 26-29 to E (pp. 76-77), because he considered the usual characteristics of P to be missing (p. 75). The same argument was taken further by Smend, who denied the presence of P in the chapter altogether and so (!) found room for the contributions of three old narrative sources here, as well as a late theological redaction in vv. 4, 9 and 17-18 (Erzählung, pp. 138, 143). Fohrer was to follow his analysis closely (pp. 97-110), but Eissfeldt suspected that the redactional layer might in fact be elements of a P narrative (Hexateuch, p. 37) and Beer took this view for vv. 4aβb and 17-18 (pp. 73-74). The great majority of scholars, here as elsewhere, have found quite sufficient evidence to identify a complete Priestly strand in the chapter which does have significant similarities to Priestly texts elsewhere (see the Explanatory Notes for the main examples). Within the non-Priestly text an early casualty was v. 31. Carpenter/ Harford-Battersby attributed it to RJE, especially because of the unusual designation of Moses as Yahweh’s ‘servant’, and Baentsch (p. 127) noted the parallels to this in redactional parts of Joshua (1.7, 13, 15 etc.) alongside Num. 12.7-8E. He also considered the phrase ‘the great act of power’ an echo of Deut. 34.12 and the repetition of ‘and Israel saw’ suspicious. The verse might therefore, at least in its present form, be from a Deuteronomistic redactor. Gressmann (Mose, p. 108 n. 1; Anfänge, p. 55 n. 2) and McNeile were more confident about a redactional origin, and Rudolph did not include it in the verses which he attributed to J. As elsewhere Rudolph denied the presence of E altogether (pp. 28-31), finding no need for source-division in vv. 5-7, assigning v. 16aα to a redactor and simply deleting the reference to ‘the angel of God’ in v. 19a! In v. 15 he emended the singular ‘do you cry out’ to the plural to avoid the discrepancy with v. 10. Rudolph’s analysis was recognised to be faulty but, apart from the special case of Fohrer (pp. 97-110), it had the effect of reducing E’s contribution to the narrative to fragments (at most [Noth, p. 84, ET, p. 106] vv. 5a, 6 or 7, 11-12, 19a, 25a: cf. Hyatt, Childs). By the 1980s E was credited only with vv. 5 and 19a (W.H. Schmidt, Kohata), and the new developments in Pentateuchal criticism (see below) seemed to have finally eliminated it altogether. But around 2000 two powerful voices (Propp



14.1-31

219

and Graupner) reasserted the need for the hypothesis of a third, Elohistic, narrative strand in the chapter.3 Propp (pp. 476-81) is more sure that there is an extensive E component than about where exactly it is to be found (cf. Holzinger above): he seems most confident about vv. 14, 19a, 21aβ, 24-25, 28b and 31b. Graupner’s analysis is based on the subtraction of the generally agreed P component and the detection of duplications or other kinds of difficulty in what remains (pp. 77-89). Alongside a well preserved J narrative there are therefore other elements, some of which he treats as redactional (vv. 11-12, 16aα, 31), but there is a residue which actually contradicts the J version and this must comprise extracts from a parallel old account (vv. 5a, 7aαb, 19a, 25a), which can be assigned to E on the basis of v. 19a. In the last fascicule of his commentary (2019) W.H. Schmidt accordingly adds v. 25a and possibly some of vv. 6-7 to his list of E fragments (pp. 619-26). The ‘new developments’ are often seen to begin with H.-C. Schmitt’s article published in 1979, but it turns out on closer examination not to be as radical a departure from older views as it at first appears. It is true that what Schmitt compared was the viewpoints (in his wording the ‘Geschichtsverständnis[se]’) of P and the final redactor, but this was clearly at the time a choice made to get round the already uncertain scholarly opinion about the older components of the narrative, and the only verse whose composition Schmitt firmly assigned then to the final redactor is v. 31. Otherwise it is the redactor’s arrangement of the existing Priestly and non-Priestly material which indicates his viewpoint.4 Shortly afterwards Kohata’s dissertation divided most of the chapter between J, E and P, but argued that the J account had undergone a redaction (especially in vv. 7, 11-12[, 14?], 19b, 24-25, 31) which, with the inversion of a traditiohistorical distinction introduced by Noth (pp. 91-95, ET, pp. 115-20), brought ‘Yahweh war’ ideology into a narrative which had originally presented an account of the episode at the sea which differed markedly from the familiar picture (Kohata, pp. 281-89). Blum’s account of the chapter is again transitional rather than a thoroughgoing move to an explanation by successive Bearbeitungen (see esp. Studien, pp. 17-18, 30-32, 39-40, 256-62). The older 3   T. Yoreh, The First Book of God (BZAW 402; Berlin, 2010), makes the E strand the basic one, supplemented by a Yahwistic revision, but his analytical procedure lacks rigour, as his reconstruction of E shows (pp. 192-201): vv. 5a, 6-7, 9aα, 19a, 20*, 21aα1βb, 22-23a, 27aα, 28aαb. He uses some ‘Priestly’ elements to provide the narrative continuity that is obviously desirable in a Grundschrift, very like Van Seters’s ‘expansion’ of J at the expense of P. 4   This understanding of Schmitt’s position finds some confirmation in his Arbeitsbuch zum Alten Testament (UTB 2146; Göttingen, 2005), where in ch. 14 only v. 31 is included in his ‘spätdeuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion’ (p. 243; cf. pp. 245-46; on p. 244 vv. 13-14 are included as well). Schmitt’s most recent analysis of the chapter, however, in a Workshop at the 2013 Congress of IOSOT in Munich, attributed much more to a post-Priestly redactional layer or layers.

220

EXODUS 1–18

substratum of the chapter is attributed as usual to his D-Komposition, but it involves a ‘partielle Bearbeitung’ of older source-material which is only clearly visible in vv. 13-14, 30-31 (pp. 39-40: for the supporting ‘parallels’ from elsewhere in the D-Komposition and other Deuteronomistic texts see pp. 30-32, 47, 104-105). In relation to the Priestly component of the chapter, Blum acknowledges that it presents an ‘almost complete’ narrative (p. 257) which because of the ‘gap’ before v. 15 (Moses’ ‘cry’ has not been previously mentioned and it is implausible to see v. 15a as referring back to the people’s ‘cry’ in v. 10bβ) must have been taken from ‘a pre-existing, already formulated text’ by the author of the P-Komposition (p. 260). The latter was in effect combining two ‘sources’ here: all that makes Blum attribute this to a compositional layer rather than an old-fashioned redactor is his conviction that elsewhere the evidence points to this kind of relationship between the Priestly material and the older substratum.5 Some other recent scholars have adopted a wholly ‘supplementary’ approach to the chapter. This is true in the main of M. Vervenne’s study, which like Blum’s appeared in 1990, even though it is cautiously expressed and allows that ‘the P redactors might also have disposed of existing Priestly material’ (‘The “P” Tradition’, p. 88).6 Vervenne concludes that ‘a profound study of the composition of the sea-narrative reveals that the Priestly redaction has worked over an existing narrative into a new composition… As a result, there seems to be no strong evidence that the P edition of at least this narrative contains an independent and complete Priestly narrative’ (p. 87; cf. p. 85). The ‘existing narrative’, with ‘the label “JE” ’, is ‘the result of a protodeuteronomic redaction of existing materials’, which are not investigated further (pp. 78-79). Van Seters takes a similar view, except that the ‘existing narrative’ is his late Yahwist, which exhibits (post-)Deuteronomistic features in vv. 10, 11, 13-14, 21, 28, 31 (Life, pp. 134-36, 143, 145, 148-49). In his analysis the P material is much more ‘incomplete’ as an account of the episode because he argues that several elements that are usually attributed to P must in fact belong to J (vv. 10bβ, 22a, 23, 28: cf. pp. 131[with n. 8]-34). This analysis also provides the J narrative with an explicit account of the sea-crossing, the absence of which is often commented upon (see further below).7   Not quite everywhere else, for Blum acknowledges that the situation in Num. 16 is very similar (pp. 261, 263-71). Whether Blum’s view of the rest of the Priestly narrative is really tenable is of course open to question: see on Exodus my ‘Composition of the Book of Exodus’. 6   Vervenne seems to be referring here to places other than Exod. 14: cf. his critique of Weimar’s view that Pg reworked an older narrative of the sea-crossing on pp. 78-85. 7   Van Seters’s analysis has found little acceptance (but see Dozeman below), probably because the language of vv. 22a, 23, 28 points much more obviously to the usual attribution of them to the P strand of the chapter (cf. esp. yabbāšāh for ‘dry land’ in v. 22a as in v. 16 vs. ḥārābāh in v. 21J). 5



14.1-31

221

After some years during which it seemed to have been abandoned (see below),8 this approach to the chapter has recently received renewed support. Dozeman’s commentary (cf. pp. 300, 303) follows Van Seters’s reallocation of some material from P to J and, as if in compensation, assigns the references to the pillar of cloud and fire (vv. 19b, 20aβ, 24aβ) to P (presumably because of 40.36-38, though the expressions there are different). It is hard to see how the P component, thus defined, could ever have existed separately (and note ‘adds’ twice at the top of p. 317; on pp. 41-42 Dozeman is more cautious about the nature of P). Berner, who is in no doubt that source criticism is to be abandoned (Exoduserzählung, pp. 7, 449), has reconstructed the earliest layer of the text as comprising vv. 5a, 6, 10bα, 13a, 14, 19b, 20aαγb, 21aα2β, 24aαb, 25b, 27aα2βb, 30, which was successively amplified in no fewer than eleven distinguishable stages of redaction. Several of these made very minor contributions: the most significant are the main Priestly redaction in vv. 1-2a, 4, 8a, 10abβ, 15, 15aβb, 17abα, 18a, 21aα1b, 22, 23aαb, 26abα, 27aα1, 28-29 and a ‘theological’ (Deuteronomistic) redaction in vv. 11, 13b, 31aβb (see pp. 400-403, with the chart on pp. 403-405). Berner here, like Blum, regards the existence of an older basis for the Priestly Bearbeitung of this chapter as probable (p. 437).9 According to Albertz too (most clearly on pp. 224-27) the Priestly sections of the chapter are from a (single) Bearbeitung. The view that Exodus 14 is based on two (but only two) originally separate accounts of the episode, which were drawn from longer ‘sources’, is also strongly maintained at the present time, whether the non-Priestly component is attributed to a ‘Yahwist’ who included the story of the patriarchs as well (Levin, Baden) or to an ‘old Exodus story’ (K. Schmid, Gertz).10 The main difference between Levin and Baden is that the former (pp. 341-47) assigns considerable sections of the chapter to redactional expansions of the original accounts or of the combined narrative (so vv. 5b, 7, 19a, 20aβγ, 25a are Js, parts of vv. 3-4, 8, 17-18 and 29 are Ps, and vv. 10a, 11-12, 15aβ and 31 are from the final redactor or later), while Baden maintains that everything can be assigned to J or P (pp. 196-213). Schmid does not provide a detailed analysis of the chapter as a whole, but to judge from the passages which he 8   Both Gertz (pp. 203-206) and Graupner (p. 80 n. 260) were strongly critical of it in the form proposed by Blum and Vervenne. 9   In the opening paper to a workshop at the 2013 Congress of IOSOT in Munich Berner proposed that all the non-Priestly material might be post-Priestly, apparently because of Deuteronomistic features (Yahweh-war) which he was inclined to regard as late. The assumption then would presumably be that P provided the Grundschrift for this particular episode at least: its relative completeness would be compatible with this. Gertz and Schmitt argued strongly against the elimination of any pre-P version. 10   Blenkinsopp’s broad division of the chapter into two ‘narrative strands’, elsewhere called P and D and extending back into Genesis (pp. 143-44, 158), would belong more closely with Levin and Baden.

222

EXODUS 1–18

does discuss it is clear that for him vv. 4, 8-9, 17-18, 22, 23, 26 and 28-29 (at least) belong to P (pp. 226, 269), while an older version had the ‘Yahweh war’ ideology of vv. 13-14 and (24-?)25 (cf. pp. 160-61). Other elements are late, perhaps very late, such as v. 5a (with its unique reference to a ‘flight’ of the Israelites: p. 152) and vv. 30-31 (which are ‘too advanced’ to be early and go with chs. 3–4: pp. 144, 196, 248). Gertz provides a verse-by-verse analysis along similar lines (for a summary see p. 396), with the majority of the redactional additions being attributed to the ‘final redactor’ who combined the non-P and P accounts (vv. 2bβ, 5b, 8b, 9 (most), 11-12, 16aα (most), 20aγ, 24 (the addition of ʾēš, ‘fire’), 25a, 31: pp. 214-32). But a substantial nucleus (including vv. 5a and 30, against Schmid) is retained for the old non-Priestly account. In its main stages of composition this scheme has a certain simplicity (too much for Berner, pp. 2-3), but its claims to isolate later additions are as far-reaching as any.11

As will be clear, some recent analyses of the chapter have made its composition an extremely complex process. It may be doubted whether this is necessary. The widely accepted view that two versions of the story have been interwoven needs only a little elaboration to do justice to some residual unevennesses in the parallel versions. The main arguments will be spelt out in the Explanatory Notes and the conclusions can be just briefly summarised here. Verses 1-4 introduce the Priestly version, which is continued in v. 8. The section between (vv. 5-7) belongs to the non-Priestly version, and so does the beginning of v. 9 (to ‘the sea’). The remainder of v. 9 is Priestly in character, but is most likely a secondary addition. Verses 10-15 and the first clause of v. 16 (to ‘your staff’) are non-Priestly; the rest of v. 16 and vv. 17-18 are Priestly (cf. the connections between vv. 17-18 and v. 4), and they lead on (with close verbal correspondence) to vv. 21-23. Verses 19-20 are non-Priestly, as is the middle of v. 21 (‘and Yahweh made…dry land’), which has no equivalent in vv. 16-18. Verses 24-25 are also non-Priestly (cf. the temporal expression and the pillar of cloud and fire, as in v. 20). In vv. 26-28 the two accounts are interwoven: the language of v. 26 is Priestly (cf. vv. 16-18) and the beginning of v. 27 (to ‘the sea’) and most of v. 28 (to ‘after them’) echo its wording closely, while most of   For Gertz’s more recent observations on the narrative, which include some minor changes to his analysis and a vigorous defence of a ‘two-source’ approach (against e.g. Berner), see his ‘The Miracle at the Sea’, in Dozeman et al., The Book of Exodus, pp. 91-120. 11



14.1-31

223

v. 27 and the end of v. 28 introduce alien expressions (and duplicate the statement about the return of the waters) and are non-Priestly. Verses 29 and 30-31 conclude the Priestly and non-Priestly accounts respectively, using characteristic language from earlier in the narrative (cf. vv. 13 and 22 especially). There remain some unevennesses in the non-Priestly version which require explanation. The two halves of v. 5 seem to be of separate origin, not so much because the idea of the Israelites ‘running away’ contradicts their being ‘let go’ as because the singular verbs in vv. 6-7 more naturally continue v. 5a than the plural in v. 5b.12 The beginning of v. 9 is the natural continuation of v. 5b, while v. 7 leads well into the focus on Pharaoh in v. 10. Verse 15 follows vv. 10-14 awkwardly in two ways: it is not Moses but the people who have ‘cried out’ (in v. 10), and after Moses has just instructed the people to ‘keep your position’ (in v. 13) it is odd to find Yahweh requiring them to ‘set out’. In vv. 19-20 the statements about the angel and the pillar of cloud have long been recognised as doublets. In v. 16 Moses is to raise his staff, presumably to make the waters withdraw, but in v. 21 Yahweh does this by sending a strong wind (compare the similar distinction in 10.12-13). The jamming of the Egyptian chariots’ wheels in v. 25 is only a problem if they are in motion, but in v. 24 they seem still to be stationary. Verses 30-31, finally, are repetitive, with two separate references to what the Israelites ‘saw’ (vv. 30b, 31a) and two separate statements about how they reacted (v. 31), which are not combined together elsewhere.13 These variations are not sufficient to reconstruct two more or less complete earlier versions of the story from the non-Priestly account in the way that the Priestly account and the non-Priestly account as a whole can be disentangled. They could in theory be due to a series of redactional additions to a single old narrative. But they look more like variants in the way that the story was told than purposeful alterations, and this suggests that they arise from what were once two independent older accounts of the episode. The parallel non-Priestly versions are clearest at the beginning and the end (vv. 5a, 6-7 par. vv. 5b, 9aα; vv. 30, 31b par. v. 31a); elsewhere it seems that one   Cf. Gertz, p. 214.   For this distinction see Smend, Erzählung, p. 143, and those who followed

12 13

him.

224

EXODUS 1–18

version was mainly used, with insertions from the other version to fill it out. Certainty is impossible, but it appears that the version which contributed the most to the non-Priestly plague-story (‘E’) is here used in extracts (vv. 5b, 9aα, 15, 19a, 21aβ, 25a, 31a), while the main account is from the version that was only drawn on occasionally earlier (‘J’): vv. 5a, 6-7, 10-14, 16aα, 19b-20, 24, 25b, 27b, 28b, 30, 31b. We must presume that this change was due to the redactor’s preference for the themes that were highlighted in this version, such as Yahweh’s total victory over Pharaoh’s military might, the ‘Yahweh war motifs’, the change in the Israelites’ attitude from fear to faith and the vindication of Moses as Yahweh’s chosen leader of the people. Nevertheless his inclusion of certain elements of the other version must surely also be indicative of his interests. Several of them seem at first sight merely to fill out the narrative, but there is a recurring focus on Yahweh’s mighty action in them (especially at the beginning of v. 31), which would have reinforced the similar emphasis in the version from which this redactor drew most of his material. An important problem that arises from the critical analysis of Exodus 14 into two or more once independent sources is whether the non-Priestly account(s) included the crossing of the sea by the Israelites. If, as they usually are because of their close relation to the divine instructions in v. 16, vv. 22-23 are attributed to the Priestly account, there remains nothing in the extant text of the chapter to be a non-Priestly version of this part of the story. In early days scholars found no difficulty in presuming that it had been present in the older source(s): it was simply not taken up by the ‘final’ redactor who combined ‘JE’ with P, no doubt because the Priestly version, with the waters like walls on either side of the passageway, was more dramatic (so e.g. Wellhausen, pp. 76-77; Holzinger, pp. 44-45; Baentsch, p. 126).14 It seems to have been Eduard Meyer who first declined to make this assumption and inferred that before P the event was presented in a different way (Die Israeliten, pp. 22-24), and he was followed in this successively by E. Sellin, Rudolph (pp. 28-31) and Noth (pp. 93-95, ET, pp. 118-19): ‘J does not speak of a passage of Israel 14   Of course there was less of a problem for those who followed Smend in denying that P had any part in the chapter or at least in vv. 21-23: they could and did attribute the crossing narrative there to one of the older sources (usually E).



14.1-31

225

through the sea. Israel remained in their camp and according to v. 30 perhaps saw nothing at all of the actual flight and catastrophe of the Egyptians, but merely its consequence.’ For Noth it is ‘the fear of God which causes the Egyptians to rush into the sea near where they and the Israelites were encamped… J incorporated in his description elements of a variant narrative of the miracle at the sea which…perhaps told how the Egyptians had encamped at a place from which the sea had gone away and how they were then overwhelmed by the “returning” sea.’ From Noth this general approach has been taken up by W.H. Schmidt (p. 603; cf. Exodus, Sinai und Mose, p. 63), Kohata, Levin (p. 344: J’s source had no reference to the Israelites’ crossing, and J’s own additions [p. 341] did not introduce one), Graupner (pp. 78, 84) and Baden (p. 206). Not everyone has been convinced by it, however: Blum doubts if the evidence is sufficient to support an ‘alternative version’ and thinks it would be readily understandable if ‘the composition’ had omitted an older account of the Israelites’ crossing to avoid unnecessary duplication (Studien, p. 257 n. 96). Such caution is to be commended. Others seek more explicit support for a crossing in an older account. Van Seters, who is followed by Dozeman, transfers some of the Priestly account to J, so that the latter has parts of vv. 22-23 (Life, pp. 13134: see further above), and P as a redactional layer amplifies what J says about this. Yet the vocabulary is much more characteristic of P. Propp (pp. 483-84, 537) argues that the Song of Moses, which is included in JE, speaks of a crossing in 15.16. But even if that is what 15.16 means (see the Note), the case for the poem being included in JE is weak, however old the poem may be. In Exodus 14 itself there are some possible indications of a sea-crossing (or at least an attempted one) by the Israelites and the Egyptians in the non-Priestly account as we have defined it. But they are not as clear in the main strand of that account (‘J’) as in some of what we have taken to be extracts from the parallel old account (‘E’) that have been added to it. At best one might argue that Yahweh’s ‘shaking’ of the Egyptians out (of their chariots) into the sea (v. 27b) makes more sense if they had been attempting to cross it. In the parallel account, on the other hand, the Israelites are instructed to ‘set out’ (v. 15b) after they have been caught up while ‘encamped by the sea’ and the angel who moves behind them is said to have been previously ‘going in front’ of them (v. 19a), just before Yahweh makes the sea ‘flow away’ (v. 21aβ). This suggests

226

EXODUS 1–18

preparations for a crossing. Once the two old accounts had been combined (‘JE’), the Egyptians have their chariot wheels ‘jammed’ (or ‘removed’: v. 25a), so that they are slowed up, and they decide to ‘flee from Israel’ (v. 25b) before the waters return (vv. 27-28): this is more readily understandable if they were pursuing the Israelites through the passage opened up for them than on the alternative reconstruction suggested. The presence of these motifs in an old account of the episode is to be expected in view of its presence in two psalms which are likely to be pre-exilic (both at the point in question probably reflecting traditions with a north Israelite origin: Pss. 77.20-21; 78.13, 33; for the northern associations cf. ‘Joseph’ in 77.16 and ‘the Ephraimites’ in 78.9). If, as some suppose, this ‘crossing’ motif was not an original part of the tradition but was modelled on the story of the crossing of the Jordan in Joshua 3–4, its introduction must, it would seem, have occurred by the eighth century B.C. at the latest.15 Our ‘J’ account, on the other hand, if its mention of a crossing was not simply omitted by the redactor who combined it with P, might conceivably represent a form of the ‘sea’ tradition which had remained unaffected by assimilation to the Jordan narrative, as many believe to be the case in the Song of Moses in the next chapter (but see the Explanatory Notes on 15.8-9). To return to the Priestly account, it turns out (when taken alone) to exhibit a three-part structure which corresponds closely to the Masoretic divisions before vv. 1, 15 and 26. Each section begins with the introduction to a speech by Yahweh, in which Moses is commanded either to instruct the Israelites to do something (vv. 1-2) or to do something himself (vv. 15aα[?], 16aβ; cf. v. 26). When they or he obey, the announced train of events is set in motion (vv. 8, 21b-23, 28a, 29), described in much the same words as in the divine speech. So Moses is at the centre of this version too, but everything he does is dictated by a divine command, and the Egyptians too behave exactly as Yahweh directs. The only action which is specifically attributed to Yahweh, however, is the making stubborn 15   Against Van Seters (Life, pp. 140-45), who argues that it is post-Deuterono­ mistic. Despite what he says about the lateness of any connection between the Jordan crossing tradition and the shrine at Gilgal (pp. 142, 145), the latter remains a very plausible locale for such a development of the tradition: cf. Kraus, Gottesdienst, pp. 179-89, ET pp. 152-61; Cross, Canaanite Myth, pp. 103-105, 138-42.



14.1-31

227

of Pharaoh’s or the Egyptians’ hearts (vv. 4, 8, 17); elsewhere the impression given is that it is the obedient action of the Israelites or Moses that makes things happen. The final redaction, which combined the J account (itself amplified by elements from E) with the P account, has used the divine instructions created by P to introduce each stage of the action: the Egyptian pursuit of the Israelites, the dividing of the waters and the sea-crossing, and the return of the waters and the destruction of the Egyptian army. At the beginning of the second stage some non-Priestly material has been inserted into the divine speech (vv. 15aβb, 16aα). The remaining non-Priestly text has been added within or at the end of the Priestly sequences, in such a careful way that it can often be seen as providing the detail that is missing from the bare Priestly narrative. This is especially the case with what Vervenne has described as the ‘framing’ or ‘sandwiching’ of non-Priestly text within two parts of the Priestly account in vv. 21 and 27-28 (cf. ‘The “P” Tradition’, p. 87). But the arrangement is dictated by the material itself and is just as easy to attribute to a separate redactor as to the Priestly writer himself. In some places, however, the combination of material is not so careful and exposes itself to the modern reader for what it is: thus in the delay of the ‘making stubborn’ until after Pharaoh has begun his preparations (v. 8) and in the repetition of ‘he/the Egyptians pursued’ in vv. 8-9 and the return of the waters in vv. 27-28. There are also cases where the non-Priestly text has had the effect of adding material which significantly modifies the simple Priestly presentation of the episode in the terms outlined above. The pattern of instruction and obedience is in danger of being undermined by the Israelites’ rebellion in vv. 11-12 and is only rescued by Moses’ intervention in vv. 13-14. These latter verses, together with vv. 24-25, also introduce an old theology of warfare which was of no interest to the Priestly writer. Finally, and connected with this, vv. 30-31 conclude the combined narrative with an expansive attribution of the outcome to Yahweh’s power (which has also been an aspect of the non-Priestly ‘detail’ added in vv. 21, 24, 25 and 27) and a description of the people’s response to it as ‘fear’ and ‘faith’ (in Moses as well as Yahweh). Theologically, therefore, the Priestly component of the narrative does not have the last word by any means, even if its motif of command and obedience remains prominent. In contrast to much recent scholarship, we have not seen this result as being due

228

EXODUS 1–18

to multiple layers of post-Priestly redaction but as deriving from the balanced if selective combination of material from three older accounts.16 In most cases our reasons for this conclusion can rest on an approach that does not adopt a complex explanation when a simpler one is available. But the case of v. 31 needs closer examination. As already observed (p. 218), a redactional origin for it was already suspected at the beginning of the twentieth century, because of what was taken to be Deuteronomic language. But the expressions concerned were either not uniquely Deuteronomic (cf. Num. 12.7-8) or only broadly similar to a Deuteronomic expression (Deut. 34.12). Consequently in mid-century a number of commentators went back to the older view that v. 31, like v. 30, was from J(E) (Noth, Hyatt, Childs; so more recently Propp and Baden). The recent revival of the redactional view turns out to be due largely to a surprising argument based on the reference to ‘faith’ and an important and much quoted study of this concept (specifically Heb. heʾemîn) by (the younger) R. Smend. The issues have been addressed in the introduction to 4.1-9. Too much weight has been attached to the famous passage in Isa. 7.1-9, which is unlikely to be the origin of the concept of faith in God in the Old Testament, especially as an object is lacking in v. 9: this is likely to be a secondary development from the fuller expression ‘believe in (someone)’. Most likely Isaiah elevated a widespread aspect of Israelite piety (cf. TWAT 1, 613-15 = TDOT 2, pp. 92-93) and perhaps ‘Yahweh War’ (cf. von Rad, Heilige Krieg, pp. 10, 31 and passim) into a test of Ahaz’s loyalty to Yahweh by which his and his people’s future would be determined. The concept of faith is equivalent here in v. 31 to not being afraid (v. 13), which prophets outside Israel also advocated in the name of their gods (cf. ANET, pp. 449-51, 605-606). There is every reason to associate the language used here with that in 4.1-9, 31, but as there it is also reasonable to attribute it to a pre-exilic narrative source rather than to a late redactional layer. The other element of Israel’s response in v. 31, the fear of Yahweh, is characteristic of the passages traditionally attributed to the E source in the Pentateuch (cf. in general Wolff, ‘Zur Thematik’,   Only a few additions of ‘new’ material have been added by the final redactor to smooth out some of the divergences between the sources he used. Examples are ‘king of Egypt’ in v. 8 (from v. 5), the more precise detail in v. 9 (from ‘all’ to the end: taken from vv. 2-3 and 23) and ‘horses’ in v. 23 (from 15.1, 19, 21). 16



14.1-31

229

62-67; Graupner, Elohist, pp. 152-53). ‘To fear Yahweh’ is certainly a central demand of the Deuteronomic pareneses (e.g. Deut. 5.29; 6.2, 13, 24), but that does not mean that all occurrences of it are Deuteronomistic, as it is a very widespread aspect of Israelite (and more generally ancient) piety. Here at least it has no particular association with the observance of the law (as also in 1.17, 21; 3.6). As we have argued earlier, faith in Yahweh and fear of Yahweh are indicators of two different strands of the narrative of Exodus and the Pentateuch more generally and are part of the reason for seeing v. 31 as combining elements of the two non-Priestly accounts that lie behind the present text, as Rudolf Smend (the elder) and his followers saw. An association of them with a Deuteronomistic layer of redaction is quite unnecessary. These responses of the people do, however, contribute powerfully to the impact of the canonical form of the sea narrative and raise it above the level of a mere rejoicing at the destruction of the pursuing army of the Egyptians. They ensure that the event is recalled as a mighty act of Yahweh himself, just as the ritual celebrations of the release of the Israelites itself were designed to do (12.27; 13.8-9, 14-16). Moses too, both as the prophetic representative of Yahweh who assures the people that ‘Yahweh will fight’ for them (v. 14) and as the one who seems to have divine power in his hand (vv. 16, 21, 26, 27), gains yet more authority over them – or so it seems. In fact, as the journey onwards will show, this is by no means the end of Israel’s rebellions against their divinely appointed leader and guide. [From here to 17.7 the ‘J’ strand is regarded as the main non-Priestly account and additions to it from the ‘E’ strand (as well as those from elsewhere) are enclosed in square brackets.]

1 (Then) Yahweh spoke to Moses as followsa: 2 ‘Speak to the Israelites, that they should turn back and campb in frontc of Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, in frontc of Baal-zephon – you shall campd opposite it by the sea. 3 Pharaoh will say/ think, “They – meaning the Israelitese – are in confusionf in the landg: the wilderness has shut them inh”. 4 I will make Pharaoh’s heart stubborn and he will pursue them, so that I may win gloryi over Pharaohj and all his army and so that the Egyptians may know that I am Yahweh.’ They [sc. the Israelites] did so. 5 It was reportedk to the king of Egypt that the people had run awayl [and Pharaoh and his servants changed their attitudem to

230

EXODUS 1–18 the people and said: ‘Whatn have we done in that we have let Israel go free from serving us?o’] 6 He harnessed his chariot(s)p and took his people with himq: 7 he took six hundred choicer chariots (and) all the Egyptian chariotrys, with officerst over them allu. 8 Yahweh made the heart of Pharaoh [king of Egypt] stubborn and he pursued the Israelites, as the Israelites were leaving defiantlyv. 9 [The Egyptians pursued them and overtook them as they were encamped by the sea] [– all the horses (of/ and) the chariotry of Pharaohw and his horsemenx and his army – by Pi-hahiroth in front of Baal-zephon.] 10 yWhen Pharaoh approachedz, the Israelites looked upy and saw to their surpriseaa the Egyptians advancingbb behind them and they were very afraid. The Israelites cried out to Yahweh and 11 said to Moses, ‘Was it because there were nocc graves in Egypt that you took us to die in the wilderness? What have you done to usdd in bringing us out of Egypt?ee 12 Is this not what we said to you in Egypt, “Leave us alone, and let us serve the Egyptians”, for serving the Egyptians was better for us than dying in the wilderness.’ 13 Moses said to the people, ‘Do not be afraid: keep your position and (you will?) seeff the victorygg of Yahweh which he will bring about for you today, for the Egyptians whomhh you have seenii today you will never see again: 14 Yahweh will fight for you and you shall remain silentjj’. 15 [Yahweh said to Moses, ‘Whykk do you cry out to me? Speak to the Israelites that they should set out,ll] 16 and you, lift up your staff and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it, so that the Israelites may entermm into the midst of the sea on dry ground, 17 while I for my partnn am making the hearts of the Egyptians stubborn, so that they go in after them. In this way I intend to win gloryoo over Pharaoh and all his army, his chariots and his horses 18 and the Egyptians will know that I am Yahweh when I win glory over Pharaoh, his chariots and his horses.’ 19 [Then the angel of God who was going in front of the armypp of Israel moved and went behind them,] and the pillar of cloud moved from in front of them and stood behind them: 20 it came between the armypp of Egypt and the armypp of Israel, and there was the cloud with (?) the darknessqq and it lit up the night, and neither (army) came near the other all through the night. 21 Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, [and Yahweh made the sea flow awayrr by a strong east wind all night and made the sea dry land.ss] The waters were divided 22 and the Israelites entered into the midst of the sea on dry ground and the waters were a wall for themtt on their right and on their left. 23 The Egyptians pursued and went in after them, [all the horses of] Pharaoh, his chariotsuu



14.1-31

231

and his horses/horsemen, into the midst of the sea. 24 At the morning watch Yahweh looked down on the Egyptian armypp in a pillar of cloud and firevv and set the Egyptian armypp in confusion. 25 [He jammedww the wheels of their chariots and made them drive with difficulty,] and the Egyptians said, ‘Let us [lit. me] flee from Israel’, for Yahweh was fighting for them against the Egyptians. 26 Yahweh said to Moses, ‘Stretch out your hand over the sea, so thatxx the waters may come back upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots and their horses’. 27 So Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and as morning approachedyy the sea came back to its usual place,zz and as the Egyptians were fleeing towards itaaa Yahweh shook the Egyptians out into the midst of the sea. 28 The waters came back and covered the chariots and horses of all the Egyptian army who came into the sea after them: not even one of them was left. 29 But the Israelites had gonebbb on dry ground through the midst of the sea and the waters were a wall for them on their right and on their left. 30 Yahweh delivered Israel on that day from the power of the Egyptians and Israel saw the Egyptians deadccc on the seashore. 31 [Israel saw the great act of powerddd which Yahweh inflicted on the Egyptians and the people were in awe of Yahweh] and they believed in Yahweh and in Moses his servant.

Notes on the Translation a. See Note b on the translation of 6.10–7.5. b. Heb. ‫וְ ישׁבו וְ יחנו‬. Simple waw with the jussive often expresses purpose (cf. GK §165a), but in cases like this after a verb of saying an indirect command is likely to be intended (cf. 6.11; 11.2; 14.15; 25.2), equivalent to a direct command as in 16.12 and 31.13 (cf. JM §177j,k where 8.4 is cited as an example). c. Heb. ‫לפני‬. The use of ‫ לפני‬with places is ‘not very common’ (BDB, p. 817), and most of the occurrences relate to a sacred building or part of it (cf. 16.34; 30.6; 40.5-6). With place-names it appears elsewhere only in the parallel verse in Num. 33.7 (but there with ‫ )מגדל‬and in Gen. 23.17, where it used (with ‫ )ממרא‬instead of (and equivalent to?) the more common ‫( על־פני‬cf. Gen. 23.19; 25.9; 49.30; 50.13). ‫ על־פני‬often but not always means ‘east of’ (BDB, pp. 818-19), and that might be the sense of ‫ לפני‬here. But in its second occurrence it is equivalent to )‫נכח(ו‬, which does not seem to have such a sense (for its use with place-names see Judg. 19.10; 20.43; Ezek. 47.20 [all preceded by ‫)]עד‬. Whether the meaning is in effect ‘outside’ the places mentioned or ‘opposite’ them (i.e. across a stretch of water) remains uncertain: on possible identifications of the places see the Excursus in the Explanatory Notes.

232

EXODUS 1–18

d. Heb. ‫תחנו‬. For the transition from third person pl. to second person pl. cf. 12.4. e. Heb. ‫לבני־ישׂראל‬, with ‫ ל‬here in the sense of ‘about, of’ (BDB, p. 514): the translation given is a paraphrase of this. f. Heb. ‫ נבכים‬is the Niphal part. of the rare verb ‫בוך‬, which occurs only here, in Joel 1.18 (of cattle in a time of drought) and Esth. 3.15 (of the city of Susa after the issue of Haman’s decree), with a related noun ‫ מבוכה‬in Isa. 22.5 (of a city under attack) and Mic. 7.4 (of time of social disintegration). These other occurrences suggest a general sense of ‘distress, anxiety’, and Ar. bāka provides support for the specific meaning ‘be disturbed, confused’, which is generally adopted, with some support from the Vss (Tgg generally [cf. MRI here (Lauterbach, pp. 190-91)]; LXX and Sy in Esth. 3.15; possibly LXX here and in Isa. 22.5, if πλανάομαι and πλάνησις are understood metaphorically): on their other interpretations see Text and Versions. There is no basis in BH for the sense ‘wander’ (so HAL, p. 111, here and in Joel 1.18; Ges18, p. 132, here; cf. NRSV ‘wandering aimlessly’). For a possible Ar. cognate meaning ‘be pressed’, see C. Rabin, ‘Etymological Miscellanea’, ScrH 8 (1961), pp. 384-400 (388), but there is no need to invoke this to explain the sense here. g. Heb. ‫ בארץ‬most obviously means ‘in the land’, but after a passive verb ‫ ב‬is often instrumental, which might justify the rendering ‘by the land’ (sc. the terrain). h. Heb. ‫סגר עליהם‬. ‫ סגר‬is most often followed by an object such as ‫דלת‬, ‘door’, though it can be omitted even when the sense is literal (Gen. 7.16) and even more so when it is not (cf. Job 12.14, also with ‫)על‬. i. Heb. ‫ואכבדה‬, with waw and the cohortative expressing purpose (JM §116c), as again in v. 17. The sense ‘win glory’ for ‫ כבד‬Niph. is apparently found only in exilic and later texts (cf. vv. 17-18; Lev. 10.3; Isa. 26.15; Ezek. 28.22; 39.13; Hag. 1.8; Sir. 33[36].4: in 1 Sam. 6.22 the meaning is probably different). The underlying basis for this seems to be a reflexive rather than a passive use of the Niphal (cf. THAT 1, 801 = TLOT, p. 595), i.e. ‘glorify myself’. Some hold that the idiom ‘has more to do with a demonstration of Yahweh’s power’, i.e. with his showing or revealing himself to be glorious, in view of the ‘recognition-formula’ which follows here and in v. 18 and also in Ezek. 28.22 (TWAT 4, 21 = TDOT 7, p. 20: cf. HAL, p. 434; Ges18, p. 522 – all apparently based on W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel, 2 [BKAT; Neukirchen, 1969], p. 692 [on 28.22], ET, p. 98, and bibl. there). Such a sense is more characteristic of the Hithpael than the Niphal (cf. GK §54e) and is perhaps conveyed more by the ‘recognition-formula’ (where it is present) than by the verbal form itself. j. Heb. ‫בפרעה‬. The sense of ‫ ב‬here and in the next phrase (as after ‫ כבד‬Niph. also in vv. 17-18) is presumably one of supremacy (as with ‫ )משׁל‬or hostility (as with ‫נלחם‬: cf. BDB, p. 89, II.4): its use with ‫ נקם‬Niph. (e.g. Jer. 50.15) may also be related. Alternatively ‫ ב‬may be instrumental, as with ‫ קדשׁ‬Niphal



14.1-31

233

in Lev. 10.3. E. Jenni (Die hebräischen Präpositionen, 1: Die Präposition Beth [Stuttgart, 1992], pp. 100-103, 113-15) places the occurrences of ‫ ב‬with ‫ כבד‬Niphal in this chapter (and ‫ קדשׁ‬in Lev. 10.3) with those examples of the related beth causae which accompany verbs expressing personal status and specifically the glory or honour of God (‫כבד‬, ‫פאר‬, ‫קדשׁ‬, ּ‫גבה‬, ‫)שׂגב‬. k. Heb. ‫ויגד‬. The impersonal passive construction is common in older narratives (e.g. 1 Sam. 23.7, 13; 27.4) but is not found in P. l. Heb. ‫ברח‬. The verb is only rarely used of flight from an attacking army (e.g. Jer. 4.29; 39.4): most often it describes ‘evasion of and escape from continuing, unpleasant, dangerous situations, e.g. tensions and tragedies within the tribe’ (TWAT 1, 778-79 = TDOT 2, p. 250). Here the Israelites are regarded as runaway slaves (cf. 1 Kgs 2.39), who have taken advantage of the temporary release from their labours which Pharaoh had granted them (cf. Houtman, pp. 226, 259). m. The ‘change’ indicated by ‫ הפך‬with ‫ לב‬or ‫ לבב‬can be a change of mind (Hos. 11.8), but it can also be an emotional change (Lam. 1.20; 5.15) or a change of attitude, as here (cf. the following ‫ )אל־העם‬and in Ps. 105.25. For other examples of a single nomen regens with two (or more) genitives see GK §128a: ‫ פרעה ועבדיו‬naturally ‘form one closely connected whole’ (ibid., n. 3: cf. 5.21; 7.10, 20, although in these and some other places the nomen regens is repeated). n. Heb. ‫מה־זאת‬. Here, as in v. 11, ‫ זאת‬is an enclitic (not, as in 13.14, a demonstrative pronoun), which strengthens the interrogative ‫( מה‬GK §136c, noting that ‫ זאת‬rather than ‫ זה‬is used [in fact only] when ‫ עשׂה‬follows): the case of Jonah 1.10 shows that the meaning of ‫ זאת‬is not ‘this’ in such cases. o. Heb. ‫מעבדנו‬. For ‫ מן‬with an inf. cons. expressing a negative consequence see GK §119y; JM §169h. But here after ‫ שׁלח‬Piel the ‫ מן‬can almost have its regular sense of ‘from’, even though the verb is generally used without such a prepositional modifier in Exodus: only in 6.11; 7.2; 11.1, 10; 12.33 (all with ‫ ארץ‬or an equivalent). p. Heb. ‫רכבו‬. Perhaps collective, as in v. 7 and later in the chapter, but the sing. ‫ויאסר‬, ‘harnessed’ (the regular expression for attaching the horses to a chariot: Gen. 46.29; 1 Kgs 18.44; 2 Kgs 9.21 – cf. 1 Sam. 6.7, 10),17 favours a reference to Pharaoh’s own chariot here, as does the separate reference in v. 7 to what he ‘took’ with him. q. The inverted word-order (O-P) in the second half of the verse probably implies no emphasis on the ‘people’ (i.e. his military personnel: Childs, p. 218) but is simply for variety (cf. Muraoka, Emphasis, pp. 39-40; JM §155oa). r. Heb. ‫בחור‬. The rendering ‘picked’ (NRSV etc.) represents the pass. part. form correctly, but the word need not imply an act of selection on this particular occasion: ‫ בחור‬is used, esp. with ‫( אישׁ‬and even alone), to mean   Also, in Aramaic, in the Tel Dan inscription, ll. 6-7.

17

234

EXODUS 1–18

‘choice’, i.e. the finest or the best, apparently always for fighting (e.g. 1 Sam. 24.3; 1 Kgs 12.21); cf. the use of ‫ מבחר‬in 15.4. s. Heb. ‫וכל רכב מצרים‬. It is not clear grammatically whether the waw is additive, so that ‘all the other (sc. ordinary) Egyptian chariotry’ is meant (so NRSV), or explicative (cf. GK §154a n. 1[b]), so that the 600 would comprise the whole chariot force available to Pharaoh. t. Heb. ‫ושׁלשׁם‬. Apart from cases where the meaning is ‘a third’ (of a measure: Isa. 40.12; Ps. 80.6) or ‘a triple’ (of a musical instrument: 1 Sam. 18.6) and Prov. 22.20Q, where the intended meaning is uncertain, there are sixteen occurrences of ‫ שׁלישׁ‬in BH, five sing. and eleven pl. (to those listed by BDB, p. 1026, add Exod. 15.4; 1 Kgs 9.22; 2 Chr. 8.9). Older EVV. (e.g. Tyndale, AV) rendered it by ‘captain(s)’ (cf. Luther, ‘Hauptleute’). Gesenius, Thesaurus, p. 1429, took the primary sense to be ‘chariot warrior’, and BDB followed him closely: ‘adjutant or officer (best explained as third man [in chariot])’. P. Haupt, ‘The Hebrew Term šālîš’, Beiträge zur Assyriologie 4 (Leipzig, Baltimore and London, 1902), pp. 583-87 (cf. JBL 21 [1902], pp. 7477), identified the ‘third man’ specifically with the shieldbearer, and this view was widely, but not universally, followed (e.g. Noth, p. 89, ET, p. 112). In 1979 B.A. Mastin, ‘Was the Šālîš the Third Man in the Chariot?’, in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament (VTSup 30), pp. 125-54, challenged this interpretation in a detailed examination of biblical and extra-biblical evidence and proposed instead that it meant a kind of officer, most likely one ‘of the third rank’ (which had according to Gesenius, ibid., been the view of Drusius [c. 1600]). HAL, pp. 1412-13, apparently unaware of Mastin’s article, continued to maintain the ‘third man in a chariot’ view, finding support in Akk. tašlīšu with the same meaning (AHw, p. 1339); likewise Ges18, p. 1365, with additional bibl. (inc. Mastin); and DCH 8, p. 392 (again unaware of Mastin and other recent studies), gives ‘third man (in a chariot), officer, adjutant’. But M. Vervenne, ‘Hebrew šālîš – Ugaritic tlt’, UF 19 (1987), pp. 355-73, concludes that the meaning in both the Exodus occurrences is ‘knights’ (cf. S.R. Driver ad loc.), in the sense of ‘someone with a thorough military training in the use of arms and in horsemanship’ (p. 361); and both Houtman (1, pp. 63-64) and Propp (pp. 49293) have also accepted Mastin’s critique of the ‘third man’ interpretation. The strongest objection to the latter is that most of the biblical occurrences of ‫ שׁלישׁ‬have nothing obvious to do with chariots. Hebrew epigraphy may provide some support for ‘of the third rank’: two inscriptions from Ḥorvat ʿUza (AHI 2, 37.004 and 005) include occurrences of šlšy, as well as other ordinal numbers, in what may be lists of soldiers (cf. qṣyn in both inscriptions) ordered according to rank (see Davies, ‘Some Uses of Writing in Ancient Israel’, in P. Bienkowski et al. [eds.], Writing and Ancient Near Eastern Society [FS A.R. Millard; LHBOTS 426; London, 2005], pp. 155-74 [156-57]).



14.1-31

235

u. Heb. ‫על־כלו‬. The sense to be given to ‫ על‬depends upon the view taken about the meaning of ‫שׁלישׁ‬: if it is ‘third man in a chariot’ ‫ על‬must mean ‘on’; if it is a kind of officer, as seems more likely, then ‘over’ (in the sense of ‘in command of’) is also possible. v. Heb. ‫ביד רמה‬, lit. ‘with raised hand’. In Num. 15.30 the phrase is used of a deliberate sin in contrast to an unintentional one, an act of contempt and defiance towards God (v. 31).18 Here and in the very similar context of Num. 33.3 it expresses the same attitude of defiance towards the Egyptians: cf. the related expressions in Deut. 32.27 and Mic. 5.8 as gestures of victory and in 1 Kgs 11.26-27 of a rebellion. The clause is a regular circumstantial noun clause (GK §141e). w. Heb. ‫כל־סוס רכב פרעה‬. This could mean ‘all Pharaoh’s chariot horses’, but the expression ‫ סוס רכב‬occurs nowhere else and elsewhere in the chapter the chariots are always mentioned in their own right. In a very similar listing in v. 23 there is also no waw between ‫ סוס פרעה‬and ‫( רכבו‬in accordance with GK §154a n. 1[a]), but asyndeton here between what would be two nomina regentia (‘the horses and chariots of Pharaoh’) scarcely conforms to a regular grammatical pattern. The awkwardness of MT is probably due to redactional expansion in this part of the verse, which is likely on other grounds (see the Explanatory Note). x. Heb. ‫ופרשׁיו‬. ‫ ָפ ָרשׁ‬can mean both ‘horseman’ and ‘horse’ (perhaps originally ‘mare’: cf. D.R. ap-Thomas, ‘All the King’s Horses?’, in J.I. Durham and J.R. Porter [eds.], Proclamation and Presence [FS G.H. Davies; London, 1970], pp. 135-51) and Mowinckel argued from its frequent association with chariots that it (always) has the specific meaning ‘chariot horse’ (‘Drive and/ or Ride in O.T.’, pp. 289-95). The word also appears in vv. 17, 18, 23, 28 and in 15.19. It might seem from the present text that the meaning ‘horse’ is excluded by the occurrence of ‫ סוס‬earlier in the list here, in v. 23 and in 15.19: hence the rendering ‘riders’ or ‘chariot-drivers’ (e.g. NRSV) has sometimes been adopted throughout. But in all three verses there is good reason to see ‫סוס‬ as part of a redactional addition (see the Explanatory Notes), so that there is no need to avoid the rendering ‘horse’ for ‫ פרשׁ‬in the original narrative. It is only in the redacted text that it becomes a problem. According to the Masoretic vocalisation the noun would be of the qattal type, which often identifies a person’s role in society (e.g. ‫ח ָרשׁ‬,ָ ‘craftsman’: JM §88Ha), but this vocalisa�tion is universal in BH, even where the meaning is certainly ‘horse’, and it may in such cases be erroneous. Definite cases of the meaning ‘horseman’ are in fact relatively few in number (cf. HAL, p. 919; Ges18, p. 1085; against BDB, p. 832). 18   Further occurrences in legal contexts appear in 1QS 5.12; 8.17, 22; 9.1; CD 8.8 (=19.21); 10.3 and in several texts from Qumran Cave 4 (see the list in DCH 7, p. 442).

236

EXODUS 1–18

y. The word-order in the first clause marks it as a circumstantial clause which is in effect subordinate to the second clause (so Joosten, Verbal System, p. 361, with further examples [e.g. Gen. 4.1; 1 Sam. 19.18] on p. 132). z. Heb. ‫הקריב‬. The Hiphil is apparently intransitive here (or ‘internally transitive’: GK §53d-e), for which there is no exact parallel in BH. But ‫הקריב‬ ‫ לבוא‬in Gen. 12.11 is at least semantically equivalent and ‫ הקריב‬here is perhaps an abbreviation of this expression. aa. Heb. ‫והנה‬: the translation brings out both the visual implication and the element of surprise which are present here, as often in the use of ‫ הנה‬in narrative (cf. BDB, p. 244, s.v. c; Houtman 1, p. 18). bb. Heb. ‫נסע‬. The sing. will be due to the treatment of ‫ מצרים‬as a collective sing. (as below in v. 25: cf. GK §145f). cc. Heb. ‫המבלי אין‬. The ‫ אין‬is unnecessary, but also occurs in 2 Kgs 1.3, 6, 16, again in lively polemical discourse, where the pleonasm no doubt has a rhetorical purpose. dd. See Note n above: ‫ ָלּנוּ‬has dagesh forte conjunctivum according to GK §20f. ee. Here the action called in question is expressed, not by a ‫כי‬-clause as in v. 5, but by a gerundival inf. cons. (GK §114o). For the unusual form of the suff. ‫אנו‬ָ see GK §61c, h. ff. Heb. ‫וראו‬. The second imperative may simply represent a further command, but frequently such pairings are to be understood as a condition and the consequence of its fulfilment (GK §110f). gg. Heb. ‫את־ישׁועת יהוה‬. The immediate expression here corresponds to a widespread characteristic of the ‫ הושׁיע‬word-group: that the focus is ‘on the agent or the action rather than the beneficiary or the danger/need’ (SAHD summary, p. 7), so that ‘help’ or better ‘victory’ is preferable as a translation to ‘deliverance’. But the clauses which follow introduce references to both the beneficiary and the danger, and so does the occurrence of the verb ‫ הושׁיע‬in v. 30 below, so these features, while not central, do place Yahweh’s action here very much in the context of inter-human relationships and his own interaction with human communities in the narrative setting (cf. ‫ ויושׁע‬in v. 30). hh. Heb. ‫אשׁר‬. Since there is no preceding antecedent, ‫ אשׁר‬seems here to introduce an ‘independent relative clause’ (GK §138e) and would then be translated ‘those whom’. However, the sentence is complicated by the occurrence of what would be the natural antecedent, ‫את־מצרים‬, within the ‫אשׁר‬-clause and this has led to the alternative suggestion that ‫ אשׁר‬here means ‘as’ (GK §161b: see also Text and Versions), as it may do in a few other passages (BDB, p. 83 [cf. 1121] lists Deut. 15.14; 1 Sam. 16.7 [in both of which it prefers emendation]; Isa. 54.9; Jer. 33.22; 48.8; Ps. 106.34 as places where this meaning has been proposed). But this produces an unlikely weakening of the sense, even if v. 30b might seem to support it, and perhaps ‫ את־מצרים‬is a later explanatory addition, like ‫ את מלך אשׁור‬in Isa. 7.17. Another possibility arises from the fact that the antecedent of a relative clause is



14.1-31

237

occasionally repeated within the clause (Gen. 13.16; 49.30; 50.13; Jer. 31.32: cf. JM §158h n. 1): perhaps here it has simply been drawn forward into the clause, which may then be understood as relative (cf. Vulg). ii. Heb. ‫ראיתם‬. A perfective understanding (‘you have seen’) is not impossible, but JM §112a includes this and some other instances of ‫( ראה‬and ‫)שׁמע‬ among stative verbs, where the perfect has a present tense meaning. Joosten, Verbal System, pp. 197-202, does not include them in his treatment of stative verbs, and nor does GK §106g. In the other examples cited in JM for ‫ ראה‬and ‫( שׁמע‬1 Kgs 20.13; Jer. 7.11; Pss. 35.22; 74.9; Lam. 3.59; Jer. 4.31; Job 3.18; Ruth 2.8) a present tense translation is either not compelling or (in poetry) not due to the use of these verbs. jj. Heb. ‫תחרישׁון‬. For the sense ‘silent’ rather than ‘still’ (NRSV) see the analysis in BDB, p. 361. The ‘paragogic’ nun, which is an ancient feature of the language, is particularly common in pausal forms (JM §44e) and here brings Moses’ short speech to a forceful conclusion. kk. For ‫‘ = מה‬why?’ in place of ‫למה‬, cf. 17.2 and BDB, p. 553 s.v. 2a(b). ll. Heb. ‫ויסעו‬. On the indirect command construction see Note b above. mm. Heb. ‫ויבאו‬. Simple waw with the imperfect/jussive expressing purpose according to GK §165a. nn. Heb. ‫ואני הנני‬. The combination of the independent personal pronoun and following ‫ הנה‬serves both to underline the contrast between what Moses and Yahweh are to do and, probably, to give special emphasis to Yahweh’s role: cf. JM §146a,d, 156m, and Muraoka, Emphasis, pp. 62, 140. oo. Heb. ‫ואכבדה‬, with simple waw and the cohortative adding the larger purpose of Yahweh’s action (JM §116c): the translation adds ‘In this way’ to break up what would otherwise be a long and complex sentence. For the use of ‫ כבד‬Niphal see Note i above. pp. Heb. ‫מחנה‬. From its association with the verb ‫ חנה‬the noun has a primary sense of ‘encampment’, both of travellers in general (e.g. Gen. 32.22) and of an army ready for battle (e.g. 1 Sam. 4.5-7). The secondary meanings, ‘those who encamp’ and specifically ‘an army, force’ (e.g. Josh. 8.13), will be derived from this. While the use of ‫ חנה‬in vv. 2, 9 might seem to favour the former sense in the occurrences in vv. 19-20, the immediate context favours the latter: nothing has been said about the Egyptians encamping, in v. 24 the reference is clearly to the Egyptian force, and the two instances of ‫ זה‬in v. 20b most naturally refer back to the repeated ‫ מחנה‬in v. 20a. qq. Heb. ‫ויהי הענן והחשׁך‬. MT is puzzling (on the different LXX reading see Text and Versions) but since ‫הענן‬, viewed as fiery in the night (as in v. 24), must be the subject of ‫ ויאר‬it seems that ‫ והחשׁך‬does not add a second subj. for ‫ ויהי‬and the waw is to be regarded as waw concomitantiae (cf. 12.8; 21.4: BDB, p. 253; GK §154a n. 1[b] end; JM §151a), so ‘with the darkness’ (so NRSV: as proposed already by Ehrlich, Randglossen 1, p. 318). The expression remains unusual and the text may be corrupt or the result of careless editing. M. Vervenne regards both this clause and the next as glosses: he sees

238

EXODUS 1–18

‫ והחשׁך‬as an apodosis(!) and the subject of ‫ ויאר‬as ‫ עמוד האשׁ‬in 13.21 (‘Exodus 14,20MT-LXX: Textual or Literary Variation?’, in J.M. Auwers and A. Wenin [eds.], Lectures et relectures de la Bible [FS P. Bogaert; BETL 144; Leuven, 1999], pp. 3-25 [21-24]). See also G. Steins, ‘Exodus 14,20 – ein neuer Blick auf ein altes Problem’, ZAW (2009), pp. 273-76, who sees the angel/Yahweh as the subj. of ‫( ויאר‬with an allusion to Gen. 1). For other views see the summary by Childs, p. 218. rr. Heb. ‫ויולך‬. For ‫ הלך‬Hiphil of waters being made to ‘flow’ see Ezek. 32.14: the Qal is also used with waters as the subj. (e.g. Isa. 8.6 and AHI 4.116.4-5). ‫ הלך‬frequently has the sense ‘(cause to) go away’ (e.g. Gen. 18.33; Exod. 3.19; Job 12.17). ss. Heb. ‫לחרבה‬, a different word from that used in vv. 16, 22, 29 (‫)יבשׁה‬: for ‫ חרבה‬cf. Gen. 7.22; Josh. 3.17; 4.18; 2 Kgs 2.8; Ezek. 30.12; Hag. 2.6. tt. Heb. ‫והמים להם חמה‬. A standard circumstantial noun-clause (GK §141e, 156a,c). uu. Heb. ‫רכבו‬, without waw, as often occurs in the middle of a list (GK §154a n. 1[a]). vv. Heb. ‫בעמוד אשׁ וענן‬. Since ‘fire’ and ‘cloud’ are closely connected a single nomen regens can govern them both (see Note m above). The absence of the def. art. with ‫ אשׁ‬and ‫ ענן‬is more surprising (contrast ‫ עמוד הענן‬in v. 19 referring back to 13.21 [also 13.22]): it is almost as if the ‘pillar’ were being mentioned for the first time here. This might suggest that 13.21-22 and perhaps (part of) 14.20 too belonged to a very late redactional layer, though one might expect such a redactor to be well aware of the earlier mentions of the ‘pillar’. An ingenious solution has been proposed by E. Blum, ‘Die Feuersäule in Ex 13-14 – eine Spur der “Endredaktion”?’, in id., Textgestalt und Komposition (ed. W. Oswald, FAT 69; Tübingen, 2010), pp. 137-56: there were not two pillars but one, with a changing appearance. Here, as night turned to day, the column was half-fire and half-cloud, a phenomenon not hitherto mentioned in the text and therefore fittingly expressed without the def. art. ww. Heb. ‫ויסר‬. The simplest interpretation is to see this as from ‫ סור‬Hiphil in its common sense, ‘removed’, which is appropriate enough in the context. But it is preferable to adopt the variant reading ‫ויאסר‬, from ‫אסר‬, ‘bind’ (see Text and Versions). xx. Heb. ‫וישׁבו‬. See Note mm. yy. Heb. ‫לפנות בקר‬. In Judg. 19.26 this point in time clearly precedes morning (v. 27), just as in Gen. 24.63 and Deut. 23.12 ‫ לפנות ערב‬precedes evening, so that ‫ פנה‬will here have the sense ‘turn towards, approach’. zz. Heb. ‫לאיתנו‬. ‫ איתן‬is normally an adj., ‘continuous, enduring’ (of water in Deut. 21.4; Amos 5.24), but it is used as a noun in Ps. 74.15 and in the pl. as the name of a month in 1 Kgs 8.2, where BDB, p. 450, renders ‘steady flow(ings)’.



14.1-31

239

aaa. Heb. ‫לקראתו‬. NRSV renders ‘(were fleeing) before it’, but this cannot be right: all the parallels and the etymology indicate that the sense is ‘towards it’: the waters were closing in ahead of the Egyptians and so they faced an insuperable obstacle. bbb. Heb. ‫ובני ישׂראל הלכו‬. The waw is adversative here and the verb is to be understood in a pluperfect sense, as the inversion of subject and predicate show (cf. JM §155nb; GK §106f). Both features made the use of the regular waw consecutive inappropriate. ccc. Heb. ‫מת‬. The sing. is at first surprising with ‫מצרים‬, but is readily explicable since ‫ מצרים‬is treated as a collective sing. elsewhere in the chapter (cf. the suffixes in v. 25 and the sing. part. in v. 10). ddd. Heb. ‫את־היד הגדלה‬. Since ‫ יד‬is often used metaphorically for ‘power’ (cf. ‫ מיד־מצרים‬in v. 30), it is a small further step for it to mean a specific ‘act of power’ (‫ גבורה‬is used similarly in the plural): cf. Deut. 34.12; Ps. 78.42; Job 27.11.

Explanatory Notes 1-4. The new chapter begins (after a petuchah in MT which is anticipated in 4QExc) with the same words as were used in 13.1 to introduce legal material (see the Note there). Here Yahweh’s words contain an unexpected instruction for the Israelites to ‘turn back’ from the journey of departure which they have begun (so already 12.37, 41, 51) and encamp at a place ‘by the sea’ which is defined with unusual precision (v. 2). In the present form of the text it is natural to take the sea to be the Yam Suf mentioned in 13.18 and the starting-point for this manoeuvre to be Etham ‘on the edge of the wilderness’ (13.20). It is, however, exceptional for any movement on the journey to be the subject of such a divine communication (33.1, of the departure from Sinai, is the closest parallel in the Pentateuch), and 13.21 has just indicated a different means by which Yahweh is said generally to have guided his people. Here it is no doubt the need to explain the purpose of this deviation from the direct route (vv. 3-4) that is responsible for the form of guidance that is used. The immediate purpose is that, when Pharaoh hears of it (it is assumed that he will) he will (mis)understand it as a failure of the Israelites to continue their journey into the wilderness which has left them confused about what to do next. But what might be seen as the natural reaction of the Egyptian king – to pursue the Israelites and recover his work-force – is traced instead to a fresh development of

240

EXODUS 1–18

Yahweh’s own plan, as stated already in 7.3-5(P), which introduces the defeat of the Egyptian army as both a new result of Pharaoh’s stubbornness and the means by which the Egyptians will be brought to recognise Yahweh for who he is. This theological interpretation of not only the destruction of the Egyptian chariot-force but also of Pharaoh’s decision to pursue the Israelites is a recurring feature of the chapter as a whole (cf. vv. 8, 17-18). But it is very different from the divine purpose in bringing the Israelites to Yam Suf according to 13.17-18, and it is curious to say the least that in vv. 5-7 Pharaoh is described as making his preparations for a pursuit of the Israelites before his heart is made stubborn in v. 8. Already here it is apparent that two different accounts of the deliverance of Israel at the sea have been interwoven in the present text of Exodus (see further the Note on vv. 5-7 and the introduction to this section). The very precise location given in v. 2 (and v. 9) for the encampment ‘by the sea’ may well have originally pointed clearly, for its authors and some at least of its readers, to a quite specific place on the eastern border of Egypt. That it no longer does so (as the unresolved scholarly debate shows) is due to the fact that modern research, using archaeological and textual evidence from ancient Egypt, has identified possible equivalents to the names at several places in the border region. My earlier brief review (Way of the Wilderness, pp. 80-82) distinguished four main alternatives: (1) the region of Lake Sirbonis on the Mediterranean coast east of Port Said; (2) a location close to the north end of the modern Suez Canal; (3) a place further south in the Isthmus of Suez (Lake Timsah or the Bitter Lakes); and (4) the traditional site at the head of the Gulf of Suez. It was concluded then that (3) was the most likely. This is still possible, but the case for (2) is perhaps the strongest now (see the discussion in the Excursus below). Excursus on the Place-Names in Exodus 14.2 and 9 Full discussions of the growing Egyptian evidence have been provided by O. Eissfeldt, Baal-zephon, Zeus Casios und der Durchzug der Israeliten durchs Meer (Halle, 1932), H. Cazelles, ‘Localisations’, both of whom favoured identifications in the vicinity of Lake Sirbonis on the Mediterranean coast, and Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, pp. 169-71, 182-91 (where he locates the names ‘somewhere around the Lake Timsah and the Bitter Lakes region’)



14.1-31

241

and Ancient Israel in Sinai, pp. 71-73, 94-109 (now proposing a more northerly location near el-Qantara on the line of the modern Suez Canal). Since Eissfeldt and Cazelles wrote, important new archaeological and geological work has been done in north-eastern Egypt, and this provides the context within which the relevant Egyptian textual evidence needs now to be assessed (see M. Bietak, ‘Avaris and Piramesse: Archaeological Exploration in the Eastern Nile Delta’, PBA 65 [1979], pp. 225-89 [274-81]; Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, Chapter 7; Ancient Israel in Sinai, Chapter 5; also my ‘The Wilderness Itineraries and Recent Archaeological Research’, in J.A. Emerton [ed.], Studies in the Pentateuch [VTSup 41; Leiden, 1990)], pp. 161-75 [161-67], on E. Oren’s work in the vicinity of Lake Sirbonis).19 Pi-hahiroth As transmitted by the tradition the name has the appearance of a Hebrew or at least Semitic expression: ‘the mouth of the ḥîrōt’ (in Num. 33.8 MT and LXX read simply ‘the ḥîrōt’, but it is not certain whether this is a textual error – the Samaritan Pentateuch has ‘Pi-hahiroth’ as in v. 7 – or a real alternative form of the name). ḥîrōt could be the plural of a noun ḥîrāh, but no such noun is known in Hebrew, although it bears some similarity to words for ‘hole, cave’ and (in post-biblical Hebrew) ‘liberty, license’ (cf. the explanations in MRI [Lauterbach, p. 188] and Text and Versions on these verses).20 But, as the case of Succoth shows (see the Explanatory Note on 12.37-38), an apparently Hebrew name may conceal an Egyptian toponym and modern scholars have generally explained Pi-hahiroth in this way. Cazelles, Autour de l’Exode, pp. 216-20, after discounting some less likely suggestions, offers three possibilities. The third-century B.C. Demotic papyrus Cairo 31169, 3.18, includes the name ḥnyt-ta-ḥerty, where ḥnyt is a word for ‘canal, stretch of water’. Cazelles considered that the context implied a location near Pelusium, but the preceding names in the list point rather to the Wadi Tumilat area (see below), as D.B. Redford (who transcribed the name ḥnt-t3-Ḥ3-r-ti) 19   For the issues discussed here, as distinct from the location of Yam Suf, H. Lamberty-Zielinski, Das “Schilfmeer” (BBB 78; Frankfurt, 1993]) is chiefly of value for its survey of the impact of geographical studies on biblical research (pp. 5-16). 20   DCH 3, p. 217, records an occurrence in 3Q15 (the ‘Copper Scroll’) 8.4 with the possible sense ‘rock’, but this reading of that text now seems to have been abandoned. DCH also cites (p. 391) D. Winton Thomas for an unpublished suggestion that the word here might mean ‘court’ (with an Ar. cognate), which would fit the rendering of LXX. Recently A. Wilson-Wright has pointed to words in Syriac, Sabaic and Arabic meaning ‘camp’ as possible cognates for ḥîrōt, also comparing LXX, and seen this as appropriate to a location on the ancient Egyptian military road or route along the Mediterranean coast (‘Camping along the Ways of Horus: A Central Semitic Etymology for pî ha-ḥîrot’, ZAW 129 [2017], pp. 261-64).

242

EXODUS 1–18

reaffirmed in locating it near to Lake Timsah (‘An Egyptological Perspective on the Exodus Narrative’, in A.F. Rainey [ed.], Egypt, Israel, Sinai [Tel Aviv, 1987], pp. 137-61 [142-43]; followed by Van Seters, ‘Geography of the Exodus’, pp. 274-75).21 Alternatively the name might be related to pa-ḥwyr in the thirteenth-century description of Pi-Ramesse on P.Anastasi III, 2.9 and 3.4 (ANET, p. 471, tentatively renders ‘the Her canal’), where it is said to produce natron and flax for the royal palace. From the proximity to the ‘Shi-Hor’ or ‘waters of Horus’ (also mentioned in 2.9: see ABD 5, p. 1212, for its probable location in the north-east part of the Nile Delta) and the occurrence of minerals near the Mediterranean coast Cazelles deduced that pa-ḥwyr was also in this region. Hoffmeier, who had earlier argued for a Semitic meaning, ‘canal’, for the name Pi-hahiroth based on Akkadian (Egypt, pp. 169-71), has more recently brought that view into conjunction with this toponym and given it a specific identification with the ‘Eastern Frontier Canal’ (Sinai, pp. 105-108). He proposes that like the other names in Exod. 14.2 Pi-hahiroth was in ‘the area between the north side of the el-Ballah Lake system and the southern tip of the eastern lagoon’, the latter being not Lake Sirbonis/Bardawil (on which see below on Baal-zephon) but an inlet on the ancient Mediterranean coast south of where Pelusium was later to be built. If this general approach is followed, the ‘Pi’ could be a transcription of the Egyptian definite article pa.22 Cazelles’ third suggestion, which is firmly linked to the Wadi Tumilat in the south, is to see the name Pi-hahiroth reflected in p(a)-ḥrw in the stele of Ptolemy II Philadelphus which was found by E. Naville at Tell el-Maskhuta (ll. 11, 13: cf. Naville, The Store-City of Pithom [London, 1885], pp. 17-18 and pls. VIII-X). Naville transcribed the name as Kharma, so similar to pa-ḥrm, the name given to a canal of the eighth nome in the Edfu geographical list, but the m(a) can be disregarded.23 According to Cazelles the name is attested in the Ramesside era (P.Anastasi V.11.4) and the Persian period (Shalluf stele of Darius, l. 13) as well as later.

21   A.A. Burke, ‘Magdalūma, Migdālîm, Magdoloi, and Majādil: The Historical Geography and Archaeology of the Magdalu (Migdāl)’, BASOR 346 (2007), pp. 29-57 (35), states that Cairo 31169 may contain a text which is much older than this copy, perhaps from the Late Bronze (or Iron) Age. The papyrus (found at Saqqara) contains lists of several kinds and is clearly a school-book: the geographical list at the beginning will be an extract from a larger compilation (cf. W. Spiegelberg, Die Demotischen Denkmäler, II.2 [Leipzig, 1908], pp. 266, 270, 277-78). 22   Hoffmeier (Sinai, p. 107) therefore abandons his earlier view that it was the Hebrew for ‘mouth of’. 23   Cazelles, Autour de l’Exode, p. 219.



14.1-31

243

Migdol Migdol is easily recognisable as a variant of the common Hebrew word for ‘tower’, migdāl, and several such names are attested in the border region of north-east Egypt. A place of this name was located on the main road out of Egypt along the Mediterranean coast in several periods: reliefs of Seti I in the Nineteenth Dynasty portray a ‘Migdol of Menmaʿrēʿ’ as the third station on ‘The Ways of Horus’ (the classic study is A.H. Gardiner, ‘The Ancient Military Road between Egypt and Palestine’, JEA 6 [1920], pp. 99-116; but see also Aharoni, Land of the Bible, pp. 46-48 [with a list of the first places on the route], and the important new studies of Hoffmeier, Egypt, pp. 183-89; Sinai, pp. 89-105);24 the name Mag[da]li has been restored in Esarhaddon’s account of his invasion of Egypt on his tenth campaign in 671 (ANET, p. 292); Herodotus reports (2.159) that Necho (II) ‘attacked the Syrians by land and defeated them at Magdolus’ (according to many a mistake for ‘Megiddo’, as in 2 Kgs 23.29-30); a fifth-century Aramaic letter found at Elephantine (Padua 1: TAD 1/A3.3) had been written at Migdol; and a clear indication of its location between Pelusium and Sile, twelve Roman miles from each, is given in the sixth-century A.D. Itinerarium Antonini (O. Cuntz, Itineraria Romana, 1 [Leipzig, 1929], p. 23). Recent archaeological investigation of the area has been unable to identify a single site which was occupied at all these periods.25 Tell el-Herr, much favoured as the site (e.g. Cazelles, Autour de l’Exode, pp. 213, 216), has been shown by the excavations of M. Abd el-Maksoud and D. Valbelle to have been occupied only from Persian to Greco-Roman times and so cannot even be the site of the Migdol mentioned in Jer. 44.1; 46.14 and Ezek. 29.10; 30.6. A good candidate for the latter is Tell Qedua (T. 21), excavated by E. Oren and D.B. Redford, which has remains from the seventh and sixth centuries (only) (Hoffmeier, Sinai, pp. 95-96). Tell Hebua (I), sometimes identified with Migdol in earlier times under its former name Tell Samout,26 has extensive New Kingdom structures, but epigraphic evidence found in 1999 and 2005 makes it virtually certain that it was the site of the key border fortress of Tjaru in the Ramesside period (Hoffmeier, Egypt, pp. 183-87; Sinai, pp. 92-94; Abd el-Maksoud and Valbelle, ‘Tell Héboua–Tjaru. 24   Very likely this is the place later called ‘Migdol of Ramesses prince of Heliopolis’ in the records of Year 8 of Ramesses III (cf. Cazelles, Autour de l’Exode, p. 211). 25   See the review of the evidence, textual and archaeological, by B.E. Scolnic, ‘A New Working Hypothesis for the Identification of Migdol’, in J.K. Hoffmeier and A.R. Millard (eds.), The Future of Biblical Archaeology (Grand Rapids, 2004), pp. 91-120; also Hoffmeier, Sinai, pp. 94-105; and Burke, ‘The Historical Geography…’. 26   H. Brugsch, L’Exode et les monuments égyptiens (Leipzig, 1875), p. 20; cf. Cazelles, p. 210.

244

EXODUS 1–18

L’apport de l’épigraphie’, Revue d’égyptologie 56 [2005], pp. 1-44 [esp. 7-8, 20-22]). Sile (its Roman name) may have been at the formerly preferred location of Tell Abu Sefe four miles to the south. Hoffmeier has excavated another New Kingdom site, Tell el-Borg, which lies about three miles east of Tell Hebua (Hoffmeier and Abd el-Maksoud, ‘A New Military Site on the “Ways of Horus” – Tell el-Borg 1999–2001: A Preliminary Report’, JEA 89 [2003], pp. 169-97; Hoffmeier, Sinai, pp. 97-105). The structures, including two successive forts, date to the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties and much about them would favour an identification with New Kingdom Migdol.27 But Hoffmeier reasonably prefers to identify Tell el-Borg with ‘The Dwelling of the Lion’, the station between Tjaru and Migdol in the Seti I reliefs – the short distance between Tell el-Borg and Tell Hebua (Tjaru) favours this – and to look for Migdol further to the south or south-east, where Oren’s survey located some New Kingdom sites. There clearly was, in view of the Egyptian textual evidence, a New Kingdom Migdol on the coast road out of Egypt, even if its precise location is currently unknown. In later times too a place of this name existed in the region, both in the seventh and sixth centuries (Tell Qedua) and from the Persian period to Roman times (Tell el-Herr). It would probably now be the majority view that the Migdol of Exodus 14 and Numbers 33 is to be found here, whether as a New Kingdom site or as a toponym from a later period, and Hoffmeier has in his more recent book taken this view, having earlier preferred a location east of Wadi Tumilat, to the south (Sinai, p. 108; contrast Egypt, p. 189). Hoffmeier’s earlier view was based on the mention of Succoth (in the Wadi Tumilat) shortly before (Exod. 12.37; 13.20) and the ‘Migdol of Seti-Merneptah’ in P.Anastasi V, 20.2-3 (cf. ANET, p. 259), which was apparently in the same region. He now believes, like others (e.g. Cazelles, p. 211), that this Migdol is identical to the one near the Mediterranean portrayed on the reliefs of Seti I. But his earlier view, which was once widely shared (cf. Cazelles, pp. 194-97) and appears to be presupposed in a recent article of Van Seters (‘Geography of the Exodus’, pp. 274-75), still has something to be said for it. Kakemwere, pursuing two slaves in the border region, reports that at ‘the keep of Tjeku’ he was told that ‘They say in the south that they passed in the third month of Shōmu, day 10’. It is only logical to suppose that the ‘fortress’ to which he proceeded and ‘the stronghold’ where the fugitives were seen were in this direction: the view that they were to the north takes for granted an identification with places known from other texts, not this one, and one which is intrinsically improbable (cf. R.A. Caminos, Late Egyptian Miscellanies [London, 1954], p. 257, whose translation I quote here). Some support for the existence of not just one but four places called Migdol/Migdal in the area east of Wadi Tumilat can also   Cf. Scolnic, art. cit., pp. 118-19 (but not on p. 120); Hoffmeier, Sinai, p. 99.

27



14.1-31

245

be found in Cairo Papyrus 31169.28 Again there is a widespread view that the places referred to lay near the Mediterranean coast (cf. Cazelles, pp. 214-15). But this may be to over-simplify the distribution of such names and the arrangement of the names on the papyrus seems to be against it. Column 1 lists names in the west of the Nile Delta, column 2 includes first names in the northern Delta and then those in the north-east, including Zeus Casios, followed by Daphnae in l. 18. The end of column 2 comes south to the region west of Wadi Tumilat and early in column 3 Bubastis and Ṯkw occur. It is reasonable to see the names at the end of column 3, including the four with the element mgdl (Eg. mktr) as lying further to the east, rather than in the north. Cazelles invokes the names including the element grr (3.1213) in favour of his interpretation because they ‘naturally evoke’ the Greek name Gerra in the vicinity of Lake Bardawil/Sirbonis. But they may well be distinct places in a more southerly region: so at least the careful arrangement of the names in this text would suggest.29 The papyrus is admittedly a late one, from the early third century B.C., but for that period at least it is most ‘naturally’ understood to indicate the existence of four places known as Migdol in the region east of Wadi Tumilat, even if specific identifications for them cannot be confidently suggested. Baal-zephon The name is evidently a shortened (Aramaic?) spelling of Baal-zaphon, a deity widely attested in Ugaritic, Phoenician, Akkadian and Egyptian texts (for details see DDD, 289-93), who in the Hellenistic period became known as Zeus K/Casios. Although his origin lay in Syria, he was worshipped (as the protector of Phoenician sailors) all around the Mediterranean, including in Egypt, where the evidence reaches back into the second millennium B.C. There he is associated with Memphis (ANET, pp. 259-60), Daphnae/ Tahpanhes (KAI 80) and Tell el- Dabaʿ (a seal of the eighteenth century B.C.) and under his Greek name with Mount Casios on the Mediterranean coast (Herodotus 2.6, 158; 3.5), by Lake Bardawil/Sirbonis. Early authors placed Baal-zephon near the north end of the Gulf of Suez (Jos., AJ 2.315; Etheria, Per. 7.4), in line with the traditional equation of the Gulf of Suez with the sea crossed by the Israelites. Many maps followed suit.30 But some of the 28   Cf. Spiegelberg, Demotische Denkmäler, II.2, pp. 270-80, and above n. 21 on this text; also G. Daressy, ‘La liste géographique du pap. 31.169 du Caire’, Sphinx 14 (1910–11), pp. 155-71. 29   So Daressy, pp. 166-67, with detailed textual and geographical correspondences, and Burke, ‘The Historical Geography’, pp. 33, 35 cites the order as a reason for locating the Migdal sites in ‘the eastern delta’. 30   See, e.g., J.R. Bartlett, ‘The “Way of the Wilderness” on Sixteenth-Century Maps’, in J.K. Aitken, K.J. Dell and B.A. Mastin (eds.), On Stone and Scroll (FS G.I. Davies; BZAW 420; Berlin and Boston, 2011]), pp. 169-91.

246

EXODUS 1–18

Egyptian and Greek evidence led scholars already in the nineteenth century to locate Baal-zephon at Ras Qasrun on the spit which separates Lake Bardawil/ Sirbonis from the sea and to associate the events described in Exodus 14 with similar catastrophes that later befell armies invading Egypt (esp. Brugsch, L’exode). Excavations in the early twentieth century added further evidence of the cult of Zeus Casios in the region and with the first publication of texts from Ugarit, which included references to both Baal-zaphon the deity and the sacred Mount Zaphon (Jebel el-Aqra), Otto Eissfeldt was able to produce a synthetic study (Baal Zaphon: above p. 240) which has remained the standard work on the subject. Eissfeldt, who was followed in this by Noth (‘Der Schauplatz des Meereswunders’, in J. Fueck [ed.], Festschrift O. Eissfeldt zum 60. Geburtstage [Halle, 1947], pp. 181-90 [181]), located Baal-zephon at Maḥammadiye, at the western end of Lake Sirbonis, because the (late) archaeological evidence was most concentrated there, but the literary evidence favours Ras Qasrun, where the height of the eminence (‘plus de 100 mètres’ according to Cazelles) fits Mount Casios better (Eissfeldt, Baal Zaphon, pp. 39-43; Cazelles, Autour de l’Exode, pp. 200-203; on later discussion see Lamberty-Zielinski, “Schilfmeer”, pp. 10-16). It is possible, even likely, that the main cultic sites were located at places some distance from the mountain (as at Ugarit), such as Maḥammadiye and even Pelusium, but they did not bear the name Casios (or, presumably, Baal-zephon). The evidence for the cult of Zeus Casios in Egypt is all from the Hellenistic and Roman periods, although presumably Herodotus’s use of the name already presupposes it in the fifth century B.C. How much further back it can be traced is a matter of doubt. Cazelles points to the name Ḫṯyn in P.Anastasi I. 27.4, the name of a place on the coast east of the Nile Delta, as possible evidence of it in the Ramesside period (pp. 202-203).31 But extensive archaeological survey work by E. Oren in the 1970s established that there was no occupation at Ras Qasrun or anywhere else on the spit before the Persian period (including Maḥammadiye). This could well be because the spit (and Lake Sirbonis behind it) did not exist much before the Persian period: geological investigation by D. Niv concluded that it was of ‘relatively recent’ origin.32 This does not exclude an identification of Baal-zephon with Ras Qasrun altogether, but it does mean that it would only be possible at a very late stage of the composition of the Pentateuch. Given the difficulties of

  Also perhaps P.Cairo 31169 2.14-17 (cf. Daressy, ‘La liste géographique’, 161). 32   See Oren, ‘The Survey of Northern Sinai 1972–8’, in Z. Meshel and I. Finkelstein (eds.), Qadmoniot Sinai (Tel Aviv, 1980), pp. 101-58 (Heb.), esp. pp. 114, 122, 124; Davies, ‘Recent archaeological research’, pp. 163-66, with English translations of key extracts. 31



14.1-31

247

fitting such an identification into other aspects of the biblical evidence (even elsewhere in Exod. 14.2),33 alternative possibilities need to be considered. A sixth-century B.C. papyrus letter from Saqqara (KAI 50.2-3) pronounces a blessing on the recipient ‘by Baal-zaphon and all the gods of Tahpanhes’, Tahpanhes being the later Daphnae in the north-east Delta: the text suggests that Baal-zaphon was a (or the) major god of the city and on this basis N. Aimé-Giron, followed by W.F. Albright and more recently M. Bietak, proposed locating Baal-zephon there.34 It has been objected that Baal-zephon was not the name of Tahpanhes, but it could perhaps have been part of it or nearby. The theory of Hoffmeier that the proximity of Baal-zephon is reflected in ‘the waters of Baal’ which are mentioned in P.Anastasi III.8 just before pa-ḥwyr and the Shi-hor could gain some support from this later evidence (Sinai, p. 107). Since the evidence from Memphis and Tell el- Dabaʿ noted above need not relate to a place named Baal-zephon in their immediate vicinity, the only other possible pointers to its location are the meagre and doubtful evidence from the vicinity of Clysma (cf. Cazelles, pp. 204-206, 212-14) and the restored reference to a Migdol of Baal-zaphon in P.Cairo 31169 3.22 (according to Daressy, ‘La liste géographique’, p. 169; the reading is accepted by Redford, in Rainey [eds.], Egypt, Israel, Sinai…, p. 144), which in view of the order of the list is more likely to be in the vicinity of Wadi Tumilat than on the Mediterranean coast. A place of that name is not inconceivable in the area as a shrine used by sailors on the Red Sea, especially when the latter was connected, in whatever way, with at least the east end of the Wadi Tumilat.

As currently understood, the available data for locating the placenames offer several possibilities of identification. Pi-hahiroth could be either in the middle of the Suez isthmus or further north near el-Qantara. Migdol could also be near el-Qantara or, perhaps, at the eastern end of Wadi Tumilat. Baal-zephon could (if a late toponym) be at Ras Qasrun on the Sirbonis spit, or near Tahpanhes or (though the evidence is weak) at the eastern end of Wadi Tumilat. If the evidence for the three names is taken together, Baal-zephon is the only name with support for a location near Lake Sirbonis, which   See J. Simons, The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament (Leiden, 1959), pp. 234-41, 248-50; Davies, Way of the Wilderness, pp. 81-82. 34   Cf. N. Aimé-Giron, ‘Baʿal Ṣaphon et les dieux de Taḥpanḥès dans un nouveau papyrus phénicien’, ASAE 40 (1941), pp. 433-60 (447-60); W.F. Albright, ‘Baal-Zephon’, in W. Baumgartner et al. (eds.) Festschrift Alfred Bertholet zum 80. Geburtstag (Tübingen, 1950), pp. 1-14 (13); M. Bietak, ‘Comments on the “Exodus” ’, in Rainey (ed.), Egypt, Israel, Sinai, pp. 163-71 (167); cf. ÄuL 10 (2000), p. 186. 33

248

EXODUS 1–18

makes it unlikely that the encampment was intended to be there; all three names could be located either near el-Qantara or near Wadi Tumilat, but the evidence for the former is much stronger in the cases of Migdol and Baal-zephon. In both cases a plausible ‘sea’ can be found in the vicinity, Lake Ballah in the first case and Lake Timsah or the Bitter Lakes (perhaps linked at the time to the Gulf of Suez) in the second. If continuity with the name Succoth is sought, the Wadi Tumilat option is much more attractive, as the journey north to Lake Ballah is (as Redford put it) ‘most unlikely’. But these verses could originally have belonged to a different version of the Exodus story, so that argument need not be decisive.35 Proximity to Succoth/Ṯkw is, however, more clearly implied in the connected itinerary in Num. 33.1-49 (cf. vv. 6-8) and we have previously taken the view that this was the source for the detailed itinerary-material in Exodus and the earlier chapters of Numbers (see the Excursus on Itineraries in the introduction to 12.28-42, 50-51 and more fully ‘…The Composition of the Pentateuch’, pp. 5-8). If one of the more northerly locations for the toponyms in Exod. 14.2 were to be preferred, there would be a case for adding Num. 33.7b-8a to the sections of that chapter which we have earlier recognised as being due to post-Priestly revision of it (on this see briefly ‘Recent Archaeological Research’, pp. 173-74; more fully in a part of my doctoral dissertation, published as The Wilderness Itineraries in the Old Testament [Cambridge, 1975], which was not among the sections of it which have been published before [pp. 57-58])36. 5-7. The account of how Pharaoh learned of the Israelites’ departure and decided to pursue them could scarcely be more different from what vv. 3-4 would lead us to expect (their natural sequel appears only in v. 8). Pharaoh, who is at first called simply ‘the king of Egypt’ (v. 5a: cf. 1.15, 17, 18; 2.23; 3.18-19; 5.4), is told simply that the Israelites (referred to as ‘the people’ [v. 5: cf. 13.17-18, 22 and elsewhere]) have ‘run away’, with no hint of their curious manoeuvre; and his decision to go after them is based not on their vulnerability but on second thoughts about 35   Van Seters, ‘Geography’, pp. 270-76, thinks it is decisive, because although 13.20 is J and 14.1-4 is P he believes that the P narrative was from the beginning a supplement to J and so naturally would represent a consistent route. 36   For a similar view of Num. 33.6-11 and a consideration of some of its implications see Propp 2, pp. 749-50.



14.1-31

249

his release of them (v. 5b). A contradiction is sometimes seen within v. 5 between the idea that Israel had ‘run away’ and the statement that the Egyptians had ‘let (them) go’, as if the former presupposed a different version of the Exodus story in which the Israelites had escaped without being given formal permission to leave (e.g. Noth, pp. 87-88, ET, pp. 111-12; Graupner, pp. 81-82). But both make sense in the light of the actual request of Moses for ‘three days’ of leave (5.3 etc.): ‘run away’ is a natural expression of the Egyptians’ realisation that the Israelites did not intend to return (cf. Houtman, p. 259; Propp, p. 492). A better case for the division of v. 5 can be made from the singular verbs in vv. 6-7 with no explicit subject, which connect much better with v. 5a than with v. 5b (Gertz, pp. 214-15). The plural subjects in v. 5b lead on most naturally to the beginning of v. 9. Pharaoh’s change of mind recalls his earlier withdrawals of permission for Israel to leave in the non-Priestly version of the plague-story (8.11, 28; 9.34), so that vv. 5-7 will be the continuation of that (and of 12.29-39 etc.). The differences from the opening of the Priestly strand of this chapter in vv. 1-4 are then not surprising. Pharaoh leads his army in his chariot according to this version of the story, as in the Egyptians’ own written and pictorial records of their campaigns (e.g. ANET, pp. 234-38; ANEP, nos. 314-16, 322, 345; cf. Keel, Die Welt, pl. 405a = ET, ibid.). Pharaoh’s ‘people’ here will mean his army (for this sense of Heb. ʿām cf. Num. 20.20; 1 Kgs 20.10: also TWAT 6, 192 = TDOT 11, p. 176) and, in the light of what follows, specifically the infantry. But it is the chariot force on which attention is focused: this was the strike force of an ancient army, not so much for its mass and speed but because it provided a mobile detachment of archers, who stood on the chariot’s platform beside the driver (for details see ABD 1, pp. 888-92, and more fully M.A. Littauer and J.H. Crouwel, Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the Ancient Near East [Leiden, 1979]). The figure ‘six hundred’ seems to be a common one in biblical battle narratives (Judg. 18.11, 16, 17; 20.47; 1 Sam. 13.15; 14.2; 23.13; 27.2; 30.9; 2 Sam. 15.18) and probably bears no intentional relation to the ‘six hundred thousand’ of 12.37: it is more significant that they are all ‘on foot’. While the Hebrew could be taken in either way (see Note s on the translation), ancient parallels make it more likely that the ‘six hundred’ are an elite division of Pharaoh’s chariotry (for ‘choice’ – also of soldiers in general – see the Annals of Ramesses III, ANET,

250

EXODUS 1–18

p. 262) than that they comprise the whole of his chariot force: the numbers recorded as captured by some Pharaohs or arrayed against Shalmaneser III of Assyria are much larger (ANET, pp. 237, 247, 278-79), and 1 Kgs 10.26 credits Solomon with 1400.37 On the ‘officers’ in charge of the force see Note t on the translation and 15.4: the view that Heb. šālîš meant ‘the third man in a chariot’ is less likely. 8-10. Only now is the reason for Pharaoh’s action that was announced in v. 4 stated in the narrative (with precise verbal correspondence), which confirms that the different version in vv. 5-7 has been taken from another account, while v. 8 again comes from P. ‘Defiantly’ is literally ‘with raised hand’ (Heb. beyād rāmāh), as in the corresponding place in Num. 33.3. The phrase is used in legal contexts to distinguish deliberate from unintentional wrongdoing, but the sense is the same, since deliberate defiance of God is involved there (cf. Num. 15.30-31). The boldness of Israel (which contrasts with what vv. 10-12 will say) will have been inspired, or at least reinforced, by the knowledge that Yahweh was intent on the final destruction of the Egyptians (v. 4b). The beginning of v. 9 (to ‘by the sea’), which partly duplicates what has already been said in v. 8, must be from the non-Priestly account. The rest of the verse corresponds to the wording of the Priestly account (see [a] vv. 4, 17, 18, 23, 26, 28; [b] v. 2) and so could be part of it, but in view of the untidy combination of phrases which relate respectively to the Egyptians and the Israelites it is more likely to be a redactional amplification of the narrative at this point. The narrative of P would then resume in v. 15 (but see the note there) or v. 16. The listing of the components of Pharaoh’s force here is closest to that in v. 23 (which also follows the verb ‘pursued’), but ‘and his army’ is added at the end, presumably to link up with the wording of v. 4 (compare the inclusion of ‘all his army’ in v. 17, more logically at the beginning of the list). ‘Horsemen’ is to be preferred for Heb. pārāš in this redactional addition because the meaning ‘horses’ would be otiose after the occurrence of another word with this meaning (sûs) just before (see Note x on the translation). In v. 10 the viewpoint shifts from the pursuing Egyptians to the Israelites’ catching sight of 37   For later biblical references to Egyptian chariots see Isa. 31.1; 36.9; Jer. 46.9; Song 1.9; also 1 Kgs 10.29 (though some see ‘Egypt’ there as an error: on the problem see G.H. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings [NCB; London, 1984], 1, pp. 230-31).



14.1-31

251

them and their resultant fear. The end of the verse (‘they were very afraid’) contrasts with the Israelites’ attitude in v. 8 and is answered by Moses’ words ‘Do not be afraid’ in v. 13: there is no reason why the whole of v. 10 should not be attributed to the non-Priestly account. 11-14. The Israelites do not only ‘cry out to Yahweh’ (v. 10b: cf. their earlier cry in 2.23; 3.7, 9 and that of the Egyptians in 11.6 and 12.30), they complain to Moses that they are now going to ‘die in the wilderness’ (vv. 11-12). In comparison to this even serving, or being slaves to, the Egyptians was preferable: any kind of life is better than death. The fact and nature of the complaint are similar to those uttered at later points in the narrative of Exodus and Numbers, both in what are generally judged to be parts of the non-Priestly version of the story (17.3; Num. 11.5-6 [cf. 18]; 14.3-4; 16.13-14; 21.5; cf. Deut. 1.27; 9.7 [‘from the day you came out of the land of Egypt’!], 22, 23) and in Priestly texts (16.3; Num. 14.2; 20.3-5). But ‘dying in the wilderness’ cannot be an anticipation of one or more of these later crises, as the threat of the Egyptians is the immediate danger. So G.W. Coats must be right to argue that these verses presume that the Israelites are already ‘in the wilderness’ before they pass ‘the sea’ (see the discussion in the introduction to 13.17-22 and especially Coats’s article ‘Traditio-Historical Character’ [pp. 256-58]), and this is also consistent with one possible interpretation of ‘by the way of the wilderness to the Yam Suf’ in 13.18 (cf. Notes g and h on the translation of 13.17-22). Equally it is implied at the end of v. 11 that the Exodus is past, though the fact that the Egyptians are still, or appear to the Israelites to be, a threat means that any simple thematic distinction between ‘the Exodus story’ and ‘the wilderness story’ at this point has to be suspect. What is more important is that already here that note of ‘rebellion in the wilderness’ (cf. Coats’s book of that name [1968]), with its challenge to Israel’s central confession of faith, is being sounded for the first time. While it serves to present the people in a negative, unbelieving way, it also highlights the dangers and deprivations of the wilderness journey and the deliverances and provisions by which Yahweh repeatedly responded to such complaints, and not least in the present case (see below). The people’s claim in v. 12 that they had already objected to the plan to leave Egypt when they were still there created a problem which was already felt (and solutions attempted: see Text and Versions) in early times, because nothing in the earlier narrative

252

EXODUS 1–18

corresponds precisely to what they say. It is sometimes suggested that the Israelite supervisors’ criticism of Moses and Aaron in 5.21 may be meant, but that makes a rather different point and perhaps the people are simply made to recall here an earlier objection which was not included in the version(s) of the story which we possess. There could be various reasons for this (cf. Noth, p. 89, ET, p. 113; Propp, p. 495); in any case the effect is to extend the people’s rebellion back even further and to confirm the apprehension which Moses expressed in 4.1.38 Moses’ response to the people’s fear and complaint is on this occasion assured and like that of a kind pastor (seelsorgerlich: Albertz, p. 241): he brings a word of comfort which begins like the salvation-oracle that answers a cultic lament, ‘Do not be afraid’ (cf. v. 10: J. Begrich, ‘Das priesterliche Heilsorakel’, ZAW N.S. 11 [1934], pp. 81-92; K. Koch, Was ist Formgeschichte? Neue Wege der Bibelexegese [Neukirchen, 2nd ed., 1967], pp. 214-15, ET pp. 175-76). But there is no direct divine speech here: Moses as Yahweh’s servant (v. 31) takes the responsibility for countering the people’s anxiety by once again becoming the mouthpiece for what Yahweh is about to do (cf. 3.16-17; 4.30; 12.23). It is described as a ‘deliverance’ or ‘victory’ Heb. yešûāh: see Note gg on the translation) and Yahweh ‘fights’ for his people (again v. 25), so the catastrophe for the Egyptians is this time (unlike in ch. 12) given a military character which foreshadows (or reflects) Yahweh’s involvement in Israel’s later wars (so also in 15.3). Here the fact that, as earlier in the Exodus narrative, Yahweh acts without any human involvement (‘Keep your position’ [v. 13]; ‘you shall remain silent’ [v. 14]) certainly differentiates this episode from most of the narratives which represent ‘Holy War’ or ‘Yahweh War’ (cf. von Rad, Heilige Krieg; R. Smend, Jahwekrieg, chs. 1–2). But, as von Rad saw, the non-Priestly narrative of Exodus 14 shares a number of features as well as an overall ethos with some ‘post-Solomonic’ narratives which likewise emphasise divine intervention and minimise human military activity (Josh. 6; Judg. 7; in some respects 1 Sam. 17: von Rad, Heilige Krieg, pp. 42-50), as well as with a strand in the teaching of the prophet Isaiah which carried the transformation of the 38   M. Weiss, ‘Weiteres über die Bauformen’, pp. 203-204, saw it as a case of the literary device of Rückwendung (‘flashback’), but the explicit reference to an earlier time makes it less abrupt than other examples of this feature.



14.1-31

253

old ‘Holy War’ tradition even further (Isa. 7.1-9; 30.15; 31.1, 3-4: von Rad, Heilige Krieg, pp. 56-62). So neither an unqualified association of what Moses says with the ‘Holy War’ tradition (Noth, p. 89, ET, p. 113) nor a virtually complete dissociation (Albertz, p. 242 with n. 19) is satisfactory: the truth lies somewhere in between and the possibility should also be left open that the Exodus narrative is in its special features not a result of the later developments in the ‘Holy War’ tradition but a contributor to them. These motifs have a relationship not only to early Israelite warfare but to wider mythological traditions of the ancient Near East (cf. Cross, Canaanite Myth, pp. 112-41; Miller, The Divine Warrior). 15-18. The rebuke of Moses by Yahweh with which this section begins is doubly surprising: nothing has been said of any ‘crying out’ by Moses (although in subsequent narratives he is said to have done so: 15.25; 17.4; Num. 12.13), and on the contrary he has just spoken to the people in a way that one would presume to be pleasing to Yahweh. It is often suggested that the ‘crying out’ that is criticised is that of the people in v. 10, with Moses being seen by Yahweh as their representative (Noth, p. 90, ET, p. 113; Houtman, p. 266; Dozeman, p. 314; Berner, p. 358). But in addition to the different subjects of the verb, such an interpretation ignores the exchange between the people and Moses in vv. 11-14, and it is more likely that v. 15 comes from a different version of the story: this would also explain the contrast between ‘keep your position’ in v. 13 and ‘set out’ here.39 Verses 16-18 clearly belong to the same (Priestly) strand of the narrative as v. 4, and v. 15 might do so too, if it could be presumed that compiler omitted a variant Priestly version of the complaint in v. 11 which attributed it to Moses.40 This is one possibility considered by Propp (p. 479), but as he points out the verb ṣāʿaq (‘cry out’) is not used elsewhere by P: the parallels noted above are all from non-Priestly passages.41 We must therefore envisage the incorporation here of an extract from a second non-Priestly account of the episode, of which there are in fact further traces elsewhere in the text (see the notes below on 39   As will become clearer, this contrast probably reflects two very different portrayals of what happened at ‘the sea’. 40   The Peshiṭta actually has words to this effect between vv. 14 and 15, but they are almost certainly a secondary amplification (see Text and Versions). 41   In 2.23 P used the variant form zāʿaq.

254

EXODUS 1–18

vv. 19-21 and 25, and earlier on vv. 5 and 9). Most of v. 16 presents further Priestly instructions from Yahweh, which are continued in vv. 17-18. But the words ‘And you, lift up your staff’, unlike the continuation in the rest of v. 16, have no equivalent in the fulfilment of these commands in vv. 21-23, which otherwise follow them very closely. These words too are therefore not likely to have been an original part of P. Their origin in a non-Priestly version of the story is confirmed, not only by earlier references to Moses’ staff (see the notes on 4.1-5; 7.15-17; 9.23; 10.13), but by its mention in 17.5. Probably they originally led into vv. 19b-20 and the raising of Moses’ staff brought about the movement of the pillar of cloud there, not the withdrawal or dividing of the sea. The Priestly instructions to Moses will then begin with ‘Stretch out your hand’ in v. 16. Remarkably Moses himself is credited with the ability to ‘divide the sea’, though it is clear that he does so only by means of a divinely commanded action. The instruction for Aaron in 8.1(P) is similar. Only now is Yahweh’s plan more fully revealed, but at this stage it is still not apparent how the Egyptians’ pursuit of the Israelites into the dried up sea will end in Yahweh winning glory over Pharaoh and his army. On the expressions used in vv. 17-18 see Notes i and x on the translation. 19-20. The execution of Yahweh’s commands is delayed until v. 21 and first the narrative continues with some themes which show none of the characteristics of the Priestly narrative but do pick up some features of the non-Priestly version(s) of the story. In v. 19 and the first part of v. 20 (to ‘the army of Israel’) different means used by Yahweh to reveal himself to Israel and guide them on their way are (re)introduced. The second, ‘the pillar of cloud’, is already familiar from 13.21-22; the first, ‘the angel of God’, has not appeared before in a guiding role, but it will recur in 23.23, 33.2 and Num. 20.16 and it recalls ‘the angel of Yahweh’ in 3.2 and similar manifestations of God in Genesis (see the Explanatory Note on 3.2-3). The reference to the angel here (‘the angel of God who…’) seems to presuppose an earlier mention of its guiding role, which must have been included in a larger narrative of which only parts have been used by the compiler of the present text. Given the use of ‘God’ rather than the divine name, this probably originally followed 13.17-18(19). The two parallel statements here are so similar (both begin with the same verb ‘moved’ [Heb. nāsaʿ] and both use the expression ‘the army [here maḥnēh, lit. ‘camp’, not ḥêl, the word used in the



14.1-31

255

Priestly account in vv. 3, (9,) 17 and 28] of Israel’) that there must be some connection between them: either one was modelled on the other or both are dependent on a common source, whether written or oral. In each case what had hitherto been a means of guidance now becomes a source of protection, separating the Israelites from the Egyptians behind them. The translation and interpretation of the second half of v. 20 is very difficult and uncertain (see Note qq and Text and Versions), but MT probably represents the oldest recoverable form of the text and it yields a sense that fits the context (cf. NRSV), viz. that when darkness came the cloud was transformed into fire (cf. 13.21-22; 14.24) and lit up the night, with the result that the two ‘armies’ were kept apart (how or why is not explained). The implication seems to be that neither the Egyptians nor the Israelites were moving at this point, which fits vv. 9 and 13-14 but perhaps not v. 15b. 21-23. Almost all of this sub-section conforms closely to the wording of Yahweh’s instructions in vv. 16-18 and so will also belong to the Priestly account. The main exception is in the words ‘and Yahweh made the sea flow away by a strong east wind and made the sea dry land’ in v. 21. These words break the connection between Moses’ action and the ‘division’ of the sea in v. 16; in addition ‘dry land’ (Heb. ḥārābāh: cf. Gen. 7.22; Josh. 3.17; 4.18; 2 Kgs 2.8) is a different word from ‘dry ground’ (Heb. yabbāšāh) in vv. 16 and 22 (also 29), and the ‘flowing away’ of the sea is a different scenario from the creation of two ‘walls’ of water in v. 22 (cf. v. 29).42 There is good reason, therefore, to see the middle of v. 21 as an extract from the non-Priestly version of the story which the compiler inserted at the most convenient point in the Priestly account, as critical scholars have generally done. In addition the words ‘all the horses [here Heb. sûs] of’ do not appear in vv. 17-18 and were probably inserted here by a redactor to match the wording of 15.1 and 21. As a result the meaning of Heb. pārāš just afterwards was shifted ftrom ‘horses’ to ‘horsemen’ (see Note x on the translation). 24-25. Again there is no trace of the Priestly account until v. 26 (where the continuation joins on very well to the end of v. 23) and the word ‘army’ (lit. ‘camp’), ‘a pillar of fire and cloud’ (v. 24) and 42   The language is obviously metaphorical, but it is worth observing that ‘wall’ (Heb. ḥōmāh) is the word for a city wall rather than the wall of a house (qîr).

256

EXODUS 1–18

Yahweh fighting for the Israelites (v. 25) reintroduce features of the non-Priestly version (cf. vv. 14, 19-20). As Blum has well seen, the latter theme on the lips of the Egyptians recalls (and even ‘fulfils’) the fear expressed in 1.10 by Pharaoh (but on behalf of ‘us’) that the Israelites will ‘fight’ against them – the only (but very significant) difference being that they now recognise that it is Yahweh whom they have to fear and not just the Israelites (Studien, p. 9). But in the present text there is no non-Priestly account of the Israelites or the Egyptians crossing the ‘dry land’ from which the sea had withdrawn: presumably it was omitted by the compiler in favour of the more dramatic Priestly version (for other explanations see the introduction to this section). From here on the narrative concentrates mainly on the fate of the Egyptians, to such an extent that many commentators have doubted whether the non-Priestly account even included the Israelites’ crossing of the sea (on this problem too see the introduction). The non-Priestly version notes the progression of time again: ‘at the morning watch’, i.e. in the latter part of the night (cf. ‘all the night’ in vv. 20-21 and ‘as morning approached’ in v. 27). For the expression cf. 1 Sam. 11.11: ‘the middle watch’ in Judg. 7.19 suggests that the night was divided into three ‘watches’. The precise connection between Yahweh’s ‘looking down’ and the ‘confusion’ of the Egyptians is not specified, and perhaps no external intervention is to be envisaged at this point. The extant text finds one in the ‘jamming’ (or ‘removal’: see Note ww on the translation and Text and Versions) of the chariots’ wheels in v. 25, but this assumes that the chariots are already in motion and may have been drawn from a different non-Priestly version of the story. Divinely caused confusion or panic in the enemy army is a regular feature of ‘Yahweh war’ narratives and laws (cf. 15.14-16; 23.27; Deut. 7.23; Josh. 10.10; Judg. 4.15; 7.22), and is explicitly connected with Yahweh’s support for Israel in the final clause of v. 25 (which, in view of the ‘the Egyptians’, is better understood as the narrator’s comment than as words of the Egyptians, who would have said ‘us’). The outlook of this strand of the narrative thus continues what has been said in vv. 13-14 (see the notes there). 26-29. The finale is introduced by a further extract from the Priestly account, with the same instruction to Moses, which he carries out, to raise his hand over the sea (vv. 26-27a) as in vv. 16 and 21. But there is a clear duplication in the repetition of the ‘return’



14.1-31

257

of the sea/waters in vv. 27 and 28, each time with the effect on the Egyptians following, but in different terms. The use of the expressions ‘horses’ (Heb. pārāš) and ‘army’ (here Heb. ḥêl: see the note on vv. 19-20) points to v. 28 as containing the Priestly version: its language also coincides in other respects with vv. 23 and 26.43 Most of v. 27 (from ‘as morning approached’) will then be from the nonPriestly account, with another precise specification of the timing (cf. vv. 21-22, 24) and the Egyptians not simply ‘covered’ by the sea but ‘shaken out’ (from their chariots?) into it.44 In the combined text v. 27 must mean that the Egyptians have given up their pursuit of the Israelites but are cut off by the returning waters before they can reach the point from which they have entered the sea. But it is widely held that in the original separate non-Priestly narrative the Israelites did not cross the sea, so that the Egyptians would only have put themselves in danger when they fled into its oncoming waters in the ‘confusion’ described in v. 24. In any case the combined narrative as it stands ends with a recap of the Israelites’ crossing of the dried-up sea in safety in the Priestly language of v. 22: the only variations are ‘gone (through)’, implying completion, instead of ‘entered’ and the inversion of ‘on dry ground’ and ‘(through) the midst of the sea’ to underline the contrast with the fate of the Egyptians. The account of the destruction of the Egyptian force, which perhaps had more than one version in the biblical tradition (certainly there is a distinction in form between the poems in ch. 15 and the components of the prose narrative in ch. 14, not to speak of other passages in both prose and poetry elsewhere), has no close parallel in ancient Near Eastern or classical literature. But there are some accounts of military forces meeting a disaster in a watery context in other ways, which at least end in ways that resemble the fate of the Egyptian force in Exodus. Some are accompanied by vivid illustrations.

43   But the final words ‘not even one of them was left’ might equally well belong to the non-Priestly version. ‘After them’ (sc. the Israelites) is awkward in v. 28, as the last reference to Israel was in v. 25. Did v. 29 originally stand earlier in the text, before v. 28? Or are the words ‘who came into the sea after them’ a secondary addition modelled on v. 23? 44   ‘Morning’ is also elsewhere the regular time of Yahweh’s deliverance of his people (cf. Ps. 46.6 and TWAT 1, 751-54 = TDOT 2, pp. 226-28).

258

EXODUS 1–18

From Egypt itself there is the portrayal, in both texts and reliefs, of a sea-battle between the Egyptians and a naval force of Sea Peoples (c. 1190) on the walls of the mortuary temple of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu. The attacking force is attempting to make an entry through the mouths of the Nile, but it is repelled and captured, with at least some loss of life, by Egyptian forces on land and water.45 In a different, inland, setting reliefs of Ashurbanipal from the South-West Palace at Nineveh show a battle between Assyrians and Elamites at a town by the river Ulai (c. 653), where warriors, horses, weapons and parts of chariots can be seen floating in the river. Some of the defeated Elamites were apparently driven into the river and perished there. The main portrayal of the river scene extends across the bottom register of three adjacent slabs: another shows it from a different perspective.46 Finally, Lake Sirbonis on the Mediterranean coast east of the Nile Delta was well known to classical writers as a place of danger for travellers and armies. Diodorus (Hist. 1.30), in describing the strength of Egypt’s natural boundaries, reports that ‘many of those who were unfamiliar with the perils of the lake shore had lost whole armies through losing their way’. Later he instances the examples of Artaxerxes III in 342 B.C. (16.46) and Antigonus in 306 (20.73-74). Strabo also writes of the flooding of the road (Geog. 1.58) and, in general terms, of catastrophes suffered by armies here (16.758).47 Further references to the dangers of the Sirbonis region appear in Herod. Hist. 2.6;   For the texts see RITA 5, pp. 27-30, also 32-34 (inscription of Ramesses III’s 8th year); the reliefs appear in H.H. Nelson, Medinet Habu I: Earlier Historical Records of Ramesses III (OIP 8; Chicago, 1930), pls 36-37. Discussion and interpretation in Nelson, ‘The Naval Battle Pictured at Medinet Habu’, JNES 3 (1943), pp. 40-55; E. Noort, Die Seevölker in Palästina (Palestina Antiqua 8; Kampen, 1994), pp. 56-57, 64-72, 110, with numerous illustrations. 46   The technical publication of the reliefs, with introduction, is in R.D. Barnett et al., Sculptures from the Southwest Palace of Sennacherib at Nineveh (London, 1998), pp. 94-100 with pls 286-320 (esp. a) pls 300-311; b) pls 296-297). An earlier version of pl. 311 appeared in ANEP, no. 204: part of this is redrawn in Keel, Bildsymbolik, pp. 206-207 (ET, p. 227) with fig. 310 and a caption citing Exod. 15.1 and Ps. 106.11. The historical circumstances of the war against Teumman are described in CAH2 III/2, pp. 52 and 147-54; some of the textual evidence appears in ARAB, nos. 1068-72, and in COS 4, p. 187. 47   Strabo’s most detailed example is located much further north and relates to an undated border dispute between the forces of Tyre and Ptolemais/Acco, when 45



14.1-31

259

3.5; Polybius Hist. 5.80, Strabo, Geog. 1.50; 16.760 and Plutarch, Antony 3.48 Some historians have even regarded this as the location of the events portrayed in Exodus 14–15: see the Excursus on 14.1-4 and n. 85 to the Explanatory Note on 15.8. 30-31. The surviving conclusion is from the non-Priestly version of the story: if there was a corresponding Priestly conclusion it would have taken up the language of Yahweh’s ‘winning glory over the Egyptians’ and making them acknowledge him (cf. vv. 4, 17-18). Instead we read of Yahweh’s ‘deliverance’ of Israel as in v. 13 and his ‘great act of power’ against the Egyptians. By a subtle shift of meaning the Israelites are no longer ‘afraid’ of the approaching Egyptians (vv. 10, 13) but ‘in awe of Yahweh’ (v. 31), and now they ‘believe’ again in Yahweh and Moses ‘his servant’ (cf. 4.31). The latter designation of Moses is rare outside the Deuteronomic tradition, but it occurs in Num. 12.7. The repetitiveness of the conclusion (especially ‘Israel saw’ in v. 30b and 31a) has led to the suggestion that v. 31 is a redactional addition (so especially H.-C. Schmitt, ‘ “Priesterliches” und “prophetisches” Geschichtsverständnis’). But Israel seeing the Egyptians dead on the seashore does not seem a very plausible ending of the original narrative (although it too has at least a loose connection with v. 13), and the dual responses of the people in v. 31 match well those attributed to E (‘fear of God’) and J (‘faith in God’) in earlier criticism. There may therefore be further evidence here of the merging of two older versions in the non-Priestly account (cf. vv. 13-16, 19-20).49 The inclusion of Moses with Yahweh as the object of Israel’s trust is particularly notable (but cf. 4.1-9; 19.9). In the narrative context it most naturally looks forward to Moses’ role as leader (not always so positively regarded by the people) on the journey through the wilderness.

what sounds like a tsunami surged over the coastal plain and dragged many of the defeated army to their deaths (ibid.). He then adds that ‘similar phenomena’ have occurred ‘near Mount Casios close to Egypt’ (in fact by Lake Sirbonis). 48   For extended discussion and translations of texts see O. Eissfeldt, Baal Zaphon, esp. pp. 39-71; more briefly Herrmann, Israels Aufenthalt, pp. 83-92 (ET, pp. 56-64). 49   For the attribution of vv. 30 + 31b and v. 31a to different sources see Smend, Erzählung, p. 143 (cf. Eissfeldt and Beer ad loc.).

260

EXODUS 1–18

Text and Versions ‫( וידבר‬14.1) In 4QExc there is a lacuna, but space for the verse at the beginning of a new line after a vacat following the end of ch. 13. The Vatican ms. of TgO and one early printed ed. omit this introductory verse, as they often do (cf. AramB 6, pp. 36-37). ‫( יהוה‬14.1) TgNmg, G(J) add ‘the Memra of’, while TgF(P) has ‫דיבריה דייי‬, ‘the speech of the Lord’, a rarer periphrasis which also occurs in TgF(P) at 19.3. ‫( לאמר‬14.1) Sy reads wʾmr lh as in 6.29 (cf. MT at 6.2), except for 5b1 which has wʾmr for ‫ וידבר‬instead (cf. 13.1). ‫( דבר‬14.2) Sy has ʾmr, again showing its freedom in rendering verbs of saying (see the previous note and 13.1). ‫( בני ישׂראל‬14.2) Sy dbyt ʾysrʾyl: see 11.7 and Text and Versions there. ‫( וישׁבו‬14.2) The majority of SP mss read the plene form ‫( וישובו‬contra von Gall), but 4QExc agrees with MT. TgJ adds ‘backwards’, perhaps to exclude the auxiliary use of ‫שׁוב‬. ‫( לפני פי החירת‬14.2) So also SP and apparently 4QExc; the transliterations in Vulg and the Syh representation of Aq, Symm and Theod support the MT vocalisation. LXX has ἀπέναντι τῆς ἐπαύλεως (so also in v. 9). ἀπέναντι as an equivalent to ‫ לפני‬is rare (but cf. 30.6) and might render ‫( פי‬in the sense ‘entrance’?) as well here. ἔπαυλις is a favourite word of the LXX translators and is used elsewhere for ‫( חצר‬cf. 8.9; Lev. 25.31) and ‫( טירה‬Gen. 25.16; Num. 31.10), either of which the Exodus translator may have read here. But ἔπαυλις was also used as a place-name (cf. Preisigke 3, p. 294) and in later times there was a place called Epauleum near to modern Suez (Etheria, Per. 7.4): possibly the translator equated ‫ פי החירת‬with this (cf. my Way of the Wilderness, pp. 5-6). TgO,J and Sy rendered ‫ פי‬by its Aram. equivalent ‫( פום‬cf. LXX at Num. 33.7), while TgN,F less obviously used ‫פונדקי‬, a loan-word from Greek meaning ‘taverns’. For ‫ החירת‬MRI (Lauterbach, p. 188) already knew two interpretations, ‘rocks’ and ‘freedom, license’: TgJ (with some elaboration also found in MRI) and perhaps TgO and Sy followed the former and TgNmg the latter. TgJ also equates the place with Tanis in the northern Nile Delta, which makes some sense as a place to which the Israelites ‘turned back’ from Pelusium, where TgJ located Ramesses (like Josephus and TgN,F) in 12.37 (cf. Way of the Wilderness, pp. 12-13, 19, 21). This identification of Pi-hahiroth could be due to the biblical reference to ‘Zoan’, the older name of Tanis, as the site of the Exodus miracles (Ps. 78.12-13). But Pi-hahiroth was also identified with Pithom (MRI, ibid.), and it had been equated with Tanis in 1.11 by TgJ,N,F. ‫( בין מגדל‬14.2) LXX ἀνὰ μέσον Μαγδώλου (cf. Vulg inter Magdolum) ‘preserves the contemporary pronunciation’ (Wevers, Notes, p. 208), i.e. of the Greco-Roman period: it is also attested in the Itinerarium Antonini (third cent. A.D.) as the name of a place twelve Roman miles from Pelusium (O. Cuntz, Itineraria Romana I [Leipzig, 1929], p. 23).



14.1-31

261

‫( בעל צפן‬14.2) LXX Βεελσεπφών (with the Aram. vowels in Βεελ-) and Vulg Beelsephon transcribe as the name of a place, likewise TgO and Sy. TgJ,N,F(VN) substitute ‫טעות‬, ‘idol’ for ‫בעל‬, but probably still regard ‫ צפן‬as a place-name; TgF(P), which adds ‫ טעותא‬after the expression, regards it all as the name of a deity. TgJ has a long addition which sees Baal-zephon as the supreme Egyptian god who survived the attack described in 12.12 (see also the note on v. 3 below). ‫( נכחו‬14.2) LXX ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν (corrected to the sing. in Aq, Symm and Theod: cf. Vulg in conspectu eius) probably had both the places ‘before’ which the Israelites were to encamp in mind. Some witnesses to TgO have the same intention. ‫( תחנו‬14.2) LXX has the sing. στρατοπεδεύσεις for no obvious reason (presumably the people are viewed collectively) and Aq is credited with the same reading. But Symm, Theod and the other witnesses all agree with MT’s pl. ‫( על־הים‬14.2) LXX’s ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης can mean ‘by the sea’ (LSJ, p. 621), and perhaps Vulg’s super mare can too. TgJ,F(P) have ‫על גיף ימא‬, ‘on the sea-shore’, to remove any doubt about the sense of ‫על‬. ‫( ואמר‬14.3) Sy wʾmr missed the future sense of the perfect consecutive (cf. Propp, p. 466). ‫( לבני ישׂראל‬14.3) 4QExc and one SP ms. read ‫ אל‬for ‫ל‬, as often after verbs of saying in the sense ‘about’ (e.g. Gen. 20.2: cf. BDB, p. 40): as the easier reading it is probably secondary. Sy, Vulg, LXXA and most of the Tgg give the sense ‘about’, which more likely represents the true sense of MT here (see Note e on the translation) than a divergent Vorlage. The sense evidently escaped the original LXX translators, who paraphrased with τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ, Οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραήλ (OL’s fili Israel is doubtless a partial correction of this), and TgJ who introduced a reference to ‘Dathan and Abiram, the Israelites who were left in Egypt’, an otherwise unknown tradition (cf. TgNmg, which has a conflation of all the Targumic renderings of this verse). ‫( נבכים‬14.3) So also 4QExc and most SP mss (the variant ‫ נביכים‬reflects the different Sam. pronunciation: GSH §82e). The meaning of this rare word is variously represented here: ‘wandering’ (LXX, TgN,F), ‘confused’ (TgO,J: cf. MRI [Lauterbach, pp. 190-91]), ‘confined’ (Vulg, probably inferred from the next clause, like Rashi’s ‫כלואים‬: his comparisons with words for ‘depth’(?) are far-fetched) and even ‘foreigners’ (Sy dnwkryyn). MRI (ibid.) also recalls the derivation from ‫בכה‬, ‘weep’, which was common in other places where the root appears. ‫( בארץ‬14.3) The renderings in TgN (‘on the way’) and TgF (‘in the wilderness’) are perhaps the products of their (mis)understanding of ‫נבכים‬. ‫( סגר‬14.3) Most of the Vss correctly understand ‫ המדבר‬as the subj. (and LXX added γάρ to establish a connection with the previous clause), but TgJ,N,F(P) introduce ‘the [or “my”] idol/Baal of Zaphon’ from v. 2 as the subj.

262

EXODUS 1–18

(TgF(VN) have ‘Peor’), so that ‫ המדבר‬can be an explicit obj. of the verb. MRI (Lauterbach, p. 191) is similar but makes Yahweh the subj. – an unlikely idea for Pharaoh and perhaps an orthodox way of repudiating the elaboration in the Tgg while still dealing with the grammatical ‘problem’. TgO’s ‫אחד‬, which is usually transitive, was perhaps meant to be understood in the same way. ‫( המדבר‬14.3) TgN,F prefix ‫נגדוי‬, ‘the passes (or paths) of’, to clarify the sense: probably TgJ originally had this reading too, in place of the unintelligible ‫ נגחוי‬which is also cited in TgNmg (cf. AramB 2, p. 199 n. 7). ‫( וחזקתי‬14.4) Sy (except for 5b1) prefixes ‘The Lord said to Moses’, to prevent the following words from being seen as the continuation of Pharaoh’s declaration. Many SP mss (cf. Tal, Crown as well as von Gall’s apparatus) read the Hiph. ‫ והחזקתי‬instead of the Piel, as they also do in 4.21 and 14.17. This reflects a general tendency in SH to use the Hiphil more (cf. GSH §171cα), but in BH ‫ חזק‬Hiphil is not used in this way. See also Text and Versions on 4.21. ‫( את־לב־פרעה‬14.4) TgJ adds ‫יצרא‬, ‘the inclination’, as usual (see Text and Versions on 11.10). Vulg has simply ‘his heart’, as Pharaoh has been the speaker in v. 3. ‫( אחריהם‬14.4) Sy (but not 5b1), Vulg and some LXX mss have ‘(after) you’, which will have seemed more natural in words that Moses was to speak to the Israelites. The more awkward reading of MT, SP and the other Vss will, however, be the original one. ‫( ואכבדה‬14.4) The Vss mainly render by simple future passive verbs, but TgNmg ‫( אייקר מימרי‬first person sing. impf. Pael) preserves something of the reflexive sense (cf. TgF(P)). ‫( ובכל־חילו‬14.4) TgO,J use ‫משׁרית‬, ‘camp’, for ‫חיל‬, as they do in vv. 9 and 17 and also for MT’s ‫( מחנה‬more naturally) in vv. 19, 20 and 24: the variation in wording and probably also the sense (cf. Note pp on the translation) are thus obscured. ‫( מצרים‬14.4) LXX adds πάντες, ‘all’, as it does frequently (see Text and Versions on 13.22). ‫( כן‬14.4) TgF(P) adds ‘according to his Memra (or better, “his word”)’. ‫( ויגד למלך מצרים‬14.5) TgJ has ‘The slave supervisors who went with Israel related’ (cf. TgNmg) to explain how the report was made, alluding to a fuller midrash in MRI (Lauterbach, p. 194), but oddly omits any mention of Pharaoh at this point.50 ‫( ברח‬14.5) LXX, TgJ,N,F and Vulg have the expected ‘fled’, but TgO and Sy use ‫אזל‬, with the weaker sense ‘went (away)’, as TgO does sometimes elsewhere (cf. B. Grossfeld, ‘The Relationship between Biblical Hebrew ‫ברח‬ and ‫ נוס‬and their Corresponding Aramaic Equivalents in the Targum – ‫ערק‬, ‫אפק‬, ‫אזל‬: A Preliminary Study in Aramaic–Hebrew Lexicography’, ZAW 50   The words ‫ דאזלו עם ישׂראל‬could in theory be translated ‘that the people of Israel had gone’ and be viewed as an alternative translation (close to TgO and Sy) of the next clause in MT (cf. AramB 7, p. 39 n. 2). But TgJ does not use ‫ עם‬in the constr. st. before ‫ישׂראל‬, preferring the det. st. followed by ‫ בית‬or ‫( בני‬cf. vv. 3, 25).



14.1-31

263

91 [1979], pp. 107-23 [107-108]). The other instances are concentrated in the stories of Jacob (e.g. Gen. 31.20-22) and Balaam (Num. 24.11) and are designed to avoid criticism of respected figures: the same would apply here, especially with the contrasting description in v. 8 to follow (see also MRI [Lauterbach, p. 194]). ‫( לבב‬14.5) SP has ‫לב‬, the form generally used in Exodus and so probably a case of it ‘correcting’ to the regular form. ‫( אל־העם‬14.5) SP reads ‫ על‬for ‫ אל‬here, as it did in 12.22; cf. LXX ἐπί and Vulg super. The variation could be due to failure to understand the sense of ‫ אל‬here (on which see Note m on the translation). TgN ‫ לות‬corresponds well to ‫אל‬, but TgO ‫ ב‬and TgJ,F ‫( על‬cf. Sy ʿl) imply a hostility which TgJ emphasises by adding ‘to evil’. ‫( מה־זאת עשׂינו‬14.5) Most of the Vss translate literally, with ‘this’ for ‫זאת‬, but Vulg’s quid voluimus facere, ‘What did we mean to do?’ perhaps shows some awareness of its rhetorical dimension (cf. its similar rendering in v. 11, though there with hoc). ‫( ישׂראל‬14.5) LXX prefixes τοὺς υἱούς, no doubt assimilating to vv. 2-3. ‫( מעבדנו‬14.5) LXX, Vulg and TgN,F follow the Heb. construction closely, but TgO,J and Sy employ nouns meaning ‘servitude’. The use of ‫ קדם‬after ‫פלח‬ instead of a direct object in TgN,F is more widespread with reference to the worship of God, but is extended in the Pal. Tgg to the service of men (cf. Gen. 14.4 and v. 12 here in TgN and Gen. 27.29; 29.15 in TgF. ‫( ויאסר‬14.6) LXX ἔζευξεν and Vulg iunxit employ the idioms appropriate to the target languages. ἔδησεν in the mg of LXXF is probably from one of the Three: cf. the similar ‘corrections’ in Gen. 42.16 and Isa. 61.1. LXX’s addition of Φαραώ reintroduces him as the subject but is scarcely original. ‫( את־רכבו‬14.6) The Vss are divided between a precise sing. (TgO,J,F, Vulg), which TgJ at least51 takes to refer to Pharaoh’s own chariot (with an allusion to a comment found in MRI [Lauterbach, pp. 198-99]), and a pl., which understands the Heb. collectively (LXX, TgN, Sy): SP supports MT’s sing. form. ‫( ואת־עמו‬14.6) SP, TgO,J and Sy follow MT’s text exactly: the remaining Vss modify it in two opposite ways, LXX and Vulg by adding ‘all’ and TgN,F by (pedantically) limiting the force to those able to fight. ‫( לקח‬14.6) LXX συναπήγαγεν and Vulg adsumpsit depart from a simple equivalent to avoid repetition in the next verse, while TgJ adds ‘with persuasive [lit. soft] words’, alluding to a midrash in MRI (Lauterbach, p. 200). ‫( בחור‬14.7) All the Vss (except TgN, which has no equivalent at all) render with words that can mean either ‘chosen’ or’choice’. ‫( וכל רכב מצרים‬14.7) Most of the Vss render the waw with ‘and’, but Vulg does not, implying that this phrase explains the previous one. LXX καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν ἵππον τῶν Αἰγυπτίων, ‘and all the cavalry of the Egyptians’ (cf. Lee, Lexical Study, p. 35), actually alters its translation and so avoids repetition; Sy’s omission of an equivalent to the second ‫ רכב‬does not alter the sense.   According to the editio princeps: the London ms. omits the whole verse.

51

264

EXODUS 1–18

TgJ has a long addition explaining that the animals involved were those of the Egyptians who heeded Yahweh’s word in 9.20 (cf. MRI [Lauterbach, p. 201]). ‫( ושׁלשׁים‬14.7) Von Gall printed the same reading for SP, but this is a mistake, as nearly all the mss read ‫ושׁלישׁים‬, thus supporting MT’s vocalisation, as do several of the renderings in the Vss (on which see further Salvesen, Symmachus, pp. 89-90, and Mastin [in Note t on the translation], pp. 138-42). LXX and Theod have και τριστάτας, a word used several times for ‫ שׁלישׁ‬but of uncertain meaning, as it is not attested outside LXX. LSJ, p. 1823, gave ‘one who stands next to the king and queen, vizier’, but the Supplement, p. 296, suggests that it may be a calque (coined by the Exodus translator, perhaps) of Heb. ‫שׁלישׁ‬, designating a military officer of high rank or an attendant on the king. Aq τρισσοί (prob.), ‘triples’, and Symm ἀνὰ τρεῖς, ‘in threes’, relate the sense to the numeral ‘three’ and may be alluding to the interpretation taken by TgJ from MRI (Lauterbach, p. 202, where the Eng. tr. wrongly applies ‘the third’ to an occupant of the chariot): ‘to each chariot he [sc. Pharaoh] added a third mule to pull (it) and to pursue (them) in haste’ (AramB 2, p. 199). TgO,F and Sy have ‘warriors’, the first interpretation offered in MRI, ibid. (see also the next note), which TgN ‫ורברבנין‬, TgNmg ‫( פולימרכין‬a Greek loanword) and Vulg duces elevate into ‘commanders’ (see also the next note). Of these only TgF incorporates an attempt to relate the word to the numeral, with ‘triply armed’, which is again in MRI, ibid. ‫( על־כלו‬14.7) Several of the Vss clearly give ‫ על‬the sense ‘(with authority) over’ by adding explanatory words: Vulg (duces) totius exercitus, TgO,N.F ‘(were) appointed’. LXX (ἐπὶ πάντων) and Sy could have this sense, but it is not certain. Only TgJ certainly does not, but for it ‫ על‬means ‘(harnessed) to’ rather than ‘upon’. Early evidence for a reference to chariot-riders seems to be limited to the comments of Origen and Basil (cf. Mastin, pp. 139-40). ‫( יהוה‬14.8) TgF(P) adds ‘the Memra of’. ‫( לב‬14.8) TgJ prefixes ‫ יצרא‬as in v. 4 and elsewhere. ‫( בני ישׂראל‬14.8) TgF(P) prefixes ‫עמא‬, ‘the people of’. ‫( יצאים‬14.8) Von Gall printed this as the text of SP, but nearly all mss have the plene form ‫יוצאים‬. LXX ἐξεπορεύοντο and TgJ ‫ נפקין‬render MT precisely, but Vulg egressi erant (cf. TgO,N,F ]‫ נפקו[ן‬and Sy), while true to (some of) the narrative context (cf. 12.41, 51: also Num. 33.3), would really require a Vorlage ‫ יצאו‬to express the pluperfect (GK §142b). Even if such a Heb. text had existed, however, it would have to be regarded as the easier reading (and hence inferior) than that of MT and SP, which implies that the Exodus was still continuing. TgN,F(PVN) as often add ‫פריקין‬, ‘redeemed’. ‫( ביד רמה‬14.8) LXX, Vulg, TgJ and Sy translate literally (with the addition of ‘prevailing over the Egyptians’ in TgJ to explain it, as in one inter­pretation in MRI [Lauterbach, p. 204]), but TgO,N,F(P) read ‫ברישׁ גלי‬, ‘with head uncovered’ (another interpretation [of MT] given in MRI, ibid.: for other occurrences see AramB 2, p. 59 n. 6). This perhaps carries the sense ‘defiantly’ (so AramB 7, p. 38), though Jastrow, p. 248, plausibly suggests ‘openly’.



14.1-31

265

‫( אחריהם‬14.9) Vulg, not content this time with a simple pron. obj. as in v. 3, has vestigia praecedentium, ‘the footsteps of those who had gone before’, in a stylistic flourish that picks up a Ciceronian phrase (cf LS, p. 1354). ‫( וישׂיגו‬14.9) LXX καὶ εὗρον and Vulg et reppererunt are imprecise if widely used equivalents for ‫ נשׂג‬Hiph. The sense is better represented in TgO,J and Sy: TgN,F(P) ‫וארעו‬, ‘and they joined, met, found’ is closer to LXX and Vulg. ‫( על־הים‬14.9) TgF(P) (but not this time TgJ) inserts ‘the shore of’ as in v. 2. TgJ follows these words with a long addition about the Israelites collecting pearls and precious stones carried by water from the garden of Eden: no source for this is known. ‫( כל־סוס רכב פרעה‬14.9) SP has the same reading as MT, but the sudden change back to a (fuller) description of Pharaoh’s force and the unique expression ‫ סוס רכב‬caused difficulties for some of the Vss. LXX καὶ πᾶσα ἡ ἵππος καὶ τὰ ἅρματα Φαραώ makes the rest of the verse indicate where Pharaoh’s army was now located (for further evidence of this interpretation see below on ‫ )על־פי החירת‬and treats the ‘cavalry’ and chariots as two separate components of it: Vulg also adds ‘and’ before ‘the chariots’ for the same reason. Sy simply uses the easier wording of v. 23: ‘all Pharaoh’s horses and his chariots’. TgN ‘all the horses, the chariots of Pharaoh’ achieves the same result without adding ‘and’. The other Tgg render the Heb. in the most natural way and take ‫ כל־סוס‬as in the construct state. This difficulty at least is probably due to redactional activity (see the Explanatory Note), and LXX, Vulg, Sy and TgN are secondary attempts to deal with it. ‫( ופרשׁיו‬14.9) Vulg has no equivalent here, probably because equitatus, its rendering for ‫סוס‬, was taken to include the riders as well as the horses (in v. 23, however, it has equites in a similar situation). All the other Vss give the sense ‘and his horsemen’: LXX has no explicit equivalent for the suffix, as one is not needed in Greek (one is supplied by Aq and Theod, followed by the O-text). The Tgg and Sy use the Aram. cognate of ‫פרשׁ‬, which by their time meant only ‘horsemen’, although it occurs in Old Aram. (as occasionally in Heb.) as an alternative word for a (war?) horse: see Jastrow, p. 1243; DNWSI, p. 945; CAL. ‫( וחילו‬14.9) Many SP mss read the pl. form ‫וחיליו‬, although in vv. 4 and 28 they have the sing. like MT: here it is probably a scribal error due to the pl. suff. on ‫ופרשׁיו‬. TgN,F have the pl. too, in all three cases, perhaps influenced by 12.41 where TgN uses the same form to render the pl. of ‫צבא‬. Vulg prefixes universus, thus matching ‘all his army’ in v. 4. TgO,J render ‫ חיל‬as there (see the note). ‫( על־פי החירת‬14.9) LXX represents ‫ על‬with ἀπέναντι as it had for ‫ לפני‬in v. 2 (cf. TgF), but the other Vss have either ‫( על‬TgO,J, Sy) or a rendering which represents it closely: Vulg in, TgN ‫סמיך ל‬. The recognition of the variation may at least have assisted the reading of this part of the verse as the location of the Egyptian army rather than of Israel (cf. the note above on ‫)כל־סוס רכב פרעה‬, which is clearly adopted by Vulg and Sy, as their prefixing of erant and šryn

266

EXODUS 1–18

here shows, and could be intended in the other Vss (especially in TgJ with its long insertion in the middle of the verse: cf. AramB 2, p. 199) and even in MT. ‫( ופרעה הקריב‬14.10) The SP mss make this the end of v. 9 (cf. Sy), clearly treating it as an independent clause and the climax of the Egyptian approach. This hardly does justice to the inversion of the normal word-order. Vulg cumque adpropinquasset Pharaoh is a decisive witness to the opposite view, with subordination to what follows. TgJ, picking up its rendering in v. 2, has ‘Pharaoh saw that the idol of Zaphon had been spared and offered offerings before him’, giving ‫ הקריב‬its regular sacrificial interpretation, like one view cited in MRI (Lauterbach, p. 205: cf. TgNmg). LXX’s προσῆγεν often bears this meaning in Leviticus and Numbers (Wevers, Notes, p. 213), but it can also mean ‘advance’ (LSJ, p. 1499). ‫( בני ישׂראל‬14.10) Sy reads dbyt ʾysrʾl the first time, as in v. 2, but reverts to precision for the second occurrence (which Vulg simply omits). ‫( את־עיניהם‬14.10) LXX τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς (following ἀναβλέψαντες), without αὐτῶν, but it was added by the Three and the O-text. ‫( והנה‬14.10) SP prefixes ‫ויראו‬, and this is an early addition, since it is also found in 4Q365 (according to DJD XII, p. 118, it is unlikely to have been in 4QExc). The Tgg all agree with MT, but LXX ὁρῶσιν (cf. Vulg, Sy) has been seen as further evidence for the SP reading. It may, however, simply be an interpretation of ‫( והנה‬cf. Gen. 37.29). In narrative ‫ והנה‬is often preceded by a form of ‫( ראה‬e.g. Exod. 2.6; 3.2: cf. BDB, pp. 244, 907), but not always (e.g. Gen. 15.12; 37.7, 9, 29). Most likely the reading of 4Q365 and SP is an expansion of the original text here, to supply the fuller idiom. ‫( נסע‬14.10) SP has the pl. ‫ נסעים‬and again there is early evidence for this reading, in 4Q365 and probably in 4QExc, where the scroll is damaged but some of the letters survive. MRI (Lauterbach, p. 206) defends the sing. reading in a way that suggests it is familiar with the alternative. The Vss render with pl. forms (except for Vulg, which ignores the word), but this need not mean that they are based on a Vorlage different from MT: they may simply have been rendering according to the sense (and their renderings of ‫ מצרים‬in the pl.). LXX ἐστρατοπέδευσαν (a curious equivalent for ‫נסע‬, but cf. Gen. 12.9; Deut. 1.40) is often seen as supporting the SP reading (e.g. BHS), but may actually count against it: the aorist tense is most easily understood as based on ‫ נסע‬read as perfect. Most likely ‫ נסע‬is the original reading (see Note bb on the translation for the use of collective singulars in this passage) and the pl. form is an adaptation to the more common form of expression. 4Q365 had an addition afterwards about the numbers of the Egyptian forces (cf. v. 7). ‫( ויצעקו‬14.10) TgJ,N,F and Sy have ‘and…prayed’, presenting the Israelites’ reaction not (yet) as a complaint but as a response worthy of God’s people (cf. the long comment to this effect in MRI [Lauterbach, pp. 206-209]). LXX, Vulg and TgO,Nmg follow MT and SP.



14.1-31

267

‫( ויאמרו‬14.11) TgJ limits this response to ‘the wicked of the generation’ as distinct from those who ‘prayed’ (see the previous note and cf. 32.19). ‫( המבלי אין־קברים‬14.11) The Vss (except TgN,F which reproduce it with an almost identical form, perhaps by secondary assimilation to MT) do not explicitly represent the redundant ‫בלי‬, but the rhetorical and ironic paraphrases in LXX (cf. LSJ, p. 1304, for παρά = ‘just because’) and Vulg may have been attempts to do justice to it. TgJ,F,Nmg add ‘for us’. ‫( במצרים‬14.11) LXX has the fuller expression ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπτῳ here (but not later in the verse or in v. 12), a variation which also occurs in 12.30, 40. ‫( למות‬14.11) LXX and TgN have ‘to kill (us)’, sharpening the accusation against Moses: both versions have the same variant at 21.14. The evidence is scarcely sufficient for this reading to be preferred to that of MT and SP (which gains some support from ‫ ממתנו‬in v. 12), especially as the variant could well be due to influence from 16.3; 17.3; Num. 16.13. TgF has ‘to bury us’, which is further away from the other witnesses and pedantically based on ‘graves’ earlier in the verse. ‫( במדבר‬14.11) TgF adds ‘of Zaphon’ from v. 9: the combination is otherwise unknown. ‫( מה זאת‬14.11) Compare the note on v. 5: here Vulg and Sy too render ‫ זאת‬by ‘this’ (hoc) or ‘thus’ (hknʾ) and make grammatical space for it by using ‘why’ (quid; lmnʾ) for ‫מה‬. ‫( להוציאנו‬14.11) LXX has simply ἐξαγαγών, with the obj. to be supplied from the preceding ἡμῖν: the Three and the O-text add ἡμᾶς to conform to MT. ‫( במצרים‬14.12) After this TgJ inserts the opening words of the Israelite supervisors in 5.21, not in its own rendering but interestingly in that of TgN: ‘May the Lord be revealed against you and judge’. This correlation follows MRI (Lauterbach, pp. 209-10), but SP preserves a different view: see the end of the next note. ‫( חדל‬14.12) SP adds ‫נא‬: according to DJD XII, p. 118, it is not possible to tell if 4QExc had this or not. There is no trace of it in the Vss. Perhaps SP sought to make the Israelites more respectful towards Moses. Elsewhere it has ‫ נא‬when MT does not in Gen. 47.19 and Exod. 12.3 (apart from places where ‫ נא‬appears in expansions of the text), while the reverse is true in Exod. 32.32. Probably the shorter text is more original in all these cases. SP, perhaps doubting whether the different wording in 5.21 could be meant, has inserted the words from here to the end of the verse after 6.9, to ensure that the statement has a basis in the earlier narrative (compare its other harmonisations in chs. 7–11). ‫( ונעבדה‬14.12) LXX, Vulg and Sy treat this as the beginning of a purpose clause, but in this case the focus on serving the Egyptians in v. 12b makes the normal cohortative sense more likely.

268

EXODUS 1–18

‫( טוב לנו‬14.12) Vulg multo melius est strengthens the Israelites’ claim and (by not rendering ‫ )לנו‬generalises it: see also the note below on ‫ממתנו‬. ‫( את־מצרים‬14.12) Vulg has eis, avoiding the repetition. ‫( ממתנו‬14.12) TgN,F slavishly render the Qal inf. by ‘to kill’, as LXX and TgN did in v. 11: here it does not fit the context at all. ‫( במדבר‬14.12) LXX and Sy add ‘this’, perhaps from 16.3: in any case it emphasises the contrast with being in Egypt. ‫( ויאמר משׁה אל־העם‬14.13) TgJ,N,F(VN),G(FF,J) begin the verse with a midrash (also found in MRI [Lauterbach, p. 214]: see AramB 2, pp. 60 n. 9 and 200 n. 20, for further references) about the reactions of four groups of Israelites to the Egyptian pursuit, which then divides up Moses’ words in vv. 13-14 into separate responses to each of them. Earlier versions of the tradition occur in Philo, Vita Mosis 1.172-75, and Ps-Philo, LAB 10.3. TgF(P),G(U) have the same addition (with minor variations, as in the main group of texts) before 15.3: on the displacement in these ‘festival-liturgical Targums’ see Klein, FragmentTargums, pp. 21-22. In all these texts there is naturally no equivalent to ‫אל־העם‬, since the people are divided into groups. ‫( אל־תיראו‬14.13) LXX, as in a few other places (e.g. 20.20), employs the positive instruction θαρσεῖτε, ‘take courage’, to represent this expression. ‫( התיצבו‬14.13) The Vss render with words meaning ‘stand still, stand firm’: this is also true of Tgg ‫אתעתדו‬, as its opposition to throwing themselves into the sea in the midrash makes particularly clear (cf. CAL). ‫( את־ישׁועת יהוה‬14.13) The Tgg and Sy as often render ‫ ישׁועה‬by ‫פורקנא‬, ‘redemption’ (in the pl. in TgN,F(VN)).52 For the divine name LXX has τὴν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, with the preposition emphasising that the nomen rectum indicates the source of the deliverance. The use of θεός is a common variation in LXX (cf. 13.21 and Text and Versions on 13.8) and there is no direct evidence of a variant Heb. text: 4Q365 appears, like MT and SP, to have had ‫ יהוה‬here. TgG(FF) adds ‫ אלהכון‬and TgG(J) substitutes ‫אדני‬. ‫( אשׁר‬14.13) SP and 4Q365 read ‫כאשׁר‬. All the Vss except TgO and Vulg render with words for ‘as’, but ‫ אשׁר‬itself can sometimes bear that meaning (see Note hh on the translation) and they (or some of them) may simply be rendering the MT reading (which appears in the citation in MRI [Lauterbach, p. 214]) in that way. Vulg clearly takes ‫ אשׁר‬as a relative pronoun (quos) with ‘the Egyptians’ as the antecedent and TgO (d) may have done so too.53 ‫( תסיפו‬14.13) Almost all SP mss read ‫תוסיפון‬, including those used in recent editions: von Gall’s choice of ‫ תוספון‬is inexplicable. SP’s preference

52   Vulg uniquely has magnalia, ‘mighty acts’, for ‫ ישׁועה‬here, apparently influenced by the description of the Exodus deliverance as ‫גדול‬, ‘great’, in v. 31 and Deut. 10.21; 11.2; 2 Sam. 7.23; Ps. 106.21. 53   Some early printed editions of TgO have ‫כמא‬, ‘as’, here (cf. TgF(P)), but only one of Sperber’s mss agrees.



14.1-31

269

for the longer form of the imperfect here has parallels in 1.22 and 3.21, but elsewhere the reverse variation is found (GSH §63b). Where the longer form survives there is a case for regarding it as more original, though influence from Aramaic (as indeed from an adjacent form [cf. the end of v. 14]) is also a possibility where the evidence is divided, as here. ‫( לראתם‬14.13) 4Q365 seems to have had ‫לראתו‬, with a collective sing. suffix which would conform to some other references to the Egyptians in this chapter (vv. 10 and 25): but in v. 10, where 4Q365 is preserved, it has the pl. reading of SP! In any case this one witness is scarcely sufficient to outweigh the combined evidence of SP, MT and LXX for the pl. suffix here. TgN,P(VN) add ‫בשׁעבוד‬, ‘in slavery’, qualifying the absolute statement of MT and perhaps seeking to reconcile it with v. 30. ‫( עד־עולם‬14.13) LXX εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα χρόνον is a unique rendering of ‫ עד־עולם‬in the Pentateuch (contrast e.g. Gen. 13.15; Exod. 12.24), with only a few parallels in the translated books of LXX (e.g. Isa. 9.6). It was evidently a Greek idiom, but not surprisingly χρόνον was obelised by Origen and omitted in some hexaplaric mss. ‫( יהוה ילחם לכם‬14.14) LXX, TgO, Vulg and Sy reproduce MT, with which SP and 4Q365 also agree. On the expanded text of TgJ,N,F(NV),G(FF,J) in this verse and of TgF(P),G(U) before 15.3 see the first note on v. 13. It is clear that MT underlies them all, despite some variations between them. ‫( ואתם תחרישׁון‬14.14) Sy kd ʾntwn thwwn šlyn, ‘when you will be silent’, makes these words into a condition for the fulfilment of the preceding promise. After them most mss (not 5b1) add ‘and Moses prayed before the Lord’ to provide a basis for (their interpretation of) the beginning of v. 15. Both these variants seem to be special developments in the Syriac tradition: SP, LXX, Vulg and TgO all agree with MT. 4Q365 does not preserve ‫תחרישׁון‬, but there is space for it (and an interval after it) in a lacuna. ‫( יהוה‬14.15) TgF,Nmg add ‘the Memra of’. ‫( מה תצעק‬14.15) SP and 4QpalExl (]‫ )מה תצע[ק‬agree with MT, but 4Q365 ‫ תזעק‬follows the spelling generally preferred at Qumran, as it does in 15.25 (similarly 1QIsa in five cases out of six acc. to TWAT 2, 630 = TDOT 4, p. 114). This contrasts with SP’s alteration of the only two cases of ‫ זעק‬in the Pentateuch to ‫( צעק‬see Text and Versions on 2.23). LXX and Vulg render the Heb. as expected, but TgJ,N,F and Sy render ‫ צעק‬by ‘pray’, as they do in v. 10 (cf. MRI [Lauterbach, p. 216]); these Tgg also prefix ‘stand and’. TgJ,N,F back up the implied criticism of Moses by adding ‘look, the prayer of my people preceded yours’, a consideration based on v. 10 and attributed to R. Simon b. Judah in MRI (Lauterbach, p. 221: cf. Exod. R. 21.1). By contrast all that TgO has is ‘I have accepted your prayer’, which follows the strongly pro-Moses interpretation of R. Aḥa (also in MRI [Lauterbach, pp. 221-22], along with much additional basis for the challenge to Moses in MT) and totally displaces the question in the Heb. TgN,F have their own version of both these amplifications.

270

EXODUS 1–18

‫( אלי‬14.15) Sy and TgJ,N,F have their usual ‘before’ after words for prayer. ‫( דבר‬14.15) Sy has ʾmr, ‘say’, which fits its rendering of ‫ ויסעו‬as direct speech (nšqlwn, without waw) better. ‫( אל־בני־ישׂראל‬14.15) Sy kl byt ʾysrʾl employs its alternative designation for the people as, e.g., in v. 10. ‫( ויסעו‬14.15) LXX καὶ ἀναζευξάτωσαν, using a rare equivalent for ‫( נסע‬as in Exod. 40.36-37). The Three evidently used (a compound of) αἴρω here (Wevers cites their reading in Latin: et tollant), in line with LXX elsewhere. Numbers 2.17 provides evidence for the Three preferring different compounds of αἴρω and Aq’s choice there of ἀπαίρω, which in fact corresponds to what the Sam. Gk. has here with a ἵνα to indicate purpose (cf. Vulg ut). On ἀπαίρω and ἐξαίρω as equivalents for ‫ נסע‬see Text and Versions on 13.20. ‫( ואתה‬14.16) TgF(P) adds ‘Moses’, which was perhaps the more necessary after its expansion of v. 15. ‫( נטה‬14.16) TgO as usual (cf. vv. 21, 26) but oddly has ‫ארים‬, ‘lift up’, whereas the other Tgg and Sy use ‫ארכן‬, ‘incline’, which is closer to one of the senses of ‫נטה‬. LXX ἔκτεινον and Vulg extende give the more usual sense of ‫נטה‬, ‘stretch out’. ‫( ידך‬14.16) TgJ adds ‘with it’, i.e. the staff, perhaps recalling the wording of 8.1. ‫( ובקעהו‬14.16) LXX has ῥῆξον here for ‫( בקע‬contrast ἐσχίσθη in v. 21): its usual meaning ‘break’ scarcely fits, but similar uses are found in Gen. 7.11 and Num. 16.31 and διαῤῥήγνυμι is occasionally found with such a sense in classical Gk. Ms. Fb records the expected correction to σχίσον, and it may well be from Aq, who is credited with such a change in Isa. 59.5; 63.12; Ezek. 13.13; Ps. 78.15. ‫( ויבאו‬14.16) LXX, Tgg and Sy render with verbs for ‘enter’, but only Vulg ut gradiantur clearly expresses the idea of purpose that is probably intended here. ‫( בתוך הים‬14.16) Vulg in medio mare fits its avoidance of the sense ‘enter’: LXX εἰς μέσον τῆς θαλάσσης, on the other hand, and presumably the other Vss too take ‫ ב‬in the sense ‘into’. ‫( מחזק‬14.17) Most SP mss (including Tal, all of Crown’s and this time Camb. 1846) spell ‫מחזיק‬, in line with the widespread Hiph. reading in v. 4, on which see the note. LXX, Vulg and TgJ render with future forms, but this need not presuppose a different Vorlage. In general the Vss in this verse follow their renderings of the corresponding phrases in vv. 4 and 8 but here Sy uses ʿbʾ (as in 7.22; 8.11; 9.35) in place of its more common equivalent qšʾ, which was used in v. 4, apparently just for variety. ‫( את־לב מצרים‬14.17) 4Q365 and LXX assimilate to vv. 4-5 by adding the expected reference to Pharaoh’s heart (for which a correction to 4Q365 has the spelling ‫ לבב‬as in v. 5 according to MT). The expanded readings are inferior to MT and SP, which fit well with the treatment of the Egyptians as a totality



14.1-31

271

in what follows (esp. v. 23).54 LXX also adds πάντων after τῶν Αἰγυπτίων, as it did in vv. 4 (see the note there) and 6 and will do again in v. 18. Here (and in v. 4) the addition could be based on ‫ ובכל־חילו‬elsewhere in the verse. ‫( ויבאו אחריהם‬14.17) Vulg ut persequantur vos again brings out Yahweh’s purpose here (as does Sy dnʿlwn here): the content of its rendering follows what it had in v. 4, where it was closer to MT. ‫( ברכבו‬14.17) LXX and Sy prefix ‘and’: the distinction of what follows from Pharaoh’s ‘army’ may be connected in LXX with its rendering of ‫פרשׁיו‬. LXX also (like Vulg) has no equivalent to the suffix, as in vv. 9-10: Aq, Theod and the O-text add αὐτοῦ. ‫( ובפרשׁיו‬14.17) LXX uses ἵππος for ‫ פרשׁ‬here and in v. 18, in contrast to its preference for ἱππεύς in v. 9, where the preceding ‫ סוס‬had already been rendered by ἵππος. In v. 23, where ‫ סוס‬occurs again, it takes up another word for ‘horse-rider’, ἀνάβατης, and it continues to use this for the occurrences of ‫ פרשׁ‬in vv. 26 and 28 (and 15.19), where there is no such constraint. Vulg has ‘horsemen’ (equites) throughout, as do Tgg and Sy. The effect of LXX’s partial departure from this meaning is to give greater prominence to the Egyptian horses themselves in ch. 14, which is reinforced by its mistranslation of the second occurrence of ‫ רכב‬in v. 7. ‫( וידעו מצרים כי־אני יהוה‬14.18) No text from this verse is preserved in 4Q365, but there is not room for all of it. These words would fill the space available exactly: the scribe (or author) may have omitted v. 18b as being redundant after v. 17b. Accidental omission by homoeoteleuton (one suggestion in DJD XIII, p. 267; Propp, p. 468) would not explain how only a part of the verse was left out. SP and LXX have ‘all the Egyptians’ as they do in the identical expression in 7.5: see Text and Versions there. 4QpalExl has a lacuna at this point. ‫( בפרעה‬14.18) SP and Sy add (perhaps independently) ‘and his army’. In this case 4QpalExl certainly did not have the extra text, which is undoubtedly a secondary expansion based on v. 17. ‫( ברכבו ובפרשׁיו‬14.18) LXX, Vulg and Sy have ‘and’ before this phrase, which is unnecessary in the Heb. and certainly secondary. LXX καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἅρμασιν καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἵπποις αὐτοῦ omits the possessive pronoun with the first noun (cf. Vulg), but the Three and the O-text restored conformity with the Heb. On LXX’s use of ἵππος for ‫ פרשׁ‬here see the final note on v. 17. ‫( אלהים‬14.19) Tgg replace this with the divine name (see Text and Versions on 13.17). ‫( ההלך‬14.19) TgO,J,F ‫( מדבר‬Pael ‫)דבר‬, ‘who was leading’, and TgN ‫דהוי עתיד‬ ‫למהלך‬, ‘who was ready to go’, slightly modify the sense, perhaps because the Israelites were now not moving.

  4QpalExm does not preserve this part of the verse, but there would have been no room in it for the longer text (DJD IX, p. 35). 54

272

EXODUS 1–18

‫( מחנה‬14.19) TgN has the pl. here and for most of the occurrences of ‫מחנה‬ in ch. 14 (cf. Text and Versions on ‫ וחילו‬in v. 9). ‫( ישׂראל‬14.19) LXX τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ makes the same addition as it had in v. 5. TgN pedantically adds ‘from in front of them’ (as in the second half of the verse). ‫( וילך‬14.19) Vulg abiit, TgO,J ‫ואתא‬, ‘and came’, and even TgN ‫( וקם‬again matching the second half of the verse) need not presuppose a different Vorlage from MT and SP (cf. LXX, Sy). ‫( מאחריהם‬14.19) LXX ἐκ τῶν ὄπισθεν is (apart from the lack of αὐτῶν, which appears at the end of the verse and is added in the O-text here) a very literal rendering which might seem likely to confuse a Greek reader. But, though relatively rare, it was a Greek idiom (cf. ἐκ τῶν ὀπίσω later in the verse and in 26.22 for ‘at the back’ and LSJ, p. 1239, for ἐκ τοῦ ὀπίσω, ‘on the back’, in a first-cent. BC papyrus), that presumably developed from the more widespread and older use of ἐκ δεξιᾶς and ἐξ ἀριστερᾶς, ‘on the right/ left’. ‫( עמוד הענן‬14.19) LXX prefixes καί (= ‘also’) and Vulg cum eo pariter, to underline the parallel movements of the angel and the cloud. In general Vulg has a very free and stylish rendering of this verse. ‫( מפניהם‬14.19) In place of this word 4Q365, which seems to have followed MT up to this point in the verse, had a different text which began ‘from the army of Egypt to be in the army…’: the continuation is lost until the last two words of the verse, which in essence follow MT. No other texts have an expansion at this point (but note the addition in TgJ at the end of the verse). For discussion see B. Nitzan, ‘Ancient Jewish Traditions of Biblical Commentary in Qumran Literature’, in K.D. Dobos and M. Köszeghy (eds.), With Wisdom as a Robe (HBM 21; Sheffield, 2009), pp. 288-300 (290-92). ‫( ויעמד מאחריהם‬14.19) TgO,J render the verb ‫ושׁרא‬, ‘and encamped, stayed’, to bring out the specific sense of ‫ עמד‬here. TgJ adds as an explanation that the cloud intercepted the arrows and stones which the Egyptians were firing at the Israelites (the stones with catapults according to MRI [Lauterbach, p. 227]). Sy varies its rendering of ‫מאחריהם‬, with bstr (a Persian loan-word with the same meaning) instead of btr. ‫( ויבא‬14.20) Vulg has no equivalent and joins the rest of the first clause of the verse to v. 19. This need not imply a different Vorlage from the other witnesses, as Vulg often compresses the sense of its original for stylistic reasons. ‫( מחנה‬14.20)bis As in v. 19 TgN has a pl. rendering for this word. ‫( ויהי הענן והחשׁך ויאר את־הלילה‬14.20) A full discussion of the textual evidence and its interpretation was given by M. Vervenne (see Note qq on the translation). Although von Gall prints ‫ והחשׁך‬as the SP reading, most SP mss (inc. Sadaqa, Tal, all of Crown’s and Camb. 1846) omit the waw and the two versions of SamTg agree, so SP at some stage diverged from MT.



14.1-31

273

The SamGk καὶ ἦν τὸ νέφος καὶ τὸ σκότος, however, seems to indicate that the divergence was either not early or not total. Further evidence of the omission of the waw exists in 4Q365 ‫הענן חושׁך‬, where the omission of the def. art. makes a predicative interpretation of ‫ חושׁך‬even more straightforward (cf. the widespread interpretation of the whole middle section of the verse which is examined below). But LXX, Aq, TgO and Sy clearly represent the waw. LXX καὶ ἐγένετο σκότος κὰι γνόφος at first seems to ignore ‫הענן‬ altogether (cf. its rendering of the next clause): σκότος generally represents ‫ חשׁך‬and γνόφος stands mostly for other words for ‘darkness’ or ‘gloom’. But γνόφος does also render words for cloud, including ‫ענן‬/‫( עננה‬Deut. 4.11; 5.22; Job 3.5; Isa. 44.22), so it is possible that in its reformulation of this clause (presumably to deal with its obscurity, but cf. also Josh. 24.7) LXX was working from MT and reversed the order of its equivalents for literary effect (elsewhere in LXX γνόφος generally follows σκότος). In the next clause LXX καὶ διῆλθεν ἡ νύξ, ‘and the night passed’ (cf. LSJ, p. 426) is even further away from MT and SP, where ‘the night’ is the object, not the subject, and there is a quite different verb, ‘gave light’. Vervenne (pp. 2325) suggests that LXX had a Vorlage ‫( ויעבר‬as already proposed in BH3) and that MT/SP ‫ ויאר את־הלילה‬is a gloss from the same redactor who, he believes, added the idea of ‘light by night’ at the end of 13.21. More likely LXX, having solved the problem of the previous clause by recourse to Josh. 24.7, now had to find a passable sequel for it and came up with this rather bland and redundant expression (cf. BAlex, p. 167; Propp, p. 469). There is no need to suppose that it had anything different from MT/SP (cf. Aq, TgO, Sy, Vulg) before it here (likewise Wevers, THGE, p. 147). Sy had added ‘all night’ to the previous clause and has it again here in place of ‘the night’ as obj. of the verb. This could be justified by taking ‫ את־הלילה‬as an ‘accusative of time’, but the further variation from MT in Sy’s addition of ‘for the Israelites’ indicates that Sy has preserved here a little of the Targumic and rabbinic interpretation which has transformed the middle of the verse into a contrast between the Israelites and the Egyptians. The same is probably true of Vulg et erat nubes tenebrosa et illuminans noctem, which seems contradictory as it stands (on Symm see below). TgO goes a little further than Sy by inserting ‘for the Egyptians’ as well as ‘for the Israelites’ between ‘darkness’ and ‘gave light’ (cf. MRI [ed. Lauterbach, p. 226], and 10.23), and it too renders ‫ את־הלילה‬by ‘all night’. For the full picture, however, one must turn to TgJ and the various forms of the Pal. Tg. The differences between them are in the wording rather than the substance (TgNmg reproduces the wording of TgF), and TgJ can serve as a representative of them all: ‘The cloud was in part light and in part darkness; and on one side it made darkness for the Egyptians and on the other side it made light for the Israelites all the night’ (the words of MT are italicised in the translation to make clear how what were perceived as gaps in it were filled in). Symm καὶ ἦν ἡ νεφέλη σκότος μὲν ἐκεῖθεν

274

EXODUS 1–18

φαῖνουσα δὲ ἐντεῦθεν plainly belongs here too (cf. Salvesen, pp. 90-92, who adds further evidence). For rabbinic parallels to the additions and to those later in the verse, see AramB 2, p. 61 n. 12. It seems likely that the only clear Heb. variant in this part of the verse, the omission of waw before ‫(ה)חשׁך‬ in 4Q365 and most of the Samaritan evidence (cf. Symm), presupposes this elaborate and forced interpretation and that the reading of MT is the oldest extant textual form. Since sense can be made of it, even if with difficulty (cf. Note qq on the translation), there is no necessity for an emendation (so also Ska, Passage, pp. 17-18, who gives some examples of older emendations; see further BH3 ad loc. and S. Goldman, From Slavery to Freedom [New York, 1958], pp. 390-91). ‫( ולא קרב‬14.20) Vulg begins the clause with ut (here of result) to subordinate it to what precedes, and both LXX and Vulg paraphrase the rest of the verse while preserving the sense. ‫( זה אל־זה‬14.20) TgO follows the Heb. idiom precisely, but TgN,F and Sy employ pl. pronouns to fit the context: similarly TgJ,Nmg ‘camp/army to camp/ army’. TgJ,N,F clarify further by adding ‘to (make) lines of battle’. TgNmg also introduces a Talmudic tradition that ‘the angels of the service did not say the service’ that night (sc. in heaven: cf. B.Meg. 10b and B.Sanh. 39b). ‫( ויט‬14.21) The Vss mostly render ‫ נטה‬as they do in v. 16 (see the note there), but here Sy has wʾrym like TgO. Vulg cumque extendisset typically subordinates to what follows. ‫( את־ידו‬14.21) LXX idiomatically has just τὴν χεῖρα (cf. Vulg), but the Three and the O-text added αὐτοῦ. TgJ adds ‘with the staff’ from v. 16 and also a description of it which in part parallels those which it gives at 2.21 and 4.20 (see Text and Versions there) but also goes beyond them to include the inscribed names of the twelve tribes and their ancestors. ‫( קדים‬14.21) For the renderings of LXX, Vulg and Sy see Text and Versions on 10.13. ‫( לחרבה‬14.21) The Vss do not distinguish between this word and ‫יבשׁה‬ (except for Aq χέρσον). LXX ξηράν ignores the ‫ל‬, for which Aq and Symm have εἰς. ‫( ויבקעו המים‬14.21) LXX as often has the sing. ὕδωρ for ‫מים‬: the pl. τὰ ὕδατα of Fb may well be from Aq. TgJ adds ‘into twelve divisions corresponding to the twelve tribes of Jacob’, an elaboration found in other Jewish and early Christian writings (see AramB 2, p. 201 n. 28). For the verb most Sy mss have ʾtplgw like the Tgg, but 5b1 has ʾttrʿw, which has more the sense of ‘break’ (cf. LXX in v. 16). ‫( בתוך הים ביבשׁה‬14.22) Vulg per medium maris sicci combined the two phrases into one (as again in v. 29 with sicci maris to conform to the Heb. order there). ‫( והמים‬14.22) Vulg erat enim aqua brings out a logical connection, as can be appropriate even without waw (cf. GK §158a).



14.1-31

275

‫( חומה‬14.22) The Vss were concerned either to make explicit that there were two walls (LXX by repeating τεῖχος; Tgg by using a pl. form) and/or to avoid a literal interpretation by adding ‘congealed’ (TgJ), ‘as’ (Vulg, TgJ, Sy: cf. MRI [Lauterbach, p. 237]) or ‘of water’ (TgN). TgF has ‘high (walls)’ and TgJ took the wonder of the change to extremes with ‘300 miles high’: no parallel to this is cited.55 ‫( מימינם ומשׂמאלם‬14.22) LXX did not render the suffixes: they are restored in Aq and Symm and the O-text (though the evidence in the latter case is more meagre than usual). Vulg was content to include eorum the first time and Theod αὐτῶν the second, a good compromise between accuracy and style. ‫( וירדפו‬14.23) Vulg persequentes, neatly avoiding a succession of coordinated clauses. ‫( סוס‬14.23) On LXX’s ἡ ἵππος (as in v. 9) see the note on ‫וכל רכב מצרים‬ in v. 7. ‫( רכבו‬14.23) Although the copula is not needed in the middle of a list (see Note uu on the translation), 4QpalExl reads ‫( ורכבו‬cf. LXX, Sy). It is undoubtedly secondary. LXX as often has no equivalent to the suffix: αὐτοῦ was added by the Three and the O-text. ‫( ופרשׁיו‬14.23) On LXX’s οἱ ἀναβάται (again without αὐτοῦ: cf. Vulg) see the note on ‫ ובפרשׁיו‬in v. 17. ‫( אל־תוך הים‬14.23) Vulg per medium maris is less appropriate here than for the slightly different Heb. in v. 22, but in view of Vulg’s tendency to translate freely it scarcely points to a different Vorlage from MT (with which SP and 4QExg agree). The renderings reused in LXX and Sy fit both contexts well. TgF(P) (but not TgF(V)) has ‫ ימא רבא‬for ‫הים‬, a phrase which it and TgG(U) also use in 15.5, 8, again without any special reason. The expression was used, both in BH (Num. 34.6-7) and in MH, for the Mediterranean, but that hardly seems likely to be meant here. It occurs in 15.8 in TgJ,N,G(W), as well as TgF(P),G(U), and this may therefore be where it was used first: TgF(P) and TgG(U) will then have added it to other references to the Egyptians’ destruction. See Text and Versions on 15.5 for its exegetical background. ‫( ויהי באשׁמרת הבקר‬14.24) Vulg iamque advenerat vigilia matutina looks at first like the translation of a Heb. text which lacked the preposition ‫ב‬, but more likely it is a typically vigorous paraphrase of MT. TgN,F have ‘time’ rather than ‘watch’ (cf. MRI [Lauterbach, pp. 237-39], which compares references to ‘morning’ in general). ‫( וישׁקף‬14.24) The Vss use equivalents here which do not convey the element of ‘down’ in the usual sense of ‫( שׁקף‬contrast, e.g., LXX’s preference for compounds of κύπτω elsewhere): perhaps because the context implies 55   The readings of TgN and TgF are very similar and one may be a corruption of the other.

276

EXODUS 1–18

that Yahweh in the column of cloud and fire is ‘at ground level’. Vulg et ecce respiciens both expands (with ecce: cf. iam earlier) and adjusts (with a part. in place of a finite verb: cf. the beginning of v. 23) the wording of the Heb. for stylistic reasons.56 ‫( יהוה‬14.24) TgNmg and TgF(VN) prefix ‘the Memra of’, as often. TgJ,N,F add ‘in anger’: as MRI (Lauterbach, p. 240) pointed out, ‫ שׁקף‬could refer to favour as well as punishment and the Tgg make immediately plain which it is here. ‫( אל‬14.24) SP reads ‫ על‬and the renderings of LXX, Vulg and TgJ,N,F interpret correspondingly, whereas 4QpalExl has ‫ אל‬like MT and TgO and Sy agree. Both prepositions are found after ‫ שׁקף‬in BH, but ‫ על‬is much more common (‫ אל‬only elsewhere in 2 Kgs 9.32) and this may have caused its intrusion here. ‫( בעמוד אשׁ וענן‬14.24) 4QExg has ‫ם‬-‫] אשׁ וע‬. The mem is probably due to what has been identified as a phonological convergence between m and n at the end of words at Qumran (cf. Qimron, p. 27). The traces of the previous letter would fit what DJD XIII, p. 146, calls a ‘thin letter (such as waw or yodh)’: since nun was also a very ‘thin’ letter in mss of the same date (e.g. 4QGend), it must also be a possibility.57 TgN,F(VN) have instead of this phrase ‘and he cast upon them naphtha and fire and hailstones’, and TgF(P) and TgJ respectively added similar material after it or within it.58 MRI (Lauterbach, p. 245) cites Ezek. 38.22 as a parallel to this midrash, but Ps. 18.13-14 (with the same verb ‫ המם‬as here following in v. 15) is closer and more likely to be the source of it. ‫( ויהם‬14.24) Some SP mss (inc. Tal, Rylands 1 and Camb. 1846) read ‫ויחם‬, an unintelligible reading in the context which will be an example of a ‘relatively frequent’ (GSH §12h) scribal confusion of ‫ ה‬and ‫ ח‬in SP mss (cf. the variant ‫ וינחגהו‬in v. 25): SamTgJ has ‫‘ = וארתע‬frightened’, supporting the reading with ‫ה‬. Vulg curiously (and prematurely!) renders interfecit, ‘killed’, a sense that it has for some, but by no means all, other occurrences of ‫המם‬/‫( הום‬cf. 23.27; Deut. 2.15; 7.23; Ps. 144.6; Est. 9.24). The basis for this seems to lie in LXX’s (and OL’s) renderings of ‫המם‬/‫ הום‬in Deut. 2.15 (cf. TgO) and 7.23, where the context could have suggested the sense ‘kill’.

56   Sy ʾtḥzy, ‘appeared’ (cf. 3.1; 16.10) is even further from MT. Propp (p. 469) suggests influence from MH ‫ שׁקף‬Niphal (cf. Jastrow, p. 1625), which could gain support from Sy at Num. 21.20; 23.28. 57   One way of making sense of what DJD suggests reading would be to see here another occurrence of the obscure (and according to some corrupt) hapax legomenon ‫ ֲעיֹם‬in Isa. 11.15, for which the sense ‘glow’ has been suggested on the basis of Ar. parallels (cf. BDB, p. 744; HAL, p. 773; H. Wildberger, Jesaja 1-12 [BKAT; Neukirchen, 1972], p. 464). 58   TgF(P) has lost text by homoeoteleuton but enough remains to establish the reading which it inherited.



14.1-31

277

‫( מחנה‬14.24) Vulg exercitum displaces its earlier use of castra for ‫מחנה‬, whereas exercitus has stood for ‫ חיל‬in vv. 4, 9 and 17 (cf. v. 28 and 15.4). No doubt the variation is due to Jerome’s understanding of the governing verb rather than a different Vorlage. ‫( ויסר‬14.25) SP reads ‫ויאסר‬, from ‫אסר‬, ‘bind’, and LXX and Sy presume this reading (cf. Ezek., Exag. 232-33). ‫ אסר‬is used of preparing a chariot for use in v. 6: a different meaning for it would be required here, appropriate to wheels, namely ‘jam’. TgJ ‫ונסר‬, ‘and he sawed’, will be based on the analysis of MT’s consonants as derived from the Heb. cognate (the verb occurs in MH, but in BH there is only a noun spelt ‫)משׂור‬: the sense is, however, most unlikely here. The other Vss (and MRI [Lauterbach, p. 241]) seem all to be based on the MT reading, understood as ‘removed’ in TgO,N,F and Symm and slightly differently in Vulg subvertit, ‘overturned’(?). This makes good sense in itself, but removal of the chariots’ wheels would surely cause more than ‘difficulty’ for the drivers: they would not be able to drive them at all (cf. below on the additions in TgJ,N.F)! MT’s reading could originally have been a defective writing of ‫ויאסר‬, with the weak letter aleph suppressed (so J.H. Stek, ‘What Happened to the Chariot Wheels of Exod 14:25?’, JBL 105 [1986], pp. 293-94, with parallels: see also GK §23f; Qimron, p. 22). In this case the reading of SP, LXX and Sy should be preferred (with HAL, p. 707; Ges18, p. 880). For recent defences of MT see Ska, Passage, p. 19, and Houtman, p. 272. ‫( את אפן מרכבתיו‬14.25) LXX τοὺς ἄξονας, ‘the axles’, for ‫אפן‬, ‘wheels’, is a unique rendering, perhaps accommodating MT more precisely to experience of wheeled vehicles in Egypt: corrections to the regular equivalent appear in Aq (rotam, pres. τὸν τροχόν) and Fb (τοὺς τροχούς). The use of the pl. is natural. The sing. suffix of ‫מרכבתיו‬, like other pronominal references to the Egyptians in this verse, is also generally rendered in the pl. in the Vss. Perhaps because this is a different word for ‘chariots’ (instead of ‫)רכב‬, TgJ,N.F employ here ‫רידווה‬, whose precise significance is uncertain (contrast Jastrow, p. 1473 with AramB 2, p. 61 n. h). ‫( וינהגהו בכבדת‬14.25) The Vss do not recognise the likely causal sense of ‫ נהג‬Piel here and translate according to the more common meaning ‘lead, drive’, either with Yahweh as subj. (LXX) or with the Egyptians as subj. and their chariots as the obj. (Tgg, Sy): Vulg ferebantur as passive is imprecise in this regard. ‫( בכבדת‬for which many SP mss have the spelling ‫בכבודות‬: cf. the forms in MT at Judg. 18.21 and Ps. 45.14) is variously rendered ‘with difficulty’ (TgJ), ‘with force, might’ (LXX, TgO, Sy: as a means to counter the ‘difficulty’?), ‘into the deep’ (Vulg) and ‘dragged behind them’ (TgN,F). The two final renderings appear to be guesses from the context: the latter (based on TgO?) leads into a long expansion (briefly alluded to in MRI [Lauterbach, p. 241]) which ends with the chariots being thrown into the sea as in 15.4-5, on which Vulg probably also draws (cf. in profundum again in 15.5). TgJ has a much shorter addition ‫והוון מהלכין ושׁריין מן בתריהון‬, which AramB 2, p. 202, renders ‘and they were gradually leaving them behind’.

278

EXODUS 1–18

‫( ויאמר‬14.25) So also 4QExg: SP and the Vss all have pl. forms to match the natural understanding of ‫ מצרים‬as a pl. subject. TgJ,N,F add ‘to one another’ and TgN also prefixes ‘When the Egyptians saw this praiseworthy act’. ‫( אנוסה‬14.25) Again the Vss (but not SP) have pl. forms. TgF prefixed ‘But let us go back and’. ‫( ישׂראל‬14.25) TgJ,N,F prefix ‘the people of the children of’; Sy simply ‘those of the house of’. ‫( כי יהוה נלחם להם‬14.25) SP ‫הנלחם‬, so giving the sense found also in the Tgg (with ‘the power of’ prefixed to the divine name in TgO and ‘the Memra of’ in TgJ,F(N)): ‘It is Yahweh who fights/fought for them…’ This could be the original reading, with the initial he lost in MT by haplography (so also Propp, p. 470). But LXX, Vulg and Sy show no sign of the variant. ‫( במצרים‬14.25) Vulg contra nos assumes that ‫ מצרים‬is the people here, as do LXX and TgJ, but the other Tgg and Sy render ‘in [or against] Egypt’: TgN,F clearly intend ‘in’ as they add ‘while they were living (with us)’ and in different ways TgN and TgF(P) then go on to speak of a new divine act (cf. MRI [Lauterbach, p. 242]). This way of understanding ‫ במצרים‬avoids the oddity of the Egyptians referring to themselves by name (which will also be responsible for Vulg’s nos), but in the wider context of the chapter (esp. v. 14) ‫ (ה)נלחם‬must surely refer to the event at the sea and not to the earlier plagues. After the verse both 4QpalExm and 4QExg, like MT and SP, had an interval. ‫( יהוה‬14.26) TgNmg,F prefix ‘the Memra of’. ‫( נטה‬14.26) Sy reverts to ʾrkn here after its variation in v. 21. ‫( וישׁבו‬14.26) Von Gall printed this as the SP reading, but the vast majority of mss read the plene form ‫וישׁובו‬. Vulg recognises the final sense of the waw with ut. LXX rendered with ἀποκαταστήτω (τὸ ὕδωρ) and used the same verb in v. 27, but Aq found this insufficiently exact and replaced it with ἐπιστραφήτω (from a verb that is much more common for ‫ שׁוב‬in LXX itself): cf. Vulg. LXX then added και ἐπικαλυψάτω, perhaps following its Vorlage, to match the outcome in v. 28, a change more characteristic of SP. Since LXX did not render the ‫ על‬that precedes ‫ מצרים‬in MT the addition could be regarded as a fuller representation of its meaning (cf. Propp, p. 470). ‫( על־מצרים‬14.26) Vulg ad Aegyptios is curious, especially as Vulg uses super twice elsewhere in the verse to render ‫על‬. But perhaps style prevailed over precision here, as it often does in Vulg. ‫( על־רכבו ועל־פרשׁיו‬14.26) LXX follows Greek idiom in having no equivalent for the suffixes or for the second ‫על‬: the O-text adds ἐπί for the latter. Vulg is content with one super at the beginning and one eorum at the end. Third person pl. suffixes are also, understandably, used in Tgg and Sy. ‫( ויט‬14.27) While the other Vss maintain their regular equivalents for ‫נטה‬, Sy switches again (as in v. 21) to agree with TgO’s ‫וארים‬. On Vulg’s subordination of this clause see the note on v. 21. ‫( את־ידו‬14.27) As before LXX idiomatically omits ‘his’ (cf. Vulg manum), and the Three and the O-text add αὐτοῦ.



14.1-31

279

‫( הים‬14.27)2o LXX τὸ ὕδωρ (which it also has for the retrospective suffix of ‫ )לקראתו‬is a little free but is harmonising with ‫ המים‬in the preceding instruction to Moses (v. 26). Fb records the correction ἡ θάλασσα without any attribution, but it is clear from Symm’s version of the next phrase (see below) that he at least read a fem. noun here and most likely θάλασσα. ‫( לפנות בקר‬14.27) SP reads ‫לפנות הבקר‬, pedantically adding the def. art. (perhaps from v. 24), but MT has support from 4QExg ‫ [לפנ]ות בקר‬and is idiomatic. LXX πρὸς ἡμέραν and Vulg primo diluculo render the nuance of ‫ לפנות‬well (see Note yy on the translation), but Tgg and Sy’s ‘at morning time’ (ʿd[w]n) is vague and perhaps reflects unfamiliarity with this idiom. ‫( לאיתנו‬14.27) LXX, Vulg, TgF(VN) (cf. TgNmg) and Sy render ‘to its place’, which is an apt if minimal equivalent: Symm εἰς τὸ ἀρχαῖον αὐτῆς, ‘to its ancient, former place’ (cf. Vulg), relates better to other occurrences of ‫איתן‬.59 TgO,J,N,F(P) ‫לתוקפיה‬, ‘to its strength’, is more surprising, but is also supported in MRI by comparisons with Num. 24.21 and Jer. 5.15. The ἐπὶ στερέωμα αὐτῆς of Fb might mean ‘to its normal position’ in view of a use of στερεός in an inscription from Egypt (LSJ, p. 1640). ‫( נסים לקראתו‬14.27) SP reads ‫ נסעים‬for ‫נסים‬, reproducing its reading in v. 10, and Propp follows it (p. 470). But it is a weak alternative to MT, which picks up ‫ אנוסה‬in v. 25. The Vss broadly support MT: but LXX ἔφυγον and TgN ‫ ערקון‬misread the part. as indicating a punctiliar act, and Vulg recasts the clause by making ‫ לקראתו‬into a verb. ‫( וינער יהוה‬14.27) TgF(P),Nmg prefix ‘the Memra of’ to ‫יהוה‬. For the verb LXX ἐξετίναξεν and Sy wṭrp give the expected meaning ‘shake off’ (sc. from their chariots) and Aq’s rarer ἀνέβρασεν can probably bear a similar sense (cf. LSJ, pp. 100, 328), perhaps (as Salvesen, ‘Midrash in Greek?’, pp. 532-33, suggests) based on an interpretation in MRI (Lauterbach, p. 246). Vulg involvit, ‘covered, overwhelmed’, and TgO,N(?),F,Nmg ‫שׁניק‬, ‘choked, drowned’, reflect a search for a sense that would fit the general context better. TgJ ‫עלים‬, ‘strengthened’, with an explanation that the Egyptians were being kept alive for future punishment, found its solution in a correlation with ‫נער‬, ‘young man’, which is also found in MRI. ‫( בתוך הים‬14.27) SP reads ‫ תוך‬for ‫בתוך‬, which can presumably be understood as an ‘adverbial accusative of place’ (GK §118g) in the same sense. LXX μέσον (instead of εἰς μέσον in vv. 22-23) might be a variation to represent the SP reading, but unlike the apparently unique such use of ‫ תוך‬in Heb., μέσον alone is attested elsewhere and may simply reflect MT’s ‫בתוך‬.60 Even 59   ἀρχαῖος is the regular equivalent of ‫ איתן‬in Symm and it corresponds in meaning and exegetical method to the citation of R. Nathan in MRI (Lauterbach, p. 245: see Salvesen. ‘Midrash in Greek?’, p. 532). 60   DCH 8, pp. 599-600, does cite Josh. 12.2 and an emendation in Job 22.21 for ‫ תוך‬without a preposition, but neither is a secure case. In Josh. 12.2 the grammar is obscure and ‫ תוך הנחל‬may be an addition (cf. Deut. 3.16), while the emendation in question is not a likely solution to the problem of Job 22.21b.

280

EXODUS 1–18

without support from LXX SP should be adopted as the original reading: it is the difficilior lectio and the other witnesses may be conforming to regular usage. ‫( וישׁבו המים‬14.28) For LXX ἐπαναστραφὲν τὸ ὕδωρ ([aor. pass.] participium coniunctum) see Text and Versions on 13.20. TgJ ‫ גללי ימא‬both expands (cf. ‫ גללוי‬in v. 27) and assimilates to the more specific wording of v. 27. TgNmg adds ‘these to these’, presumably thinking of the two ‘walls’ of water on either side. ‫( לכל חיל פרעה‬14.28) LXX and Sy have ‘and’ for ‫ל‬, treating the ‘army’ as a separate entity as they do in v. 17 and as MT might be understood to do in v. 9. LXX’s δύναμιν for ‫ חיל‬here (instead of στρατιά, a more obviously military word, as in vv. 4, 9, and 17 but nowhere else) is the most widely used equivalent. ‫( בהם‬14.28) LXX, Vulg, TgF(V) (cf. TgNmg) and Sy have ‘from them’, but need not presuppose a different Vorlage. ‫( עד־אחד‬14.28) LXX, Vulg, TgN,F and Sy have ‘not even one’, which is exactly the sense of ‫עד־אחד‬. ‫( הלכו‬14.29) The sense is pluperfect (cf. Note bbb on the translation). LXX’s failure to make this explicit is not surprising, but Vulg might have been expected to do so in view of its pluperfects in vv. 24 and 28 and often elsewhere in Exodus. ‫( ביבשׁה בתוך הים‬14.29) Sy inverts the two phrases to agree with v. 22, while Vulg again combines them, though with sicci before maris in partial correspondence to the change of order in the Heb. Sy adds ʾyk d, ‘as’, before bybšʾ and simplifies ‫ בתוך‬to b this time. TgF(P) reads ‫ מיא‬for ‫הים‬. ‫( חמה‬14.29) See the note on v. 22 for the modifications to MT in the Vss which are repeated here. TgG(J) is extant here and has ‫רמיין‬, ‘high’, like TgF, adding to the argument that this was the original Pal. Tg reading. Vulg has quasi pro muro instead of quasi murus – one of several minor variations from its wording in v. 22, apparently to avoid exact repetition in this verse. ‫( מימינם ומשׂמאלם‬14.29) On the briefer reading of LXX (to which Vulg corresponds exactly here) and the corrections to it see the note on v. 22 (but here there is direct evidence only for the addition of the second αὐτῶν in Aq and Theod). After the verse TgF(P) adds an acrostic poem which is based on vv. 15-22 and 29 (a tr. is provided in AramB 2, pp. 62-63). Further copies of this poem appear in two Geniza mss, T (an ‘early’ ms., from the ninth– eleventh cent.) and X (Klein, Genizah Manuscripts 1, pp. 236-39), and in a papyrus dated to the fourth or fifth century (ibid., p. xxviii; on this see further M. Sokoloff and J. Yahalom [eds.], Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Poetry from Late Antiquity [Jerusalem, 1999 (Heb.)] and B.L. Visotsky in Dozeman et al. [eds.], The Book of Exodus, pp. 552-54). For other ‘Targumic poems’ from the Geniza which relate to vv. 29-31, see Klein, ibid., pp. 226-35 and xxviii. ‫( ויושׁע‬14.30) LXX και ἐῤῥύσατο and Vulg liberavitque are rare equivalents to ‫ הושׁיע‬and are probably chosen because of the ‫ מן‬which unusually



14.1-31

281

follows ‫ הושׁיע‬here (cf. LXX at 2.17). A corrector of LXXF provided the more regular ἔσωσεν. TgO,F and Sy render as usual with prq, but TgJ,N,G reinforced it with ‫ושׁיזיב‬, which is the regular Targumic equivalent for ‫הציל‬: again the following ‫ מן‬may have been a factor. The fact that ‫ פרק‬was retained alongside it may be connected with the frequent addition of )‫ פריק(ין‬to renderings of ‫ יצא‬in the Exodus narrative: here as there ‫ פרק‬could provide the theological nuance of ‘redemption’. ‫( יהוה‬14.30) TgN prefixes ‘the Memra of’ here. ‫( וירא ישׂראל‬14.30) Vulg disregarded the repetition of ‫ישׂראל‬. ‫( מת‬14.30) The Vss not surprisingly render in the pl. after using pl. nouns for ‫מצרים‬. MT, with which SP agrees, is defensible (if strange) since ‫ מצרים‬can be a collective sing. (vv. 10, 25-26) as well as pl. (vv. 17, 23). TgJ has ‫מיתין‬ ‫ולא מיתין‬, ‘dying but not dead’ (cf. MRI [Lauterbach, p. 250]), alluding to its interpretation of ‫ וינער‬in v. 27 and perhaps drawing on the occasional present sense of the part. ‫ ֵמת‬in BH (for exx. see Ges18, p. 650). Sy kd mytyn may have the same meaning. TgJ,N,F add ‘thrown up’. ‫( שׂפת‬14.30) LXX and Sy follow the Heb. metaphor, while Tgg and Vulg use straightforward words for ‘shore’. ‫( וירא‬14.31) TgJ,N,F,G have a pl. verb (as for the same expression in v. 30). Vulg retains only the ‘and’, attaching what follows as a second object to the previous occurrence of the verb. ‫( את־היד הגדלה‬14.31) LXX τὴν χεῖρα, Sy ʾydʾ and Vulg manum follow the Heb. wording exactly: all three words were used metaphorically to mean ‘force, power’. The Tgg bring out this sense in two different ways, either by prefixing ‘the power of’ (TgO,J) or by rendering ‫ הגדלה‬by ‘mighty’ (TgN,G). TgF combines the two, as in effect does a freer version of the phrase included in TgNmg. ‫( אשׁר עשׂה יהוה‬14.31) TgJ (cf. TgNmg) eases the grammar and identifies the nature of the actions by taking ‫ היד‬literally as ‘the hand’ and rendering ‘with which the Lord performed miracles’. The version in TgNmg attributes them to ‘the Memra of the Lord’, as does TgG which (like TgF) describes the action as ‘vengeance’ or ‘punishment’. The other Vss represent the Heb. straightforwardly. ‫( במצרים‬14.31) Most of the Vss render ‘against the Egyptians’ (Vulg with typical economy contra eos), but TgJ,N have ‘in Egypt’. ‫( וייראו העם את־יהוה‬14.31) LXX and Vulg have a sing. verb here, with the sing. subj. adjacent, but are content to follow MT’s pl. in the next clause. Tgg and Sy found no problem with MT’s pl. here or there, but avoid as elsewhere (e.g. 1.17, 21) the directness of ‘fearing Yahweh’ and use ‘before’ (‫ )מן קדם‬or ‘from’ (mn) instead. Only Abraham, it seems, could be described as a ‘fearer of God’ (Gen. 22.12). ‫( ביהוה‬14.31) LXX, as sometimes elsewhere (e.g. 8.25-26), has τῷ θεῷ for the divine name. Here it may simply be to avoid a third occurrence of κύριος in one verse. In any case LXX’s solitary variation in such cases hardly

282

EXODUS 1–18

suggests a divergent Vorlage, let alone a superior one. The Tgg (but not Sy) treat faith as much as fear as something that cannot be directly related to God: TgO prefixes ‘the Memra of’ (which in TgO probably means no more than ‘the word of’: cf. Chester, Divine Revelation, pp. 309-10), while the other Tgg have ‫בשׁ(ו)ם מ(י)מריה די׳‬, where as elsewhere (cf. ‫ )בשׁ[ו]ם‬Memra will have a somewhat more developed theological connotation (Chester, ibid., pp. 310-13). ‫( ובמשׁה‬14.31) The Tgg all insert ‘the prophecy of’, to exclude the idea ‘of the people displaying faith in a human being’ (AramB 7, p. 40 n. 13).

C h ap t er 1 5 . 1 - 2 1 T wo S ong s C el ebr ati n g th e D e li v e r a nc e of the I s r ael i tes an d th e D e st r u c t i on of a n E g y p ti an F or c e

Modern analyses generally see 15.1-18 as a complete unit, but the Masoretic and Samaritan mss extend it further, in the former case to the end of v. 19 and in the latter generally to the end of v. 21.1 No intervals of the regular kind occur within the section in either tradition, but the text is in various ways broken up into short units by the overall types of layout that are described below. The classic Masoretic layout, exhibited in both Codex L (B 19a) and BM Or. 4445, has a very old basis, as divisions which it presupposes are already found (so far as they survive) in 4QExc and 4QRPc (365). Neither of these Qumran mss preserves the beginning of the chapter, but the recognition of a break at that point is indirectly indicated by the ‘excerpted text’ of 4QExd. In v. 19 the opening ‘For’ links at least this verse to what has preceded, and v. 19 formed the conclusion to vv. 1-18 in the Greek Odes.2 In most Samaritan mss the ‘bicolumnar layout’ of vv. 1-18 is continued to the end of v. 21 (so e.g. in Camb. Add. 713, 714 and 1846). The itinerary-note in v. 22a indicates a clear change of scene and the beginning of a new unit, and both 4Q365 and MT have a division here. Their divisions after v. 19 correspond to the introduction of new characters (Miriam and the women), even though the subject-matter and (see the final paragraph of the introduction) the theological emphasis are essentially the same as in v. 19. Given the fact that v. 19 is itself closely tied to vv. 1-18 and that the similarity of v. 21b to v. 1b   Von Gall records one ms. (B) which has a qiṣṣāh after v. 19.   That v. 19 is in prose is the general view of modern scholars, but the classic layout of the Song is continued into v. 19 in most Masoretic mss and its poetic character was defended by Ibn Ezra. Nahmanides, however, disagreed. The occurrence of short intervals within the verse in 4QExc and 4Q365, as in the preceding verses, suggests that at Qumran it was regarded as poetry. 1 2

284

EXODUS 1–18

can hardly be accidental, the thematic unity of 15.1-21 is the more evident and it is only the inclusion of two separate (albeit related: see below) poems, with their different performers, that has made further sub-division attractive. The Layout of Exodus 15.1-21 in Jewish and Samaritan Manuscripts The oldest evidence for the layout of the passage comes from two Qumran mss, 4QExc and 4QRPc (365). 4QExc survives for parts of vv. 10-21. The text is not laid out stichometrically, but there are short intervals at five points in the preserved portions of vv. 14-20: after ‫ וירגזו‬in v. 14, after ‫ יהוה‬in v. 16, after v. 18, after ‫ הים‬in the middle of v. 19 and after v. 19. Reconstruction of the lost text strongly suggests that there were other intervals both within and between the verses as they were subsequently defined (DJD XII, p. 118). But the sub-division of the text was not as complete as in later mss: there were no intervals, for example, after v. 12, after v. 15, after ‫ כאבן‬in v. 16, after v. 16, after ‫ מקדשׁ‬in v. 17 and after v. 17. Verses 20-21 were apparently not sub-divided at all (one wonders whether this was also true for v. 1 or at least for v. 1a). 4QRPc preserves parts of vv. 16-20 and has intervals after ‫ נחלתכה‬in v. 17, after v. 18, in v. 19 after ‫ עליהמה‬and ‫ הים‬and at the end of v. 19 (where its text is longer than MT and SP). Similar intervals can be reconstructed at other points in vv. 16-19, but there is no sign of any division within v. 20. In this ms. there are no places where an interval attested in later sources is known to have been omitted, but the interval after ‫ עליהמה‬in v. 19 is not found in Masoretic sources (though it does appear as a mid-line break in the Samaritan ms. Camb. Add. 1846). So far as it goes, the fragmentary evidence from Qumran indicates that the process of distinguishing sections within vv. 119 had already begun, with some intervals at least corresponding to later scribal analysis. The two mss, which are of much the same date, also seem to represent respectively a more limited and a more far-reaching sub-division of the text, but the background to this variation can scarcely even be conjectured from the limited evidence available.3 Well-known Masoretic mss from the tenth cent. A.D. onwards presented the section 15.1-19 in a special decorative way, which, apart from what is now recognised as prose in vv. 1a and 19, made use of a complete analysis of it into short blocks of text consisting of semantically coherent units of 3   Although none of 15.1-21 is extant from 4QpalExm, calculations based on the surrounding columns have suggested that it ‘could have had the more open arrangement characteristic of poetry’ (DJD IX, p. 90). For the layout of poetry in general at Qumran and a comparison with later practice see Tov, Scribal Practices, pp. 166-76. His classification of 4QRPc as stichometric and 4QExc as not is curious, but he makes the character of 4QRPc clear on pp. 173 and 175. 4QExd seems to have been laid out in uninterrupted lines (DJD XII, p. 128), but only a few words of the passage are extant.



15.1-21

285

between three and five words. Alternating lines of two different patterns created an artistic arrangement of text and space. One line began at the right margin with a single word from the end of the previous block of text, had the next block at the centre and ended at the left margin with a single word that opened the following block. The remainder of the latter then stood at the right margin of the next line, with empty space in the centre of the line and all but the last word of the next block at the left margin. The alternating pattern repeated itself to the end of v. 19, after which an empty line preceded vv. 20-21, which were written in the normal way (cf. Tov, Textual Criticism, pp. 212-13 and pl. 12; Oesch, Petucha, pp. 121-22). This pattern is alluded to in B.Meg. 16b, which states that ‘All the songs’ were written in this way; in fact only Judg. 5.2-30 is written exactly like Exod. 15.1-19, as other Talmudic passages recognise (B.Men. 31b; Soferim 1.11). Manuscripts displaying this pattern include a tenth- to eleventh-cent. Torah scroll in a private collection, the Bologna scroll (twelfth–thirteenth cent.), Codex BM Or. 4445 (late ninth– tenth cent.), Codex Firkovitch II.17 (early tenth cent.), Codex Sassoon 1053 (tenth cent.), the Damascus Codex (late tenth cent.), Codex Leningrad B 19a (early eleventh cent.) and probably the Aleppo Codex (as reconstructed here from Maimonides, Mishneh Torah: early tenth cent.).4 Recently it has come to light in a considerably older scroll fragment which has been dated to the seventh or eighth cent., the Ashkar-Gilson manuscript, which contains parts of Exod. 13.19 – 16.1.5 P. Sanders has observed that in addition to the layout of the Song this older manuscript also anticipates, without the use of artificial devices, the line-divisions of the preceding prose text which became largely standard in the major medieval manuscripts with the help, where necessary, of empty lines and spaces in the text.6 With the support also of other kinds of evidence, Sanders argues that the scroll from which the London and AshkarGilson fragments come was used as a model or exemplar for the Torah in the later vocalised manuscripts. In Samaritan Pentateuch mss von Gall distinguished two main kinds of layout of the passage.7 Most of the mss which he used have what he calls

4   On these manuscripts see briefly Tov, Textual Criticism, pp. 46-47; more fully Penkower, New Evidence, and Sanders, ‘The Ashkar-Gilson Manuscript’, 5-13. Although they are based on the Leningrad Codex, BH3 and BHS do not follow its layout of the Song: it can, however, be found in the printed edition of Dotan. 5   See the article of Sanders in the previous note. A further, better preserved, fragment of what seems to be the same scroll, containing Exod. 9.18–13.2 and known as ‘the London manuscript’, was published by S.A. Birnbaum, ‘A Sheet of an Eighth Century Synagogue Scroll’, VT 9 (1959), pp. 122-29. See also Volume 1, pp, 7-8. 6   Art. cit., pp. 13-18, citing the remarks of Maimonides, Mishneh Torah 2.7.10. 7   Hebräische Pentateuch, p. 145 n.

286

EXODUS 1–18

a ‘poetical’ arrangement. His list of these includes Camb. UL Add. 713 and Oxford, Bodleian Or. 138. Each line of text from v. 1 to v. 21 is divided into two by a space in the middle, but without attention always being given to the sense of the passage when the location of the breaks between lines or within them was being determined. Sometimes a phrase or even a word is split by the dividing space: the Oxford ms. has more instances of this than the earlier (late twelfth cent.) Cambridge example.8 Better than either is Camb. UL Add. 1846, which is even older (early twelfth cent.).9 In it most of the verses begin on a new line. But even here there are some odd divisions. A truly stichometric arrangement, comparable to that widely used for poetic texts in Masoretic mss (but not, as we have seen, for Exod. 15), is much rarer and confined according to von Gall’s survey to two somewhat later mss, Sassoon 30 (c. 1400) and Gaster 800 (1509/10). In these vv. 1a and 19-21a are written as normal lines of text, while the remainder of the passage is laid out with two short units of text in each line, forming two columns with a larger space between them. Von Gall followed this layout in his edition (as did Sadaqa in part): most of the units consist of two words, but some contain three or four. Every verse except v. 18 begins on a new line, and the overall layout is remarkably similar to that which is favoured today. A few Samaritan mss do not follow either of these patterns. Among them are Camb. UL Add. 714 (dated to 1220), which has the Hebrew and its Arabic translation in wide columns side by side, and Bodleian, Pococke 5 (early fourteenth cent.), a tiny ms. which has the whole of 15.1-21 on a single page in a distinctive chequer-board pattern, or more precisely a series of diamonds of text separated by criss-crossing diagonal lines of space. The blocks of letters in them usually do not even match word-boundaries. The diamonds seem to be what A.D. Crown calls ‘lozenges’: he refers to another ms. (Bible et Terre Sainte, BZ 10: thirteenth cent.) which has this layout for Exodus 35, presumably the list in vv. 11-20, and to a twentith-cent. ms. in Sydney which has it for Exodus 15.10 The intention is purely decorative and perhaps display: one wonders whether the pattern may reflect that of some Samaritan synagogue inscriptions, for example.11

8  For the date of Camb. UL Add. 713 see von Gall, Hebräische Pentateuch, p. xxxi; Crown, Samaritan Scribes, pp. 169-70. 9   For the date see von Gall, Hebräische Pentateuch, p. lxxxiv; Crown, Samaritan Scribes, p. 169. 10   Samaritan Scribes, pp. 58-59. 11   See the catalogue of Samaritan inscriptions by M. Baillet in DBS 11, 860-74 (but there is no reference to such a pattern there). Crown provides some possible analogies (Samaritan cursive and Arabic mss; synagogue floor decorations) in the article ‘Art of the Samaritans’, in A Companion to Samaritan Studies, pp. 30, 33. Von Gall’s ϡ (Or.2685 in the British Library) is part of a scroll with its



15.1-21

287

Form and Structure The section unusually includes two songs, one much longer than the other, each celebrating Israel’s deliverance from the Egyptians (vv. 1b-18, 21b) and each with its own short narrative introduction (vv. 1a, 20-21a). In addition, a brief conclusion (v. 19) has been added to the first song. The song in vv. 1b-18, sung by Moses and the Israelites, is the only extended piece of poetry in Exodus (for other poems incorporated into the Pentateuch see Gen. 49.2-27; Num. 23.7-10, 18-24; 24.3-9, 15-24; Deut. 32.1-43; 33.2-29 and some shorter passages): it exhibits the standard characteristics of Hebrew poetry, with balanced lines, examples of parallelism and an absence of ‘prose particles’ such as the consonantal definite article and the definite object marker, as well as initial repetition which is found in some other poems (for details see the Explanatory Notes). A variety of attempts have been made to sub-divide the poem into stanzas and strophes (for the terminology and its varied use see Watson, Poetry, pp. 11-15), generally on the basis of changes in content and genre, but sometimes according to metrical structure and (presumed) function. An influential example of the use of the latter criteria was James Muilenburg’s ‘A Liturgy on the Triumphs of Yahweh’, which began from what he called the ‘hymnic refrains’ in vv. 6, 11 and 16b and went on to divide up the intervening and surrounding text into a sequence of sections of equal or approximately equal length and poetic form: vv. 2-3, 4-5, 7-8, 9-10, 12-14, 15-16a, 17 (vv. 1b and 18 were treated as a shorter ‘introit’ and ‘coda’ to the poem).12 The approach was taken up and the metrical analysis elaborated by D.N. Freedman (who was for a time a colleague of Muilenburg) in two essays on the passage, originally published in 1967 and 1974, in which he detected a ‘pyramidal structure’ in the poem, with v. 11 (the longest of the three ‘refrains’) as the apex.13 Much of his sub-division corresponded to that of Muilenburg, but he ‘improved’

continuation in ms. κ in St Petersburg: it has vv. 1-21 identified as a sub-section but without any difference in its format from the surrounding narrative. Three other Samaritan mss are apparently unusual in their presentation of Exod. 15: in von Gall’s list δ, ι (both also fragments of scrolls) and w. 12   For details of this and other publications specifically on vv. 1-18 see the special bibliography at the end of this introduction. 13   ‘The Song of the Sea’ and ‘Strophe and Meter in Exodus 15’, both reprinted in Freedman, Pottery, Poetry and Prophecy (Winona Lake, 1980).

288

EXODUS 1–18

the symmetry of the poem by treating vv. 3-5 and 17-18 as its ‘opening’ and ‘ending’ and v. 2 as the original ‘exordium’; vv. 1b and (controversially) v. 21 were regarded as liturgical additions from the time when the poem was taken up in worship at Jerusalem under David or Solomon (Pottery, p. 195).14 The weak point of these analyses has always been their failure to do justice to the clear change of topic in v. 13. If v. 11 is the refrain that closes a section, then v. 12 begins a new section. Yet it is hard to deny that it is related to the subject-matter of vv. 1b-10 (the destruction of the Egyptian army, which must be the antecedent of the pronoun ‘them’ in v. 12) and not to that of vv. 13-17(18) (the Israelites’ onward journey and the terror of peoples in Canaan and Transjordan).15 Muilenburg (pp. 245-46) and Freedman (Pottery, pp. 190, 209-10) recognise this and seek to overcome the difficulty, but their arguments are inconclusive and sometimes tend rather to undermine their case. So while vv. 6 and 11 undoubtedly play an important role in the rhetoric of the poem and might be called ‘hymnic’ (this is less clearly the case for the subordinate clauses in v. 16b), this does not mean that they provide the key clues to the structure of the poem. It is better, in company with those such as Cross (Canaanite Myth, pp. 126-27), Howell (‘Exodus 15.1b-18’) and M.S. Smith (Pilgrimage Pattern, pp. 207-12) who give priority to subject-matter rather than form, to start from a division of the poem into two parts, vv. 1b-12 and vv. 13-18.16 There are of course 14   Van der Lugt, ‘The Wave-like Motion’, has proposed a division of the poem into four main sections, with the ‘hymnic’ lines regarded not as refrains but as openings to a new section. His sub-divisions produce a series of strophes with a common length but with little relation to the content, especially at the mid-point. 15   The suggestion, occasionally made, that ‘swallowed…up’ relates to the fate of the Israelite rebels in Num. 16 is totally against the requirements of the context. 16   This was the starting-point in the initial study of Cross and Freedman (Studies, pp. 50-53; ‘The Song of Miriam’, pp. 241-42). It is surprising to find that in Zenger’s helpful chart presenting a selection of earlier analyses of the poem (‘Tradition und Interpretation’, p. 455) only Cross could be cited as supporting this major division. But Smith was also unable to find any support for it before Cross (and Childs): Pilgrimage Pattern, p. 207 n. 12 (p. 211 n. 26 should be ignored). Subsequently it has been taken up by Propp and Schmidt (p. 644, with an emphasis on cross-links between the two sections). It was also assumed by several scholars who regarded v. 13 as the beginning of a later addition to the original poem, on whom see below, p. 293.



15.1-21

289

features that tie these two parts of the poem into a single whole. The ‘hearing’ (v. 14) which causes peoples to fear is explained by ‘the greatness of your arm’ (v. 16), which can only mean Yahweh’s defeat of the Egyptians at the sea, as the earlier mentions of his ‘right hand’ (vv. 6, 12) confirm. On the level of assonance the similar verbal forms ‘you stretched out’ (nāṭîtā, v. 12) and ‘you led’ (nāḥîtā, v. 13: cf. ‘you brought’, nēhaltā) create a link and a number of lexical and thematic correspondences have been observed between the two sections (cf. Smith, Pilgrimage Pattern, pp. 212-14). Both end, as Smith has noted, with a single four-beat line (ibid., pp. 211-12). Within each section it is certainly possible to recognise short sections distinguished by the classic criteria of form criticism, such as the presence or absence of direct address, the grammatical subject and different kinds of hymnic language (‘descriptive’ and ‘declarative’ praise) and Howell presents a convincing analysis along these lines. So Part I comprises v. 1b (poet is subject, in first person), vv. 2-3 (hymn, with Yahweh as subject in the third person), vv. 4-5 (narrative), vv. 6-7 (hymn, Yahweh now in second person), vv. 8-10 (narrative), v. 11 (hymn), v. 12 (narrative). In Part II v. 13 is narrative with Yahweh as subject (still in the second person) and Israel as object, vv. 14-16 are narrative with foreign peoples as the subject or object, with a transition in v. 16b to v. 17, which is narrative with Yahweh as subject and Israel as the initial object, and v. 18 is hymnic, with Yahweh as subject in the third person. The sub-sections are short as well as uneven in length (as Smith, p. 212 n. 31, observes) and continuities between them make it possible and desirable to join some of them together. Thus in the first two sub-sections of Part I (vv. 1b-3), which serve to introduce its main themes, the poet speaks in the first person (vv. 1b, 2) and Yahweh is mentioned in all three verses in the third person. Verses 6-7 (whose less specific language, now addressed to Yahweh, should perhaps be read as narrative rather than as general descriptive praise) arise out of and respond to the concrete narrative of vv. 4-5 and may be grouped with them. We are inclined to see v. 8 as a new beginning (as do both Howell and Propp [pp. 520-21]), not only because of the renewed focus on more specific details of the episode that is celebrated but because it probably (like v. 9) backtracks to events that preceded the destruction of the Egyptian army (see the Explanatory Note on v. 8). This narrative section continues to its conclusion

290

EXODUS 1–18

in the summary of v. 12, with the interruption in v. 11 by what is undoubtedly general descriptive praise responding to what has now been narrated in fuller detail. So vv. 8-12 comprise a third component of Part I. Part II should probably be seen, apart from v. 18 which is the hymnic conclusion to both it and the poem as a whole (see more fully below on the poem’s ancient Near Eastern background and theological significance), as a single narrative section, framed by vv. 13 and 16b-17 (cf. ‘you led in…brought [them]’ with ‘you brought them in and planted them’; and ‘the people for whom you intervened’ and ‘the people of whom you had taken possession’). Verses 14-16 present the journey through the wilderness and the settlement in Canaan as a process to which the neighbouring peoples could offer no resistance and as such match the detailed narrative sections of Part I. Metrically the poem is dominated by a pattern which can be (and has been) analysed into groupings of cola with either two or four sound-units each (most often a sound-unit is a single word, but occasionally two that are closely associated).17 This pattern (which is also present in three other poems that are likely to be early, the ‘Song of Deborah’ [Judg. 5], David’s Lament [2 Sam. 1.19-27] and Ps. 29) appears in vv. 1b, 4, 6-12, 13, 15-18 and possibly in vv. 2-3 and 5. Analysis into short cola is preferred by H. Schmidt, Cross and Freedman18, Muilenburg, Coats, Childs, Smith and B.D. Russell, whereas longer cola have been identified by e.g. Dillmann, Baentsch (p. 130), Driver (p. 129), Gunkel, Cassuto (p. 173), Mowinckel,19 Noth, Zenger (apparently) and Propp. One might hope to determine the correct view by examining verses which can be analysed according to one alternative but not the other, and by observing whether parallelism operates between longer or shorter units. The 17   The subject of metre in Hebrew poetry remains highly controversial, with conflicting views not only about how it is to be described and recognised but about whether it exists at all: see the cautious review by Watson, Poetry, pp. 87-113, whose main recommendations have guided what follows. 18   Actually Freedman in his independent work often reckons with 4 + 4 (+ 4) lines: see Pottery, pp. 207-208, 210, 212-15. 19   So Muilenburg, p. 238: in The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (Oxford, 1967), 2, pp. 164-65, Mowinckel states, rather surprisingly, that this (and not 3 + 3) was ‘the usual metre’ in Hebrew poetry, but he makes no statement about Exod. 15 in particular.



15.1-21

291

presence of tricola made up of short (‘2’) units would be a decisive argument in favour of short units. Verse 5 might be read as such, but the second colon could be seen as a ‘3’, with ‘like a stone’ as a single unit (so e.g. Muilenburg, p. 241; Freedman, Pottery, p. 203). Norin divides v. 9 into two tricola (p. 98; cf. Howell, p. 28[?]), but this is by no means certain, as the verse falls just as easily into three (bi)cola and this seems to be the more common view. There seems to be no compelling example of a 2 + 2 + 2 tricolon in the poem.20 On the other side Propp draws attention to vv. 4 and 15b as places where short cola are problematic (pp. 516, 535). The difficulty with the overlong first half of v. 4 should probably be resolved by emendation (see the Explanatory Note), while in v. 15b it is possible to see a ‘3’ rather than a ‘4’.21 As for parallelism, it is only the ‘synonymous’ variety (in a broad sense) that is likely to be able to bear the weight of an argument, and here it is striking that, whereas there is only one case where one ‘2’ parallels another (v. 11b: v. 9 might provide further possibilities, but the senses of the short units are not really equivalent), there is a whole series of instances where parallelism occurs between longer units (i.e. 4s: cf. vv. 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11a, 13, 15a, 16b, 17aβb). This does seem to provide a good reason for preferring the analysis into longer cola. There are a few places where a different metrical pattern appears or may do so. 3 + 3 metre, which is widespread elsewhere (in Ugaritic [Watson, pp. 96-97] as well as in Hebrew), appears in v. 14 and probably v. 16b (on the structural role of these lines see the Explanatory Note) and possibly in vv. 2-3. In v. 8 the second and third stichs could be 3 + 3 (so Cross and Freedman) rather than 4 + 4, even though the line begins with a ‘4’. Verse 5 is probably 2 + 3 (see above), with the unusual metre bringing the description of the Egyptians’ watery fate to a climax (so Howell, p. 20: note also the chiasmus of verb and noun).22 Finally, v. 15b might be viewed 20   It might be thought that an isolated sequence of four units (as in vv. 12 and 18, and perhaps in v. 3) would have to be divided 2 + 2, but in view of Watson’s long discussion of monocola with varying lengths and functions (pp. 168-74) this is not the case. 21   Some describe v. 15b as ‘pure prose’, not poetry at all (Norin, p. 99; Zenger, p. 464). 22   See further G.B. Gray, The Forms of Hebrew Poetry (London, 1915), pp. 176-82, who described such lines as ‘exceedingly rare’, but occasionally used. Another possibility is 2 + 4 (ibid., pp. 182-85).

292

EXODUS 1–18

as an isolated ‘3’, in parallel to the preceding ‘4’ stichs. A special case of the ‘regular rhythm’ of the poem is the so-called staircase parallelism that has been detected by many in vv. 6, 11 and 16b and may also appear in v. 13 (see on this feature Watson, pp. 150-56). But we have seen above that this is not rigidly tied to the functions commonly attributed to it. Variations in metre such as those just described are among the criteria that have been used to identify secondary additions to the poem (so e.g. Cross and Freedman, Studies, p. 54; Norin, Er Spaltete das Meer, pp. 98-100; Zenger, ‘Tradition und Interpretation’, pp. 460-64). While such additions (especially perhaps lines transferred from other contexts) might betray themselves by their metrical form, such divergence should not automatically be seen as a sign of composite authorship. As Watson has emphasised, ‘The most noticeable aspect of Hebrew metre when described in accentual terms…is that no single poem is consistently written in one metrical pattern’ (Poetry, p. 98; cf. Noth, p. 98, ET, p. 123). In fact there has been a striking agreement, even in the modern period, about at least the substantial unity of the poem, among proponents of both an early and a late (post-exilic) date for it. Often it is only a single verse or part of a verse that has been thought to be later or earlier than the rest. A positive case for the unity of the poem is made by e.g. Baentsch, Muilenburg, Howell and Smith (Pilgrimage Pattern, pp. 212-14, 219-22) and the literary and lexical arguments are reinforced by the fact that it is the poem as a whole which displays a wide range of parallels with the Baal-cycle of myths from Ugarit, however exactly these are to be explained (see e.g. Cross, Canaanite Myth, p. 142; Kloos, Yahweh’s Combat, pp. 150-52, 205-12; and more fully the discussion below). The identification of later additions was initially due to the desire to find an older ‘core’ which preceded the poem in its present form. Thus Wellhausen, who was inclined to view the poem as part of the E source (Composition, p. 77) but saw what he took to be a reference to Jerusalem in v. 17 as incompatible with this, suggested that v. 17b was secondary (cf. Prolegomena, p. 22 n. 1, ET, ibid.). Dillmann, on the other hand, who had no problem dating the completed poem to the Judges period, saw vv. 1b-3 as an even older core, perhaps (as others were to say of the Song of Miriam) contemporary with the Exodus itself. The close resemblance of v. 1b to v. 21 has often



15.1-21

293

led to it being seen as the original basis of the rest of the poem (Holzinger, Smend; cf. Carpenter/Harford-Battersby and McNeile, who assigned the whole of v. 1 to J and dated the rest of the poem to the post-exilic period). A more substantial addition to an older core was envisaged by Strack and Driver (vv. 12-17: prior to 1903 [cf. Baentsch, p 128]), G. Adam Smith, The Early Poetry of Israel in its Physical and Social Origins (London, 1912), p. 51: vv. 13-18; so also Hyatt, p. 163, with these verses presupposing the erection of Solomon’s temple) and Dozeman (vv. 13-17: in ‘The Song of the Sea and Salvation History’, pp. 95-101, alleging evidence of Deuteronomistic language in an older poem; in his commentary [p. 334] such suggestions are confined to a footnote). Some poetic analyses have treated v. 2 (Cross and Freedman, Studies, p. 54) or just v. 2a (Cross, Canaanite Myth, p. 127 n. 49) or vv. 1b-2 (Freedman, Pottery, pp. 181-82, 193-95) as outside the original structure of the poem. Others have gone further: Norin found later additions in vv. 2, 4-5, 8, 14, 15b and 16b (Er Spaltete das Meer, pp. 96-98: cf. p. 94 n. 70 for some predecessors), Zenger more boldly saw only vv. 1b, 5, 6-7, 11-12 as the three original strophes, finding metrical and historical objections to the rest (‘Tradition und Interpretation’, pp. 460-64, 472-73). Jeremias by contrast retained all but vv. 2, 4-5, 14 and 15b (Königtum, pp. 98-99) and Spieckermann all but vv. 14-16 (Heilsgegenwart, pp. 105-107). Most recently Albertz assigned vv. 1-5 to his ‘Hexateuch redactor’ and the rest to an older hymn (amplified in vv. 14 and 15b: pp. 231, 235), largely on formcritical grounds, while A. Klein found the original core of the poem in vv. 1-3, 6-11a, 13, 17-18 and 21b (‘Hymn and History’), with specific historical references largely eliminated. In addition to overreliance on metrical analyses in some cases, these newer theories suffer from too great a determination to find (or rather create) a rigid consistency of form or concept and (like some conclusions about the date of the poem which will be examined below) an over-confidence about the direction of dependence between similar biblical passages. For example, just as good a case can be made for the dependence of Ps. 118.14 and Isa. 12.2 on v. 2 (cf. B.D. Russell, pp. 19-20; H.G.M. Williamson, Isaiah 6–12 [ICC; London, 2018], pp. 727-30) and the influence of vv. 14-16 on Deuteronomy 2 and Joshua 2 (cf. Russell, pp. 139-41) as vice versa. The sporadic and by no means universal attempts to disprove the unity of the passage

294

EXODUS 1–18

as a poetic composition can scarcely be said to have produced any agreed results, as the preceding survey has shown. Our further study of it can proceed provisionally to treat it as a single unit. The variations in form within the poem have already been noted in our earlier discussion of its structure. The opening in the first person sing. (vv. 1b-2), which is probably to be understood as a collective representation of the worshipping congregation, is not sustained in the explicit formulaic language of the poem, but that is not surprising when the focus quickly turns to the events of an earlier generation and perhaps the distant past. At first, no doubt following the format of the (more) ancient hymn (cf. v. 21b) on which it is based, the poet speaks of Yahweh in the third person (so still in v. 4, after the emphatic declarations of v. 3). Verse 5, in which there is no mention of Yahweh, allows a transition. From v. 6 there is a change to direct address to Yahweh, which continues almost to the end, in v. 17: in v. 18 the congregation revert to the third person in a bold declaration that probably owes its form as well as its content to the so-called Enthronement Psalms (cf. Pss. 93.1; 97.1; 99.1). Such variation is not uncommon in Israel’s liturgical poetry: see Gunkel, Einleitung, p. 47, who speaks of the turn to the ‘warmer’ second person form of prayer as expressing more powerfully the immediacy of the people’s devotion to their God (for a briefer example of this in an early poem cf. Judg. 5.31). The poem belongs to the broad category of hymns and, in view of its opening words, to the sub-category which Gunkel called ‘Hymnen des Einzelsängers’ (Einleitung, pp. 66-67, cf. 38: the whole section is relevant [pp. 32-94]). The genre, in its various forms, was primarily for use in public worship in the temple liturgy, as the reference to such a place in v. 17 confirms for this example (see the Explanatory Note there for discussion of which temple or temples are likely to be meant). The poem is sometimes described as a ‘victory song’, but despite the focus on victory (by Yahweh!) over the Egyptians in vv. 1-12 its wider scope, especially in vv. 13-18, makes this designation inappropriate: it is better suited to the Song of Miriam (v. 21b), where examples of the genre and its use will be discussed in the commentary. It has long been observed that biblical hymns of praise regularly contain both general statements about the praiseworthiness of the deity (as in Babylonian and Egyptian hymns) and specific references



15.1-21

295

to the deity’s praiseworthy deeds (Gunkel, Einleitung, pp. 43-47, 51-52, 76-79). These components of the hymn have been well summed up in the expressions ‘descriptive praise’ (beschreibendes Lob) and ‘declarative praise’ (berichtendes Lob, which is better rendered into English as ‘narrative praise’) coined by Claus Westermann (Das Loben Gottes, pp. 25-26: see also Crüsemann, Studien zur Formgeschichte, esp. Chapter 5 and pp. 304-306). It is only natural that they should alternate with one another, as they do here, where it is notable that the ‘narrative praise’ regularly precedes the ‘descriptive praise’: so vv. 2-3 respond to v. 1b, v. 11 responds to vv. (4-7+)8-10 and v. 18 responds to all the rest of the poem.23 The language of the poem is undoubtedly distinctive. It contains a number of rare words, including the hapax legomena nāwāh I, in Hiphil ‘praise’ (v. 2), ʿāram I, in Niphal ‘be gathered together’ (v. 8), and ṣālal, ‘sink’ (v. 10); it uses the Heb. imperfect as a past narrative tense alongside the perfect to an extent that may be unparalleled in any other passage in Biblical Hebrew (the examples in vv. 5, 12 and 14 are beyond question and good reasons can be given for understanding those in vv. 6-7 and 15-17 in this way: see the Explanatory Notes); and there is a concentration of unusual grammatical forms which again goes well beyond what is found in other poetic texts (see Notes n, s, t, y, ee, gg, pp, ss, aaa, ccc, hhh on the translation). Different views have been, and still are, held about the significance of these and other linguistic features of the poem. As for vv. 19-21, while v. 19 is in narrative form, it brings no forward movement in the narrative (in fact it reverts to earlier events at the end of ch. 14), as its beginning with ‘For’ rather than ‘And’ (Heb. waw) confirms. Coats calls it a ‘narrative gloss on the song’ (p. 118): more specifically it is a ‘narrator’s explanation’ of a specific kind that recalls earlier events (cf. 12.39; 13.19). Verses 20-21a are structured as a succession of clauses which are introduced and joined together by three waw consecutive verbs 23   The status of v. 6 (and v. 7) has been variously understood. Many, following Muilenburg and observing its distinctive ‘staircase’ form, view it as descriptive praise. There is no doubt that, in contrast to v. 4, it is uses general language, but so does v. 8 (‘The enemy…’) and the imperfects can readily be understood in a preterite sense (cf. yekaseyumû, ‘covered them’, in v. 5). We therefore take vv. 6-7 as narrative praise using a more general vocabulary.

296

EXODUS 1–18

and further unified by retrospective pronouns (‘after her’ and ‘to them’). They do advance the narrative and serve primarily as an introduction to the poem in v. 21b, similar to but more developed than the introduction to the Song of Moses in v. 1a. The poem itself conforms precisely to one pattern of the hymn of praise (specifically ‘declarative praise’ in Westermann’s terminology: see further the Explanatory Note on v. 21). Such hymns were no doubt normally recited in a temple setting. This is an unusually short example of the genre, but Psalm 117 is comparable. In its present setting, however, it functions as a victory song (cf. Weimar-Zenger, Exodus, p. 72). Such songs were a customary part of victory celebrations after a military conflict (cf. Gunkel, Einleitung, pp. 311-14). They did not need to have a specifically religious orientation or be limited to the battlefield itself, as the example in 1 Sam. 18.6-9 (cf. 21.11) shows. But such celebrations could naturally begin there and involve the recognition that ‘the battle is Yahweh’s’ (cf. Ps. 118.15-16, 23-24). A much fuller example of such a song appears in Judg. 5.1-31a, with strong elements of a heroic character in it but also a number of references to Yahweh, some of which at least may be an original part of it (for discussion of its analysis and original setting see H.-D. Neef, Deboraerzählung und Deboralied: Studien zu Jdc 4,1-5,31 [BTS 49; Neukirchen, 2002], pp. 1-114; C.L. Echols, Tell Me, O Muse: The Song of Deborah in the Light of Heroic Poetry [LHBOTS 487; London, 2008], pp. 64-92, 169-202). In the Song of Miriam the role of Yahweh is central and the situation described is of course exceptional. Metrically it is a single bicolon of 4 + 4, with partial parallelism between the two cola (see Watson, Poetry, pp. 174-77, 343-44), the second being explicative of part of the first. Historical Issues Historical treatments of vv. 1-18 have been based on the language of the poem, perceptions of its relationship to texts and religious ideas elsewhere in the Old Testament and more widely in the ancient Near East, and points of contact with the prose narratives of the Exodus. The grammatical features mentioned above (including the use of the imperfect) are not simply poetic forms but reflect an older stage of the Hebrew language than that which is found in most of the Old Testament. So already in 1880 Dillmann was arguing that they pointed to an early date for the poem (Exodus und Leviticus, pp. 153-54: Dillmann dated the poem soon after the



15.1-21

297

Israelites’ arrival in Canaan). But, for a variety of reasons, including arguments that some of the vocabulary of the poem was later, other nineteenth-century German scholars were concluding that the poem was from a time long after the Exodus (so first, perhaps, Jülicher, ‘Die Quellen’, pp. 124-26, who attrib�uted it to a redactor who knew both J and E). For them the features relied on by Dillmann were not signs of a truly ancient origin for the poem, but of an ‘archaising’ style used at a late period, and they could point to sporadic occurrences of them in other texts which were agreed at the time to be exilic or later. This has continued to be the most common view in German-speaking scholarship until the present day. The fullest early examination of the poem’s language, which continues to be cited, was the article of A. Bender, ‘Das Lied Exodus 15’, which found extensive evidence for a post-exilic origin and arrived at a quite precise date c. 450 B.C. on the basis of the poet’s (supposed) knowledge of the Priestly Work and the dependence of Neh. 9.11 on his account of the Exodus events. The arguments put forward by Bender are, however, seriously flawed. He took the view, common at the time but undermined by the work of Gunkel and Mowinckel, that all psalms were post-exilic, so that there could really be no doubt that the poem was from that era: ‘Das Lied Ex 15,1b-18 ist nach jeder Hinsicht ein Psalm. Schon allein dieser Tatsache verweist es in die nachexilische Zeit… und zwar als ganzes (p. 45; cf. p. 1). This dating of the psalms also affected many of his specific judgements about particular words in the poem: occurrences of them in psalms pointed automatically to a post-exilic date. Bender was also obsessed with what he saw as connections between the poem and messianic hope (understood, it would seem, as eschatology in general), which again provided him repeatedly with an argument for post-exilic origin. He wrote, of course, before first Mowinckel and then the discovery of the Ugaritic texts (on which see below) offered a more convincing alternative understanding of several passages in the poem. On the specifically linguistic level Bender drew conclusions from parallels in Aramaic that would no longer be accepted (already McNeile [p. 89] had doubts). There is also greater awareness today that in the (comparatively) limited surviving literature in biblical Hebrew the appearance of words that were in use throughout the biblical period may be patchy in the extant evidence, so that arguments from vocabulary distribution remain inconclusive (cf. Brenner, Song of the Sea, pp. 3-5: he agrees closely with Bender’s date but relies mainly on a different kind of argument, on which see below).24 Negatively it is important that the poem includes no feature that can be ascribed to ‘Late Biblical Hebrew’. Nor have attempts to find distinctively Priestly or Deuteronomistic expressions been successful. 24   Nevertheless, arguments for a late origin of the poem on lexicographical grounds have continued to be mounted: cf. R. Tournay, ‘Recherches sur la Chronologie’, and ‘Le chant de victoire’; F. Foresti, ‘Composizione e Redazione’.

298

EXODUS 1–18

The argument for an early date based on ancient linguistic forms was reintroduced by W.F. Albright and his pupils F.M. Cross and D.N. Freedman in the wake of the publication of the Ugaritic texts from the thirteenth cent. B.C., which showed conclusively that the alternation of perfect and imperfect forms (more precisely the suffix-conjugation and the prefix-conjugation) in past narrative was a standard feature of early North-West Semitic poetry: see Cross and Freedman, Studies, passim, and their later writings; though Freedman eventually came to discount the significance of this argument (Pottery, p. 226). It was certainly criticised by others, on the same grounds that Dillmann’s similar argument had been earlier, namely that the forms in question continued to appear in much later writings. In this debate the study of D.A. Robertson (Linguistic Evidence) has played an important mediating role. It introduced a more rigorous methodology into the argument, seeking to identify both the characteristics of standard poetic Hebrew (clearly attested from the eighth cent. B.C. onwards) and earlier poetic Hebrew (reconstructed from ancient features in later Hebrew and evidence of Canaanite poetry found in the el-Amarna glosses and in Ugaritic) before comparing Hebrew poetry of an unknown or uncertain date with them. Robertson concluded that several of the ‘ancient’ features that had been appealed to were not of decisive value for dating because of their occasional appearance in standard poetic Hebrew: only the ‘verbal patterns’ noted and the longer form of the third person masc. pl. verbal suffix (‘them’), which entirely replaces the shorter form in Exod. 15.1b-18, were significant in their own right (p. 135). Other features are only significant when there is a ‘clustering’ of them in a text, which does not happen in poetry from the eighth cent. or later. The combination of a clustering of early forms with the occurrence of the corresponding standard forms may point to a period of transition in the development of the poetic form of the language (which is to be expected). On this basis the following sequence of early poetry emerged: (1) Exodus 15 (i.e. vv. 1b-18); (2) Judges 5; (3) (transition) Deuteronomy 32; 2 Samuel 22 = Psalm 18; Habakkuk 3; Job; (4) Psalm 78. While recognising that turning this sequence into an absolute chronology was ‘precarious’, Robertson proposed that the United Monarchy was most likely to be the period of transition, so that Exod. 15.1b-18 (twelfth cent.) and Judges 5 (late twelfth cent.) would be pre-monarchic and Psalm 78 would be from the late tenth cent. or early ninth cent. (pp. 154-55). These dates might well be open to challenge for various reasons and should probably all be lowered.25 But, as Robertson underlined, the linguistic evidence which he examined (from syntax and morphology) remains ‘a very strong argument for dating Ex 15 early’ (p. 155). The preterite use of ‘short prefixed verbal forms’   The implication that Job (i.e. the poetic dialogue) is from the tenth cent. is particularly distant from conclusions reached about its date on other grounds. Even M.H. Pope (Robertson’s advisor) went back no further than the seventh cent. 25



15.1-21

299

as a criterion for dating Hebrew poetry has subsequently been re-examined by Y. Bloch in the light of its continued appearance in later texts such as Isa. 41.1-5 and Psalm 44 (‘The Prefixed Perfective’). While critical of Robertson’s very early dates for 2 Sam. 22.2-51/Ps. 18.2-51, Exod. 15.1-18 and Deut. 32.1-43, Bloch recognises that all three poems must be ‘more ancient’ than the later passages examined and can be dated ‘a couple of centuries before the Babylonian exile – i.e. to the 8th-7th, or perhaps even the 9th centuries B.C.E.’ (pp. 66-67). Indeed, according to his favoured criterion (the presence or absence of waw before the verbal form in question) Exod. 15.1-18 should be the oldest of the three, since it has only one or possibly two cases of a preceding waw as against ten or eleven without (pp. 54-57). A fuller selection of texts from the ‘archaic corpus’ (Joosten, Verbal System, pp. 417-19) and a wider range of verbal forms are studied in the valuable monograph of T. Notarius, The Verb in Archaic Biblical Poetry. In her analysis of Exod. 15.1-18 (pp. 107-24) Notarius calls in question (perhaps excessively) the preterite interpretation of the prefix-conjugation forms and notes the greater prominence of perfect (suffix-conjugation) verbs in the ‘report’ sections. At the same time, however, she identifies a number of other verbal features of the poem which make it consistently ‘archaic’ and place it well within the linguistically most primitive group of poems (see pp. 280-97). Since the group also includes 2 Samuel 22/Psalms 18, which must be from the monarchic period (v. 50), this placement does not at all exclude a date for Exod. 15.1-18 too in the period of the monarchy, although it has a closer systemic kinship with Judges 5 (pp. 308-10). Similarities between the poem and the Psalms and late prophecy were observed in early critical scholarship but interpreted in different ways. Dillmann (p. 154) and Baentsch (p. 129) were confident that the other texts had borrowed from Exodus 15. Others, such as Bender, Smend (pp. 139, 141-42) and McNeile (p. 89), saw the resemblances as a sign that the poem belonged to the same post-exilic situation as them. A very different kind of association of Exodus 15 with psalmody was to be introduced in Mowinckel’s cult-functional interpretation, which was understandably applied to it as well as to the Psalter. Here the memory of the Exodus history was seen as being incorporated into the festival myth, with its original theme of the creation and renewal of nature being extended to take in the re-experiencing of the ancient election and deliverance of the people as an assured reality, which had its future in the ‘eternal kingdom’ of Yahweh (so in The Psalms, pp. 140, 173, 177, 187; but already in Psalmenstudien II [Kristiania, 1922], pp. 56-58, 214). Even if it is nowhere explicitly stated (and in ‘Psalm Criticism between 1900 and 1935’, VT 5 [1955], pp. 13-33 [27], Mowinckel pointedly rejected Albright’s thirteenth-century date for the poem because of the clear reference to Jerusalem in vv. 17f.), Mowinckel seems to assume that the poem reflects the character of pre-exilic temple worship in Jerusalem, as opposed to the eschatological hopes of the post-exilic period (see further below on source criticism). The

300

EXODUS 1–18

shift in interpretation was, like Mowinckel’s ideas in general, largely ignored in German exegesis of the poem until much later (H. Schmidt, ‘Das Meerlied’, p. 66, was one exception).26 In America the full force of Mowinckel’s ideas was not felt at first, because the influence of Albright encouraged a more historical and linguistic approach to the poem. There is more sympathy with them in Muilenburg’s essay of 1966 (see above: esp. pp. 236, 248-50; cf. in Britain Clements, God and Temple, pp. 51-55, to which Muilenburg refers, and his commentary on Exodus, pp. 90-93). By this time the importance of parallels to the psalms (and therefore Exod. 15.1b-18) in Ugaritic literature and religion was being increasingly recognised (for an early assessment of this see Mowinckel, ‘Psalm Criticism’), but before we discuss this we must consider a further aspect of comparisons between the poem and particular psalms: the question of interdependence. This was to be given renewed prominence by M.L. Brenner in The Song of the Sea, with particular reference to the ‘Asaphite psalms’ and among them especially Pss. 74.12-17; 77.16-21; 78.52-54 (pp. 126-42; 152-60). This group of psalms (to which Brenner added Pss. 96, 105 and 106 because extracts from them are included in the song to be sung by ‘Asaph and his brethren’ in 1 Chr. 16.7-37) is argued to be dependent upon and so later than Deutero-Isaiah because they (or rather some of them) incorporate the application to the Exodus of mythical language, which was used for the first time by this prophet (pp. 104-106: see further pp. 181-86, where evidence from Chronicles [cf. Ezra 3.10] is taken to show that they were ‘the chief singing class in the post-exilic period’). It is assumed that all the ‘Psalms of Asaph’ (Pss. 50, 73-83, plus 96, 105 and 106) were composed by these Asaphites in post-exilic times and it is claimed that Exod. 15.1b-18 is inseparable from them. Some of these psalms are postexilic or at least exilic (Pss. 74 and 79 presuppose the fall of Jerusalem), but others can scarcely be so late. Psalms 77, 80 and 81 are all associated with the Northern Kingdom and in the latter two cases can scarcely be from after 722 B.C. Psalm 76 is probably pre-exilic and many have taken the same view of Psalm 78 (see below). It seems clear that this is a collection of psalms that was assembled over a long period (or at least one that drew on texts written over a long period), beginning already in pre-exilic times (cf. H.P. Nasuti, Tradition-History and the Psalms of Asaph [SBLDS 88; Ann Arbor, 1985]; M.D. Goulder’s attempt to date the whole collection in the 720s [The Psalms of Asaph and the Pentateuch (Sheffield, 1996)] is not credible, but even he has to account for the present form of it by recognising at least redactional 26   A. Weiser’s commentary on the Psalms seems at various points to imply a pre-exilic date for the poem: see the 4th ed. (1955), pp. 21, 29, ET, pp. 33, 45. The 1st ed. was published in 1939. In his Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Göttingen, 6th ed., 1966), p. 100, ET, p. 106, Weiser treated the poem as an older component taken up by J, but no older than the time of David and Solomon: in fact he was not sure of its exact date and noted that ‘others’ detected Deuteronomic influence in it.



15.1-21

301

contributions extending into the exilic period). As such, resemblances to it could not be a decisive argument for dating Exod. 15.1b-18 in the post-exilic period. The second part of Brenner’s argument, that it is Exodus 15 that is dependent on the psalms of Asaph and not the other way round, has recently been addressed by B.D. Russell, in his The Song of the Sea, pp. 113-30; cf. Norin, pp. 11-14, 119, 128-33. Russell shows that it is much more likely that the lament in Psalm 74, which uses language about an ancient (cf. qedem, ‘of old’, in vv. 2 and 12) deliverance, necessarily presupposes ancient traditions and texts. Psalm 77, another lament, has much in common with Exodus 15 in vv. 11-16 and is again clearly dependent on older tradition for its argument. Psalm 78 is a polemical poem which uses the Exodus tradition, including vocabulary shared with Exodus 15, to justify Yahweh’s favour to Judah and Jerusalem rather than to the Ephraimites. It is a much longer and more complex poem and at the same time more specific in its historical references. Russell argues, following Mark Smith (Pilgrimage Pattern, pp. 225-26), that in the psalm the somewhat ambiguous language of Exod. 15.17 is applied first to Shiloh (v. 54; cf. v. 60) and then to Jerusalem (v. 69), reflecting two different stages in the poem’s use in the Israelite cult. This all seems a much more likely scenario than that Exodus 15 was pieced together from widely separated verses in the psalm.27 Russell then seeks to establish the approximate date of the psalms that he has argued to be dependent upon Exodus 15, in the hope of establishing a terminus ad quem for the latter. He is unable to reach definite conclusions for Psalms 74 and 77, but concludes that Psalm 78 is from the late eighth cent. B.C., in the time of Hezekiah. A pre-exilic setting is favoured by the eventual optimism of the narrative and the lack of any reference to the fall of Jerusalem: Zion and the Davidic monarchy are still apparently functioning as national institutions. The explanation given for the failure of the northern tribes fits well into the time soon after the Assyrian conquest. Russell also notes the extensive use of archaic linguistic features alongside standard ones, which is against a date too late in the monarchy period.28 27   Foresti (‘Composizione’, pp. 59-60) came to the same conclusion from a comparison between vv. 8, 10, 13 and 16 and related language in the psalm, but he dated both it and the Song in the sixth century. 28   A similar conclusion about the date of Ps. 78 (or an even earlier date) has been reached by others (Eissfeldt, Dahood and Day, for example): for a pre-exilic date see also K. Weingarten, ‘Juda als Sachwalter Israels. Geschichstheologie nach dem Ende des Nordreiches in Hos 13 und Ps 78’, ZAW 127 (2015), pp. 440-58. Anja Klein agrees that Ps. 78 has been influenced by Exod. 15.1b-18 but dates both to the post-exilic period (‘Hymn and History’). In addition to P, she thinks that the Song of the Sea is later than Ps. 118, Exod. 3 and Ps. 24 (which in itself need not imply a post-exilic date) and that it never existed apart from its present context. The relevance of Deut. 2 and Josh. 2 for this date depends on the direction of influence.

302

EXODUS 1–18

The issue of mythical expressions and their relationship to historical events lying behind the poem was sharpened by the discovery (first in 1929) and decipherment (from 1931) of mythological texts from Ugarit, especially a series (KTU 1.1-6) in which the god Baal is the central character (see Gibson, CML2, pp. 1-19, 37-81; A.H.W. Curtis, Ugarit [Ras Shamra] [Cambridge, 1985], pp. 28-30, 66-72; also the works cited below and their bibliographies). One of the first (the first according to Loewenstamm) to observe the parallels between the poem and the Ugaritic myths was Umberto (M.D.) Cassuto in a Hebrew essay published in 1943 (‘The Epic Poetry of Israel’: see his Biblical and Oriental Studies, 2 [Jerusalem, 1975], pp. 69-109 [99-101]; also his commentary, pp. 177-81): for examples see the Explanatory Notes on vv. 1b, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14-16, 17 and 18, and Note qq on the translation.29 Sometimes the resemblance is especially close, as with ‘my strength and my protection’ (v. 2: see Note i) and ‘the hill(s) which you own’ (v. 17: see Note iii), and suggests direct contact. The poem also reflects the key stages of the plot of the Baal-cycle: Baal’s victory (KTU 1.1-2; cf. vv. 1-12), his temple or palace (KTU 1.3-4: cf. v. 17) and his kingly rule (KTU 1.2.4.32 (34); 1.6.5.5-6, 6.3335: cf. v. 18). This has reasonably been seen as evidence, not only of imitation but of the unity of the two parts of the poem (cf. Smith, Pilgrimage Pattern, p. 220, developing an observation of Cross, Canaanite Myth, pp. 141-42). In numerous details too the poem employs language and motifs that are found in the Ugaritic myths. Yet the borrowing is selective (other features of the myths, not found here, are taken up elsewhere in biblical poetry) and a key element of the mythical plot, the battles between gods, is missing. There is perhaps a vestige of it in the rhetorical questions in v. 11 that speak of Yahweh’s incomparability, but Yahweh’s victory is throughout over the human, Egyptian ‘enemy’, and the ‘sea’ (yām) is the main means by which he overcomes them, not a foe with which he must do battle, as Baal does with the god Sea (Yammu) in the first episode of the Ugaritic myth (cf. Cross, Canaanite Myth, pp. 131-32). Maybe it is envisaged that Yahweh has subdued Sea/the sea in the past, as other biblical poems with a cosmic or cosmological focus would suggest, but here there is no place for that. The language and pattern of the myth provide the means to glorify the achievements of Yahweh, the ‘Divine Warrior’ (v. 3) who leads his people to victory over their human foes, as he does in other biblical poems where the subject is similar and mythological themes are also drawn upon (Judg. 5.3-5; Ps. 18.7-15). This is relevant to an assessment of the debate between those, like Cross (cf. Canaanite Myth, pp. 143-44) and his pupils, for whom an underlying historical event is central, and those who see the mythical narrative as having generated the celebration of an imaginary, pseudo-historical ‘event’ in the 29   For an even earlier study of Ugaritic parallels, especially for Hab. 3, see Cassuto, ‘Chapter III of Habakkuk and the Ras Shamra Texts’ (1937), in Biblical and Oriental Studies 2, pp. 3-15.



15.1-21

303

time of Israel’s origins. Wider issues are of course involved in the choice between these alternatives, but the great difference between the myth and at least this poem’s presentation of the Israelites’ escape from Egyptian control make it very difficult to believe that the latter was spun out of nothing more than the former, as C. Kloos (Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea, pp. 127-214), S.E. Loewenstamm (Evolution, pp. 256-72, 291-92) and recently M. Leuchter (‘Eisodus as Exodus’) seem to maintain. It is, of course, possible to reconstruct an ‘original core’ of the poem much closer to the mythical pattern by eliminating the references to earthly peoples and armies as secondary additions (so Norin, Er Spaltete das Meer; Zenger, ‘Tradition und Interpretation’; Klein, ‘Hymn and History’), but we have already suggested that the arguments put forward for such a view, on the basis of metrical and other considerations, are weak. The relationship of the poem to the prose tradition about what we may cautiously call ‘the episode at the sea’ has been treated in three different ways. First, what source or layer of redaction is associated with it? In early critical scholarship, which sought to relate the whole Pentateuch to its major sources, the poem was at first assigned to the E source (Knobel [his Rechtsbuch: cf. Num.-Jos., p. 532], Dillmann: Wellhausen also saw the case for this in Composition, p. 77, but recognised that v. 17 [as a reference to Jerusalem] required explanation in a different way). But with growing consensus around a late origin for the poem came the conclusion that it did not belong to any of the sources (cf. Jülicher, ‘Die Quellen’, above), and such agreements as existed between them were generally explained by the poet’s dependence upon the prose narratives (including P in vv. 4, 8 and 9). Even those who held to an earlier origin for the poem (e.g. Gressmann, Anfänge, p. 58) rarely attributed it to one of the sources, but Mowinckel went back to the old assignment to E (Psalmenstudien II, p. 191) and Weiser attributed it to J (see above). Cross maintained that it was preserved in both J and (in what he took to be its incipit in v. 21b) E, while Propp attributes it to JE (p. 482) and Baden to J (p. 28). Mark Smith (Pilgrimage Pattern, pp. 214-15) does not rule out the poem’s presence in an earlier stratum, but finds the clearest link to ‘the priestly redaction’ in v. 19 (see further below). Among those who see the composition of the Pentateuch in supplementary terms, Blum acutely observed the similarity between the introductions in 15.1a and Num. 21.17 and concluded that here as there it was Kd who incorporated the poem, to create a frame around the narrative of the journey through the wilderness, which expressed Israel’s response to Yahweh’s protection and provision of their needs all the way to Canaan (Studien, pp. 127, 202 n. 437).30 Schmid, by contrast, sees it as a post-Priestly composition associated with the combination of the patriarchal 30   The similarity between v. 1a and Num. 21.17a was already observed by Foresti (‘Composizione’, pp. 68-69), who attributed both verses specifically to DtrN.

304

EXODUS 1–18

and Exodus traditions (like Exod. 1: Erzväter, pp. 238-41; similarly Berner, pp. 389-400; Albertz, pp. 229-53 [with vv. 1b-5 added to an older hymn by the ‘Hexateuch redactor’]). Secondly, there is the question of the history of tradition (which really has a wider scope): how does the presentation of ‘the episode at the sea’ relate to the prose versions of it (and others)? Cross and Freedman argued that the narrative in the poem represented a storm at sea in which Egyptian troops in barges were drowned and so was very different from and necessarily earlier than the prose accounts. But this interpretation reads far too much into the poetic description to be convincing (see the Explanatory Note on v. 8). Others have often claimed that the description matches the Priestly narrative, but there is no clear parallel to the two ‘walls’ of water that appear there. The effects of wind, portrayed as Yahweh’s breath in vv. 8 and 10, rather resemble the non-Priestly account in 14.21 (and for the double action of wind cf. 10.13, 19). There is no real interest in the Israelites crossing the dry sea-bed, because the poem’s emphasis falls on the destruction of the Egyptian force, even though it is possible to argue that it is presupposed in vv. 8-10 (see the Explanatory Notes). This again distances the poem from the Priestly account (and the redactional addition in v. 19 which is based on it, as well as a large body of biblical poetry in which this theme became very central: see Loewenstamm, Evolution, pp. 253-92) and brings it closer to (what survives of) the non-Priestly account in ch. 14, the Song of Miriam in 15.21 and the brief summary in Josh. 24.6-7. On this basis some have claimed that this ‘minority tradition’ is the oldest form of the story, with the crossing motif being imported from the account of the crossing of the Jordan (cf. Noth, pp. 94-97, ET, pp. 119-22). But it is also possible (see above) that the tradents in question knew the ‘crossing motif’ but subordinated it to the pattern reflected in the traditions of ‘Holy War’ (compare the Explanatory Note on 14.11-14). Larger issues also arise about the history of traditions. The poem embraces not only an episode from the Exodus tradition (though this is its most prominent theme), but the journey through the wilderness, the settlement in Canaan (‘conquest’ would be an inappropriate term to use here), the foundation of a sanctuary (most often identified as the Jerusalem temple) and, briefly in v. 2, perhaps the patriarchal tradition. Some have also seen the Sinai tradition alluded to in v. 13 (but see the Explanatory Note). With more justification one might add the ‘tradition’ of Yahweh’s enthronement/kingship in v. 18. The scope of this combination of traditions is not as wide as the whole Pentateuch or the sources/traditions from which it was compiled, but it does extend, even if only briefly at the end, outside its boundaries. This poses a challenge if one is seeking to place the poem in a particular context of Israelite literary activity, for no single literary work covers such a wide range of topics. It is more probable that the combination was made on the basis of traditions than literary works and, given the hymnic form of the text, that this took place in a centre of worship. The cultic centre of which we know most is the Jerusalem temple and this is where Mowinckel placed the poem’s origin (cf. The Psalms 1, pp. 125-26, 154-55: already in Psalmenstudien II, p. 58).



15.1-21

305

A possible problem with this is noted by Mark Smith: ‘The Zion tradition, however, lacks otherwise any theology of the Exodus until Second Isaiah and later literature’ (Pilgrimage Pattern, p. 222). So either the poem would be late or it would come from somewhere else, most likely the northern kingdom where the Exodus tradition was evidently important. Cross thought of Gilgal, even in pre-monarchic times (Canaanite Myth, pp. 138-43), but this shrine in the Jordan valley is difficult to reconcile with the ‘mountain’ or ‘hill’ in v. 17. Another possibility is Shiloh, as Smith himself argues with reference to Ps. 78.54 and 60, though he also recognises the poem’s later use in Jerusalem (ibid., pp. 225-26: see also the Explanatory Note on v. 17). One might even wonder if the poem could have originated at the prime northern sanctuary of Bethel.31 Yet a Jerusalem provenance, even in the (early?) monarchic period, should probably not be excluded: Smith’s statement, quoted above, needs at least some modification to take account of the knowledge of the Exodus tradition in Jeremiah and Ezekiel and Josiah’s celebration of the Passover (2 Kgs 23.21-23). Moreover, even though it is the divine election of David and Yahweh’s dwelling in Jerusalem which are the most obvious themes of pre-exilic worship in Jerusalem, there are passing references which suggest that the Exodus story was also known and valued there (Isa. 30.7; Pss. 78 and 114; perhaps Ps. 76.7), as one would expect. The third kind of relationship of the poem to the prose narrative of Exodus concerns its role in the present text of the book. It is of course most obviously an elaboration of what is said in 14.30-31 about the Israelites’ response to Yahweh’s great act of deliverance from the Egyptians, and it is not difficult or unnatural to extend this to seeing it as a liturgical conclusion to the whole narrative beginning in Exodus 1. But, given that the ‘hymnic narrative’ of the poem continues on beyond the deliverance at the sea, it is also proper to see it as having a programmatic function in relation to what is still to come. The ongoing journey through the wilderness, under divine leadership, is clearly in view in v. 13. But the ‘horizon’ of the poem’s preview has been variously understood, depending mainly on the identification of the ‘destination’ in v. 17. Mark Smith has argued, following B. Halpern, that ‘for the priestly redaction’ the goal of the poem is Mount Sinai (Pilgrimage Pattern, pp. 215-18; cf. Halpern, The Emergence of Israel in Canaan [SBLMS 29; Chico, 1983), pp. 38-39; Russell, Song of the Sea, pp. 45-55, is one of several others who have adopted this view). This means that the poem can be seen as a microcosm of the whole book of Exodus, and Smith finds some (older) confirmation of this in the assurance in Exod. 3.12 that after the Exodus Israel will worship Yahweh ‘on this mountain’, i.e. Horeb/Sinai. It is, however, very difficult to see v. 17 as a reference to Sinai when it follows the references in vv. 14-16 to

  Compare Albertz’s suggestion that the Song of Miriam might have been a Kultruf from the worship there (p. 255). By contrast S.C. Russell, Images of Egypt, pp. 145-48, makes a strong case for a southern provenance for the Song of the Sea. 31

306

EXODUS 1–18

the later stages of the wilderness journey.32 The natural interpretation is that it refers to a sanctuary in the land of Canaan (see the Explanatory Note) and this fits in well with the passages elsewhere in Exodus (including the key Priestly passage in Exod. 6.2-8) which see the real destination of Israel’s journey as the land promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If so, then the main contribution of the second half of the poem is to underline that (what we know as) the Exodus story is, for all its importance, only a stage on the way to Israel’s final goal and that this final goal has a place of worship at its centre.33

The date of the poem’s origin remains a matter of dispute. An early date, pre-monarchic rather than Mosaic, has continued to be supported especially in America (Cross and Freedman, Hyatt [for vv. 1-12], Norin [for an original core], Kloos, M.S. Smith [tentatively], Propp, B.D. Russell, Leuchter [in oral form]). Archaic features of the language, the closeness in mythical features and poetic form to Ugaritic texts, and the historical setting presupposed are the main arguments for this view. At the other extreme, a wide range of scholars in Germany and some others have since the 1880s dated the poem to the post-exilic period (so Carpenter/HarfordBattersby [except for v. 1b], Holzinger, Smend, McNeile, Fohrer, Zenger, W.H. Schmidt, Houtman, Brenner, Levin, Van Seters, K. Schmid, Berner, Klein), sometimes as late as the mid-fifth century. In support of such a date the use of ‘late’ vocabulary (with reference to the studies of Jülicher and Bender), dependence upon late writings (including P) and, at least in earlier scholarship, theological features have commonly been cited. In between, however, a substantial number of scholars have supported a date in the monarchy period, evidently concluding that the arguments for an earlier or later date are not decisive and that the overall character of the poem fits best in the time of the monarchy. Some have connected it specifically with   For other objections to Smith’s view see my remarks in ‘The Theology of Exodus’, in E. Ball (ed.), In Search of True Wisdom (FS R.E. Clements; JSOTSup 300; Sheffield, 1999), pp. 137-52 (49-51). 33   So in effect the valuable study of J.W. Watts, Psalm and Story, pp. 41-62, who considers separately first ‘the narrative role’ of the poem in its present context and then the purpose of its inclusion (as he believes, at a late stage in the composition of the Pentateuch: see pp. 55-62). A better case than Smith’s, though still not a decisive one, could be made for the view that v. 13 refers to Sinai as an interim goal of the Exodus. This might also have been the view of ‘the priestly redactor’, for whom the revelation at Sinai occupied such a vast extent of text in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, even if it was not what the original poet intended. 32



15.1-21

307

the time of Josiah, because they see his policy of cultic centralisation presupposed in v. 17 and the combination of Exodus and Jerusalem traditions as fitting in with the Deuteronomic ethos of his reforms (Baentsch, Beer, Jeremias, Blum[?], Albertz [for vv. 6-18]). Others have preferred a date earlier in the monarchy period (Gressmann [Anfänge, p. 58], Mowinckel, Muilenburg, Childs, Loewenstamm, Spieckermann [except for vv. 14-16], Blenkinsopp[?], Baden, S.C. Russell), pointing to the absence of clear Deuteronomistic features and, in some cases, to the poem’s inclusion in one of the older narrative sources. A small but distinguished group of scholars (Eissfeldt, Gunkel, Coats, Gertz, Dozeman) understandably refrain from giving any clear indication of when the poem was composed.34 Only a brief discussion of the arguments used can be given here. It is, first, impossible to prove that the poem was or was not part of a specific ‘old source’ or layer of composition. Its continuation in v. 19 (to be discussed below) certainly makes a connection with the Priestly narrative in 14.22-23, 28-29, but it is not certain that it was added at the same time as vv. 1-18, or even that it was intended to refer to it. The introduction in v. 1a does make a connection between 14.31 (cf. ‘At that time’) and the poem and so it is the most secure clue to the latter’s incorporation into the narrative. Blum has shown (see above) that a very similar introduction to a poem appears in Num. 21.17 in a composite itinerary that has some Deuteronomistic features (see my discussion in ‘The Wilderness Itineraries and the Composition of the Pentateuch’, pp. 10-11), but they may have been added to material with an older origin, including vv. 16-19. So we must remain uncertain whether Exod. 15.1a too is from the old non-Priestly narrative or from a Deuteronomistic redactional layer: there is, at any rate, nothing to associate it with P. All that can be deduced from the form of the introduction is that the poem probably existed prior to its incorporation into the narrative, as

34   Noth, p. 98, ET, p. 123, says that it ‘is a relatively late piece; we cannot give a more accurate indication of the time at which it was composed’; he writes that v. 8 ‘is reminiscent of P’s description of the miracle at the sea’ (p. 124), which may or may not be meant to imply that it is later than P. Schmidt’s recent treatment of the problem in his commentary (pp. 640-42) begins with the usual arguments for an exilic or post-exilic date, but then notes a number of factors (including the poem’s Nachwirkung) which favour a date which is ‘not…too late’

308

EXODUS 1–18

in Num. 21.17-18 and Josh. 10.12-13: this is also the most likely explanation for its inclusion of ‘anachronistic’ details in vv. 13-17. The poem itself, not surprisingly, shares some material and even vocabulary with the narrative in ch. 14, but not enough to prove definite dependence on it or any of its sources. Such links as exist are with the non-P sources rather than with P (see above). There is of course a very close similarity to the Song of Miriam (v. 21), but its antiquity is so generally recognised that dependence on it would not rule out any of the dates that have been entertained. Dependence on other parts of the Hebrew Bible has often been asserted (especially by those advocating a later date), but remains unproven. For example, the fear of the nations in vv. 14-16 is compared to Deut. 2.25 and Josh. 2.9, 11 and said to be dependent on one or both of these passages, but the relationship may as readily be the other way around and the verses in the poem may be inspired by a passage in the Ugaritic Baal myths (see the Explanatory Note), to which the poem appears indebted in other ways. Again, as discussed above, Brenner’s linking of the origin of the poem to the Asaphite psalms overlooks. the likelihood that Psalms 74, 77 and 78 depend upon it and the fact that the collection is by no means entirely a post-exilic creation. In fact, the dependence of Psalm 78 on the poem and its probable pre-exilic origin can serve as an argument that the poem itself is older than this. The focus on a single shrine in v. 17, most likely the Jerusalem temple, has been thought to depend upon the centralisation of worship required in Deuteronomy and enforced by Josiah, but there is nothing in this verse which could not have been part of the Jerusalem temple ideology in an earlier period (just as similar prominence was given to other temples in the ancient Near East in their liturgical texts without any exclusive claims being made for the worship there). As for the presence of late theological ideas, such as eschatology and messianism, in the poem, the case has been much weakened by the widespread recognition of a preterite use of the imperfect in vv. 15-17 (though much German scholarship has been unaccountably reluctant to embrace this) and the acceptance that Israelite worship made bold claims about Yahweh’s sovereignty and blessing even in the present. Even the declaration of Yahweh’s enduring sovereignty in v. 18 no longer needs to be seen as a product of post-exilic prophecy when similar beliefs were being maintained about the Babylonian and Ugaritic gods centuries earlier.



15.1-21

309

The language of the poem has been appealed to, in different ways, by proponents of both an early and a late date for it. There is no doubt that it displays a concentration of archaic grammatical forms (see above), but it has been claimed that this is insignificant because the same forms also occur in what are agreed to be much later texts, where they represent ‘archaising’ rather than signs of a genuinely ancient text, so that in Exod. 15.1b-18 they may also be explained in this way. This, however, overlooks, as Robertson pointed out, that in the later texts such features are only sporadic, whereas in the Song of the Sea they recur frequently and the standard form of the third person pl. verbal suffix does not occur at all. This is a strong argument that the Song does come from an early stage in the history of Biblical Hebrew. Unfortunately Robertson perpetuated the view of Cross and Freedman that the ‘early stage’ was limited to the pre-monarchic period, on the doubtful basis that the tenth century was likely to have been the transitional period in which standard forms gradually became established. It is safer to acknowledge that on linguistic grounds the poem could have been composed in the early monarchy period (but before the eighth century, when prophetic poetry shows that the standard forms were well established). The proponents of a late date for the poem, on the other hand, have given great weight to the occurrence of ‘late’ vocabulary in the poem. Much of the evidence collected by Bender is discredited by the fact that he regarded all psalms as post-exilic, so that occurrences of words in the psalms were automatically dubbed ‘late’. Today it is recognised that dating psalms is often uncertain and that a good many of them are most likely pre-exilic in origin. In general, arguments based on vocabulary are seen to be precarious because of the limited quantity of ancient Hebrew text that has survived. The study of ‘Late Biblical Hebrew’ by scholars such as Avi Hurvitz has, in the opinion of most, made it possible to identify some psalms as post-exilic on linguistic grounds, but this does not apply to the Song of the Sea. More up-to-date studies of the poem by R. Tournay and F. Foresti have continued to affirm its lateness, but their basis is weak.35 35   See above, n. 24. In his more recent article Tournay abandons the Josianic dating for a post-exilic one because of ‘late’ vocabulary, dependence on P in vv. 8-10 and (p. 527) the ‘second Exodus’ motif in vv. 13-17 (!) which has the

310

EXODUS 1–18

Historical arguments have been used in attempts to date the poem, most commonly based on what is taken to be a reference to the Jerusalem temple in v. 17(b). There is some uncertainty about this (see above and the Explanatory Note on v. 17), but it remains the most probable view and it requires a date for the poem in the tenth century or later. The same is probably true for the inclusion of the Philistines among (at the head of!) the fearful enemies in v. 14. The omission of any mention of the Ammonites as a hostile power was cited by Cross and Freedman (Studies, pp. 47, 62; cf. ‘The Song of Miriam’, pp. 239-40; Freedman, Pottery, p. 226) as an argument for dating the poem in the twelfth or eleventh century, but it is not a decisive one, as it is an argument from silence. Moreover, as Loewenstamm pointed out (Evolution, p. 260), the omission corresponds to the absence of any mention of the Ammonites elsewhere in the old conquest tradition as even a possible hindrance.36 In the time of Saul and David the Ammonites seem briefly to have represented a threat to the Israelites (1 Sam. 10.27–11.11; 2 Sam. 10.1–11.1; 12.26-31), but not thereafter: Amos 1.13-15 may be a reference to these earlier conflicts. It is just as likely that the omission of Ammon in Exodus 15 is because it was no longer an enemy to be reckoned with as because it was not yet such. Arguments for the antiquity of the poem have also been based on its treatment of Canaanite myth and ‘its extreme use’ of the poetic pattern of ‘staircase parallelism’, which is also found in Ugaritic poetry (Cross, Canaanite Myth, pp. 121, 134-44). Cross places the use of the Baal-myth in Exodus 15 (on which see above) early in the history of Israel’s poetic traditions, at a time when (under the ‘tribal league’) the religion of Israel had become strongly historical in its focus (cf. Judg. 5), prior to the resurgence of the old myths of creation under the monarchy (cf. Pss. 29; 89.6-19; 93) and again in return from exile in mind. Foresti envisages a date c. 580–560 B.C. But for an expression of caution about such arguments see E. Blum, ‘The Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts – An Approach with Methodological Limitations’, in J.C. Gertz et al. (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch (FAT 111; Tübingen, 2016), pp. 303-25 (303-14). 36   In Num. 21.24, Deut 2.37; 3.16 and Josh. 3.10 the Ammonites’ territory is regarded as ‘off limits’, outside the area which Israelite tribes claimed. Josh. 13.25 appears to be a late attempt to expand the territory claimed for Gad at the expense of the Ammonites (V. Fritz, Das Buch Josua [HAT; Tübingen, 1994], p. 145; cf. perhaps M. Avi-Yonah, The Holy Land [Grand Rapids, 1977], pp. 26-27, 40-41).



15.1-21

311

the exile and afterwards. According to him the poem is also earlier than the Gilgal cult’s association of the Exodus with the crossing of the Jordan, which is reflected in Psalm 114 and Habakkuk 3, as well as in Joshua 3–5 and Ps. 78.13. There is a certain plausibility in outline about this succession of initiatives, but a problem arises when it is used to establish a precise date for particular compositions. Since a similar historical focus to Exodus 15 is found in Psalm 78, which is undoubtedly later than the time of David, and Psalm 80, which is probably from the divided monarchy, one cannot rule out a date for the composition of Exodus 15 in the monarchy period, at a time when others were composing psalms that kept much closer to the nature-myth language of Canaanite poetry, including Psalm 77, which combined it with the Exodus story. As Cross points out (Canaanite Myth, p. 131), the latter poem (‘from the early monarchy’) also uses ‘staircase parallelism’ (v. 17; again in a weakened form in v. 20), which shows (as other examples do) that this criterion too cannot be pressed in support of a very early date for Exodus 15. To sum up, the overall character of the poem, including its climax in vv. 17-18, is most readily compatible with a date in the monarchy period. There is no need to come down very late in that period, because what have been taken to be signs of Deuteronomic influence are perfectly explicable in other terms. A date between the tenth and the eighth centuries is supported by archaic features in its language, which became less frequent later, and by the dependence of Psalm 78 upon it. As for vv. 19-21, critical scholarship has almost universally agreed that v. 19, which represents narrative elements from ch. 14 with very little change (see the Explanatory Note), is from a post-Priestly redactor, according to many (but not all: cf. Blum) the redactor who inserted the Song of the Sea before it.37 The majority of scholars have also agreed that vv. 20-21 are part of the earlier narrative material.

37   A non-Priestly origin is only conceivable if the corresponding verses in ch. 14 are, against all the indications, attributed to an older narrative source, as they were by Wellhausen (E/JE: p. 77) and are by Dozeman (non-P: pp. 320, 342), or if (equally improbably) v. 19 is supposed to have stood in the song-book from which vv. 1-18 were taken (Dillmann, p. 160).

312

EXODUS 1–18

The early consensus was that they belonged to E, because of Miriam’s prophetic status and her appearance in other E contexts (especially Num. 12): so Knobel, Carpenter/Harford-Battersby, Holzinger, Baentsch, Gressmann, McNeile and more recently Cross (Canaanite Myth, p. 123; cf. Studies, pp. 45-46, and ‘The Song of Miriam’, pp. 237-38), Propp (p. 482) and Baden (J, E and the Redaction, p. 182 n. 215). But Smend objected that the description of Miriam as Aaron’s sister could not stand in a source which regarded Aaron as Moses’ brother (cf. 4.14, which he [unlike most others] attributed to E) and so, since neither Miriam nor Aaron appeared in J, he assigned these verses to the additional, older J1 source (Erzählung, pp. 139, 143-44). In this, as usual, he was followed by Eissfeldt (pp. 268*, 271*), Beer (p. 79) and later Fohrer (pp. 111-12). Rudolph naturally did not accept an Elohistic origin for the verses: as elsewhere he deleted the decisive evidence (‘the prophetess’) and attributed what was left to J (Elohist, pp. 31-32). This then became, almost by default, the standard view, even among scholars who (unlike Rudolph) believed that there was an E source, like Noth, Hyatt and Weimar/ Zenger. The last-named made a detailed case for the origin of both the Song of Miriam and the introductory narrative in a pre-J account composed by opposition groups in the time of David, which was later used by J (Exodus, pp. 71-87), but they like others in this period found it necessary to regard the epithets of Miriam in v. 20 as later additions. As uncertainty about source-analysis increased, some scholars hesitated to decide between J and E (Childs, pp. 246-48; Schmidt, Exodus, Sinai und Mose, pp. 64-65), while others followed Freedman’s lead in regarding the whole of vv. 1-21 as a literary unit, perhaps reflecting a liturgical setting in which the Song of Miriam was the (antiphonal) conclusion to the Song of Moses (cf. Freedman, Pottery, pp. 79, 81 [as part of the original ‘twelfthcentury’ poem], 181-82, 194-95; similarly [without the early date] Houtman, pp. 240-41, citing Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien II, pp. 111-12, in support). Alternatively, J.G. Janzen (whose contorted exegesis is followed by Russell, The Song of the Sea, pp. 17-18, 24-25, and, more surprisingly, by Albertz, pp. 235-36) read vv. 20-21 as indicating (by way of the analepsis in v. 19) what preceded the singing of the Song of the Sea by the Israelites (see the Explanatory Note on v. 19). None of these writers was interested in the prehistory of the present text, except for Albertz (on whom see below).38 At the present time opinion is divided between those who see most of vv. 20-21 as relatively early in origin and those who assign them to a late stage of the composition of the Pentateuch. In addition to Propp and Baden, who have revived the old attribution to E, the former group includes Blum and Blenkinsopp, who include these verses in their older, Deuteronomistic, 38   Russell recognises such concerns (pp. 132-33), but apparently in a way that allows Priestly texts to have a pre-exilic origin (p. 197 n. 29).



15.1-21

313

compositions (Studien, p. 106; Pentateuch, p. 158), and others who more explicitly locate them within a (late) pre-exilic Exodus story (Levin, Jahwist, pp. 342-43; Kratz, Komposition, p. 331 and passim; Berner, Exoduserzählung, p. 390 [citing Num. 20.1 in support]; Klein, ‘Hymn and History’). By contrast H. Spieckermann argued that, while the Song of Miriam itself is much older (though probably no older than the monarchy period), its redactional frame contains in vv. 19(!) and 20 elements that are post-exilic in origin (Heilsgegenwart, pp. 99-102) and Albertz specifically attributes vv. 19-21 to his first Priestly Bearbeitung (pp. 253-55), though again with the proviso that the Song itself could come from the monarchy period.39 Dozeman takes a similar view of vv. 20-21 and also argues that the focus in the Song on the event at the sea as the climax of the Exodus fits the Priestly conception of salvation history better than it does the non-Priestly view (pp. 342-44). This is not far from Brenner’s argument that everything in vv. 19-21 (like vv. 1-18) was composed by post-exilic Levites (see esp. The Song of the Sea, pp. 42-53, 80-84).

The variety of opinions about the sources and composition of 15.19-21, both now and in earlier times, turns out to have rather less to do with the great upheavals in Pentateuchal scholarship since the 1970s than with some curious deviations from a natural understanding of the passage, which have had more influence than they deserve. To begin with v. 19, the introductory ‘For’ (Heb. kî) should leave no doubt that its primary connection is with the preceding Song of the Sea, not with the Song of Miriam and its introduction. There should be no doubt (pace Dozeman) that the verses in ch. 14 which it recapitulates are from the Priestly source, so that it will have been added by a redactor who knew that account. Verse 19 also seems to presuppose some features of the Song of the Sea (see the Explanatory Note), so that it cannot have been added prior to the latter’s incorporation into the narrative. It is unlikely to have been included by the author or redactor who first introduced the Song of the Sea here, because v. 1a, which must be from that writer, contains no distinctively Priestly language. It is best described as an isolated gloss which served to remind hearers or readers of the events which (supposedly) gave rise to the Song of the Sea, after their thoughts had been carried forward to later events by vv. 13-18.

39   In an earlier work Albertz had attributed vv. 20-21 to what he now calls the Exoduskomposition from the exilic period (Religionsgeschichte, pp. 71-72, ET, pp. 42-43).

314

EXODUS 1–18

The arguments for a very late date for vv. 20-21 which have recently been put forward by a minority of scholars are not very weighty. The description of Miriam as a prophetess and the sister of Aaron by no means require such a late origin. The former fits well into the picture of pre-classical prophecy that may be derived from the Old Testament historical books and the latter is actually more likely to reflect an early stage in the development of the figure of Aaron than the later period when he was seen as Moses’ brother too (see the Explanatory Note on v. 20). Spieckermann cited the ‘anachronistic’ scenario of the women ‘coming out’ as if to greet victorious warriors, but the parallels to this are all in pre-exilic literature. Only Brenner has claimed that the Song of Miriam itself is post-exilic, but the vocabulary items to which he draws attention are entirely inconclusive (on ‘horse and its driver [sic]’ see Note g on the translation). It is in fact hard to see why a late redactor would have been concerned to ‘save’ the Song of Miriam for posterity when it was almost entirely present already in the Song of the Sea. It is much more likely, as most scholars think, that it owes its separate preservation to its inclusion in an old Exodus narrative, like other snippets of poetry that appear elsewhere in such older texts (cf. 17.16). But which ‘old Exodus narrative’? For those recent scholars who believe that there was only one such narrative (or at least that only one has been preserved), this is not really an issue. But the present commentary has found good reason to think, as earlier commentators generally did, that the pre-exilic development of the tradition was more complex and is still accessible, in part, to us. That the scholarly discussion about vv. 20-21 is also somewhat complex is, as we suggested earlier, more due to some false turns than to actual problems in the evidence. The early consensus was that these verses came from E, and those who initially departed from this did so for idiosyncratic reasons. Smend’s objection that to call Miriam the sister of Aaron was inconsistent with 4.14 only had force because his peculiar exegesis attributed that verse to E: most of his contemporaries (and successors) regarded it, as we do, as a part of a secondary addition to the text. Rudolph of course did not believe in E and was always looking for reasons to discredit such an attribution. Here, as sometimes elsewhere, he had recourse to arbitrary procedures, deleting ‘the prophetess’ on the grounds that Miriam does nothing prophetic in Exod. 15.20-21 and undercutting the



15.1-21

315

appeal to Numbers 12 by citing Gressmann’s view that prophetic Sagen were ‘secondary’ (Elohist, p. 72). Of course Gressmann meant ‘secondary in the process of oral tradition’, not in terms of literary sources, and Rudolph says nothing of the fact that Gressmann had been perfectly happy to attribute Exod. 15.20-21 and most of Numbers 12 to E (Anfänge, pp. 55, 98-99). Like Rudolph, Noth attributed the verse to J, but it is clear both from the brief discussion in ÜGP (p. 32 n. 107) and the fuller treatment in his commentary (pp. 97-98, ET, pp. 122-23) that he was far from confident about this and was inclined to regard the verses as a secondary addition to J. It is very strange that in the commentary he writes: ‘Because it [i.e. the section] is in all probability of relatively great age it is most often assigned to the source J, but there is no conclusive evidence for this’ (p. 96, ET, p. 121).40 He says nothing about the widespread attribution of the verses to E, for which strong if not necessarily ‘conclusive’ arguments had been put forward. He perhaps had Rudolph and Beer (who simply reproduced Smend’s view) in mind. But Noth did not agree with either of their overall views about the sources of the Pentateuch: only a few pages before in the commentary (pp. 82-84, ET, pp. 105-106) he had declared his acceptance of the older view that elements of E’s account appeared in ch. 13 and 14. It is surprising that he did not at least consider the possibility that 15.20-21 came from E too. It was probably largely due to Noth’s presentation of the issue that most subsequent commentators were either unsure what to do with the passage (Childs, Schmidt; more recently Gertz) or attributed it to J (Hyatt, Burns [Has the Lord, pp. 15-16: ‘it is often tentatively attributed to the J source’]). Weimar and Zenger’s reconstruction of an early pre-J narrative which included vv. 20-21 seems to have been transmuted in the Einleitung by Zenger and others into an old Exodus story originating in the northern kingdom (2nd ed. [1996], p. 119). This is not the E source (cf. pp. 111-12 for the rejection of that view), but neither is it J. In fact it only extends to ch. 14 and it is not explained there how the poems and their frameworks in ch. 15 found their way into the seventh-century ‘Jerusalemer 40   My italics. Noth does make the important observation that the idea of Yahweh ‘throwing’ the Egyptians into the sea is shared by the Song and the J narrative (14.27: cf. p. 122). But different verbs are used and Noth evidently supposed that the Song was widely known in early Israel.

316

EXODUS 1–18

Geschichtswerk’, which the authors of this volume had come to regard as the earliest comprehensive presentation of the traditions about Israel’s origins. If, as we have argued, there is evidence earlier in Exodus (including ch. 14) of a two-fold non-Priestly literary tradition, it continues to make sense to ask to which strand or stage of that tradition Exod. 15.20-21 is likely to belong. In addition to the older arguments for an attribution to E, two further considerations lend some support to that view. First, these verses must have been attached to the end of the story of the ‘sea event’ in ch. 14. In our analysis (see the introduction to 14.1-31) vv. 30 and 31b were given to J and v. 31a to E. The response of 15.21b fits more naturally after the recognition that the victory is due to Yahweh alone in 14.31a than it does after the inclusion of ‘Moses his servant’ in 14.31b. The prominence of Miriam (and to a lesser extent Aaron) in 15.20 is also perhaps easier after 14.31a. Secondly, the reference to Miriam as Aaron’s sister would benefit from, even if it does not require, a reference to Aaron earlier in the narrative to which it belongs. In our analysis of the text so far this is not the case for J, but we have attributed 4.27-28 tentatively to E. Aaron also appears in 4.14-16 and other verses which belong with it, but we have followed the common view that these passages reflect the work of a redactor, most likely RJE. We see no reason to regard 15.20-21 as redactional in origin.41 Three questions remain to be dealt with about the Song of Miriam itself: (i) What is the relation between it and the very similar introduction to the Song of the Sea in v. 1b? Several different explanations have been given. (a) As the text stands, it looks like a response to the Song of the Sea, a short refrain sung by Miriam and the women to conclude it. The interruption by v. 19 is something of a problem for this view, since if the two songs are connected one would expect the explanation to come after the second, not the first, but as we have seen v. 19 is probably a very late addition to the text. (b) A variant of this view is to see v. 21b as the title or incipit of the Song of the Sea (Cross and Freedman) or more probably, since there is no evidence for the use of incipits in ancient Israel, as an alternative introduction to it (Houtman). The implication of this would be 41   Equally we see no need to regard either of the epithets of Miriam in these verses as later additions (see above).



15.1-21

317

that Miriam and the women sang the whole of the Song of the Sea after Moses and ‘the Israelites’ (presumably the men) had done so. There is no positive reason to think that this is the case, as the Song of Miriam is complete in itself and embodies the essential components of hymnic composition. (c) A third view, which seeks a historical relationship between the two songs, sees the Song of Miriam as the basis for the Song of the Sea. This relies to some extent on the assumption that shorter compositions are always older than longer ones, which may not always be true. It was a popular and plausible view (and perhaps still is) when the Song of the Sea was regarded as a very late, post-exilic, composition and the Song of Miriam was thought to be an early celebration of the Exodus events, as in Germany throughout the modern period. But it is also compatible with an earlier, pre-exilic, dating for the Song of the Sea, provided that the Song of Miriam is seen as even earlier. (d) Fourthly, in what is in effect a reversal of the first alternative, it has recently been argued that the Song of Miriam was seen as the impulse for the Song of the Sea (J.G. Janzen). This is the least likely of the four explanations, as the exegesis of vv. 19-21 on which it is based is forced and improbable (see the Explanatory Note on v. 19). (ii) Is there any evidence for an alternative wording of the Song of Miriam? The main textual witnesses do include some variations from the Masoretic text, as they do for the corresponding section of v. 1 (see Text and Versions), but one of the Qumran scrolls, 4Q (Reworked) Pentateuchc (4Q365), seems to have had a more extensive variant text of the Song. Unfortunately, only the beginnings of seven lines of text are preserved, but they are sufficient to show that it shared some wording from the Song of the Sea, but also included other expressions that are not found there (for the details again see Text and Versions). The style is hymnic and the language and ideas find parallels in the biblical psalms, documents from Qumran and other sources from the Second Temple period (see the study of G.J. Brooke, ‘Power to the Powerless: A Long-Lost Song of Miriam’, BAR 20/3 [1994], pp. 62-65). (iii) How old is the Song of Miriam? It is widely, indeed almost universally, held that the Song of Miriam is very ancient (Brenner is a rare exception). Its brevity and its focus on a single episode, without apparently any need to specify who the defeated enemies were, have been seen as evidence that its origin may be very close

318

EXODUS 1–18

to the events of the Exodus.42 The form of the hymn certainly corresponds, in a very simple form, to the conventions of temple worship, but there is no need to suppose that these first became established in the tenth century B.C., especially when the format corresponds so closely to what any leader of worship might be expected to say. The fact that the worship is led by a woman, and one who is not said to have any connection with the central figure of the Exodus story, Moses, is a further reason to take very seriously the possibility that the poem comes from a very early period of Israel’s history. It does not include any of the archaic grammatical forms which have been used to argue that the Song of the Sea is very old, but the expressions ‘greatly exalted’ and ‘threw’ are in different ways most unusual (they also occur of course in the introduction to the Song of the Sea, but that is essentially the same text as this one) and could be rare relics of an older stage of the language. Theology Both of the poems in this section, for different reasons, have made an enduring contribution to the Exodus narrative which they conclude (on aspects of their later interpretation see Text and Versions, passim, and my ‘Some Christian Uses and Interpretations of the Song of Moses’). The theological significance of the Song of the Sea needs to be assessed both for its original cultic setting (wherever that was) and for its present literary context. As a hymn for cultic use it both enriched the ‘epic’ tradition of the Exodus by exalting Yahweh, the conqueror of the Egyptians, as the most powerful of the gods (v. 11) and affirmed his faithful commitment to his people (v. 13) and the temple from which he would rule for ever (vv. 17-18). It was apparently also the inspiration for several other poems, both psalms and in prophecy. Placed where it is in the Pentateuch/Hexateuch, it creates a pause in the narrative of Israel’s journey out of Egypt for its deeper significance and purpose to be understood (cf. Durham, p. 210). Theological truths implied by the story are brought to the fore by the use of expressions like ‘strength 42   The view that it originated in the temple cult as a quite general celebration of the defeat of enemies (Kratz, Komposition, p. 292; Berner, Exoduserzählung, pp. 391-92) is most improbable, since it refers not to the normal experiences of the battlefield but to an extraordinary, so far as we know unique, occasion on which Israel’s enemies were drowned in a ‘sea’.



15.1-21

319

and protection’ (v. 2; cf. vv. 6, 13), ‘holiness’ (vv. 11, 13), ‘loyalty’ (v. 13), ‘(your) people’ (vv. 13, 17), ‘planting’ (v. 17), ‘dwelling’ (v. 17) and ‘reign’ (v. 18). There is no god like Yahweh (v. 11), the God who intervened on his people’s behalf (v. 13) and leads them on, as it seems effortlessly, to the place where he will continue to be in their midst and receive their worship (v. 17). Verses 19-21 also have important theological and religious implications. Even the largely repetitious recapitulation of the sea narrative in v. 19 shows a theological enrichment, compared with its pattern in the Priestly sections of ch. 14, in the explicit attribution of the destruction of the Egyptians to Yahweh’s intervention. This is no doubt derived from the Song of the Sea, to which v. 19 is primarily related, but it is also the reason for the call to praise in v. 21. The authors have no hesitation in attributing the violent consequences of natural events to Yahweh, since as Creator he holds them in his control and as the God of Israel he is expected to protect them against enemy attack. Verses 20-21 round off the story of the Exodus in the narrow sense with a song of praise, and it is likely (since the Song of the Sea is probably a later addition) that they represent the oldest extant attestation of such a response in the narrative tradition of the Exodus. It is therefore the more striking that the participants are all women. As has often been observed, this matches the recurrent involvement of women in the early stages of the Exodus story (1.15-21; 2.1-10, 16-22; 4.24-26: cf. also 3.22; 11.2). Even if from here on the role of women in the narrative is greatly diminished and, where it appears, is viewed negatively (Num. 12 and 25), it is an inescapable fact that in the central narrative of Yahweh’s deliverance of his people in the Old Testament women as well as men played a crucial part.43 This is not likely to have been intended, as it is often understood now, as a way of improving the situation of women in Israelite society: more probably it was a means to impress on the early hearers of the story that it was not the powerful leaders among Israel’s ancestors who brought about their deliverance but Yahweh acting in a most unexpected way. The participation of 43   It is notable of course that none of the passages just listed comes from the Priestly account of the Exodus. As Aaron’s sister, Miriam was inevitably ‘adopted’ into Moses’ family with Aaron when he was made a full brother of Moses (7.1-2[P]; cf. Num. 26.59), and so Moses’ hitherto anonymous elder sister obtained a name and the dispute in Num. 12 became a family row.

320

EXODUS 1–18

women is linked to another feature which is rare in the Pentateuch, though it is attested elsewhere, especially in the psalms: the accompaniment of the words of worship by music and dancing (see on this especially R.J. Burns, Has the Lord, pp. 18-40). As Houtman notes, such accompaniment has often been looked down upon in the religious traditions that are founded on the Old Testament (p. 231), but again its place in the Exodus story gives it a canonical stamp of approval. Special Bibliography for Exodus 15.1-18 Bartlett, J.R. Edom and the Edomites (PEFMS 1; Sheffield, 1989). Bender, A. ‘Das Lied Exodus 15’, ZAW 23 (1903), pp. 1-48. Berner, C. Die Exoduserzählung. Das literarische Werden einer Ursprungslegende Israels (FAT 73; Tübingen, 2010), pp. 389-400. Bloch, Y. ‘The Prefixed Perfective and the Dating of Early Hebrew Poetry – A Re-evaluation’, VT 59 (2009), pp. 34-70. Brenner, M.L. The Song of the Sea. Ex 15:1-21 (BZAW 195; Berlin and New York, 1991). Coats, G.W. ‘The Song of the Sea’, CBQ 31 (1969), pp. 1-17. Cross, F.M. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA, 1973), pp. 11244. Cross, F.M., and D.N. Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry (SBLDS 21: Missoula, 1975 [repr. of Ph.D. dissertation, Johns Hopkins, 1950, with addition of Postscriptum]), pp. 45-65. ———. ‘The Song of Miriam’, JNES 14 (1955), pp. 237-50. Davies, G.I. ‘Some Christian Uses and Interpretations of the Song of Moses (Exodus 15:1-18’, in C. Bultmann et al. (eds.), Vergegenwärtigung des Alten Testaments: Beiträge zur biblischen Hermeneutik (FS R. Smend; Göttingen, 2002), pp. 179-95. ———. ‘Some Points of Interest in Sixteenth-Century Translations of Exodus 15’, in W. Horbury (ed.), Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda (Edinburgh, 1999), pp. 249-56. Dozeman, T.B. ‘The Song of the Sea and Salvation History’, in S.L. Cook and S.C. Winter, On the Way to Nineveh (Atlanta, 1999), pp. 94-113. Foresti, F. ‘Composizione e Redazione Deuteronomistica in Ex 15, 1-18’, Lateranum 48 (1982), pp. 41-69. Freedman, D.N. ‘The Song of the Sea’ in R. Shukraft (ed.), A Feeling of Celebration: A Tribute to James Muilenburg (San Anselmo, 1967), pp. 1-10; repr. in Freedman, Pottery, Poetry and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry (Winona Lake, 1980), pp. 179-86.



15.1-21

321

———. ‘Strophe and Meter in Exodus 15’, in H.N. Bream et al., A Light unto my Path (FS J.M. Myers; Philadelphia, 1974), pp. 163-203; repr. in Freedman, Pottery, Poetry and Prophecy, pp. 187-228. Goldin, J. The Song at the Sea, being a Commentary on a Commentary in Two Parts (New Haven and London, 1971). Gunkel, H. ‘Mosessegen, Moseslied und Meerlied’, RGG2 4, pp. 245-47. Howell, M. ‘Exodus 15.1b-18. A Poetic Analysis’, ETL 65 (1989), pp. 5-42. Jeremias, J. Das Königtum Gottes in den Psalmen. Israels Begegnung mit dem kanaanäischen Mythos in den Jahwe-König-Psalmen (FRLANT 141; Göttingen, 1987), pp. 93-106. Jülicher, A. ‘Die Quellen von Exodus VII,8-XXIV,11. Ein Beitrag zur Hexateuch­ frage’, JPTh 8 (1882), pp. 79-127, 272-315 (esp. 124-26). Klein, A. Geschichte und Gebet. Die Rezeption der biblischen Geschichte in den Psalmen des Alten Testaments (FAT 94; Tübingen, 2014). ———. ‘Hymn and History in Ex 15. Observations on the Relationship between Temple Theology and Exodus Narrative in the Song of the Sea’, ZAW 124 (2012), pp. 516-27. Kloos, C. Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea (Amsterdam/Leiden, 1986), pp. 127-214. Labuschagne, C.J. The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old Testament (PrOS 5; Leiden, 1966). Leuchter, M. ‘Eisodus as Exodus: The Song of the Sea (Exod 15) Reconsidered’, Bib 92 (2011), pp. 321-46. Loewenstamm, S.E. The Evolution of the Exodus Tradition (Jerusalem, 1992: tr. from 2nd Heb. ed., 1987), pp. 256-72. Lugt, P. van der. ‘The Wave-Like Motion of the “Song of the Sea” (Ex 15,1-18) and the People of Israel as a Worshipping Community’, ZAW 128 (2016), pp. 49-63. Mowinckel, S. Psalmenstudien II (Kristiania, 1922). Muilenburg, J. ‘A Liturgy on the Triumphs of Yahweh’, in Studia Biblica et Semitica Theodoro Christiano Vriezen…dedicata (Wageningen, 1966), pp. 233-51. Norin, S.I.L. Er Spaltete Das Meer. Die Auszugsüberlieferung in Psalmen und Kult des alten Israel (CBOT 9; Lund, 1977), pp. 77-107. Notarius, T. The Verb in Archaic Biblical Poetry: A Discursive, Typological, Historical Investigation of the Tense System (SSLL 68; Leiden, 2013). Robertson, D.A. Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry (SBLDS 3; Missoula, 1972). Russell, B.D. The Song of the Sea: The Date of Composition and Influence of Exodus 15:1-21 (StBL 101; New York, 2007). Russell, S.C. Images of Egypt in Early Biblical Literature: Cisjordan-Israelite, Transjordan-Israelite and Judahite Portrayals (BZAW 403; Berlin and New York, 2009), pp. 127-76.

322

EXODUS 1–18

Schmidt, H. ‘Das Meerlied Ex 15.2-19’, ZAW 49 (1931), pp. 59-66. Smith, M.S. The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus (JSOTSup 239; Sheffield, 1997), pp. 205-26. Spieckermann, H. Heilsgegenwart: Eine Theologie der Psalmen (FRLANT 148; Göttingen, 1989), pp. 96-115. Tournay, R. ‘Le chant de victoire d’Exode 15’, RB 102 (1995), pp. 522-31. ———. ‘Recherches sur la chronologie des Psaumes’, RB 65 (1958), pp. 321-57 (esp. 335-57). Watts, J.W. Psalm and Story: Inset Hymns in Hebrew Narrative (JSOTSup 139; Sheffield, 1992), pp. 41-62. Zenger, E. ‘Tradition und Interpretation in Exodus XV 1-21’, in Congress Volume: Vienna, 1980 (VTSup 32; Leiden, 1981), pp. 452-83.

1 [At that timea Moses and the Israelitesb sangc this song about Yahwehd, and they said as followse: I will sing of Yahwehd, for he has become greatly exaltedf: horse and its driverg he threw into the sea. 2 Yah(weh)j is my strengthh and my protectioni, and he has beenk a deliverancel for me. This is my God and I will praise himm, my father’s God and I will exalt himn. 3 Yahweh is a warrioro, Yahweh is his name. 4 Pharaoh’s chariots and his army he threwp into the sea; and his choicest officersq sankr in the Yam Suf. 5 The deep waters covered thems, they went down into the depths like a stone. 6 Your right hand, Yahweh, (who are) mighty in strengtht, your right hand, Yahweh, shatteredu the enemy, 7 and in your great majestyv you cast downw your foesx. You let go your wrath, it devoured themy like stubblez. 8 And/for by the breath of your nostrilsaa the waters were gathered togetherbb, the flowing waters stood firm like a borecc, the deep waters congealeddd in the midst of the sea. 9 The enemy said, ‘I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil, my appetite shall be sated with themee, I will draw my swordff, my hand shall dispossess themgg'. 10 You blewhh with your breath, the sea covered them, they sankii like leadjj into the mighty waters. 11 Who is like youkk among the godsll, Yahweh, who is like youkk, mighty in holiness/the holy placemm, fearsome for praiseworthy actsnn, doing wondersoo?



15.1-21

323

12 You stretched out your right hand, the earthqq swallowed them uppp. 13 In your loyaltyrr you led (in) the people for whomss you intervenedtt. With your strength you broughtuu (them) to your holy dwellingvv. 14 The peoples heard, they quakedww, anguishxx seized the inhabitants of Philistia. 15 Then the chiefsyy of Edom were dismayed; the rulerszz of Moab, trembling seized themaaa, all the inhabitants of Canaan were helpless. 16 There fellbbb upon them dreadccc and terror, because of the greatnessddd of your arm they were silenteee as a stonejj, until your people passed onfff, Yahweh, until the people of whomss you had taken possessionggg passed onfff. 17 You brought them (in) and planted themhhh on the hill(s) which you owniii, a fixed placejjj for you to dwell you madekkk, Yahweh, a sanctuarylll, O Lordmmm, your hands establishednnn. 18 Yahweh will reignooo for ever and everppp.] 19 [Forqqq the horses of Pharaoh, with his chariots and his horsemenrrr, went into the sea and Yahweh brought back the waters of the seasss upon them. But the Israelites had gonettt on dry ground through the midst of the sea]. 20 [Then Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a hand-drumuuu in her hand, and all the women went outvvv behind her with hand-drums and dancingwww. 21 Miriam sangxxx to themyyy: Singzzz of Yahweh, for he has become greatly exalted: horse and its driver he threw into the sea.]

Notes on the Translation a. Heb. ‫ אז‬is given two temporal meanings in BDB, p. 23, ‘at that time’ (e.g. Gen. 4.26; Exod. 4.26) and ‘thereupon’ (i.e. ‘next’): the distinction is not always easy to make as both would fit the context, and some have doubted whether ‫ אז‬ever meant ‘next’ when followed, as here, by an imperfect (I. Rabinovitz, ‘ʾāz Followed by Imperfect Verb-Form in Preterite Contexts: A Redactional Device in Biblical Hebrew’, VT 34 [1984], pp. 53-62; IBHS §31.6.3; Gibson, Syntax, §62 Rem.1 [allowing ‘next’ with the perfect]; DCH 1, p. 167). On the use of the imperfect here see Note c. The most recent

324

EXODUS 1–18

discussion is by Joosten, Verbal System, pp. 108-13: he usefully observes the way that ‫ אז‬with the imperfect can introduce a new section of a narrative, as in Deut. 4.41, 1 Kgs 3.16 and elsewhere. In several such cases the idea of succession is clear (Josh. 8.30; 1 Kgs 8.1 par. 2 Chr. 5.2; 2 Kgs 15.16 [cf. v. 14]; Sir. 50.16; 4Q381 f69.6). Elsewhere ‘at that time’, without any idea of succession, is preferable (1 Kgs 9.11; 11.7; 2 Kgs 8.22 [par. 2 Chr. 21.10]; Ps. 126.2; Job 38.21) and these should probably include cases where the original occasion for a (well known?) song or poem is indicated (Exod. 15.1; Num. 21.17; Josh. 10.12). Since ‫ אז‬was probably originally a noun meaning ‘time’ this will be the older use, but its weakening to mean ‘then’ in the sense of ‘next’ is readily understandable (as seems to have happened with ‫ (ב)אדין‬in BAram: cf. Dan. 2.15, 17, 19 etc.).44 b. For the composite subject after a singular verb cf. GK §146f: the grammatical form is not a reason to omit ‫בני־ישׂראל‬, even though the first person sing. forms in vv. 1b-2 understandably caused some concern in the transmission of the text (see Text and Versions). c. Heb. ‫ישׁיר‬. The use of the imperfect to refer to a single event in the past after ‫ אז‬is surprising but quite common: there are about 20 examples in the Hebrew Bible (Joosten, p. 108; cf. the list in DCH 1, p. 167, but Prov. 1.28 and 20.14 are not past). Early attempts to relate this to the iterative or durative uses of the imperfect (GK §107c) have rightly been abandoned because the actions concerned are ‘single complete events’ (Joosten, p. 109). It is attractive to see the phenomenon as due to the preterite use of prefix-conjugations in early North-West Semitic, which has left traces in Biblical Hebrew, most notably in the ‘waw-consecutive’ construction (cf. JM §113h-i; 117). The only problem, as Joosten has pointed out (pp. 110-11), is that almost all the forms which follow ‫ אז‬are ‘long imperfects’ as here (the only exception is 1 Kgs 8.1 par. 2 Chr. 5.2), whereas it is only the short form of the prefix-conjugation which is generally thought to have borne a preterite sense. However, it appears that the long form did so too in Ugaritic (cf. E. Greenstein, ‘Forms and Function of the Finite Verb in Ugaritic Narrative Verse’, in S. Fassberg and A. Hurvitz [eds.], Biblical Hebrew in its North-West Semitic Setting [Jerusalem and Winona Lake, 2006], pp. 75-102; Joosten, Verbal System, p. 110), and it could be the fact that ‫( אז‬unlike waw) remained a separate word which led somehow to its use with the longer form in most cases. d. Heb. ‫ליהוה‬. The ‫ ל‬has generally been rendered ‘to’, as e.g. in Pss. 95.1 and 96.1. But since the Song begins with references to Yahweh in the third person (as is characteristic of hymns generally: Gunkel, Einleitung, p. 47), ‘about’ (cf. 14.3; and Isa. 1.5aβ, which is similar to here) would seem more appropriate: on this rendering see P.A.H. de Boer, ‘Cantate Domino: An 44   Rabinowitz’s attempt to eliminate the idea of chronological sequence has had more influence than it deserves and is combined with an antiquated understanding of the imperfect; cf. the gentler critique of Joosten, p. 110.



15.1-21

325

Erroneous Dative’, OTS 21 (1981), pp. 55-67 (58-59); so already Freedman, Pottery, Poetry and Prophecy, p. 199 (1974). Houtman’s ‘in honour of’ (p. 277) is similar. e. Heb. ‫ויאמרו לאמר‬. See Note d on the translation of 7.6-13: the sequence of two forms of ‫ אמר‬is not, however, limited to Priestly texts (cf. 5.10; 32.12) and the inf. const. occurs immediately after a finite form only here and in Num. 20.3 in the Pentateuch (elsewhere 2 Sam. 5.1; 20.18; Jer. 29.24; Ezek. 33.10, 24; Zech. 2.4). f. Heb. ‫גאה גאה‬. The verb is rare, being used (outside the identical expression in v. 21) only in Ezek. 47.5; Job 8.11; 10.16 in BH and in Sir. 10.9: some find the Hithpalel by emendation in Isa. 9.8. Only in Exod. 15 is it used of God; elsewhere it refers to the ‘rising’ of waters (Ezek. 47.5), the growth of a plant (Job 8.11) and to human pride (Job 10.16 [?]; Sir. 10.9). The meaning with reference to Yahweh is indicated by the cognate nouns which are used (as well as in other ways) of his greatness or majesty (‫ גאוה‬in Deut. 33.26; Ps. 68.35; ‫ גאון‬below in v. 7 and e.g. in Isa. 2.10, 19, 21; ‫ גאות‬in Ps. 93.1; Isa. 12.5; 26.10): see further TWAT 1, 878-84 = TDOT 2, pp. 344-50. On the variant readings of SP here see Text and Versions.45 g. Heb. ‫ורכבו‬, lit. ‘and its rider’, at first glance suggests a reference to cavalry, which would have implications for the dating of the poem (and equally for the Song of Miriam in v. 21, which uses the same expression), since cavalry was only gradually introduced into Near Eastern armies (in Assyria) from the ninth century onwards and the Egyptians did not have cavalry until the Hellenistic period (so Mowinckel, ‘Drive and/or Ride’, p. 280; BRL, p. 254; ABD 4, pp. 826-31). It is clear that ‫ ַר ָכּב‬could mean a chariot-driver (1 Kgs 22.34 par.) as well as a horse-rider (2 Kgs 9.17), just as the verb ‫ רכב‬could be used for a charioteer ‘driving’ a team of horses (2 Kgs 9.16; cf. v. 20) and its participle could refer to chariot-drivers (‫)מרכבה ורכביה‬ as well as cavalrymen (‫ )סוסים ורכביהם‬in Hag. 2.22 (cf. Jer. 51.21). But the last phrase at least suggests that following ‫ סוס‬the expression ‫ רכבו‬here would mean a cavalryman, since such a suffixed form would be equivalent to )‫רכב(י‬ ‫( סוס‬so e.g. Weimar and Zenger, Exodus, pp. 76-78; Brenner, Song of the Sea, pp. 82-84: note the vigorous response of Propp, p. 510). The question is whether it (and the fuller expression with ‫ )סוס‬could also refer to chariotdrivers, perhaps especially at a time and place when chariots and not cavalry were used. An argument in favour of this is that the more detailed account of the Egyptian débacle later in the poem does refer explicitly to chariots (‫מרכבת‬: v. 4), but nowhere specifically to cavalry. Elsewhere the part. ‫ ר ֵֹכב‬is indeed sometimes used, like the verb, of riding on the back of an animal (Gen. 49.17; Judg. 5.10; cf. Lev. 15.9), but there are also some cases where ‫ רכב‬followed 45   The dagesh in ‫ ָּג ָאה‬is surprising, like several other cases in this poem (see GK §20e, 21d). No real explanation has been found for the divergences from the normal pattern.

326

EXODUS 1–18

by ‫ סוס‬can with some certainty be taken to mean riding in a chariot pulled by horses (2 Kgs 18.23 [in view of v. 24]; Jer. 6.23 = 50.42; 17.25 = 22.4; Hos. 14.4; Hab. 3.8), as well as others where this is likely (Ezek. 23.6, 12, 23) and many more where it is possible. In addition, since the verb ‫ רכב‬could (as noted above) mean ‘drive a chariot’, the participle could in itself mean ‘chariotdriver’ and allow the translation here ‘(the) horse and its chariot-driver’.46 Given that only on a very late dating of the poem would Near Eastern military history make a reference to cavalry plausible, the linguistic and contextual arguments (which in the broader sense include the focus on Egyptian chariots in both major components of Exod. 14) justify understanding the phrase in this way as it stands. Some prefer to emend to ‫ ֶר ֶכב‬or ֹ‫ר ְכבּו‬,ִ ‘(its) chariot’ (see Text and Versions), but this is not necessary or justified.47 h. Heb. ‫עזי‬. The doubled zayin points to a derivation from ‫עזז‬, ‘strong’. For the alternative vocalisations of the suffixed forms see BL §71i and Mandel�kern, p. 839. Since the widespread acceptance that ‫ זמרת‬means ‘protection’ here (see the next note), the suggestion that ‫ עז‬here and in some other passages means ‘refuge’ (from the root ‫ עוז‬or a by-form ‫ עזז‬II: cf. T.H. Gaster, ‘Exodus xv.2: ‫’עזי וזמרת יהּ‬, ExpT 49 [1937–38], p. 189; G.R. Driver, ‘Notes on the Psalms. I.1-72’, JTS 43 [1942], pp. 149-60 [158]; V. Hamp, ‘Ps 8,2b.3’, BZ 16 [1972], pp. 115-20 [117-19]) has become popular (cf. HAL, p. 762; DCH 6, p. 325; NEB, REB: Ges18, pp. 941-42 is more doubtful). LXX βοηθός might lend some support to this proposal, but ‘help’ is not quite the same as ‘refuge’, probably no nearer than it is to ‘strength’. The association with ‫ זמרת‬does not require that ‫ עז‬mean ‘refuge’ here, as associated words can have similar meanings rather than identical ones. There is no real reason for envisaging a homonym here or in the other passages suggested. The suggestion that a word related to Ar. ǵāzī, ‘warrior’, is present here and in the parallel passages (Isa. 12.1; Ps. 118.14), presumably with the repointing ‫( ָעזִ י‬Ben Yehuda: cf. D. Winton Thomas, ‘A Note on Exodus xv.2’, ExpT 48 [1936–37], p. 478), is scarcely necessary either, though it fits the context (cf. v. 3) and may find further support in Ug. ǵz (KTU 1.16.6.43: cf. DULAT, p. 328).

46   A similar idiom seems to have existed in Egyptian, to judge from passages in the accounts of Ramesses II’s victory at Kadesh (B88, R18 [Kitchen, RITA, II §3, pp. 17, 20]; cf. Kloos, Yahweh’s Combat, p. 128). 47   A choice between a reference to horse-riding or chariot-driving elsewhere is often difficult (cf. HAL, p. 1149; Ges18, p. 1242; DCH 7, pp. 486-87). Mowinckel argued one-sidedly for chariot-driving in almost all occurrences of ‫‘( רכב‬Drive and/or Ride’, pp. 278-99), W.B. Barrick equally one-sidedly for the preservation almost everywhere of at least an underlying sense ‘mount’ (‘The Meaning and Usage of RKB in Biblical Hebrew’, JBL 101 [1982], pp. 481-503; cf. TWAT 7, 508-15 = TDOT 13, pp. 485-91), which HAL and Ges18 agree is of only minor significance in BH. The best discussion is in THAT 2, 777-81 = TLOT 3, pp. 1237-39.



15.1-21

327

i. Heb. (‫וזמרת )יה‬. Three peculiarities require explanation (as in the identical phrases in Isa. 12.2; Ps. 118.14). (a) The preservation of the old feminine ending ‫ת‬- in the abs. form has a few parallels, mainly in poetic texts and in proper names (GK §80f-g: to the evidence for its being the ancient form everywhere in §80m may be added the decisive case of Ugaritic). ‫ פרת‬in Gen. 49.22 may be an(other) early example, but the feature also occurs in Jer. 48.36 and Ezek. 28.13. (b) The absence of a pronominal suffix (contrast ‫)עזי‬ has been variously explained. Rashi, Rashbam and Ibn Ezra took ‫ זמרת‬as in the construct state, but this ignores the Masoretic vocalisation and does not produce a plausible sense for the line. In modern times it has been attributed to the closely following ‫( יה‬GK §80g) or to haplography (Cross and Freedman, Studies, p. 55: cf. the readings of SP and Vulg, also 1QIsa at 12.2). It might ‘preserve early orthography’ (Cross and Freedman, ibid.: cf. GK, ibid.) in which final vowels were not represented (as in Ugaritic), or it might be a case of a ‘double-duty suffix’ (cf. Freedman, Pottery, p. 200), where only one of two associated nouns has the appropriate suffix (M. Dahood, Psalms III [AB 17A; Garden City, 1970], p. 158 [on Ps. 118.14: cf. the lists of other examples on pp. 429-31]). (c) The long-established rendering ‘(my) song’ (see Text and Versions: so still Houtman, p. 279), although backed up by occurrences of ‫ זמרה‬elsewhere (Isa. 51.3; Pss. 81.3; 98.5: cf. Amos 5.23) and similar statements about Yahweh as (the object of) Israel’s ‘praise’ (‫תהלה‬: Deut. 10.21; Jer. 17.14), was found inferior by some commentators to the sense suggested by LXX σκεπαστής, and they emended MT as a result (Graetz ‫ ;ועזרתי‬Gunkel ‫ ;וסתרי‬Beer ‫)וסתרתי‬. Two early indications that MT might itself bear the sense ‘my protection/protector’ were Ben-Yehuda’s definition of it as ‘a mighty man and strong, conquering and subduing his enemies’, with ref. to Ar. ḏamara (cf. D. Winton Thomas, ‘A Note on Exodus xv.2’, p. 478) and M. Noth’s suggestion that some Israelite proper names including the root ‫ זמר‬might best be explained in this way (Personennamen, p. 176; on the general approach cf. Barr, Comparative Philology, pp. 181-84). Evidence from comparative philology for such a meaning has grown with new discoveries: in addition to its first attestation in Epigraphic South Arabian (ḏmr: already cited in BDB, p. 75), it has been found in Amorite (zmr: H.B. Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts: A Structural and Lexical Study [Baltimore, 1965], pp. 187-88) and Ugaritic (ḏmr: DULAT, p. 287), and more tentatively in North Arabian, Punic, Palmyrene and Eblaite (cf. Ges18, p. 305; DULAT, ibid.; DNWSI, pp. 254, 601). Of particular significance is the Ugaritic phrase ʿzk ḏmrk introducing a series of divine epithets in a hymn to Baal (as rpi mlk ʿlm: KTU 1.108.24 [cf. 21-22]): cf. Dahood, Psalms III, p. 158. This meaning is especially appropriate in the Exodus context and should probably be accepted (cf. T.H. Gaster, ‘Notes on “The Song of the Sea” [Exodus xv.]’, ExpT 48 [1936–37], p. 45; ‘Exodus xv.2: ‫’עזי וזמרת יהּ‬, p. 189 [citing also Job 35.10]; NEB, REB; Ges18, p. 305: for further discussion see S.B. Parker, ‘Exodus xv 2 again’, VT 21 [1971], pp. 373-79). The alternative suggestion ‘my strength’

328

EXODUS 1–18

(HAL, p. 263: cf. NRSV) is less well supported from the cognate languages and seeks an unnecessarily close synonymy with ‫עזי‬. Since ‫ זמר‬I, ‘sing’, is derived from Proto-Semitic ZMR and ‫ זמר‬II, ‘cut’, perhaps from ProtoSemitic ZBR (cf. Ug., Ar., Eth.: Ges18, p. 304), a ‫ זמר‬III, ‘protect’, in Heb., from Proto-Semitic ḎMR, adds a homonym which would only have become a potential problem for understanding after consonantal changes in early Hebrew (such cases are said by Barr to ‘form peculiarly certain examples of homonymy in comparison with other types’ [Comparative Philology, p. 128]). j. Heb. ‫יה‬. This shortened form of the divine name is mostly found (over 40x) in the Psalms, especially in the cry ‫ הללו יה‬which often opens and/or closes psalms which are likely to be post-exilic (e.g. Ps. 150.1, 6). But it also occurs in Psalms which are probably older (68.19; 89.9; 118.5, 17-19), as well as in two places where the text may be corrupt (Exod. 17.16 [see the notes there]; Isa. 38.11). Many theophoric personal names, especially but not only in later biblical and epigraphic sources, end with this form of the divine name (cf. J.D. Fowler, Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew [JSOTSup 49; Sheffield, 1988], pp. 34-35, 371, 380). k. Heb. ‫ויהי‬. Cross and Freedman (Studies, p. 55) proposed to take the waw as the final letter of the previous word, giving ‫ יהו יהי‬as an early spelling of ‫( יהוה יִ ְהיֶ ה‬which would coincide with LXX’s omission of a conjunction at this point): they took ‫ יהי‬as a preterite, like other imperfects/jussives in the poem (see Note s on the translation). l. Heb. ‫לישׁועה‬. On the meaning of ‫ ישׁועה‬see Note gg on the translation of 14.1-31. Here again the threat posed by the Egyptians is prominent in the context and the sense ‘deliverance’ (or ‘deliverer’) may be preferred. m. Heb. ‫ואנוהו‬. A verb ‫ נוה‬occurs in BH elsewhere only in Hab. 2.5, where the meaning would be ‘dwell, abide’ (BDB, p. 627) or ‘succeed’ (Ges18, p. 791: cf. Ar.) if the text is correct. Neither of these meanings fits the use of the Hiphil here. Cross and Freedman render ‘admire’ on the basis of Albright’s speculation about the semantic development of a root attested in Ar. (Studies, p. 56; still in Canaanite Myth, p. 127), but the sense is any case weak. The Vss, apart from TgO (on which see Text and Versions), uniformly render ‘praise’ as the context suggests: this was related to MH ‫( נוי‬a later form of ‫)נאה‬, hence ‘beautify, adorn’, already in MRI (Lauterbach 2, p. 25: cf. BDB, p. 627); cf. Sir. 13.3. Ar. nawwaha (HAL, p. 641, proposing revocalisation as a Piel here; Ges18, p. 791), from a verb meaning ‘be high’, provides a different semantic basis for ‘praise’. Freedman, Pottery, Poetry and Prophecy, p. 200, takes the initial waws in this line as emphatic (cf. p. 205 on v. 7): for this possibility see Note aa below. n. Heb. ‫וארממנהו‬. The retention of he after energic nun is rare and mainly restricted to poetry (GK §58i, k), but it is not limited to early texts. o. Heb. ‫אישׁ מלחמה‬, lit. ‘a man of war’. The variants in the textual tradition (see Text and Versions) are due to unease over the apparent description of Yahweh as a human being (contrast Num. 23.19; Hos. 11.9), and so confirm its



15.1-21

329

originality rather than calling it in question. For the use of ‫ אישׁ‬to form descriptive phrases cf. BDB, pp. 35-36; for this phrase used of human warriors see e.g. Josh. 17.1; 1 Sam. 16.18. p. Heb. ‫ירה‬. The verb is mainly used of shooting arrows, but the sense ‘throw’ is attested in Josh. 18.6 and 4Q169 fr.3-4, 4.2 (of casting lots) and (in Hiphil) in Job 30.19 (of a human being cast into mire [‫)]ח ֶֹמר‬: cf. also the cognates cited in the lexx. This verb is now generally distinguished from the homonym used in the Hiphil for ‘teach’ (whence ‫)תורה‬: cf. HAL, pp. 416-17; Ges18, pp. 494-95; DCH 4, pp. 290-91. Three different rare words are therefore used here of the ‘ejection’ of the Egyptian charioteers into the sea (cf. ‫ וינער‬in 14.27; ‫ רמה‬in 15.1, 21): the common ‫ השׁליך‬appears only in Neh. 9.11. q. Heb. ‫שׁלשׁיו‬. On the meaning of ‫ שׁלישׁ‬see Note t on the translation of 14.1-31. r. Heb. ‫טבעו‬. In BH the closest parallels relate to sinking in ‘mire’ rather than water, but the latter association is attested in Akk., later Aram. and Eth. Propp (p. 517) suggests it is an archaism here. s. Heb. ‫יכסימו‬. The sense must be preterite, as often with prefixed forms in this poem (see above, Note c): a perfect follows in the next clause. Such alternation is common in Hebrew and Ugaritic poetry (see Sivan, Grammar, p. 107). The form is doubly unusual (‘doubly archaic’ according to Cross and Freedman, Studies, p. 58), with the third radical yodh retained (cf. GK §75dd) and the suffix uniquely written ‫מוּ‬-, (which BL §21j deems the more ancient form of ֹ‫מו‬-, for which cf. v. 7 and Note y below).48 t. Heb. ‫נאדרי בכח‬. The verb is rare and the Niphal (only here and v. 11) presumably serves as the passive of the Hiphil (Isa. 42.21): cf. GK §51f. The so-called hireq compaginis occurs regularly in the construct and suffixed forms of certain nouns (‫אב‬, ‫אח‬, ‫)חם‬, occasionally in construct forms of other nouns, adjectives and participles and, in late poetic texts, with participles not in the construct state. It seems likely that that its use was extended from the first category to the second and then to the third (GK §90k-m; JM §93l-o). Here the participle is in the construct state before a prepositional phrase (GK §130a). Despite some similarity to the old genitive case-ending, this is unlikely to be the source of the phenomenon, since its function is completely different.49 ‫ נאדרי‬is often taken with ‫( ימינך‬cf. Text and Versions), but its masc.   One might say triply unusual, in view of the defectively written pl. ending (cf. Propp, p. 517), a relic of the ancient spelling. But this feature remained in widespread use (BL §48i). 49   Possible analogies have been found in some Babylonian forms of the construct state (cf. GAG §64e, h: so G.R. Driver, ‘The Origin of “ḥireq compag�inis” in Hebrew’, JTS 26 [1925], pp. 76-77) – but in Heb. the vowel cannot be described as a ‘helping vowel’ – and in the endings of what seem to be infinitives absolute in Amarna Canaanite (W.L. Moran, ‘The Hebrew Language in its NorthWest Semitic Background’, in G.E. Wright [ed.], The Bible and the Ancient Near 48

330

EXODUS 1–18

form is against this and it is best regarded as an attribute of ‫יהוה‬, as in v. 11 (cf. Vulg and possibly TgO and Sy here). As for the meaning, traditionally ‘glorious’ has been preferred (cf. Text and Versions), but the more recent lexica etc. have given a greater priority to the element of ‘power’ in the word-group, which fits both biblical usage (esp. the adj. ‫אדיר‬: and cf. SamTg ḥsynʾ here) and cognates elsewhere (esp. Phoen. [DNWSI, pp. 17-19], but also Ug. [DULAT, pp. 20-21]). The association with ‫ כח‬supports this. ‘Mighty’ or ‘majestic’ is therefore preferable here and in v. 11. Cross and Freedman argued that ‘the archaic sense…“the One-to-be-feared” ’ is most appropriate (Studies, p. 59), citing Akkadian adāru as well as Ug. words, but the sense ‘fear’ seems to be confined to Akkadian (for which see AHw, pp. 11-12) and in v. 11 that attribute is expressed separately by ‫נורא תהלת‬. u. Heb. ‫תרעץ‬. In BH ‫ רעץ‬only occurs elsewhere in Judg. 10.8, together with (perhaps glossed by) the more common ‫רצץ‬. Both verbs (as well as ‫רעע‬ II, which is commonly regarded as an Aram. loanword: BDB, p. 949) go back to Proto-Semitic RḌḌ (cf. Ar. raḍḍa). The spelling ‫ רעץ‬may be the result of dissimilation (cf. Moscati, pp. 58-59). The sense is again preterite (cf. Notes c and s) and the form most likely third person fem. sing. (although it could be second person m. sing., with ‫ ימינך‬understood instrumentally). v. Heb. ‫וברב־גאנך‬. Lit. ‘with the greatness of your majesty’ (cf. GK §128r). ‫גאון‬, like the verb ‫( גאה‬v. 1: see Note f), is used of ‘rising high’ in both positive and negative (as well as neutral) senses: for the positive sense see e.g. Isa. 2.10; 4.2. w. Heb. ‫תהרס‬. Again the sense is preterite, as it is with the other verbs in this verse. The verb ‫ הרס‬is normally used of the demolition of buildings etc. (hence some variations in the Vss), but in Isa. 22.19 it also refers to human ‘downfall’. x. Heb. ‫קמיך‬. Cross and Freedman (Studies, p. 59) rightly observed the use of this nominalised part. in other poems which are likely to be early (Deut. 33.11; Ps. 18.40, 49 par.): it also occurs once in Ug. (in parallel to ʾib, ‘enemy’: cf. v. 6) of Baal’s foes (KTU 1.10.2.25). But it occurs in later texts too (Ps. 74.23; Lam. 3.62). On the use of the suffix cf. GK §116g-i. y. Heb. ‫יאכלמו‬. ֹ‫מו‬- is the more widespread form of the third person pl. suffix which preserves the original vocalic ending (on the unique ‫מוּ‬- in v. 5 see Note s) and it occurs eight times with verbs in this poem (simple ‫ם‬- never appears in it); in texts from the monarchy period or earlier cf. Deut. 33.29; Pss. 2.3, 4, 5; 21.10, 11, 13; 45.17; 80.6. The final vowel could have been lost in the transmission of other early poems. The longer form certainly continued to East [FS W.F. Albright; London, 1961], pp. 54-72 [60], comparing also ‫ אסרי‬in Gen. 49.11). The feature is confirmed by Rainey, Canaanite in the Amarna Rablets 2, pp. 382-88. But this is no reason to repoint the form here as an inf. abs. (‫נֶ ְאדּ ִֹרי‬: presumably equivalent to a finite verb), since the participial form makes good sense.



15.1-21

331

appear in later texts, especially with nouns, but there is no doubt that it is an archaic feature of the language (cf. GK §58g, 91l). z. Heb. ‫כקשׁ‬, with the def. art. as often in comparisons (GK §126n-p; cf. Bekins, ‘Non-Prototypical Uses’). aa. Heb. ‫וברוח־אפיך‬. For the use of the dual to mean ‘nostrils’ (rather than, as elsewhere, ‘face’) cf. Gen. 2.7; 7.22 etc. For reasons discussed in the Explanatory Note on v. 8 the initial waw is probably best understood not to indicate succession but as either causal (JM §170c: e.g. Ps. 7.10) or emphatic (JM §177n: e.g. Ps. 89.38b). See also IBHS §39.2.3-4 on ‘disjunctive’ and ‘epexegetical’ waw, and Note m above on Freedman’s interpretation of v. 2. bb. Heb. ‫נערמו‬. The verb occurs only here in BH, but the related noun ‫ ערמה‬is quite common, at least in the later books: in 8.10 ‫ ח ֶֹמר‬is used, cf. ‫חמור‬ in Judg. 15.16 (see also below on ‫)נד‬. There are cognates in Aram., Ar. and probably Ug., though in the latter case the words in question are rare and their meaning is debated (DULAT, p. 326). But a verb ǵrm occurs in KTU 1.82.5, apparently of the sun-god ‘bringing together’ her rays on Mot and a noun ǵrm is used in KTU 1.3.2.11 of grasshoppers (swarming?) and in KTU 1.16.6.44 of a (unit of?) fighting men (cf. par. ǵzm). The plausibly common element in these passages is scarcely ‘a heap’, but ‘gathering together’, and it is easy to see how such a sense might have come to have the specialised meaning ‘heap’ in later BH, Aram. and Ar. (in Syriac there may be some relics of the more general sense: cf. Payne Smith, pp. 428-29): whether this narrowing had become fixed in pre-exilic Heb. or not is immaterial, as the broader sense would fit the present context just as well.50 cc. Heb. ‫כמו־נד‬. The MT accents imply that ‫ נד‬is not in the construct state and most of the Vss take the same view (only TgN clearly links it to the next word). In Ps. 78.13 ‫ נד‬is used again with reference to the Exodus and in Josh. 3.13, 16 of the similar phenomenon at the crossing of the Jordan. In Ps. 33.7 it appears in a comparison to the ‘gathering’ (Heb. ‫ )כנס‬of the waters at the creation, but LXX and Sy read it as ‫נאד‬, ‘skin-bottle’, which is a possible meaning there. In Isa. 17.11 it occurs with ‫קציר‬, but the text there has long been doubted (cf. RV ‘shall flee away’, Vulg ablata est and BHS). The meaning ‘heap’ can be supported from Ar. naddun (BDB, p. 622), but it is striking that all the textually secure uses in BH (where there are no related words) refer to water. Possibly the fact that the Exodus references involve a comparison, while the Jordan ones do not, is significant: maybe ‫ נד‬was used 50   The Ar. cognates have ayn rather than ǵayin, as Ug. ǵayin seems occasionally to correspond to Ar. ayn: see the general conclusions of J.A. Emerton, ‘Some Notes on the Ugaritic Counterpart of the Arabic ghayin’, in G.E. Kadish and G.E. Freeman (eds.), Studies in Philology in Honour of Ronald James Williams (Toronto, 1982), pp. 31-50 (47-48), although he thought that ‘The precise meaning of ǵrmn [the form in KTU 1.3.2.11, the only one of the passages which he discussed] is still uncertain’ (p. 47).

332

EXODUS 1–18

originally of a river phenomenon, a ‘bore’, to which the movement of the waters in the Exodus story could be compared (this might also be true in Ps. 33.7). HAL (p. 634; cf. Ges18, p. 783) proposed ‘dam’, citing cognates in Ammonite and Akkadian, but neither provides any basis for this meaning: none of the meanings for nīdu given in AHw, p. 786, is relevant, and the reading ‫ נד צדק‬originally proposed for line 4 of the Amman Citadel inscription has been generally abandoned (cf. W.E. Aufrecht, A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions [ANETS 4; Lewiston, 1989], pp. 154, 161; W.H. Shea, ‘The Architectural Layout of the Amman Citadel Inscription Temple’, PEQ 123 [1991], pp. 62-66 [63]). W.F. Albright gave a similar interpretation to ‫ נד‬here, ‘dykes (of irrigators)’ (Yahweh, pp. 40-41; cf. ‘From the Patriarchs to Moses. II. Moses Out of Egypt’, BA 36 [1973], pp. 48-76 [61-62]) on the basis of the Ar. cognate, but his interpretation of ‫נזלים‬, which is crucial to his suggestion, has no parallel in its other occurrences. The rendering ‘wall’ in some of the Vss (see Text and Versions) simply uses the prose account in ch. 14 to clarify a difficult word: Cross and Freedman’s adoption of it (Studies, p. 51: so also L.L. Grabbe, ‘Comparative Philology and Exodus 15,8: Did the Egyptians Die in a Storm?’, SJOT 7 [1993], pp. 263-69 [266], as a serious possibility) is inexplicable – in Canaanite Myth, p. 128, Cross took ‘hill’ to be the meaning on the basis of Ar., but it is scarcely more satisfactory. dd. Heb. ‫קפאו‬. The few other occurrences of the verb in ancient Heb. all mean ‘thicken’ or ‘solidify’ (Zeph. 1.12; Job 10.10 [of cheese coagulating]; Sir. 43.20 [of ice forming]; cf. ‫[ קפאון‬prob. reading] in Zech. 14.6) and Aram. cognates can bear a similar sense. Cross and Freedman proposed first ‘churn’ and then ‘foam’ on the basis of MH and later Aram. (cf. Canaanite Myth, p. 128 with n. 59), but there is no sign of these meanings elsewhere in BH and the idea that an ‘action’ word is required here (Studies, p. 60) is in fact against the context of the verse: it is only in v. 10 that the waters begin to move again and cover the pursuing Egyptians. ee. Heb. ‫תמלאמו‬. On the form of the suffix (as also with ‫ תורישׁמו‬later in the verse) see Note y above. Cross and Freedman (Studies, p. 60), following Albright, saw here an example of ‘enclitic mem’, but this is unnecessary (see J.A. Emerton, ‘Are there Examples of Enclitic mem in the Hebrew Bible?’, in M.V. Fox et al. [eds.], Texts, Temples and Traditions (Winona Lake, 1996), pp. 321-38 [326]). ff. Heb. ‫אריק חרבי‬. This idiom for drawing a sword occurs otherwise only in Lev. 26.33; Ezek. 5.2, 12; 12.14; 28.7; 30.11 (with ‫ חנית‬also in Ps. 35.3): at Hab. 1.17 1QpHab 6.8 reads ‫ )יריק( חרבו‬for MT ‫חרמו‬, ‘his net’, and this may well be the original reading. Elsewhere the verb ‫ שׁלף‬Hiph. is used (e.g. 1 Sam. 17.51; and cf. the idiom ‫ אישׁ שׁלף חרב‬in Judg. 8.10 etc.). The basis for the idiom with ‫ ריק‬Hiph. is not certain (cf. HAL, p. 1145): possibly the sword is thought of as being ‘emptied out’ from its sheath or (perhaps more likely) it is the sheath which is ‘made empty’ by its removal. It is striking that the other



15.1-21

333

occurrences of the idiom all (except for Ps. 35.3, which has been assigned various dates) come from the sixth (or late seventh) century.51 This must be a problem for those who would give Exod. 15.1-18 a very early date. gg. Heb. ‫תורישׁמו‬. BDB, p. 440, and Ges18, pp. 501-502, give the meaning of ‫ ירשׁ‬Hiph. here as ‘bring to ruin, destroy, exterminate’ (cf. Houtman, p. 285). This is strongly supported by the Vss (see Text and Versions: only LXX rendered otherwise) and some passages in the Heb. of Ben Sira come close to it (20.22; 32.23). But the latter may rather mean ‘make poor’ (i.e. from √ ‫ רישׁ‬or a byform of it) and the only other instance proposed for ‘destroy’ is Num. 14.12, where ‘disinherit’ is a plausible alternative. Here, in a context which refers to ‫שׁלל‬, the common sense ‘dispossess’ is surely adequate (so HAL, p. 421; Propp, pp. 525-26; Dozeman, pp. 319, 324). hh. Heb. ‫נשׁפת‬. The spelling with ‫ פ‬occurs elsewhere only in Isa. 40.24: a form ‫( נשׁב‬which SP has here) is found in Gen. 15.11; Isa. 40.7; Ps. 147.18; Sir. 43.20; 4Q185.1.1.10. Both are attested in MH and Aram. as well. ‫נשׁם‬ and ‫ נשׁמה‬are almost certainly related. In cognate languages nsb occurs in Ar. and našāpu in Akk. (AHw, p. 758). For such interchange between labials in different languages cf. Moscati, Introduction, pp. 25-26; Ges18, p. 118: within Heb. ‫( בנבשׁכם‬for ‫ )נפשׁ‬in AHI 2.24.18 shows the same variation. ii. Heb. ‫צללו‬. ‫ צלל‬II occurs only here in BH, but the sense ‘sink’ (cf. Vss) is found in MH and a root ‫( צול‬whence ‫צולה‬, ‫ )מצולה‬may be a by-form of it (so HAL, p. 962; Ges18, p. 1119). Akk. ṣalālu, ‘lie down, sleep’, ESA ḍll, become ill’, and Ar. ḍalla, ‘perish’, are probably related (cf. Cross and Freedman, Studies, p. 61; G.R. Driver, ‘Hebrew Homonyms’, in Hebräische Wortforschung [FS W. Baumgartner; VTSup 16; Leiden, 1967], pp. 50-64 [62]). jj. Heb. ‫כעפרת‬. For the def. art. in a comparison and with a well known substance cf. Note z above. kk. Heb. ‫כמכה‬. The final ‫ ה‬is by no means ancient orthography, or even standard BH. There are some late pre-exilic examples of it in inscriptions with second person m. sing. perf. verbs (Renz and Röllig, Handbuch, II/2, p. 45), but none that is certain with the suffix ‫ך‬-. For BH see Bergsträsser, 1, §7e; on the much wider use of ‫ה‬- at Qumran see Qimron, pp. 43, 58. ll. Heb. ‫באלם‬. The sing. ‫ אל‬refers to God or a god (the latter several times in Deutero-Isaiah [e.g. 43.10], where it is also used for an image identified with a god [44.10, 15, 17], and so the pl. (which is rarer) is naturally understood to mean ‘gods’ (Pss. 29.1; 89.7 (both with ‫ ;)בני‬Dan. 11.36; perhaps Job 41.17). The older view that it was from the root ‫ אלה‬is now doubted (cf. TWAT 1,   BDB, p. 938 (citing Dillmann), compared the Akk. idiom kakkē tabāku (cf. now AHw, pp. 1295-96), but it apparently means to ‘throw’ rather than to ‘draw’ a weapon and bears no relation to the Heb. expression here. 51

334

EXODUS 1–18

261-62 = TDOT 1, p. 244; THAT 1, 142 = TLOT 1, p. 107). Another pl. form, used of human leaders (cf. v. 15), is separate and probably a metaphorical use of ‫‘ = איל‬ram’ (cf. HAL, p. 39). At Qumran ‫ אל‬was also used to refer to angels (cf. DCH 1, p. 253; TWQ 1, pp. 179, 182), a later use which probably accounts for some early interpretations of the biblical instances of the pl. (see Text and Versions). mm. Heb. ‫בקדשׁ‬. ‫ ק ֶֹדשׁ‬is sometimes used alone in a concrete sense to mean ‘holy place, sanctuary’, i.e. as an equivalent to ‫מקדשׁ‬: the instances are concentrated in Ezekiel, P, Chr. and other later texts. This could theoretically be the sense here (cf. ‫ב‬, which might have a literally local meaning), but the abstract ‘holiness’ is more likely in a context that at this stage is concerned with divine action and qualities. On the exact sense implied (which might almost be ‘God-ness’, ‘divinity’) see the Explanatory Note. nn. Heb. ‫נורא תהלת‬. ‫תהלת‬, lit. ‘praises’, can mean ‘praiseworthy acts’ (BDB, p. 240, s.v. 4), so it can give the reason why Yahweh is ‫( נורא‬cf. GK §116h-l for a part. in the constr. st. being defined more closely in this way). oo. Heb. ‫פלא‬. As the preceding verb suggests, the abstract noun is probably used for concrete ‘wonderful acts’ here. pp. Heb. ‫תבלעמו‬. On the preterite sense and the form of the suffix see above Notes s and y. Here a preterite imperfect follows a perfect (the reverse of v. 5). qq. Heb. ‫ארץ‬. The mention of the ‘earth’ is at first surprising and caused difficulty to the Vss (see Text and Versions). The only other places where ‫ ארץ‬is the subject of ‫ בלע‬are Num. 16.32, 34 and other references to the same episode, but there it is clear that an opening up of the (dry) ground is meant. While here ‫ ארץ‬might refer to the mud at the bottom of the sea, in a poetic passage it is more likely equivalent to ‘death’ or the grave, as more clearly in the expressions ‫ ארץ תחתית‬in Ezek. 31.14, 16, 18 and ‫ ארץ תחתיות‬in Ezek. 26.20; 32.18, 24, where words like ‫מות‬, ‫קבר‬, ‫ בור‬and ‫ שׁאול‬are present close by, and ‫ ארץ‬in Jon. 2.7; Ps. 22.30. This is not quite to endorse the view, (over-) popularised by M. Dahood (but first proposed by Gunkel in 1895 according to Childs, p. 243), that ‫ ארץ‬alone could actually be synonymous with ‫שׁאול‬ (which is used with ‫ בלע‬in Prov. 1.12) and mean ‘the underworld’ (see his Proverbs and North-West Semitic Philology [Rome, 1963], p. 52; N.J. Tromp, Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament [Rome, 1969], pp. 23-46 [25-26]; so here already Cross and Freedman, ‘The Song of Miriam’, p. 247 n. 39 [cf. Canaanite Myth, p. 129]; TWAT 1, 430-31 = TDOT 1, pp. 399-400, and Propp, pp. 530-31, are sympathetic to this view), but it is close to it. In Ug. ʾrṣ certainly can mean ‘the underworld’ (cf. DULAT, pp. 106-108) and passages like this one at least show the influence of such a usage. rr. Heb. ‫בחסדך‬. The more recent study of the meaning of ‫ חסד‬has shown that it means neither the fulfilment of the requirements of a covenant (except in Deuteronomy and books dependent upon it) nor any act of (exceptional) ‘kindness’ (see the overview in G.I. Davies, Hosea [NCB; London, 1992],



15.1-21

335

pp. 94-97; more fully K.D. Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Inquiry [HSM 17; Missoula, 1978], and Faithfulness in Action: Loyalty in Biblical Perspective [OBT; Philadelphia, 1985]; THAT, 1, 600-21 = TLOT 2, pp. 449-64; TWAT 3, 48-71 = TDOT 5, pp. 44-64). On the human level, as examples in Genesis show (19.19; 20.13; 21.23; 24.49; 40.14; 47.29), it refers to supportive action ‘that could be expected of an individual within a definite social context, whether this be the family or hospitality towards a guest or even a context created by the generous initiative of one party towards the other’ (Davies, p. 95). In its religious use, which alone is present in Exodus (cf. 20.6; 34.6-7), Yahweh’s ‫‘ חסד‬does not of itself presuppose the explicit formulation of the covenant (berît) concept…it does, however, assume the special relationship between Yahweh and Israel (or the individual worshipper), which eventually came to be defined as one of election or covenant, but which may have received its original formulation simply in the designation of Israel as Yahweh’s people’ (ibid., pp. 95-96): cf. Exod. 3.7, 10; 5.1. etc. A precise English equivalent does not exist, but ‘loyalty’ expresses the relational context best of the suggested renderings (Luther ‘Barmherzigkeit’, AV, RV ‘mercy’ [from LXX, Vulg: see Text and Versions]; RSV, NRSV, ESV ‘steadfast love’; NJPS ‘love’; JB ‘grace’; NEB, REB ‘constant love’; EÜ ‘Güte’; NIV ‘unfailing love’). ss. Heb. ‫זוּ‬, as again in v. 16. Although in origin a demonstrative pronoun (like the rarer ֹ‫)זו‬, ‫ זוּ‬is more commonly found as a poetic form of the relative particle (see also Isa. 42.24; 43.21; Pss. 9.16; 10.1; 17.2; 31.5; 32.8; 68.29; 132.12 [ֹ‫ ;]זו‬142.4; 143.8; ‫ הז‬is only occasionally so used: Isa. 25.9; Pss. 78.54; 104.8, 26; Prov. 23.22; Job 15.17; 19.19 [probably not in Exod. 13.8: see Note l on the translation of 13.1-16]). The recognition of this sense here was long forgotten and seems only to have been recovered in the sixteenth century (see Text and Versions). tt. Heb. ‫גאלת‬. Where it is associated with a verb like ‫( הציל‬as in 6.6), ‫גאל‬ may be given the sense ‘set free’ (cf. Note l on the translation of 6.1-9), but it has a more general meaning, seen in family law, in which it refers to various kinds of intervention by a kinsman on behalf of a person who has fallen on hard times (see the Explanatory Note on 6.6-8), and this probably informs its theological use here and elsewhere. uu. Heb. ‫נהלת‬. The verb occurs ten times in BH, all but one (Gen. 33.14) in the Piel; in most cases the meaning is ‘lead’ or (2 Chr. 28.15) ‘bring’, which the parallel with ‫( נחה‬again in Ps. 31.4) and the following ‫ אל‬would suggest here. BDB, pp. 624-25, gave the basic meaning as ‘lead, guide to a watering-place or station and cause to rest there’ on the basis of Ar. (cf. ESA nhl, ‘wateringplace’, in Ges18, p. 788), which makes possible an easier accommodation of some rarer senses (Gen. 47.17; 2 Chr. 32.22) as well as an explanation for the possibly related hapax ‫ נהלל‬in Isa. 7.19. But although some BH occurrences are connected with water (Isa. 49.10; Ps. 23.2: not so clearly Isa. 40.11), this need not be because ‫ נהל‬had such a specialised meaning (similarly Propp,

336

EXODUS 1–18

p. 532) and other lexica deal with the range of meaning in different ways. For more detailed study of the root see R.D. Wilson, ‘Hebrew Lexicography and Assyriology’, Presbyterian Review 6 (1885), pp. 319-28 (319-21: two roots: cf. DCH 5, pp. 630-31); P. Haupt, ‘The Hebrew Stem nahal, to Rest’, AJSL 22 (1905), pp. 195-206 (followed by TWAT 5, 279-80 = TDOT 9, pp. 260-61, and Houtman, p. 287). vv. Heb. ‫נוה־קדשׁך‬. For the nomen rectum as equivalent to an adjective cf. GK §128p. BH ‫נָ וֶ ה‬, like the fem. form ‫נָ וָ ה‬, is sometimes used for animal pasture (2 Sam. 7.8 par.; Isa. 65.10; cf. Jer. 33.12), but more often for places or areas of human habitation, with some instances where a people is compared to a flock of sheep perhaps forming the bridge between these senses (Jer. 23.3; 49.20 par.; 50.19; Ezek. 34.14). Akk. nawûm, ‘pasture land, steppe’, with its derivatives (AHw, pp. 729-30, 771), strengthens the argument that the general use of human habitations was a secondary development from this: see further A. Malamat, Mari and the Early Israelite Experience (Oxford, 1989), pp. 4347. Like other words for human dwelling-places (cf. the notes on v. 17), ‫נוה‬ could also be used for sacred sites where God was believed to be present in a special sense, even in a city such as Jerusalem (2 Sam. 15.25; Isa. 33.20; perhaps also Jer. 31.23 [cf. the parallelism]).52 MRI (Lauterbach 2, pp. 26, 70) cited Ps. 79.7 as a further case, but ‘Jacob’ is the natural antecedent for ‘his’ there. On the debate over whether Jerusalem, Sinai or somewhere else is meant here see the Explanatory Note. ww. Heb. ‫ירגזון‬. After the perfect ‫ שׁמעו‬a preterite use of the imperfect is required, as several times already in this poem. ‫ רגז‬is often used of the effects of an earthquake (e.g. Amos 8.8), and then metaphorically of people ‘quaking’ in fear (cf. Ps. 99.1). The asyndeton of MT is a frequent feature of the poem (cf. vv. 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12). xx. Heb. ‫חיל‬. The noun is most often used of the pains of childbirth (cf. LXX, Vulg), but significantly as a picture of the terror caused by a powerful enemy, so the use here of mental anguish is not surprising: the more so as the verb ‫ חול‬is frequently so used (BDB, p. 297). yy. Heb. ‫אלופי‬. This term is used for Edomite leaders or clans (see below) in Gen. 36.15-18, 29-30, 40-43 (par. 1 Chr. 1.51-54) and in connection with Judah in Zech. 9.7; 12.5-6. The Vss uniformly support the rendering ‘chiefs, leaders’ and this has been the view followed in lexica and EVV until recently (cf. also Bartlett, Edom, p. 90). NJPS and NRSV, however, have ‘clans’, an interpretation previously suggested for the verse in Zechariah with emendation of the text to ‫א ֶלף‬/‫י‬ ֶ ‫א ְל ֵפ‬,ַ which apparently bears this meaning in a few 52   But to say ‘It is a specific designation of a tent-shrine’ (Cross, Canaanite Myth, p. 125; cf. Studies, p. 52, ‘encampment’) claims too much. A further occurrence of ‫ נוה‬referring to the divine dwelling in Jerusalem was once found in an inscription from Kh. Beit Lei (cf. AHI 15.007), but the reading ‫ נקה‬is now generally preferred (cf. Renz and Röllig, Handbuch 1, p. 248).



15.1-21

337

places (cf. Mic. 5.1). Cognates with the meaning ‘chief, commander’ seem to exist in Ug. ʾulp (KTU 1.66.11, 33; perhaps also present in PNs, cf. DULAT, p. 63)53 and Off. Aram. (Persepolis ritual texts [ed. Bowman] 52.3, 118.3: cf. DNWSI, p. 65), and an instance from Gen.R. is cited by Jastrow (p. 68). In BH ‫ אלוף‬can also mean ‘tame, docile’ (Jer. 11.19) or ‘friend, associate’ (Jer. 13.21; Mic. 7.5 etc.) and even ‘husband’ (Jer. 3.4; Prov. 2.17), and the sense ‘companions’ might conceivably be the basis for its application to the ruling elite of Edom. But the other ‘Edomite’ contexts are rather ambiguous and the sense ‘clan’ is possible there. A choice between ‘chiefs’ and ‘clans’ is difficult, but the agreement of the Vss and at least some support from related languages probably tips the balance in favour of ‘chiefs’.54 It would also make a closer parallel to ‫אילי מואב‬, though that it is not a decisive consideration. zz. Heb. ‫אילי‬. The general sense ‘ruler, commander’ is clear from the other occurrences (2 Kgs 24.15Q [the K is ‫אולי‬, which would be a hapax with the same sense]; Ezek. 17.13; 31.11; 32.21).55 There are two possible etymologies: the Vss give strong support to a connection with ‫אל‬,ֵ ‘strength’ (see Text and Versions), while the modern lexica see it as a metaphorical development from ‫‘ = ַאיִ ל‬ram’ (‘as leader of the flock’: BDB, p. 18): cf. the use of ‫עתוד‬, ‘he-goat’ in Isa. 14.9 and Ezek. 34.17. Cross and Freedman (Studies, p. 62) drew attention to similar phrases in KTU 1.15.4.6-8: see now the fuller survey of P.D. Miller, ‘Animal Names as Designations in Ugaritic and Hebrew’, UF 2 (1970), pp. 177-86 (with discussion of Heb. [and possibly Phoen.] ‫ איל‬on pp. 181-82). aaa. Heb. ‫יאחזמו‬. For the preterite sense (cf. ‫ אחז‬in v. 14) and the suffix ‫מו‬see above Notes s and y. bbb. Heb. ‫תפל‬. Up to this point the Vss were content to render the imperfect verbs in the poetic narrative as preterites, no doubt encouraged by the alternation with perfect tenses in vv. 4-5, 8-10, 12-15. But from here to the end of the poem, where perfect forms occur only in the latter parts of vv. 16-17, which are or may be subordinate clauses, the imperfects are consistently treated as future or jussive in sense. This is strange, because the third person pl. pronouns in v. 16 must refer to the peoples who have been the subject of verbs translated in the past tense in vv. 14-15, so that v. 16 hardly looks like a place where the poem would change its horizon from the past to the future. English and Latin versions of the later sixteenth century solved this problem 53   The older view that ʾulp in KTU 1.40, 1.84 and 1.154 meant ‘prince’ has been superseded (cf. DULAT, p. 2) in favour of its analysis into three components ʾu, l and p, meaning ‘and/or like’. 54   Since ‫ אלוף‬in this sense is nearly always used of Edomites (only otherwise in Zech. 9-14), it may well have been an originally Edomite word (J. van der Ploeg, ‘Les chefs du people d’Israël et leurs titres’, RB 57 [1950], pp. 40-61 [51]). 55   Further occurrences have been conjectured at Jer. 25.34; Ezek. 30.13; Job 41.17 (HAL, pp. 38-39; Ges18, p. 46), but MT is preferable in each case.

338

EXODUS 1–18

by placing the change from past to future in v. 14 (or even, in the case of the Geneva Bible, in v. 13), which also had the advantage of fitting the narrative setting, by the Red Sea, where ‘Moses and the Israelites’ (v. 1) were supposed to have uttered this song. Theological considerations may also have played a part (see my essay ‘Some Points of Interest’, pp. 253-55). But in a poem where the preterite use of the imperfect is so widespread, it is surely preferable to make connected sense of it by extending this understanding of the verbs as far as v. 17 (for the implications of this for the date of the poem see the introduction to this section). ccc. Heb. ‫אימתה‬. Such forms (mainly confined to poetry) in which a ‘paragogic he’ is added without change to the meaning (with fem. nouns to the older form ending in ‫ת‬-) are apparently due to the weakening of an ending which originally expressed direction towards a place (e.g. ‫)ארצה‬.56 With the discovery of Ugaritic the older view (GK §90c-i; still in BL §65w) that this was a remnant of the ancient accusative case-ending -a had to be given up, because forms like ʾarṣh showed that the he was originally consonantal and not just a vowel-marker (UT §8.56; Sivan, pp. 178-79). Possible survivals of the accusative ending and examples of the paragogic he, including its original directional use, are therefore carefully distinguished in JM §93 (for the closest parallels to ‫ אימתה‬here, such as Pss. 3.3; 44.27; 120.1, see para. j) and in IBHS §10.5. Although the morpheme is ancient, examples of it are found in poetry of all periods. ddd. Heb. ‫ ִבּגְ דֹל‬, i.e. the constr. st. of the adj. ‫( גָּ דוֹל‬the pointing is confirmed by plene writings in 4QExc and SP: see Text and Versions) is used in place of the regular noun ‫( גּ ֶֹדל‬a word popular in Deuteronomy and Ezekiel): cf. the very similar use of ּ‫( גּבֹ ַה‬in place of ּ‫ )גּ ַֹבה‬in 1 Sam. 16.7 and GK §132c, where some related examples are given. Possibly both here and in 1 Sam. 16.7 (cf. Driver ad loc.) the forms could be read as infinitives construct of the related verbs: ּ‫ ִכּגְ בֹ ַה‬in Ps. 103.11 shows that o-forms of the inf. cons. can occur with verbs which have an imperfect with -a- as the second stem-vowel. eee. Heb. ‫ידמו‬. For the (‘Aramaic’) form, based on a sing. ‫יִ דֹּם‬, cf. GK §67g. Cross and Freedman (Studies, p. 63) read the Niph. ‫יִ ַדּמּוּ‬, ‘they are struck dumb’ (Canaanite Myth, p. 130: ‘they were…’). It is not clear what they mean by ‘The niphal is the preferred form’, when the Qal is over three times as common, and the change is quite unnecessary. In any case the Niph. forms may well belong to a different root (cf. Ges18, pp. 254-55, and more fully G.R. Driver, ‘A Confused Hebrew Root [‫דום‬, ‫דמה‬, ‫’]דמם‬, in M. Haran and B.Z. Luria [eds.], Sepher N.H. Tur-Sinai [PSSSI 8; Jerusalem, 1960], pp. 1*11*). BDB, p. 199, gives ‘be struck dumb, astounded’ for ‫ דמם‬here and in Isa. 23.2, but there is no need for this departure from the regular meanings ‘be silent, still’ and the sense proposed (which is more characteristic of the Eth. 56   Propp (p. 536) thinks ‘a double feminine suffix’ is involved; but such forms occur with masc. nouns too (see examples in GK §90f).



15.1-21

339

cognate) scarcely fits the comparison with a stone. The latter makes ‘were silent’ preferable to ‘were still’.57 On the past tense translation adopted here see Note bbb above. fff. Heb. ‫עד־יעבר‬. ‫ עד‬may mean either ‘until’ or ‘while’ (BDB, pp. 724-25). In either case the perf. usually follows when past time is referred to, but there are other examples of the imperfect: Josh. 10.13 (again in a purportedly ancient poem); Ps. 73.17; 2 Chr. 29.34. Here and in Josh. 10.13 it may be used in a preterite sense (like other imperfects in the present context), in the other cases it has a modal sense. ‫ יעבר‬is translated ‘passed over’ (sc. the Jordan) by Cross and Freedman (Studies, p. 53), but this does not really fit the context. ggg. Heb. ‫קנית‬. Among the possible meanings of ‫קנה‬, ‘acquire, buy, create’ (BDB, pp. 888-89), ‘acquire’ is the most widespread and the most likely here: ‘which you acquired’ makes a good (expanded) parallel to ‘your (people)’ in the previous clause. A case could be made for ‘buy’, which is a specialisation of ‘acquire’, on the basis that ‫גאל‬, which is used in the equivalent clause in v. 13, involves the payment of a price when it is used of a legal transaction; but it is not certain (or even likely) that it is so used there. Cross and Freedman (Studies, p. 64) favoured ‘created’ on the basis of Gen. 4.1; 14.19; 22; Deut. 32.6 (the last of Israel as here) and the use of its cognate in Ugaritic (on which see now DULAT, p. 706). Some of these occurrences really mean ‘procreate’, but AHI 4.201.3 provides an epigraphic instance of the sense ‘create’. Nevertheless the latter is most secure in cosmological contexts and the idea of Yahweh’s taking possession of his people is firmly grounded in early Israelite tradition: the creation language (with different verbs) is more characteristic of Deutero-Isaiah (e.g. Isa. 43.1, 15). hhh. Heb. ‫תבאמו ותטעמו‬. These verbs too are probably preterite imperfects (cf. Note bbb above), as the use of the perfect later in the verse would most naturally suggest. The pointing of ‫ ותטעמו‬with simple waw may, however, have been designed to encourage a future or jussive reading of them, as in the Vss (cf. Text and Versions and JM §177l; for a selection of the many cases in poetry where the meaning must be future see B. Johnson, Hebräisches Perfekt und Imperfekt mit vorangehendem we [CBOT 13; Lund, 1979], p. 57, irrespective of the flaws in Johnson’s interpretation; also Joosten, Verbal System, pp. 425-29, with the same proviso). Propp thinks the context here rules out a preterite sense (p. 541). For the unusual form of the suffix see Note y above. iii. Heb. ‫בהר נחלתך‬. ‫ הר‬is used both of an individual peak and of ‘hill country’ more generally, the latter apparently with particular frequency of the hills of Ephraim (Josh. 17.15 etc.). The question of the place that is meant here (for which see the Explanatory Note) thus has to include consideration of the possibility that a region is in view. ‫ נחלה‬is usually translated ‘inheritance’, as 57   Driver (p. 5*) assigned this occurrence to ‫ דמם‬II = (in Niph.) ‘be struck down, motionless’. For him (pp. 9*-11*) it was only ‫ דמה‬II that means ‘be (made) silent’.

340

EXODUS 1–18

in the Vss, but it has this specific sense in only about a quarter of its occurrences (c. 45 acc. to BDB, p. 635, out of a total of 222 in BH). Elsewhere ‘possession’ in a wider sense is involved (cf. THAT 2, 55-59 = TLOT 2, pp. 731-34; TWAT 5, 342-60 = TDOT 9, pp. 319-35 [which makes ‘inheritance’ the primary meaning]). In theological usage it most often refers to Israel as Yahweh’s own people (e.g. Deut. 4.20; 1 Sam. 10.1; Ps. 78.71), but it also designates their land as Yahweh’s own land (mainly in Jeremiah, e.g. 2.7; but also Ps. 68.10). Its use of the Jerusalem temple in Ps. 79.1 (and perhaps in Jer. 12.7: cf. the par. ‫ )ביתי‬can be traced back to the description of Mount Zaphon as the ǵr nḥlt of Baal (KTU 1.3.3.30, 4.20), along with other features of the Jerusalem cult tradition which have a Canaanite origin (cf. Clifford, Cosmic Mountain, pp. 66-79, 131-60 [though he overlooks Ps. 79.1 itself]; W.H. Schmidt, Alttestamentliche Glaube in seiner Geschichte, pp. 215-28, ET, pp. 207-20; THAT 2, 58 = TLOT 2, p. 733; TWAT 5, 358-59 = TDOT 9, p. 333). Here too the reference must be to a mountain (or range of hills) which ‘belonged’ in a special sense to Yahweh. jjj. Heb. ‫מכון‬. Although often, as here, translated ‘place’, ‫ מכון‬is not a simple synonym of ‫מקום‬, but derives its meaning from the sense of the verb ‫כון‬, ‘to be firm, fixed, established’, which occurs in the parallel line here. It can mean ‘foundation’ (Ps. 104.5; probably also, metaphorically, in Pss. 89.15; 97.2), but otherwise it is used in relation to God’s dwelling-place, either in heaven (1 Kgs 8.39, 43, 49 par.; Isa. 18.4; Ps. 33.14) or on earth (1 Kgs 8.13 par. [||‫ ;]בית‬Isa. 4.5; Dan. 8.11; Ezra 2.68). It presumably conveys either the ‘sureness’ or solidity of the divine dwelling-place (as in Isa. 2.2; Mic. 4.1) or the idea that its location has been fixed by divine decree (cf. Ps. 93.5). It is probably no coincidence that the verb can be used of the permanence of a royal throne, esp. in the Niphal (2 Sam. 7.16 par.; 1 Kgs 2.45; Pss. 89.38; 93.2 [God’s throne]) but also in the Hiphil (Ps. 103.19 [God’s throne]) and the Polel (2 Sam. 7.13 par.; Ps. 9.8 [God’s throne]), but that does not imply that ‫ מכון‬means ‘throne’, as Propp seems to affirm (p. 542): rather perhaps that ‫ לשׁבתך‬carries this connotation, as it does elsewhere (BDB, p. 442). ‘Fixed place’ allows for both the possible nuances noted above. kkk. Heb. ‫פעלת‬. Cross and Freedman observed (Studies, p. 65) that ‘This verb is quite common in early Yahwistic poetry, though rare in later materials’, citing Num. 23.23; Deut. 32.4, 27; 33.11; Pss. 68.29; 77.13; Hab. 3.2. As a generalisation this is seriously misleading, for the verb occurs at least as often in later parts of Isaiah (26.12; 41.4; 43.13; 44.12 [2x], 15) and twelve times in Job. Among the purportedly early instances many would date Deuteronomy 32 and Psalm 77 to the late pre-exilic or exilic period, and in Hab. 3.2 it is the noun ‫ פּ ַֹעל‬and not the verb which appears. The 57 occurrences of the verb in BH seem to be spread over most periods of the history of the language. What is worth observing is that the verb occurs in both Ug. (mainly in the form bʿl, and with a derivative nomen agentis: cf. DULAT, pp. 205-206) and Phoenician (and Punic), including early inscriptions, where



15.1-21

341

it is the regular word for ‘make, do’ (DNWSI, pp. 924-27). Although this is certainly not proof of an early origin for the poem or its Canaanite character, it could reinforce arguments of other kinds for a proximity to Canaanite culture. lll. For the dagesh with qoph see GK §20h. mmm. Heb. ‫אדני‬. As a divine name or title ‫ אדני‬occurs several times in Genesis 18–20 (but 18.3; 19.2, 18 should probably be excluded, as the speakers at these points are not aware of the divine identity of their visitors) and elsewhere in the Pentateuch in Exod. 4.10, 13; 5.22; 34.9; and Num. 14.17 (BDB, p. 11, lists occurrences elsewhere in BH and in longer phrases: for its use in pre-exilic worship cf. Pss. 2.7; 68.12 etc.; 110.5). On the form and meaning of the expression see Note b on the translation of 4.10-17. Here, as in some other passages, there is doubt over whether it or ‫ יהוה‬is the original reading (see Text and Versions). Either the original poet or a later scribe may have used it here for variation from the successive occurrences of ‫ יהוה‬in vv. 16-18. nnn. Heb. ‫כוננו‬. On the meaning and use of the verb ‫ כון‬in Heb. see above in Note jjj: it is the causative Polel stem that is used here. In Phoenician ‫ כון‬is the regular verb for ‘to be’, but it is never used causatively. ooo. Heb. ‫יהוה ימלך‬. In view of the following phrase ‫ ימלך‬must be taken as future, as in Ps. 146.10. Elsewhere statements about Yahweh’s kingship generally employ the perfect tense (Pss. 47.9; 93.1; 96.10; 97.1; 99.1; Isa. 52.7) or the noun ‫( מלך‬Pss. 10.16; 24.7-10; 29.10; 47.3; 95.3; 98.6; Isa. 6.5; Zech. 14.9, 16-17). In view of expressions like those in Pss. 10.16; 29.10; 93.5 the use of the future tense is not inconsistent with such formulae, but it does lay particular emphasis on the future hope that such confidence inspires. The similar expressions used of Baal in KTU 1.2.4.10 and 1.108.1, 19-20, 21, 22 indicate that the language of this verse had a long history: cf. also DNWSI, p. 639. The emphatic word-order here, with the divine subject preceding the verb, corresponds to the classic formula in Pss. 93.1; 96.10; 97.1; 99.1 rather than the (later?) P-S order in Isa. 52.7; Pss. 47.9; 146.10. ppp. Heb. ‫לעולם ועד‬. For the formula cf. Mic. 4.5; Pss. 9.6; 45.18; 119.44; 145.1-2, 21; Dan. 12.3; without ‫ ל‬Pss. 10.16; 21.5; 45.7; 48.15; 52.10; 104.5; inverted Pss. 111.8; 148.6. The noun ‫( ַעד‬in pause ‫עד‬:ֶ cf. GK §29r, JM §32c, both without examples outside this phrase or any specific explanation [cf. BL § 69z]; Bergsträsser §29e also includes cases where seghol is preferred to another vowel in pause, which may be significant), which also occurs alone in the sense ‘perpetuity’(not ‘eternity’), is either derived from a root ‫( עדה‬Ar. ʿadā), ‘advance’ (cf. Prov. 25.20; Job 28.8), or since J. Barth, Etymologische Studien zum semitischen insbesondere zum hebräischen Lexicon (Leipzig, 1893), pp. 64-65, perhaps more plausibly related to Ar. ǵad, ‘tomorrow, later future’ (cf. HAL, p. 742; Ges18, p. 921). Among the eighteen occurrences of such language in Exodus (many of which are in Priestly legislation) the most similar are 3.15 (the divine name) and 17.16 (state of war with Amalek).

342

EXODUS 1–18

qqq. Heb. ‫כי‬. The sense ‘when’ has also been proposed (Rashi: cf. NIV, REB, NRSV), with the main clause beginning at ‫וישׁב‬: the verse would then be a resumptive repetition of 14.22-29 after the ‘interruption’ by the Song of Moses, setting the scene again for Miriam’s song in vv. 20-21 (cf. Childs, pp. 242, 248; also Watts, Psalm and Story, p. 44: the verse ‘re-establishes the temporal…and physical…setting’). One might compare 6.28-30 where there is a similar repetition after a genealogy has interrupted the Priestly narrative and 12.51 after the addition of vv. 43-49. But in prose when ‫ כי‬means ‘when’ in the past, it is usually preceded by ‫( ויהי‬Gen. 6.1 etc.). On other medieval Jewish interpretations see Propp, p. 546. rrr. Heb. ‫ברכבו ובפרשׁיו‬. On the meanings of ‫ פרשׁ‬see Note x on the translation of 14.1-31. ‫ ב‬can mean ‘with’, of accompaniment (BDB, p. 89): whether it is used here ‘of what one takes or brings with one’ (ibid.), with the oddly chosen subject ‘Pharaoh’s horses’, is less certain. sss. Heb. ‫את־מי הים‬. This combination of ‫ מים‬and ‫( ים‬and the short form of the constr. st. of ‫ )מים‬is not found elsewhere in Exodus (with ‫ ים־סוף‬in Deut. 11.4; Josh. 2.10; in different contexts ‫ מי הים‬occurs in Amos 5.8; 9.6; Ps. 33.7), but it is a natural development from the association of the two words in 14.26-28. ttt. For the translation of these words see Note bbb on the translation of 14.1-31. uuu. Heb. ‫את־התף‬. The def. art. is idiomatic (cf. Note o on the translation of 2.11-22) and carries no special significance. ‘Hand-drum’ is Russell’s translation (Song, pp. 12, 27; cf. ABD 4, p. 936, ‘frame-drum’; C.L. Meyers, ‘Of Drums and Damsels’, pp. 18, 21 [= Feminist Companion (1994), pp. 213-14, 220-21]; Schmidt, p. 636); this is preferable to the usual ‘tambourine’ or ‘timbrel’, since the iconographical evidence (see the Explanatory Note) shows no signs of jingling metal discs. It is also now clear from Old Aramaic that the related verb meant ‘strike’ (DNWSI, p. 1226). vvv. Heb. ‫ותצאן‬. For the defective spelling cf. 1.18-19 and GK §47l. www. Heb. ‫בתפים ובמחלת‬. For the combination cf. Judg. 11.34; 1 Sam. 18.6; Jer. 31.4; Pss. 149.3; 150.4 (the last three with the masc. form ‫)מחול‬. On ‫בתפים‬ see Notes rrr and uuu above; the ‫ ב‬with ‫ מחלת‬denotes rather an accompanying action, which is close to BDB’s ‘concomitant (or surrounding) conditions’ (p. 89, III.1.c). xxx. Heb. ‫ותען‬. This is one of the clearer cases for the meaning ‘sing’ (‫ ענה‬IV, for which there are cognates in Ar. [ǵanay, 2nd stem], Sy and, less certainly, Ug. [cf. DULAT, p. 173; Emerton, ‘Some Notes’ (above n. 7 on Note bb), pp. 42-43]), in view of the association with ‫( שׁיר‬similarly Num. 21.17; 1 Sam. 18.7 [21.12; 29.5]; Ps. 147.7 [par. ‫ ;)]זמר‬likewise probably Ps. 119.172 and Ezra 3.11 in contexts of praise. Whether the same is true of the utterances in battle in Exod. 32.18 (first two exx.) and Jer. 51.14 is less clear in view of the uses for a harvest ‘shout’ (‫ )הידד‬in Jer. 25.30 and perhaps in Isa. 27.2 (Piel), Hos. 2.17 and the third occurrence in Exod. 32.18 (Piel) and



15.1-21

343

for an animal’s cry in Isa. 13.22 (with which cf. DAPT 1.10).58 More specific renderings such as ‘led the singing’ (see Text and Versions, Luther, Tyndale, EÜ; Schmidt, p. 636: cf. JB) or ‘sang…this refrain’ (NEB, REB) probably read too much into the verb: neither fits the other occurrences. A derivation of the form from ‫ ענה‬I = ‘answer’ (cf. Ug. ʿny: AV, RV) is unlikely and rarely advocated, but see Houtman 1, p. 388, and Watts, Psalm and Story, p. 43; also Text and Versions on TgO,N for this word. yyy. Heb. ‫להם‬. For the masc. suffix referring to a fem. antecedent cf. 1.21; 2.17 and GK §135o. It is scarcely possible that the suffix refers back to the Israelites in v. 19 (or v. 1), as Houtman (p. 295), Janzen and Russell seem to suppose (see the Explanatory Note, where other difficulties in their interpretation of the section are discussed). zzz. Heb. ‫שׁירו‬. Again the masc. form is preferred (see the previous note). On the remainder of v. 21b see Notes d, f and g on the translation of 15.1-21.

Explanatory Notes 1a. The introduction to the poem is separated from 14.31 by a division in MT and SP. No manuscript with continuous text at this point survives from Qumran.59 The connection to 14.31, while explicable in terms of the poem giving expression to the people’s restored faith in Yahweh, with Moses once again taking the lead (cf. 14.13-14) is not entirely smooth, as the people are now referred to as ‘the Israelites’ (Heb. benê yiśrāʾēl, last in 14.29) rather than ‘Israel’ or ‘the people’ as in 14.30-31. We translate Heb. ʾāz ‘At that time’ as in other places where it leads into the citation of a song or poem (Num. 21.17; Josh. 10.12), rather than ‘then’ (e.g. NRSV), which might imply a direct consequence of what has preceded (see further Note a on the translation). In any case the connection is not made in the most simple way by ‘and’ (Heb. waw).60 The word for ‘song’ (Heb. šîrāh rather than šîr) is one which seems to be reserved 58   ʿnyh in DAPT 1.13, ‘oracle-priestess’, is cited as a possible cognate by Ges18, p. 990, but it is probably related to the homonym ‘answer’ (so J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij, Aramaic Texts from Deir ʿAlla [DMOA 21; Leiden, 1976], p. 212, with ref. to Akk. āpil[t]u, ‘answerer’). 59   In 4QExd, where 15.1 follows 13.16 in what seems to be a collection of extracts from Exodus, there appears, not surprisingly, to have been an open section between the verses. 60   Blum keenly observes that Num. 21.17 almost exactly matches the wording here and thus concludes the wilderness narrative in the same way as it began (in Kd: Studien, p. 127).

344

EXODUS 1–18

for compositions which were attached to narratives (Propp, p. 508) and perhaps implies that they would already have been well known as independent texts. 1b. The opening words of the poem correspond closely to the ‘Song of Miriam’ in v. 21b, the only difference being between the initial ‘I will sing’ here and the plural imperative ‘Sing’ there. On the significance of this repetition see the introduction to the present section. In their present position these words summarise the theme of vv. 1-12, as v. 13 probably does for vv. 13-17. The metre in this verse (based on the number of separable Hebrew words) is 4 + 4, with each ‘4’ easily subdivided into two units of ‘2’.61 These patterns, although not as widespread as 3 + 3, are relatively frequent in Biblical Hebrew poetry, and predominate in the poems in this chapter: W.G.E. Watson associates this with the need for a ‘victory song’ to be ‘quick and lively’ (though as a whole 15.1-18 is better described as a hymn: see the introduction to this section).62 Parallelism, in the sense of correspondence (which need not be exact) in form and/or meaning, is partially present here: the second half of the line ‘seconds’ (to use J.L. Kugel’s term) the expression ‘he has become greatly exalted’ by spelling out the action through which this dominance was achieved.63 In its present context it is natural to understand the subject of the first-person verb, like the first-person pronouns in v. 2, as a reference to Moses. No doubt this is why the Versions here render ‘Let us sing’ to conform more closely to the inclusion of the people in the introduction to the poem (likewise the Pal. Tgg also in v. 2a). Similar expressions occur elsewhere at or near the beginnings of other poems where an individual singer has already been mentioned (Deut. 32.1-2; 1 Sam. 2.1: cf. Judg. 5.3). But as a stylistic feature it is widespread at the beginning of individual thanksgiving psalms (e.g. Pss. 9.2-3; 30.2), of the so-called hymns of the sole singer (e.g. Pss. 89.2; 108.2; 145.2) and elsewhere   The short Heb. word for ‘for’ (kî) is taken together with the following word.   Poetry, p. 111. See his whole chapter on metre (pp. 87-113), which makes it clear that the subject remains one of much debate and uncertainty. The comments made here are deliberately cautious and limited to observations which do not depend upon a particular theory. 63   On the idea of ‘seconding’ see Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and its History (New Haven and London, 1981), pp. 51-58. In using the expression here I do not subscribe to all the uses that Kugel makes of it. 61 62



15.1-21

345

(Isa. 5.1; 12.1; 63.7).64 Gunkel already observed that such introductions were common in Babylonian hymns and in the Homeric Hymns, and Ugaritic examples can now be cited from the hymns to ‘the gracious gods’ and to Nikkal and the Kotharat.65 At least at its beginning the poem speaks of Yahweh in the third person, like many biblical hymns, and so the translation ‘I will sing of, or about, Yahweh’ (not ‘to Yahweh’) is preferable (cf. Note d on the translation). Since Yahweh’s triumph is said to be over a chariot-force rather than cavalry in both the poem (v. 4) and the prose account(s) (14.6-7, 9, 17-18, 23, 25-26, 28; cf. 15.19), we render ‘horse and its driver’ (rather than ‘…and its rider’): this also corresponds to the military use of horses in Egypt and the Near East generally in the earlier biblical period (see further Note g on the translation). 2. The verse, which has close parallels in Isa. 12.2b and Ps. 118.14, can be analysed as two 2 + 2 lines if the short Hebrew words for ‘Yah’, ‘for me’ and ‘This (is)’ are not counted separately and the phrase ‘my father’s God’ is taken as a single unit. Alternatively the lines may be in 3 + 3 metre, like some lines later in the poem.66 Both lines exhibit strong parallelism and even, unusually, internal rhyme. On the translation ‘protection’ rather than ‘song’ see Note i. The series of attributes of Yahweh in v. 2a are closely related in meaning (the abstract ‘deliverance’ is equivalent to ‘deliverer’) and all have the same temporal reference, which ‘has been’ identifies as the specific event that is celebrated in the poem. The continued use of first-person pronouns may suggest that Moses’ own vindication against the criticism of the people is especially in view. Certainly the expressions ‘my God’ and more especially ‘my father’s God’ are ones that are used with specific reference to Moses elsewhere in Exodus (3.6; 4.10, 13; 18.2). The latter expression is particularly characteristic of the stories of the patriarchs in Genesis (26.3 etc.) and points to a society in which the family rather than the people 64   Cf. Gunkel, Einleitung, pp. 38, 267; F. Crüsemann, Studien zur Form­ geschichte, pp. 210-306 (Chapters 4 and 5). The use of such expressions as an introductory formula is to be distinguished from their appearance later in a psalm as a concluding formula (Ps. 104.33) or in the ‘vow of praise’ in a psalm of lament (e.g. Ps. 7.17). 65   Gunkel, Einleitung, p. 38; KTU 1.23-24 (cf. CML2, pp. 123-29). 66   So Cross and Freedman, Studies, p. 54.

346

EXODUS 1–18

as a whole is the horizon for religious life and practice (see the Explanatory Note on 3.6). Thus this verse, like 3.13-15, represents the identification of Yahweh, the God of the Exodus and now the God of the people as a whole, with the god(s) of the individual families.67 An alternative to the view suggested above would take the ‘I’ here as collective, referring to the people as a whole. One way or the other, the placing of these apparently personal words of faith in the context of a national hymn of praise need not be regarded as intrusive.68 3. The line can be analysed as 2 + 2 if the two Heb. words (ʾîš milḥāmāh, lit. ‘man of war’) that lie behind ‘a warrior’ are treated as a single unit. Both the repetition of ‘Yahweh’ and the word ‘name’ itself give special prominence to the identity of Israel’s God, as regularly happens at the beginning of a hymn (Gunkel, Einleitung, pp. 40-41; for the use of a nominal clause to express Yahweh’s attributes, as here, see pp. 48-49). The bold description of Yahweh as ‘a man of war’ fits the context perfectly, but was too bold for most of the ancient textual witnesses, which softened it (see Text and Versions). Similar phrases are rare (cf. Ps. 24.8; Isa. 42.13), but the idea expressed, that Yahweh ‘fights’ on his people’s behalf, is widespread in Israel’s early traditions (cf. 14.14, 25; Num. 10.3536; 23.21-22; 24.8; Deut. 33.26-29; Judg. 5), in the narratives of Joshua, Judges and Samuel, and in Deuteronomy (e.g. 7.17-24): see further von Rad, Heilige Krieg; Smend, Jahwekrieg. Such ideas were by no means limited to ancient Israel: the gods of other peoples were believed to fight on their behalf, as well as against other gods in mythical conflicts (B. Albrektson, History and the Gods [CBOT 1; Gleerup, 1967]; Miller, Divine Warrior; KTU 1.119 = COS 1, pp. 283-85). The formula ‘Yahweh is his name’ recurs three times elsewhere (Jer. 33.2; Amos 5.8; 9.6), but similar formulae incorporating the expression ‘(the God) of hosts/armies’ occur in Amos 4.13; 67   ‘My God’ is naturally a more widely attested expression: on it see O. Eissfeldt, ‘ “Mein Gott” im Alten Testament’, ZAW 61 (1945–48), pp. 3-16, and H. Vorländer, Mein Gott: Die Vorstellungen vom persönlichen Gott im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament (AOAT 23; Neukirchen, 1975). 68   Contra, e.g., Cross and Freedman, Studies, p. 54; cf. the response of Muilenburg in ‘A Liturgy’, p. 239. In Canaanite Myth, p. 127 n. 49, Cross regarded only v. 2a as an addition; in Pottery, pp. 179-227, Freedman had given up the idea of secondary material altogether in favour of a liturgical function for the verse.



15.1-21

347

5.27, in (Deutero-)Isaiah (4x) and in Jeremiah (8x, all probably in secondary contexts): in Hos. 12.5 the formula is ‘Yahweh the God of hosts, Yahweh is his memorial (name: Heb. zēker)’. The whole series of passages was examined by J.L. Crenshaw in his study of the ‘doxologies’ of Amos (Hymnic Affirmation of Divine Justice [SBLDS 24; Missoula, MT, 1975], pp. 75-114; cf. id., ‘YHWH ṣebaʾôt šemô: A Form-Critical Analysis’, ZAW 81 [1969], pp. 156-75). The occurrences in Deutero-Isaiah and Jeremiah, as Crenshaw showed, appear in contexts with several common themes and can be traced to a literary and perhaps cultic development of the exilic period, and Crenshaw found enough similarity in the Amos doxologies to justify a similar dating for them. Crenshaw actually says that, although its literary attestations were (mostly at least) late, ‘The phrase “Yahweh of Hosts is his name” is an ancient hymnic liturgical formula from the time of the ark at Shiloh’ (p. 111), and the association of the similar formula in Hos. 12.5 with the Bethel cult may give some support to this conclusion.69 Its use of zēker in place of šēm (‘name’) links it to Exod. 3.15 (see further below). It is also possible that the Amos doxologies are pre-exilic in origin, whether or not they were present in the original collection of the prophet’s sayings. Crüsemann argued that the ‘hymnic participles’ which are their main structural feature represented a distinct form of early Israelite hymn, most likely modelled on foreign prototypes, since their content tends not to be distinctively Israelite (Studien, pp. 83-154). The formula ‘Yahweh is his name’ was a way of ‘reclaiming’ the theology of creation for Israelite worship, already in pre-exilic times (ibid., p. 153). H.W. Wolff associated the inclusion of the doxologies with a ‘Bethel-redaction’ of the book of Amos in the time of Josiah and suggested that they originated as ‘syncretistic hymnic material from the Bethel sanctuary of the seventh century’ (Joel und Amos [BKAT; Neukirchen, 1969], pp. 135-36, 254-56 [136]). They appear to be much closer to real liturgical texts than the passages in Isaiah and Jeremiah where the formula occurs and are therefore likely to be older, perhaps much older, than them.70 As a compositional element in Exodus 15 the formula is probably not ‘reclaiming’ a foreign concept but serves,   Crenshaw himself, however, retracted it in ZAW 81 (1969), p. 168.   The words ‘in Yah, (it is) his name’ (byh šemô) in Ps. 68.5, which follow a participial expression, may be a corruption of a further instance of the formula 69 70

348

EXODUS 1–18

perhaps with reference to v. 2b, as a way to give added prominence to the God who is worshipped in this poem (compare the further occurrences of the divine name alone at key points within it [vv. 6, 11] and at the end [vv. 16-17]).71 4. The verse introduces a note of explicit specificity into the poem, regarding both the enemy (‘Pharaoh’) and the location of his defeat (‘the Yam Suf’). Both these expressions and some others (‘chariots’, ‘army’, ‘the sea’, ‘choicest’ and ‘officers’) recur in the prose narrative of chs. 13–14 (cf. 13.18; 14.4, 5, 7, 21, 25), all but one of them (‘his army’, Heb. ḥêlô) in the verses attributed to the non-Priestly account.72 One might deduce from this that the prose has influenced the poem or the poem the prose, but all the expressions concerned are common, so that a direct relationship between the passages need not be presumed. The metre, like v. 1b, is 4 + 4 with each ‘4’ easily subdivided into 2 + 2, if ‘Pharaoh’s chariots’ and ‘in the Yam Suf’ are each counted as a single unit. This is perhaps a little difficult in the former case: in consequence it has been suggested that either the text combined two alternative formulations at the beginning of the line (‘Pharaoh’s chariots’ and ‘Pharaoh and his army’) or ‘and his army’ is an addition from the prose account (or from Ps. 136.15).73 Only here and in 13.18 and 15.22 in the surrounding prose narrative is the location of the ‘sea event’ identified as the Yam Suf in Exodus (in 10.19 and 23.31 Yam Suf is mentioned without any connection to this episode). In 13.18 and 15.22 journeys to and from the Yam Suf are being described and the sequence of the prose narrative certainly implies that the ‘sea event’ took place there. But 15.4 is the only verse in Exodus that explicitly states this, so it is appropriate that our most detailed consideration of Yam Suf as the location of the ‘sea event’ should appear here. (cf. BHS, with LXX and Sy) or at least be related to it. Ps. 68 certainly contains much old material, even if its present form is late (cf. Kraus, Psalmen, pp. 631-32). 71   Outside the realm of cultic and theological usage the same type of formula (proper name + ‘(is/was) his name’ often serves to identify a person who is being introduced into a narrative (see TWAT 8, 129-31 = TDOT 15, pp. 134-37, where other uses are also noted). 72   The word for ‘chariots’ (markebôt) is the one used in 14.25, not the word rekeb, which recurs several times in both accounts in ch. 14 (e.g. vv. 6-7 [non-P]; vv. 17-18 [P]). 73   So respectively Cross and Freedman, Studies, p. 56 (citing W.F. Albright); and (e.g.) Gertz, Tradition, p. 192 n. 14.



15.1-21

349

At the end of the Excursus that follows the Explanatory Note on 14.1-4 we stated that the most likely location for the place-names in 14.2 (P) was near el-Qantara, near the northern end of Lake Ballah, but that the non-Priestly portion of the prose narrative, including the mention of the Yam Suf in 13.18, more probably envisaged the latter as being to the east of Wadi Tumilat, that is at either Lake Timsah or (one of) the Bitter Lakes. The main reason for this was the mention of Sukkoth in the itinerary-notes in 12.37 and 13.20, since it appears to correspond to Egyptian Ṯkw in the eastern part of Wadi Tumilat. What needs closer examination now is whether the term Yam Suf itself and its likely Egyptian equivalent fit best with such a location or with a different one.74 If the evidence of the Old Testament is taken by itself, it is hard to escape the conclusion that Yam Suf stands for the Gulf of Aqaba (which is too far away to be part of the Exodus narrative) and the Gulf of Suez (which the contexts in 10.19 and 13.18 would seem to support).75 The latter alternative could be more easily combined with the mention of Succoth in Exod. 13.20 if, at the time when the non-Priestly narrative was written, the Gulf of Suez extended further northwards, to the region of the Bitter Lakes, than it does now.76 But since the work of H. Brugsch, L’Exode et les monuments égyptiens (Leipzig, 1875) it has become increasingly common to base conclusions about the location of Yam Suf on an equation of ‘Suf’ with Egyptian ṯwf(y), ‘papyrus’, a fresh-water plant that points to an inland stretch of water being meant. For a long time this equation was recognised to be generic and was cited in support of a   This way of formulating the issue presumes that Yam Suf is everywhere a real toponym and not, for example here in Exod. 15.4, a term derived from myth, as N.H. Snaith suggested (‘‫ים סוף‬: the Sea of Reeds: the Red Sea’, VT 15 [1965], pp. 395-98): for others who have supported such a view see H. LambertyZielinski, Das “Schilfmeer” (BBB 78: Frankfurt, 1993), pp. 17-19. 75   At one time Noth took the view that the Gulf of Aqaba was meant here (as did some others: see my Way of the Wilderness, p. 71 with n. 45), but he later recognised that this was improbable because of the distance from Egypt (p. 85, ET, p. 108). The idea has occasionally been revived (e.g. C.J. Humphreys, The Miracles of Exodus [London, 2003], pp. 172-260; M.D. Oblath, The Exodus Itinerary Sites [StBL 55; New York, 2004], pp. 98-106), but without good reason. 76   See more fully my Way of the Wilderness, pp. 70-74. The ‘northerly extension’ hypothesis has recently attracted renewed support: see Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, pp. 207-10; Van Seters, ‘Geography’, pp. 272-73, who is right to point out (n. 50) that the idea goes back to E. Naville. 74

350

EXODUS 1–18

number of different locations for Yam Suf, although A.E. Gardiner and H. Cazelles deduced that pa-ṯwf, ‘the papyrus region’, was a specific area in the eastern Nile Delta (Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica [Oxford, 1947] 2, pp. 201-202; Cazelles, Autour de l’Exode, pp. 208-209), implying that Yam Suf was either the eastern part of what is now Lake Menzaleh (Gardiner) or ‘a kind of bay of the Mediterranean to the east of Tanis’ (Cazelles, with reference to Isa. 11.14-15: he does not mean Lake Sirbonis): there is not much difference between the two.77 This latter approach was taken up again by M. Bietak in 1975 in the context of his excavations at Tell el-Dabʿa (Tell el-Dabʿa II. Der Fundort im Rahmen einer archäologisch-geographischen Untersuchung über das ägyptische Ostdelta [Vienna, 1975], pp. 135-37 [p. 137: ‘mit grosser Vorsicht’], 217-21 [with map]; see also the map in his Avaris: The Capital of the Hyksos [London, 1996], fig. 1; and recently ‘Der Aufenthalt “Israels” in Ägypten und der Zeitpunkt der “Landnahme” aus heutiger archäologischer Sicht’, ÄuL 10 [2000], pp. 179-86, esp. 186). Bietak concluded that the Shi-Hor and Yam Suf (twf) must be, respectively, the salt lakes north and south of the Qantara isthmus, the latter being the former lake(s) of El-Ballaḥ. This view has been adopted by P. Weimar, H. Donner (with qualifications) and, in a fresh examination of the issues (2005), J.K. Hoffmeier.78 Hoffmeier now acknowledges that the Egyptian name for the lakes in the southern part of the isthmus of Suez was not pa-twf(y) but km wr. While some of the Egyptian references to pa-twf(y) are indeed imprecise geographically (a point underlined by J.R. Huddleston in ABD 5, pp. 633-42), its occurrence in town-lists (Onomastica) indicates a specific location and apparently one close to Tjaru/Sile. Hoffmeier also points out (pp. 88-89) that the modern name Tell Abu Sefeh (at the north end of Lake Ballaḥ) could preserve the consonants of ancient pa-twf(y). If this interpretation of Yam Suf on the basis of

77   Cf. Albright’s view that Yam Suf was near el-Qantara: ‘Exploring in Sinai with the University of California African Expedition’, BASOR 109 (1948), pp. 5-20 (15-16). Van Seters (art. cit., p. 273) takes Isa. 11.15 to refer to ‘a narrow gulf of the Red Sea’. 78   P. Weimar, Die Meerwundererzählung (ÄUAT 9; Wiesbaden, 1985), pp. 258-68; H. Donner, Geschichte des Volkes Israel und seiner Nachbarn in Grund­ zügen 1 (Göttingen, 2nd ed., 1995), pp. 109-110; Hoffmeier, Sinai, pp. 75-89. In Hoffmeier’s earlier studies he had favoured Lake Timsah.



15.1-21

351

the Egyptological evidence is followed, the Song of Moses placed the sea-crossing at Lake Ballaḥ. Bietak and his followers hold that it was somewhere near its northern extremity, but this depends on their evaluation of the toponyms in Exod. 14.2, 9 and that, while plausible, is not the only possibility (see the Explanatory Note on 14.1-4). Lake Ballaḥ extended some 25 km from north to south and its southern tip was only about 10 km from the eastern end of Wadi Tumilat, where Succoth (13.20) seems to have been located. If it was in the southern part of Lake Ballaḥ that the ‘Yam Suf’ tradition located the sea-crossing, this would not be difficult to reconcile with a ‘southern’ location for the toponyms in Exod. 14.2, 9 and the association of Yam Suf with Succoth in Exod. 13.18-20. However, 13.18, 13.20 and 14.2, 9 probably belong to three different components of the Exodus narrative and it remains possible that they reflect two or even three different views about the location of the event (see the introductions to 13.17-22 and 14.1-31). In that case our argument above might only show how their combination in the final text of Exodus could have seemed intelligible to the redactor(s) involved. A residual problem for the equation of Yam Suf with Lake Ballaḥ is that it is then not easy to see the rationale for its well attested use to refer to the northern gulfs of the Red Sea: the ‘northern extension’ hypothesis can scarcely be stretched to include a lake so far to the north. 5. The two parts of the verse exhibit parallelism of sense, without verbatim correspondence, and are closely connected to v. 4 by the pronouns ‘them’ and ‘they’. Metrically the second half is longer than the first (2 + 4 or 2 + 3, depending on whether ‘like’ [kemô] is treated as a separate unit [in v. 8b it is probably not]): Cross and Freedman (Studies, p. 58) thought that a word had been lost after ‘covered them’. Another possibility is that ‘like a stone’, which is not essential, was secondarily added from v. 16 (though the shorter form of ‘like’ is used there and the sense is different). But no change is needed: longer cola sometimes appear (cf. v. 15b). ‘The deep waters’ (Heb. tehōmōt) are here those of the sea, in the plural (like ‘the depths’) to indicate their expanse and power. There need be no connection with the subterranean waters (Gen. 49.25) or the primeval waters (Gen. 1.2), for which tehôm is also used. The description of the Egyptians’ fate in the poem, as in the prose narrative, is comparable to ancient portrayals of other similar catastrophes (for which see the Explanatory Note on 14.26-29).

352

EXODUS 1–18

6. A new, hymnic section begins here, introduced (as in v. 11) by verbal repetition: ‘Your right hand, Yahweh… Your right hand, Yahweh…’ Such repetition is more frequent in early Hebrew poetry and has been described as ‘staircase parallelism’: it is a feature which this poem shares with Ugaritic poetry (cf. Watson, Poetry, pp. 150-56). The metre is clearly 4 + 4, with each half further broken down into 2 + 2. From here to v. 17 the address is directly to Yahweh, whereas hitherto he has been referred to as ‘he’. His ‘right hand’ (cf. v. 12) is no doubt mentioned because it holds a weapon (compare the famous Baal stela from Ugarit in ANEP, pl. 490), which fits well with the description of Yahweh as a warrior in v. 3 (Propp, p. 519, citing Lohfink). For ‘the enemy’ compare v. 9: similar expressions are a commonplace of battle records, including those of ancient Egypt (e.g. ANET, pp. 235-37, 256). 7. The first half of the verse may be the conclusion of v. 6.79 The initial ‘and’ suggests a connection (though Cross and Freedman regarded it as secondary because it is uncharacteristic of early poetry),80 ‘you cast down your foes’ is a close parallel to ‘(it) shattered the enemy’ in v. 6, and metrically v. 7a could be a third ‘4’ (2 + 2) to go with the two lines of v. 6: then v. 7b and v. 8a (to ‘gathered together’), which are also linked by ‘and’, would make another 4 + 4 line, with the remainder of v. 8 being 3 + 3, most probably. The problem is that this analysis produces an odd line in vv. 7b-8a, because it changes topic in mid-line, where in fact a recapitulation of earlier events seems to begin (see below on v. 8). So the Masoretic verse-division is best retained, with v. 7 as another 4 + 4 line. ‘Your majesty’ (Heb. geʾônkā) picks up ‘has become greatly exalted’ (gāʾōh gāʾāh) in v. 1 (see Note f on the translation). Such language was frequently used of Egyptian kings on their campaigns (cf. ANET, pp. 234-41, 245-48, 253-58). It is also found in Assyrian records, with reference both to the king himself and to the national god Ashur (e.g. ANET, pp. 286-88, 292, 294) and other gods (ANET, pp. 300-301): on the expression melammu see A.L. Oppenheim, 79   See C. Cohen, ‘Studies in Early Israelite Poetry I: An Unrecognized Case of Three-Line Staircase Parallelism in the Song of the Sea’, JANES 7 (1975), pp. 13-17; cf. Propp (p. 505), who includes the whole of v. 7 in the first of his three stanzas. 80   Studies, pp. 59-60.



15.1-21

353

‘The Golden Garments of the Gods’, JNES 8 (1949), pp. 172-93; E. Cassin, La splendeur divine (Paris, 1968). Here there is no human victor and Yahweh’s majesty alone is celebrated.81 In the context of the poem the prefixed verbal forms here and in v. 6 are best understood as preterites (see Notes u and w on the translation), but the fact that such forms can also indicate repeated or future action would have made the generalisation of the statements a possibility (cf. Text and Versions). The imagery of the final stich must compare Yahweh’s ‘wrath’ (ḥrwn) to fire, as its etymology (cf. TWAT 3, 182-83 = TDOT 5, p. 171-72) and associations elsewhere (Num. 11.1; Nah. 1.6; Zeph. 3.8; Lam. 4.11) would suggest. ‘Devour’ (ʾkl) is literally ‘eat’, but is often used of consuming by fire (e.g. Lev. 6.3 [EVV. 6.10]; 10.2; Num. 16.35), and ‘stubble’ is common in imagery associated with fire (Isa. 5.24; 33.11; 47.14; Joel 2.5; Obad. 18; Nah. 1.10; Mal. 3.19). Here no actual fire is implied – as is clear elsewhere in the poem Yahweh’s weapon is water – and the expression is simply a vivid way of describing total destruction. 8. The three parts of this verse are all parallel, repeating the same sense in different ways. In each part the subject is a word for the ‘sea’: ‘waters’, ‘flowing waters’, ‘deep waters’. The first part is certainly a ‘4’, possibly 2 + 2, and the second and third could be 4 + 4, but also 3 + 3, if ‘like’ and ‘in the midst’ are not counted as separate components (as MT’s maqqephs imply). Cross and Freedman (Studies, p. 51) favoured the latter alternative. The ‘and’ with which the verse begins (though Cross and Freedman again thought it was not original, as in v. 7) is important for its interpretation, for it seems to associate what it describes with the destruction of the Egyptians (but see below). ‘The breath of [Yahweh’s] nostrils’ is an exceptionally striking anthropomorphic expression for the divine intervention and all the main textual witnesses except MT and the Peshiṭta avoid it by paraphrasing (see Text and Versions). But it must, like the slightly less bold expression in v. 10, be intended to identify Yahweh very closely with the effects of a strong wind on the sea (more so than in 14.21). A very similar feature can be seen in Psalm 29, where ‘the voice of Yahweh’ is identified with thunder: an exact correspondence to this appears in the Ugaritic myth of ‘The Palace 81   Even in the royal psalms such expressions are rare, but Ps. 21.6 provides one example.

354

EXODUS 1–18

of Baal’ (KTU 1.4.7.27-32; CML2, p. 65). In ‘Baal and Mot’ (KTU 1.5.5.7; CML2, p. 72) ‘your [sc. Baal’s] breath/wind’ (rḥk) occurs in a list of meteorological terms and forms a close parallel to the present passage. The effect of the wind is to pile up the waters and seemingly to solidify them (see Note dd on the translation for the sense ‘congealed’: ‘churn’ or ‘foam’, which Cross and Freedman preferred, is not the meaning in Biblical Hebrew). This has been interpreted as a reference to a storm at sea in which the Egyptian forces, using ships to cross the water and (presumably) cut off the escaping Israelites, were drowned (so Cross and Freedman, Studies, p. 47; ‘The Song of Miriam’, pp. 238-39; Cross, Canaanite Myth, pp. 131-32). But there is no support for this view in the language of the poem, which probably refers to something much more like the prose account in Exodus 14.82 In fact v. 8 may not refer to the destruction of the Egyptian forces at all. It is certain that in v. 9 the poet, having spoken of the climax of the episode in the drowning of the Egyptians and Yahweh’s involvement in it (vv. 4-7), steps back to an earlier stage in the sequence of events when the Egyptians resolved to pursue the Israelites and rob them of their possessions (cf. Propp, pp. 520-21). This is then naturally followed in v. 10 (and v. 12) by a brief recapitulation of the disaster itself. It is possible that v. 8 also forms part of the prelude to the catastrophe. Indeed, since it says nothing about the Egyptians and would otherwise place the cause of their downfall in vv. 4-7 after it rather than before it, it is more likely that this is the case.83 The only problem is the ‘and’ at the beginning of the verse, which at first sight implies a close connection with, and even a continuation of, v. 7. It might be a secondary addition, as Cross and Freedman thought, but the only ancient evidence for its omission is the Peshiṭta. It may be better to understand it as an instance of one of the rarer uses of the Hebrew conjunction to express causality (‘For’) or emphasis (‘Indeed’), both of which 82   See the full refutation by L.E. Grabbe, ‘Comparative Philology and Exodus 15,8: Did the Egyptians Die in a Storm?’, SJOT 7 (1993), pp. 263-69, and already in Kloos, Yhwh’s Combat, pp. 136-37. 83   Propp, p. 521, supports this view (which was also advocated by Smend, Erzählung, p. 143, and others before and after him: so apparently Beer, p. 81), but explicitly on the basis of the prose narrative. Cf. Kloos, Yhwh’s Combat, pp. 136-38.



15.1-21

355

are suited to the resumption of an earlier part of a narrative (see more fully Note aa on the translation). A similar transition (this time without an ‘and’) can probably be seen in vv. 13-14.84 Even if the poem does presuppose the same general sequence of events as the prose in ch. 14, the two accounts of the story are not identical. There is nothing here about two walls of water, one on each side of the escaping Israelites, as in 14.22, 29 (from P), only something like a single ‘bore’ (or ‘heap’ or ‘wall’). This is actually much closer than the familiar account to the phenomenon of ‘wind setdown’ which has sometimes been suggested as the scientific explanation for what happened at the Re(e)d Sea.85 84   For such ‘delay’ in recounting earlier parts of a narrative see J. Licht, Storytelling in the Bible (Jerusalem, 1978), pp. 109-13. Earlier M. Weiss, ‘Weiteres über die Bauformen’, had called it ‘flashback’, as in 2 Kgs 9.14-15. 85   Wind set down involves the effect of a powerful offshore wind blowing for a period of hours, which causes the water to recede from the normal shore-line to an unusual degree. A striking example occurring early in 1882 was reported by a British surveyor working near the Suez Canal, who compared it to the Exodus account (A.B. Tulloch, ‘Passage of the Red Sea by the Israelites’, JTVI 28 [1896], pp. 267-80). More recently the possible relevance of the phenomenon to locations in the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba has been explored respectively by D. Nof and N. Paldor (‘Are there Oceanographic Explanations for the Israelites’ Crossing of the Red Sea?’, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 73 [1992], pp. 305-14; ‘Statistics of Wind over the Red Sea with Application to the Exodus Question’, Journal of Applied Meteorology 33 [1994], pp. 1017-25) and C.J. Humphreys (Miracles of Exodus, pp. 248-57), but these are among the least satisfactory possibilities from a geographical point of view. A much more plausible scenario, because unlike the others it involves a wind from the east (cf. Exod. 14.21) blowing in very much the area which is currently most favoured for the location of the biblical toponyms (see above on 14.1-4), is presupposed in the computer simulation of C. Drews and W. Han (‘Dynamics of Wind Setdown at Suez and the Eastern Nile Delta’, Public Library of Science One 5[8]; see also Drews, ‘Could Wind Have Parted the Red Sea?’, Weatherwise [Jan.–Feb. 2011], pp. 30-35). Alternative natural causes such as a tsunami (e.g. B.J. Sivertsen, The Parting of the Sea: How Volcanoes, Earthquakes and Plagues Shaped the Story of the Exodus [Princeton, 2009]; for evaluation see M. Harris, ‘The Thera Theories: Science and the Modern Reception History of the Exodus’, in T.E. Levy et al. [eds.], Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective: Text, Archaeology, Culture and Geoscience [Cham, 2015], pp. 91-99) or storm surge fit the portrayals in the biblical texts less well. The same applies to the various attempts to connect them with phenomena in and around Lake Sirbonis (see the Explanatory Note on 14.26-29). It is of course not to be expected that a cultic hymn and a traditional (and composite) narrative would provide data sufficiently precise to determine the

356

EXODUS 1–18

9. Here there is no doubt that the verse is to be analysed as 4 + 4 + 4, with each ‘4’ comprising two ‘2’s: in the first stich the speechintroduction is separated from the two asyndetic verbal forms which begin the speech, while in the other two initial verbal forms open each hemistich, with a first-person form being followed by a third-person form both times. In these stichs the accompanying noun denotes first the object and then the subject (with a first-person suffix which preserves the focus on the speaker): the parallelism between them is therefore very close. The ‘enemy’ who speaks (or ‘thinks’, as Houtman suggests [pp. 283-84], for Heb. ʾāmar can have this sense even without the addition of ‘in his heart’ [cf. 2.14]) could be Pharaoh (see Text and Versions), but ‘them’ and ‘they’ in v. 10 probably require an antecedent and this favours a collective reference to the Egyptian force as a whole, as for the same word in v. 6 (compare the pl. form in v. 7). It is, significantly, unlike the Canaanite myths about Baal, not the sea, as Albertz observes (p. 250: cf. Childs, p. 251). The repeated ‘them’ in this verse is the first, tangential, reference to the Israelites in the poem; until v. 13 all the emphasis falls on the destruction of the Egyptian army. The citation of their confident boast can be compared to Pss. 35.21; 83.5 (cf. Childs, ibid.). Its content expresses a typically military viewpoint, as in Gen. 49.27 and Prov. 1.12-13, where it is mixed with the imagery of a predatory animal (Propp, pp. 524-25): perhaps this is also implied in ‘my appetite shall be sated’. Houtman (p. 244) cites this verse as evidence that an Israelite sea-crossing is assumed by the poet, but on its own it need not imply this. Following v. 8, however, and if the latter is understood (see the note above) as describing a wind-driven withdrawal of the sea prior to the Egyptian pursuit in v. 9, the latter would certainly point to an Egyptian pursuit across the dried-up sea-bed and, most obviously, to a previous flight of the Israelites in the same direction. 10. The human enemy changes from being the subject to the object (‘them’) of the leading verb, and from proud boast to a humiliating disappearance from the scene, as the divine subject who dominates the poem reasserts his power. The metre is again 4 + 4, with sub-division of each stich into 2 + 2 that has a clausal basis scientific character of what (if anything) they portray, and it is understandable that many historians regard such speculation as of little value (e.g. de Vaux, Histoire, pp. 358-64 [359], ET 1, pp. 381-88 [382]; Hoffmeier, Israel in Sinai, pp. 108-109).



15.1-21

357

in the first but not the second stich, the latter being an expanded parallel to the second hemistich of the first.86 The Egyptians’ catastrophe is, like the piling up of the waters in v. 8, attributed to the divine breath/wind. Here their descent to the depths is intensified, compared with v. 5, by the comparison to the heavier material of lead. The ‘mighty waters’ (Heb. mayim ʾaddîrîm: for the sense ‘mighty’ see Note t) recall the mythological language of Ps. 93.4, where ʾaddîr describes ‘the waves of the sea’ (or, if a popular emendation is adopted [cf. BHS], Yahweh’s superiority to them), and the more frequent mayim rabbîm, ‘many/mighty waters’ (ibid.; cf. Pss. 18.17; 29.3 etc.).87 But even if this lies in the background, it is not the central focus here: the (physical) sea is Yahweh’s instrument of judgement, not his enemy. At most one might envisage that Yahweh’s use of the sea presupposes an earlier, primeval, defeat of the god Sea as implied in Psalm 93. 11. The metre of this reflective interlude (cf. v. 3), which does not advance the description of Yahweh’s specific act of deliverance, is 4 + 4 + 4, with clear subdivisions into 2 + 2 in the second and third stichs: the first by contrast forms a single unit, though the repetition of the first two Heb. words, ‘Who is like you…?’, encourages the idea that here too they could be viewed as a sub-unit. The repetition is similar to vv. 6 and 16, but unlike them does not constitute an example of ‘staircase parallelism’ in the strict sense, because the first stich is complete in itself. The poet apparently felt free to vary his use of this traditional stylistic feature. The incomparability of a god was a regular theme of the repertoire of praise in the Old Testament and more widely in the ancient Near East: already Gunkel listed parallels in 1 Sam. 2.2; Jer. 10.6-7; Pss. 18.32; 35.10; 71.19; 77.14; 86.8; 89.7, 9; 113.6; 135.5 as well as in Babylonian literature (Einleitung, pp. 72-73). Some Egyptian examples are added in the much fuller study of C.J. Labuschagne, The Incomparability of Yahweh in the OT (Pretoria Oriental Series 5; Leiden, 1966). The rhetorical question implies a negative: there is no other god like Yahweh. In this verse, as in some of the other biblical examples (1 Sam. 2.2; Pss. 77.14; 86.8; 89.7, 9; 113.6; 135.5) and also in   There is no need to think of ‘a number of variant narratives’ being ‘combined together’ here or in v. 5 (Noth, p. 99, ET, p. 124). 87   On which see recently A.R. Gray, Psalm 18 in Words and Pictures (BibInt 127; Leiden, 2014), pp. 106-108. 86

358

EXODUS 1–18

Babylonia and Egypt, such a statement could be made where the existence of other gods was still recognised; elsewhere, presumably in later texts (so especially in Deutero-Isaiah), it became an expression of monotheistic belief.88 The focus is first on Yahweh’s power: ‘mighty’ is Heb. neʾdār as in v. 6 (and ʾaddîrîm in v. 10 is related to it). The exact sense of ‘in holiness’ (Heb. baqqōdeš) is not certain. The combination with ‘mighty’ makes a reference to divine holiness in the sense usually understood unlikely, although the word is used in that way in v. 13 (here tr. ‘holy’: see Note vv). Some other possibilities are noted by Propp (pp. 527-28) and Labuschagne (pp. 97-98), the latter including an unexpected association with victory in war (as in Ps. 77.14). ‘Holiness’ is certainly sometimes used concretely to mean a ‘holy place’ or ‘shrine’ (see Note mm on the translation), and there are Ugaritic parallels for this (KTU 1.3.3.30 and par.: for several more see DULAT, p. 697). But this is hardly appropriate here, where Yahweh’s power is not shown in a shrine or sanctuary. The Septuagint renders ‘among holy ones’, either interpreting the sing. qōdeš so or on the basis of a Heb. text that read the pl. of the related adjective qedôšîm (as MT has in Ps. 89.6, 8). With ‘holy ones’ understood as divine or semi-divine beings this reading would make a good parallel to ‘gods’ earlier in the verse and it has been adopted by some scholars (see Text and Versions). But it is too easy a way out of the difficulty. Since, as just noted, the adjective ‘holy’ was sometimes used as the equivalent to ‘god, divine being’ (compare also 1 Sam. 2.2; Zech. 14.5; Job 5.1; 15.15 and the phrase ‘the Holy One of Israel’ in Isa. 1.4 etc.), the corresponding abstract noun could perhaps have had the sense ‘divinity, divine power’, which would fit the context well here (so in effect BDB, p. 871, which finds the same sense in Pss. 68.18; 77.14 and in the expression ‘holy arm’ in Isa. 52.10; Ps. 98.1).89

88   As Blum observes (Studien, p. 159), the pre-eminence of Yahweh appears again in direct association with the Exodus in Jethro’s words in 18.10-12: see further the notes there. 89   Alternatively one might, with Russell, Song, pp. 16, 155 n. 42, suppose that qōdeš is itself collective in meaning here, as has been suggested for some other occurrences (Deut. 33.2; Ps. 77.14).



15.1-21

359

The list of Yahweh’s attributes which make him incomparable continues with his ‘fearsomeness’, which is due to his ‘praiseworthy acts’ (see Note nn on the translation). Such fearsomeness is a theme of other hymnic passages (Pss. 89.8; 96.4). Here it is especially other nations who fear Yahweh, as vv. 14-16 will illustrate, but 14.31 has related this as the reaction of his own people too. The final descriptive phrase, ‘doing wonders’, also evokes a human response to Yahweh’s acts of power: the identical phrase occurs in Ps. 77.15 (cf. v. 12; 78.12; 86.10), again with reference to the deliverance at the sea. Here at least it is Yahweh’s actions in history, and specifically the Exodus story, which make him unique among divine beings (see further Labuschagne, ibid., pp. 91-108). 12. Taken alone this verse would comprise a single ‘4’, divided by its two verbal clauses into 2 + 2. It is therefore tempting to see it as either the conclusion of the larger unit in v. 11 (cf. BHS), restating the event which exemplifies the incomparability of Yahweh, or the opening of v. 13 (cf. Freedman), with which it shares verbal forms with a past reference. Yet in the former case the shift from question to narrative is abrupt, while in the latter the join would cross the boundary between the two parts of the poem’s narrative, which treat respectively the event at the sea (vv. 4-12) and the onward journey to the mountain of Yahweh (vv. 13-17). In fact isolated ‘4’ lines (or 2 + 2) do occur elsewhere in the poem in vv. 3 and 18, each of which concludes a distinct component of it, and v. 12 plausibly serves a similar function.90 In the prose narrative it is Moses who stretches out his hand or his staff to bring about divine intervention (cf. 14.16, 21, 26-27), but in the non-Priestly story of the plagues there are traces of Yahweh doing the same (3.20; 6.1; 7.17; 9.15) and his ‘outstretched arm’ became a formulaic motif of Deuteronomic and Priestly language about the Exodus (cf. 6.6 and the Note there). It is a familiar expression for divine judgement (Isa. 5.25; 23.11), which may be the sense here, but in Isa. 49.22 Yahweh raises his hand as a signal and this would also fit the context: the earth is commanded to take the drowned Egyptians to their final destiny.

  The comparison between vv. 12 and 18 in this regard was made by Smith, Pilgrimage Pattern, pp. 211-12. 90

360

EXODUS 1–18

The expression ‘the earth swallowed them up’ is at first sight anomalous in a context where death comes by drowning. The language is paralleled only in the story of Dathan and Abiram (Num. 16.25-34), to which Houtman sees a reference here (p. 286).91 But this is impossible, as that episode concerned Israelites, not Egyptians. Some commentators have thought that the sea-bed specifically is meant, but most likely a more general reference to the earth as ‘the realm of the dead’ is intended (Noth, p. 99, ET, p. 125), as in the passages cited in Note qq on the translation. This is not quite to adopt the view that Heb. ʾereṣ could mean the underworld (Sheol), as its Ugaritic cognate sometimes did (see the Note). But it is close to it, and the expression ‘swallowed’ is certainly reminiscent of passages that describe Sheol as devouring men (Isa. 5.14; Prov. 1.12; Job 18.13), just as Mot the god of Death does in Ugaritic mythology (KTU 1.5.1.4-8; 1.6.2.17-23 = CML2, pp. 68, 76-77). 13. Metrically this verse is a straightforward 4 + 4 (since both ‘for whom’ [Heb. zû] and ‘to’ [Heb. ʾel] undoubtedly belong with the adjacent words) but, while further subdivision of each ‘4’ into 2 + 2 (cf. BHS) is possible, it is not supported by the clause structure. The two halves of the verse display an overlapping parallelism (ab: ac). It begins a new section of the poem (vv. 13-17[18]), in which the topic is no longer Yahweh’s intervention at the sea and the fate of the Egyptians (though these are probably alluded to in vv. 14 and 16), but the Israelites themselves (‘the people’ here and in v. 16) and their onward journey to the mountain of God. The scope of this verse and its relationship to vv. 14-17 are much debated and depend on whether Yahweh’s ‘holy dwelling’ is the same as the dwelling-place and ‘sanctuary’ in v. 17. If it is, then v. 13 speaks of the whole journey from Egypt to Canaan as a summary of what is to come; if it is not, then v. 13 refers only to a first stage on the journey. We will defer discussion of this issue until the end of the treatment of this verse. It is in any case full of theological terminology, which is concerned no longer with Yahweh’s power and control of the elements of nature but with aspects of his relationship to his people. Two different verbs are used to describe his ‘leading’ of them on their journey: the first (Heb. nāḥāh) has already appeared in 13.17, 21 (see Notes a and o on the translation of 13.17-22), 91   Berner on this basis sees the verse as a secondary and late addition to the poem (pp. 396-97).



15.1-21

361

while the second (Heb. nāhal Piel: see Note uu on the translation of this passage) has often been thought to have the specific sense of ‘give rest’ or ‘bring to a watering-place’, like its Arabic cognates. This is probably to read too much into the meaning of the verb (so also Propp, p. 532). But both verbs have a strong association with shepherds leading their flocks (cf. Isa. 40.11; 49.10; Pss. 23.2-3; 77.21; 78.52-53, 72), caring for them and providing their needs. As attributes of Yahweh in this connection the poet mentions first not his ‘strength’ (for which cf. v. 2 and, with a different Heb. word, v. 6) but his ‘loyalty’ (Heb. ḥesed: see Note rr on the translation) or ‘steadfast love’, as later in 20.6 and 34.6-7. This was a precious quality in human communities and summed up Yahweh’s ongoing care for his people. The expression ‘for whom you intervened’ (Heb. gāʾal, ‘often translated ‘redeem’: see Note tt on the translation) comes from the realm of family law (as best illustrated in Ruth 3 and 4), where it denotes the intervention of a ‘kinsman’ to help someone in the family who has fallen on hard times, usually by the (re-)purchase of property or a debt-slave. In the reference to the Exodus deliverance here (and in 6.6) no purchase is involved, and the verb presupposes, rather than expressing, the creation of a relationship between Yahweh and Israel, just like Yahweh’s reference to Israel as ‘my people’ already in 3.7, 10 before the Exodus has taken place (see also the Note below on ‘had taken possession’ in v. 16).92 The final phrase of the verse, ‘to your holy dwelling’, is the most controversial (see Note vv on the translation). ‘Dwelling’ (Heb. newēh, from nāweh) probably originally had the sense ‘pasture land’, like its Akkadian cognate, and this meaning is occasionally found in BH (e.g. 2 Sam. 7.8). But it generally refers to a dwelling-place of human beings or, by a metaphorical transfer that is found with other words such as ‘house’, a place where a god has his earthly ‘home’ (2 Sam. 15.25; Isa. 33.20). According to Cross ‘It is a specific designation of a tent-shrine’ (Canaanite Myth, p. 125), but he gives no evidence for this claim (one might think of Isa. 33.20 where ‘tent’ occurs alongside nāweh, but both are used metaphorically for the 92   Schmidt (Exodus, Sinai und Mose, p. 66 n. 94) and others have seen the use of the expression here as a sign of dependence of the poem on P (6.6). But the theological use of gāʾal is now well attested in pre-exilic inscriptions, esp. in the PN gʾlyhw, Gealiah, as well as in some probably older biblical passages, as Albertz (p. 251) recognises.

362

EXODUS 1–18

‘city’ of Jerusalem) and it contradicts the widespread use of nāweh for town dwellings. The location of this ‘holy dwelling’ of Yahweh has been variously identified (see the reviews in Houtman, p. 288, and Propp, pp. 532-33, 568-69). Among the suggestions that have been made are Sinai/Horeb (Cassuto, Hyatt), Kadesh-Barnea, Mount Casios (Zaphon) by Lake Sirbonis (Norin, Er Spaltete das Meer, p. 90), Shittim (Cross, Canaanite Myth, p. 141), the whole land of Canaan (Noth, p. 99, ET, p. 125; Albertz, p. 251), Shiloh (Smith, Pilgrimage Pattern, pp. 223-26, cf. p. 220, acknowledging the prior contribution of J. Goldin, The Song at the Sea, pp. 51-55) and Jerusalem (an ancient view [see Text and Versions]: recently Childs, p. 252; Houtman, p. 288; and Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, pp. 159-60). Shittim can scarcely be meant, as it is not known to have been a Yahwistic holy place (Num. 25.1-5 suggests something very different),93 and while nāweh might indeed refer to the whole land of Canaan (cf. Jer. 10.25; Ps. 79.7), its description as a ‘holy dwelling’ is hard to parallel. The strongest contenders are Sinai, Shiloh and Jerusalem. Against an identification with Sinai it might be said that (unless v. 17 refers to it too, which we shall argue below to be unlikely) this would be an uncharacteristically slight allusion to an episode of such importance (though its content would match 3.12 in the prose narrative, and indeed ch. 18). More telling, perhaps, is an argument from the structure of the poem: just as vv. 1-12 begin in v. 1b (or 1b-3) with a summary of what is to come, so v. 13 should summarise vv. 13-17(18) and therefore refer to the final destination of the journey in Canaan. A choice between Shiloh and Jerusalem as the specific location will depend on how v. 17 is understood and may be deferred until after the consideration of that verse. 14-16. These verses portray, with a rich vocabulary of terror, the reactions of neighbouring ‘peoples’ (the plural form of the same Heb. word ʿām as is used for Israel in vv. 13 and 17) to Yahweh’s powerful onslaught on the Egyptians (cf. ‘the greatness of your arm’ at the end of v. 16).94 The metre is mixed, with lines (and even one   It also depends on Cross’s unlikely view that Gilgal is referred to in v. 17 (see the Note there). 94   The theme is taken up in Deut. 2.25 and Josh. 2.9, 14. There is a close similarity to the reaction of Baal’s (apparently human) foes to his ‘voice’ in KTU 1.4.7.29-41, which may have been the model for this part of the poem (cf. Cassuto, pp. 179, 181, who reconstructed an Israelite myth [‘epic poem’] that might have 93



15.1-21

363

half-line) of three stresses alternating with the dominant 4 + 4 (+ 4) rhythm of the poem. Verse 14 is probably 3 + 3, with ‘inhabitants of’ going with ‘Philistia’, while 15 is 4 + 4 followed by a half-line which on the same principle is best analysed as a ‘3’, though it might be an undivided ‘4’ (see Propp, p. 535, on the metrical issues raised by this half-line). Verse 16 begins with a 4 + 4, with weak inner clause divisions in each half, followed by another repetitive line exhibiting ‘staircase parallelism’ (though in a weaker sense than v. 6). The latter could be a 4 + 4 (with ‘of whom’ taken with the next or preceding word, like ‘for whom’ in v. 13: in both cases the Heb. is the short particle zû), but this depends on taking ‘until’ (Heb. ʿad) as a separate unit, against the maqqephs of MT, and it may be another 3 + 3. If it is, vv. 14-16 would have a chiastic metrical pattern, perhaps an appropriate way of marking them off from the surrounding poetic narrative (see below) in which Yahweh (in the second person) is the subject. The translation of the verbs in the main clauses of these verses (as also of v. 17) is a problem of their interpretation which also affects wider issues such as the date and original setting of the poem (see on a particular stage in the history of interpretation my essay ‘Some Points of Interest’, pp. 252-55, and on the linguistic background to the problem Note bbb on the translation). The main verbs in this section alternate between forms which normally have a past meaning (the ‘perfect’ or suffix-conjugation) and those which most often have a future meaning (the ‘imperfect’ or prefix-conjugation): in vv. 16-17 the main verbs are all of the latter form. But the situation is complicated by the fact that the ‘perfect’ can also be used of the future (the ‘prophetic perfect’), while the imperfect can have a preterite sense (as was known in antiquity and understood by Hebrew scholars in the late Middle Ages: the comparative evidence for this has been significantly increased by the discovery of the Ugaritic texts). The ancient translators of these verses rendered vv. 14-15 in the past, no doubt because perfects predominate in them (and occur in both halves of the preceding v. 13), but then translated v. 16 as a prayer or wish (another possible use of the imperfect, or more precisely served as an intermediate stage in the transmission of the motif). Further ancient Near Eastern parallels are cited by N. Waldman, ‘A Comparative Note on Exodus 15: 14-16’, JQR 66 (1976), pp. 189-92: cf. Russell, The Song of the Sea, pp. 78-79.

364

EXODUS 1–18

the jussive). Early versions of the sixteenth century followed this (rather inconsistent) pattern, but from the Geneva Bible (1560) onwards a future translation was adopted for all three verses (as can be seen in the AV). Apart from linguistic considerations this may have seemed more appropriate to the place of the poem in the biblical narrative. In the Revised Version (1885) the future interpretation was abandoned and replaced by a mixture of past tenses (for the perfect forms) and presents (for the imperfects): this odd combination probably reflects the influence of S.R. Driver, whose study Hebrew Tenses had appeared in 1875 and who was a member of the translation panel, and it remained dominant in the new versions of the 1950s and 1960s (RSV, NJPS, JB). But S.R. Driver’s account of the Hebrew tenses was already being superseded by that of his son G.R. Driver, who could make use of the comparative data from Akkadian and Ugaritic, and this provided the basis for a much more widespread recognition of the preterite use of the imperfect (see his Problems of the Hebrew Verbal System, pp. 132-44).95 In the NEB (for which the younger Driver was the Chairman of the Old Testament translation panel) past tenses were used throughout vv. 14-16 and the German Einheits-Übersetzung of 1980, the NRSV and the REB followed suit. Only the two conservative evangelical translations of recent years have demurred: the NIV goes right back to the future tenses of the Geneva Bible, while the ESV reverts to the ‘mixed bag’ of the RV and the mid twentieth-century versions. Modern study of the Hebrew verbal system continues to recognise a variety of uses for both the perfect and the imperfect ‘tenses’, so that in theory any of the translation patterns proposed for Exod. 15.14-16 could be correct. But the rediscovery of the preterite use of the imperfect has shifted the balance of the argument considerably: no longer need there be any hesitation, from a linguistic point of view at least, about translating imperfect forms in this way if that is what the context implies – there may still be (and arguably is in the recent evangelical translations) a hesitation based on a reluctance to contemplate a rendering in the past tense (even more for v. 17, on which see below) which threatens the early date

95   As Driver readily acknowledged, he was only building on earlier studies by other scholars, especially H. Bauer and G. Bergsträsser (cf. pp. v-vi, 9-20).



15.1-21

365

or the Mosaic authorship of (this part of) the poem.96 The context in the poem sets the time reference firmly in the past, both by the predominance of the perfect tense in v. 14 and by its exclusive use in v. 13, which is either a summary of vv. 14-17 or (less likely) an action which precedes it. Although v. 16 uses only the imperfect, it cannot be separated in its time-reference from vv. 14-15, because it is linked to them by the pronouns ‘them’ and ‘they’, as well as by the continuing theme of fear at the mighty power of Yahweh. The verses are therefore most likely to describe reactions to Yahweh’s action which are anterior to the poet’s situation (or ‘implied situation’, the position in which he places himself to compose the poem). The scope of those reactions is first general (v. 14a), then specific to particular peoples, although the reactions are the same in each case (vv. 14b-15), and then general again (v. 16). The Philistines are mentioned first (v. 14b), perhaps because their territory lay closest to Egypt. But the mention of them raises a historical problem, since their arrival in southern Canaan occurred after the most likely time for the events, whatever they were, that lay behind the Exodus story (see the Note on 13.17-18). Other biblical passages place the Philistines in Canaan before the arrival (or emergence) of the Israelites (Gen. 26.1-33 [cf. 20.1-18]; Josh. 13.1-3; Judg. 3.1-4), but traditions about conflict between them and the Israelites begin to appear only in the period of the Judges and the early monarchy (Judg. 3.31; 10.6-7, 11; 13-16; 1 Sam. 4ff.). By contrast Moab, Edom and Canaan all occur in Egyptian texts of the thirteenth cent. B.C. (for references see e.g. POTT, pp. 32, 231). It is notable that no kings of Moab or Edom are mentioned here, in contrast to other texts (Gen. 36; Num. 20.14; 21.26; 22.4, 10; 23.7) but in agreement with Deut. 2.1-19. The words ‘chiefs’ and ‘rulers’ in v. 15 (see Notes yy and zz on the translation) point to a polity of tribal or local leaders which probably preceded the establishment of a unified monarchy in Edom and Moab (cf. Bartlett, Edom, pp. 81-82 [which needs to be supplemented in the light of the discoveries at Kh. en-Naḥas, on which see T.E. Levy et al., ‘Lowland Edom and the High and Low Chronologies: Edomite State Formation, the Bible and Recent   It is noteworthy, to say no more, that in vv. 1-12, where there is the same mix of perfect and imperfect forms as in vv. 14-16, the NIV and the ESV have no such hesitation in translating imperfects by past tense English verbs. 96

366

EXODUS 1–18

Archaeological Research in Southern Jordan’, in T.E. Levy and T. Higham (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science (London, 2005), pp. 129-63]; J.M. Miller, ‘Moab’, ABD 4, pp. 882-83 [889-90]; O. LaBianca and R.W. Younker, ‘The Kingdoms of Ammon, Moab and Edom: The Archaeology of Society in Late Bronze/Iron Age Transjordan (ca. 1400–500 BCE)’, in T.E. Levy [ed.], The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land [New York, 1995], pp. 399-415). In the case of Philistia and Canaan it is ‘the inhabitants’ who are afraid. The switch between leaders and led is probably just for variation. Cross and Freedman (‘The Song of Miriam’, pp. 242, 249 n. 49; cf. Canaanite Myth, p. 130) followed Albright in rendering Heb. yōšebê by ‘the enthroned’ the second time (in Pottery, pp. 142-43, Freedman extended this to the first occurrence) to improve the parallelism, but this is unnecessary and not supported by Amos 1.5, 8. The sense and reference of ‘pass on’ (Heb. yaʿabōr) in v. 16 have been variously understood (see Propp’s review, pp. 537-38). The Heb. verb ʿābar can mean ‘to cross’, ‘to pass by’, ‘to go through’ or simply ‘to pass on’ (cf. BDB, p. 716). Propp takes its primary reference to be to the crossing of the sea by the Israelites (p. 537), but this scarcely fits the reference to the fear of the nations of Palestine, since that only began after the crossing of the sea and so the latter cannot be introduced by ‘until’ as if it was still to happen (the verbal parallel in Josh. 4.23, cited by Propp, is in a different context). Cross thinks that the crossing of the Jordan is meant (Canaanite Myth, p. 141; cf. Studies, p. 53), but again it is difficult to see why this should limit the nations’ fear (especially the Canaanites!). The verb is used several times elsewhere of the Israelites ‘passing through’ (or desiring to do so) the territory of other peoples on their journey (e.g. Num. 20.17-21; Deut. 2.4, 8) and this provides the most natural explanation. What is most striking then is that no account is taken (even in Canaan) of the battles that the books of Numbers and Joshua say that the Israelites had to fight along their way: their journey is remembered as the unimpeded progress of Yahweh’s people to the ‘sanctuary’ (v. 17) that was their destination.97 17. The metre of this verse reverts to the dominant 4 + 4 (+ 4) of the poem. Three parallel expressions, one in each of the three stichs, 97   For ‘had taken possession of’ as the sense of Heb. qānāh see Note ggg on the translation.



15.1-21

367

designate the destination of the journey as a place that belongs to Yahweh and has been ‘made’ and ‘established’ by him. It is possible to take ‘a fixed place’ and ‘a sanctuary’ as in apposition to ‘the hill(s) which you own’ and presume the ellipse of a relative particle (as is common in Hebrew poetry) before the verbs that follow: ‘a fixed place for you to dwell, which you made; a sanctuary, O Lord, which your hands established’ (cf. NRSV). The sense is little different, but the latter rendering makes the identity of reference of the three expressions more explicit. To ‘plant’ a people (the pronoun ‘them’ clearly refers back to Yahweh’s people Israel in v. 16) is a metaphor for giving them a settled place to live (so with explicit comparison to a vine in Jer. 2.21; Ps. 80.9, 15-16; elaborated in the ‘Song of the Vineyard’ in Isa. 5.1-7). This is preceded by Yahweh’s ‘bringing them’ (or ‘bringing them in’, as Heb. bôʾ often implies) to their future home. This place is first designated as the ‘hill’ (or ‘hills’: see Note iii on the translation) which Yahweh owns. ‘Hills’ might well seem the more appropriate translation, as the highlands of central Canaan were the heartland and original limit of the territory in which the Israelites were settled (so Noth, p. 100, ET, pp. 125-26; and for this phrase Albertz, p. 252). But the expression ‘which you own’ points in a different direction. It is literally ‘(the hill[s]) of your possession’ (Heb. naḥalātkā; not ‘of your inheritance’: see Note iii again), and the parallelism in Ps. 79.1 shows this to mean the Jerusalem temple or rather the hill on which it stood. This hill was sometimes known as ‘the hill/mountain of Yahweh’ (Isa. 2.3; 30.29; Mic. 4.2; Zech. 8.3; Ps. 24.3; perhaps Gen. 22.14: in Num. 10.33 it is the title for Mount Sinai), more often (21x) as his ‘holy hill’ (the reference to Jerusalem is especially clear in Isa. 66.20; Joel 2.1; 4.17; Ps. 2.6; Dan. 9.16). The same terminology is used in the Ugaritic texts for Mount Zaphon, the sacred mountain on which Baal had his palace (ǵr nḥlt: see the references in Note iii on the translation). The phrase ‘a fixed place for you to dwell’ also has strongly temple-oriented language. ‘Fixed place’ (Heb. mākôn), when it does not refer literally or figuratively to a ‘foundation’ (Pss. 89.15; 97.2; 104.5), has a specific reference to Yahweh’s dwelling-place, either in heaven or on earth (see Note jjj for occurrences), while ‘to dwell’, or possibly ‘to sit, be enthroned’ (Heb. yāšab), is a widely used expression for the divine presence in the temple (e.g. 1 Kgs 8.13; cf. Ps. 132.7, 13). Likewise a ‘sanctuary’ (Heb. miqdāš),

368

EXODUS 1–18

except when the word is used metaphorically (Ezek. 11.16: perhaps also Isa. 8.14, but the text may be corrupt), is always a building dedicated to sacred use.98 All this emphatically suggests that at (or near) its climax the poem envisages a particular place of worship as the destination of the journey of Yahweh’s people through the wilderness, rather than the hill-country of Canaan as a whole. Much of the language used has a specific connection with the Jerusalem temple (though not the word ‘sanctuary’) and it has commonly been seen to derive from the cultic traditions of that temple (cf. Clements, God and Temple, pp. 52-55; J. Jeremias, ‘Lade und Zion: Zur Entstehung der Ziontradition’, in H.W. Wolff, Probleme biblischer Theologie [FS G. von Rad; Munich, 1971], pp. 183-98 [196-97]; Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, pp. 158-60; Houtman, p. 292; Albertz, p. 252, for the second and third clauses of the verse). Some scholars have maintained that other holy places could be meant (see the review in Propp, pp. 564-68). The verbs at the beginning of v. 17 must refer to the Israelite settlement in Canaan (especially after the ‘passing by’ of other peoples in v. 16), which excludes a holy place in the desert, including Mount Sinai: the reference to a (built) ‘sanctuary’ also conflicts with what we know of the worship there (unless the tent or tabernacle were meant, but this seems unlikely). F.M. Cross argued that the sanctuary was that at Gilgal, by the Jordan, which was certainly an important place of worship from early times (e.g. Josh. 4.5; 1 Sam. 11.13, 15; Amos 4.4; 5.5) and would have been an appropriate place to celebrate the settlement in Canaan and the history that led up to it (Canaanite Myth, pp. 138-44, followed e.g. by Miller, Divine Warrior, pp. 116-17). But, despite Cross’s attempt to evade it by pleading that it ‘could apply to any Yahwistic sanctuary’ symbolically (pp. 142-43), the fact that Gilgal was low in the Jordan valley and in no sense on a ‘hill’ must rule it out. M.S. Smith has made the more plausible suggestion that the use of similar terminology to refer to Shiloh, which was certainly in the highlands and was itself situated on a low hill, in Psalm 78 means that it could be referred to here (Pilgrimage Pattern, pp. 225-26, developing ideas from J. Goldin, The Song at the Sea, pp. 51-55).99 98   ‘Lord’ here is not the divine name but Heb. ʾadōnāy: see Note mmm on the translation. 99   According to Brenner, Song of the Sea, p. 16, Ewald already suggested this.



15.1-21

369

Shiloh was an important sanctuary in pre-monarchic times, at least for the tribes of central Palestine, according to 1 Samuel 1–4 and it was where the ancient sacred ark symbolising the presence of Yahweh was kept for a time (1 Sam. 3.3; 4.3-9, 17-18, 21-22). It could be argued that much of the Jerusalem cultic tradition came from Shiloh with the ark, and Ps. 78.60 certainly speaks of Shiloh as a divine dwelling-place (cf. Jer. 7.11). It is less certain that v. 54, which shares theological ideas with Exod. 15.17, is meant to refer to Shiloh: the psalm is clearly from Jerusalem (cf. vv. 67-72) and it may well have Jerusalem already in view in v. 54 (so e.g. Kraus, Psalmen, p. 710). It is in fact to Jerusalem that v. 69 applies the extraordinary idea (see further below) that Yahweh built his own temple. The preservation of the song is easier to understand if it came from Jerusalem and there is no need to envisage any earlier Heimat for it. The early view in post-biblical tradition (see Text and Versions) that the Jerusalem temple was meant is probably correct. This brings us to the question of the tenses of the verbs in this verse. The issues are essentially similar to those already discussed in relation to vv. 14-16. But it is notable that there has been a much greater reluctance to adopt a past tense translation for the main verbs here, which are again in the imperfect tense and therefore in themselves capable of bearing a future meaning. The ancient Versions all take up this possibility and in modern times even translations which avoid a future in vv. 14-16 have one here (RV, RSV, JB, NJPS, REB, ESV). This is no doubt due to the present placing of the poem, where to use the past tense (as NEB, the EÜ and NRSV do) creates a sharp dissonance. Even Cross and Freedman used the future in 1955 (‘The Song of Miriam’, p. 242), although Studies (p. 53) has the past and so does Cross in 1973 (Canaanite Myth, p. 131), and Childs from his canonical perspective not surprisingly did the same (p. 241), although he was content to follow the preterite interpretation in vv. 15-16 (and earlier). But the dissonance created (or rather preserved) is not a strong argument against a past tense rendering if it is likely on other grounds. The poem is dissonant in other ways from the prose narrative that precedes it, such as its concentration on the fate of the Egyptians in vv. 1-12 and the inclusion of a continuation of the story in vv. 13ff., and so represents a somewhat different perspective on the ‘sea-event’ anyway, which the compiler saw no need to modify. Three reasons internal to the poem, at least, favour a past

370

EXODUS 1–18

tense translation of the verbs which open v. 17: (i) this is what a careful reading of vv. 14-16 leads the reader to expect, and there is nothing at the beginning of v. 17 to suggest a sudden change to the future; (ii) the perfect tense verbs in the second half of v. 17 are most naturally rendered in the past and this suggests, even if it does not prove, that the actions which provide their context are prior to them and therefore also in the past; (iii) if v. 13 is an outline of what follows, which seems most likely, the fact that it too has perfect tense verbs implies that v. 17, which corresponds to its second half, should also be in the past. A final comment is needed on the unusual attribution of the building of the ‘sanctuary’ to Yahweh himself. As has already been noted, this is not entirely without parallel in the Old Testament, as Ps. 78.69 says the same and even elaborates it with a comparison to the creation of heaven (‘the heights’: cf. Ps. 148.1) and earth. Generally, both in the OT and elsewhere in the ancient Near East, the role of human builders of temples for the gods is freely recognised (no doubt because most of the texts derive from circles close to those [royal] builders!). But sometimes in mythical texts a leading god has a temple built for him by other gods, as when at the end of Enuma Elish the Anunna-gods build Esagila for Marduk and then shrines for themselves (VI.45-68: COS 1, p. 401) and when at Ugarit Baal has his temple built for him by Kothar-andKhasis (KTU 1.4.5-6 = CML2, pp. 61-63): Propp, p. 544; Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in the Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (JSOTSup 115; Sheffield, 1992), pp. 332-34, gives a fuller list. Baal could even claim that he had built the temple himself (KTU 1.4.6.35-38 = 8.32-37), presumably in the same sense that kings in their inscriptions say that they have built structures which were in fact constructed by their subjects. This, or something like it, will be what is meant in these two laudatory biblical passages: Yahweh himself is given the credit for what has actually been done by his human subjects, perhaps because he was seen as the instigator of the project and its guide and enabler (cf. Ps. 127.1). Goldin (The Song at the Sea, pp. 47-55) saw what is said here as anti-Solomonic polemic from descendants of the Shilonite priesthood, but the fact that it could be taken up in a strongly pro-Judaean and pro-monarchist psalm like Psalm 78 shows that it was not understood in that way:



15.1-21

371

as Houtman aptly comments, ‘in poetry YHWH is often subject, where prose has human protagonists’ (p. 292). 18. The concluding verse of the poem is a single four-beat line, like verse 12 at the end of its first main section. The imperfect verb here is shown to have a future sense by the adverbial phrase that follows it. Declarations of Yahweh’s kingly rule occur more often at the beginning of a hymn and in the (timeless) perfect tense (Pss. 93.1; 97.1; 99.1): here it is placed where it is to show the connection with the foundation of his temple, a connection which is closely paralleled in Babylonian and Ugaritic mythology (see further the introduction to this section). The parallel in tense and word-order to bʿlm yml[k], ‘Baal shall be king’ (the mem is ‘enclitic’), in KTU 1.2.4.32 at the end of the Ugaritic myth of Baal’s battle with Yam is particularly striking. H. Spieckermann deduces from this that Yahweh’s victory celebrated here is also over a ‘mytisch [sic] gefährliche Feindesmacht’ (Heilsgegenwart, p. 110), but this is to underestimate the contrast between this poem, where the enemy is portrayed in firmly earthly terms, and the Ugaritic myth. It is in the portrayal of Yahweh and his ‘weapons’ that the correspondences to mythological language occur (vv. 6, 8, 10, 12). 19. After the long poem in vv. 1-18, this verse in prose (it is not part of the poem) recapitulates the climax of the narrative in ch. 14, in close dependence on the wording of the Priestly sections in vv. 22-23, 26, 28-29. There are small variations from that wording (in addition to much that is omitted in this summary) which are probably due to the impact of the Song of Moses on the writer: specific mention is made (at the very beginning!) of Pharaoh’s horse(s) (v. 1: cf. v. 21),100 and Yahweh is no longer only indirectly involved (through his instruction to Moses in 14.26) in the ‘return’ of the waters, but actively brings it about (cf. 15.10, 12). The effect of the verse is to recall the events which called forth the hymns of praise in vv. 1-18 and 21, after the closing verses of the Song of Moses have ‘digressed’ on to the foundation of a temple in Canaan. In the first place (cf. ‘For’) it does this for vv. 1-18, but the redactor who inserted v. 19 was also able thereby to relate 100   In 14.9 and 23 the word ‘horse(s)’ (Heb. sûs) is probably an addition to the basic Priestly text, again to harmonise it with the poetic texts: see the Explanatory Notes there.

372

EXODUS 1–18

Miriam’s intervention explicitly to the earlier narrative (Schmidt, p. 655). Similar Wiederaufnahmen appear after secondary insertions in 6.28-30 and 12.51. Whether the verse is meant to explain the singers’ reason for singing the Song or the validity of what it says is not entirely clear, but it makes little difference. Excursus J.G. Janzen has argued that the syntax of vv. 19-21 is intended to make Miriam’s song prior in (narrative) time to the Song of Moses, so that it is the impulse that gave rise to it, despite its position in the present text of Exodus (pp. 108-11; more fully in ‘Song of Moses, Song of Miriam: Who is Seconding Whom?’, CBQ 54 [1992], pp. 211-20). He accepts the translation ‘For’ (not ‘When’: cf. Note qqq on the translation) for Heb. kî at the beginning of the verse, so that it introduces an explanation for the Song of Moses. But he observes that the Hebrew allows the explanation to continue into vv. 20-21 (there is a waw at the beginning of v. 20, often translated ‘Then’, but it is really ‘And’). He then gives two reasons why this way of reading the verses should be preferred to the usual one: (i) the Hebrew for ‘to them’ in v. 21 is the masculine form (lākem, not lāken) and so should refer not to the women but to ‘(Moses and) the Israelites’ in v. 19 (cf. v. 1); (ii) the recapitulation in v. 19 ‘places the actions and words of 15:20-21 back behind 15:1-18, back to the point reached in 14:29’ (p. 109). An obvious objection to this interpretation, which Janzen anticipates, is that a much more straightforward and effective way to make Miriam’s song precede that of Moses (and the Israelites) would have been to place vv. 20-21 immediately after 14.29, where there would be no need for any recapitulation. Janzen’s reply is that the narrator’s aim was to accentuate the involvement of women at the beginning and end of the Exodus story (cf. 1.15-21; 2.1-10; 4.24-26) in an example of the ‘envelope’ or ‘chiastic’ pattern (the former expression is more appropriate here) which is a common trope in biblical literature (p. 110: cf. Exod. 14.13-14). His argument has been accepted by some (Russell, Song of the Sea, pp. 32-39 [esp. 36-39: but he prefers to view v. 19 as a temporal clause]; Albertz, pp. 23536, 253-54 [in a modified way, which takes account of the process of literary composition]), but rejected as ‘unnatural’ by others (Propp, p. 547; cf. Berner, Exoduserzählung, p. 391 n. 174; more tentatively, Dozeman, p. 342). There is, it must be acknowledged, a certain logic in having the command ‘Sing’ (v. 21) precede the declaration ‘I will sing’ (v. 1) in the two closely parallel verses of poetry. But Janzen’s argument from the masculine form of ‘them’ is weak, since this was often used to refer to women (see Note yyy on the translation) and here, just a few words before in v. 20, ‘the women’ is the obvious antecedent for it. The words of v. 19, while certainly recalling the earlier events, can scarcely be said on their own to indicate that of the two



15.1-21

373

responses Miriam’s was the prior one. In fact the long recapitulation in v. 19 makes it unlikely that what follows in v. 20 is still viewed as part of the explanation of the Song of Moses. It was not without good reason that both the MT and 4Q365 placed a clear break between vv. 19 and 20 (cf. LXX: and see the introduction to this section). Finally, Janzen’s response to the objection that there was a much more obvious way to achieve the sequence he advocates overlooks the fact that the ‘envelope pattern’ is just as forceful if vv. 19-21 are understood in the usual way.

20. Miriam is named here for the first time, so it is fitting that epithets (both unique) follow which identify what and who she was. Female prophets or prophetesses appear only rarely in the Bible (only Judg. 4.4 [Deborah]; 2 Kgs 22.14 par. [Huldah]; Neh. 6.14 [Noadiah]: in Isa. 8.3 Heb. nebîʾāh may mean ‘wife of a prophet’, just as malkāh means ‘wife of a king, queen’). They were more common in Mesopotamia (muḫḫūtu[m]/maḫḫūtu[m]; āpiltu[m]; raggim/ntu: texts in M. Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East [SBL Writings from the Ancient World 12; Leiden, 2003]; for discussion see now J. Stökl, ‘Female Prophets in the Ancient Near East’, in J. Day [ed.], Prophets and Prophecy [LHBOTS 531; London, 2010], pp. 47-61; id., Prophecy in the Ancient Near East: A Philological and Sociological Comparison [CHANE 56; Leiden, 2012], pp. 67-69, 121-27, 186-92, 216-17; id. and C.L. Carvalho [eds.], Prophets Male and Female: Gender and Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible, the Eastern Mediterranean and the Ancient Near East [AIL 15; Atlanta, 2013]). When the evidence from ancient Israel is so slight, conclusions about their activities and their place in society can only be tentative, but the case of Deborah (whether wholly historical or not) illustrates the varied functions that a prophetess might have had. When Miriam appears again (with Aaron) in Numbers 12 it is implied that she (like him) was an intermediary for divine oracles, but here (like Deborah in Judg. 5) she is a singer of a patriotic song and apparently a leading figure in the community (cf. Mic. 6.4). Her description as ‘the sister of Aaron’, and not also of Moses, suggests a stage of tradition prior to the late Priestly genealogy in Num. 26.59, one in which Aaron had not yet been made into the ancestor of all legitimate priests. This could be associated with the portrayal of Aaron in Exodus 32 as a rival to Moses and the fabricator of the ‘golden calf’, as well as the role he plays in ch. 4 as Moses’ ‘fellow Levite’ (lit. ‘brother Levite’).

374

EXODUS 1–18

Apparently in the older, pre-Priestly tradition, Moses, Aaron and Miriam were all leaders in early Israel, sometimes united with each other, sometimes at loggerheads. For attempts to reconstruct the history and nature of this tradition see Noth, ÜGP, pp. 195-200; H. Seebass, Mose und Aaron, Sinai und Gottesberg (Bonn, 1962); Norin, Er Spaltete das Meer, pp. 189, 192, 206; Valentin, Aaron, esp. pp. 375-84, 412-18; and the introduction below to 17.8-13. Miriam herself is listed as the sister of Moses and Aaron in Num. 26.59 (a late Priestly passage) and 1 Chr. 5.29 (the Miriam in 4.17 is a Judahite, and there is no reason to regard her as the same person). Elsewhere she appears only in Numbers 12, Deut. 24.9 (a reference to the same episode), Mic. 6.4 (linked to Moses and Aaron) and (most interestingly) in a notice of her death and burial in Num. 20.1b, which is generally attributed to the older sourcematerial.101 No agreed explanation for the name ‘Miriam’ has been found: the closest Heb. roots produce uncomplimentary attributes. W. von Soden tentatively proposed the meaning ‘gift, present (of a god)’ on the basis of Akk. râmu III/riāmu and its derivatives (AHw, p. 952), which might also explain the origin of the Heb. sacrificial term ‫‘( תרומה‬Mirjām-Maria “(Gottes-)Geschenk” ’, UF 2 [1970], pp. 269-72): the root may be Amorite in origin. The suggestion that the name has an Egyptian origin (perhaps mry/t-ymn, ‘Beloved of Amun’: cf. M. Görg, ‘Mirjam – ein weiterer Versuch’, BZ NF 23 [1979], pp. 287-89) is also worth considering, given the appearance of other Egyptian names in the tribe of Levi. Propp notes Ugaritic mrym as a noun for ‘height’, so perhaps ‘eminence’ (p. 546: for other suggestions see HAL, p. 601; Ges18, p. 741).102 ‘Hand-drum’ (or ‘frame-drum’) is the appropriate translation for Heb. tōp (see Note uuu on the translation: so LXX, Vulg, Luther [Pauke], EÜ). EVV since Tyndale have employed ‘timbrel’ or its 101   E.g. Noth, Numeri, p. 128, ET, p. 145. In ÜGP, p. 200, Noth had opposed this view and attributed Num. 20.1b to P. 102   For a careful and thorough study of all the biblical traditions about Miriam see R.J. Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses? (SBLDS 84; Atlanta, 1987). Understandably Miriam has become the focus of much feminist scholarship: see e.g. P. Trible, ‘Bringing Miriam out of the Shadows’, BR 5/1 (1989), pp. 170-90; the two volumes of A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy (ed. A. Brenner; Sheffield, 1994 [pp. 166-254] and 2000 [pp. 10473]); and U. Rapp, Mirjam: eine feministisch-rhetorische Lektüre der Mirjamtexte in der hebräischen Bibel (BZAW 317; Berlin, 2002).



15.1-21

375

more familiar synonym ‘tambourine’, but its jingling discs do not appear in the iconographical evidence from Old Testament times, including the ‘Canaanite band’ on a pottery stand of the tenth cent. B.C. from Ashdod (illustrated in T. Dothan, The Philistines and their Material Culture [New Haven, London and Jerusalem, 1982], pp. 249-50; other illustrations from Egypt, Assyria and Canaan in Keel, Die Welt, pp. 314-18, ET, pp. 337-40 [figs. 450-54, with commentary]).103 The hand-drum consisted of a shallow disc of clay or wood with skin stretched over it, which was beaten with one hand while the other held the rim. Most of the evidence is of women players, as here (cf. Judg. 11.34; 1 Sam. 18.6-7; Ps. 68.25), celebrating a victory.104 But hand-drums were also used in regular worship (1 Sam. 10.5 [male prophets]; 2 Sam. 6.5; Pss. 81.3; 149.3; 150.4), often with dancing, and in general merrymaking (Isa. 5.12; 24.8; 30.32; Jer. 31.4; Job 21.12). The involvement of ‘all the women’ in the celebration here corresponds to their apparently regular role in welcoming victorious warriors after a battle, as in Judg. 11.34 (the focus on one woman is dictated by the plot there) and 1 Sam. 18.6-7; Ps. 68.24-26 points to a cultic occasion in which the praise is given to God, which is closer to what we have here (see the next note and Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken, pp. 11-40) 21. The translation ‘Miriam sang’ is virtually certain and the only real alternative, ‘Miriam answered’, is rarely advocated today (see Note xxx on the translation and Text and Versions). Two different Hebrew roots ʿNH are involved: originally their first consonants were distinct. Meanings like ‘led in song’ (LXX, Vulg) and ‘sang (as) a refrain’ (NEB, REB: cf. Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien II, p. 111 n. 1) or ‘sang antiphonally’ (McNeile, p. 93) have been read into the sentence, but there is no linguistic justification for such senses in Hebrew: the second and third suggestions mistakenly combine the meanings of the two different roots. At best support for them has to

103   Baentsch, unusually for a German, comments ‘unter dem Klingen der mit Schellen besetzten Handpauken’ (p. 137: my italics), indicating something like a tambourine – he cites E.C.A. Riehm, Handwörterbuch des biblischen Altertums2 (Bielefeld, 1893–94), p. 1053, which says ‘oft mit dünnen runden Metallscheiben behängt’. Cf. Beer, p. 84. 104   For a full discussion of women’s musical performance in the Bible and neighbouring cultures, which centres on the use of the hand-drum, see Meyers, ‘Of Drums and Damsels’.

376

EXODUS 1–18

be found in the wider context (and the wording of Miriam’s song as a command, a call to worship, does make her into a cantor in effect), but the simple translation is to be preferred, as it is what fits the other occurrences of this root. ‘To them’ is sometimes taken to mean ‘the Israelites’ in v. 19, but the closest referent is ‘the women’ in v. 20 and they must be intended as the addressees (see the Excursus on v. 19 and on the linguistic issues Notes yyy and zzz on the translation). Apart from the first Hebrew word (‘Sing’, a plural imperative, instead of ‘I will sing’), Miriam’s song is identical to the beginning of the Song of Moses in v. 1b (see the Notes there on the words that are repeated). The opening imperative makes it correspond to the most common type of hymn of praise, in which a choir or congregation in the temple were called upon by a cantor to join in the words of the psalm (see Gunkel, Einleitung, pp. 33-38; Crüsemann, Studien, Chapter 1, with Exod. 15.21b as the oldest surviving example). Here ‘the women’ occupy that role. On the many explanations that have been offered for the virtual repetition of v. 1b here see the introduction to this section. Text and Versions ‫( אז‬15.1) LXX τότε, Sy hydyn and probably TgG(J)(, N?) ‫ בכד(י)ן‬support ‘at that time’ as the meaning, while TgO,J,G(FF),F ‫( בכ(י)ן‬to which TgJ,G(FF),F(P) prefix )‫ה(א‬, ‘behold’) suggest the weaker ‘then, next’. Vulg tunc could be taken in either way. ‫( ישׁיר‬15.1) SP writes defectively, ‫( ישׁר‬cf. GSH §82aβ), Sy (except 5b1) šbḥw assimilates to the compound subj. and ‫ ויאמרו‬later in the verse. Tgg also use ‫שׁבח‬, more often ‘praise’, but with an obj. presumably ‘sing in praise’. LXX and Vulg follow MT. ‫( השׁירה‬15.1) TgO and Sy simply use a cognate noun of ‫שׁבח‬, meaning ‘a song of praise’ (cf. its use in the various titles prefixed to the section in mss of Sy), but the other Tgg combine this with )‫שׁירת(א‬, with the latter preceding in TgN,G but more awkwardly following in TgJ,F. ‫( ליהוה‬15.1) LXX has τῷ θεῷ for the first occurrence but τῷ κυρίῳ for the second (cf. the alternation – for variety? – in 14.31). The Tgg as usual have ‫ קדם‬for ‫ ;ל‬TgG(J) writes ‫ אדני‬for the divine name the first time. ‫( לאמר‬15.1) Vulg and Sy have no equivalent, presumably regarding it as otiose. Aq renders pedantically with λέγειν, as do Syh (i.e. the O-text) and LXXA.



15.1-21

377

‫( אשׁירה‬15.1) SP ‫( אשׁירו‬the plene reading is better attested than von Gall’s ‫ )אשׁרו‬is anomalous and must (unless [J. Joosten, pers. comm.] it is meant to be a Hiphil imper.) be a mechanical hybrid due to the reading ‫ שׁירו‬in the otherwise identical line in v. 21 (SamTg has the pl. imper. ‫ שׁבחו‬here too). The Vss all have first person pl. forms to agree with the compound subj. in the (secondary) introduction to the poem (the Jewish Tgg again render with ‫שׁבח‬ [as does Sy] and add ‘let us give thanks’ either before [TgJ,N,G,F] or after [TgO] it). MT’s reading fits the first person sing. forms that follow in v. 2 and must be more original. ‫( כי‬15.1) Sy has no equivalent (also in v. 21) and apparently takes the next word as a title of Yahweh (‘the glorious One’): possibly, like TgJ, its following d is a substitute for ‫ כי‬with only a slight difference in sense. ‫( גאה גאה‬15.1) MT’s text (including the vocalisation) is clearly reflected in LXX and Vulg (with adverbs unusually corresponding to the inf. abs., as in Gen. 32.13; Exod. 8.24; Num. 22.17: cf. Lemmelijn, Plague, p. 144), but SP reads ‫( גוי גאה‬also in v. 21), ‘an arrogant nation’ (cf. SamTgJ: other mss read it as a verb), i.e. Egypt, which it must take as the primary object of ‫רמה‬. The understanding of the second word as the adj. ‫ נֵּ ֶאה‬probably lies behind the expansions of the phrase in the Jewish Tgg too, which all include a reference to human arrogance, but their interpretations also assume that the first word is a verbal form with Yahweh as subject in the sense ‘was high (over), overcame’. This approach is recorded (at length) in MRI (Lauterbach 2, pp. 13-19), but before it are other interpretations which are based more closely on MT (pp. 8-13).105 Sy (as noted above) takes the first ‫ גאה‬as a title of Yahweh (cf. TgJ,G(J)) and reads the second as a verbal form like MT, but linked with ‘the horses’, supplying ʿl before the latter. MT (with early support from LXX and [in part] MRI) should be preferred to the other readings attested or implied, which can be attributed to puzzlement over the repeated consonants and/or interpretive ingenuity. ‫( סוס ורכבו‬15.1) The words are preserved in 4QExd but only the first two letters and the final waw are certain. Tgg (except TgO) and Sy render both words in the pl. but may simply be unpacking the collective meaning of MT. In general the Vss support the pointing of ‫ רכבו‬as a participle: the sense ‘(their) chariot(s)’, implying ‫ר ֶכב‬,ֶ is found only in a few witnesses (LXXFb ἅρμα; TgF(P) ‫ ;ורתיכיהון‬the Sam. oral tradition rikbu [J. Joosten, pers. comm.: 105   The Targumic expansions incorporate up to three elements: (1) two-part formulae acclaiming Yahweh’s general superiority to arrogant humans; (2) a general statement about the punishment (‫ )פרע‬of the arrogant; (3) application of this principle to Pharaoh or the Egyptians. TgO omits (2) and has a distinctive version of (3); TgN omits 1); TgJ and the other Pal Tgg texts have all three, but with variations among themselves.

378

EXODUS 1–18

cf. GSH §55bα-β]; perhaps TgF(V) ‫)וריכביהון‬. The emendation of ‫ ורכבו‬to ‫וָ ֶר ֶכב‬ was proposed by P. Haupt, ‘Moses’ Song of Triumph’, AJSL 20 (1903–1904), pp. 149-72 (153, 158-59) and adopted by Gressmann (in fact ֹ‫וְ ִר ְכבּו‬: Anfänge, p. 55), Mowinckel (‘Drive and/or Ride’, pp. 278, 284) and Cross and Freedman, Studies, pp. 50, 52. The argument for it is historical rather than philological and it is probably unnecessary: see Note g on the translation. The lack of an equivalent to the suffix in LXX* and Vulg is scarcely evidence for a different Vorlage, especially when all the Heb. witnesses (including 4QExd) have the suffix. ‫( רמה‬15.1) Tgg, other than TgO, add either ‫( וטמע‬TgJ,F,G(J),Nmg) or ‫וטבע‬ (TgN,G(FF)) to match v. 4: ‫ טמע‬is presumably the original Aram. supplement and ‫ טבע‬an assimilation to the Heb. form. ‫( בים‬15.1) TgJ,N,G(FF),F give the specific location ‘Yam Suf’ from v. 4. TgG(J) ‫ בגו ימא‬may have been based on 14.27 or 29. ‫( עזי‬15.2) The expected sense ‘my strength’ is given in TgO and Vulg; TgJ,N,F(V) have ‘our strength’ in accordance with their renderings of ‫ אשׁירה‬in v. 1, while Sy tqypʾ, ‘strong, mighty’, ignores the suffix and generalises the statement (cf. TgF(P)). LXX βοηθός does likewise with a slight shift of meaning, for which there are several parallels in the Psalms (28.8; 59.18; 81.2). ‫( וזמרת יה‬15.2) The absence of a suffix on ‫ זמרת‬in MT is surprising after ‫( עזי‬LXX [except the O-text] and Sy also show no knowledge of one, but after their treatment of ‫ עזי‬this may not be significant). Most SP mss read ‫( וזמרתי‬and omit ‫)יה‬, including the Rylands ms. used by Crown and Camb. 1846, but a few (inc. those used by Tal and Sadaqa and Crown’s other three) have ‫וזמרתיה‬, some with one or more letters detached at the end (see von Gall’s apparatus). This reading is likely to be due to contamination from MT. TgO and Vulg have ‘my praise’ (cf. LXX at Isa. 12.2; Ps. 118.14), the other Tgg ‘our praise’. MT could have lost a final yodh by haplography: for other possible explanations of its reading see Note i on the translation. Sy’s reading mšbḥ, ‘(to be) praised’, is a free variation of the sense given by Tgg and Vulg, but LXX has σκεπαστής, ‘protector’ (cf. σκεπάζω in the papyri: LSJ, p. 1606), which also occurs at Deut. 32.38 (for ‫ )סתרה‬and Ps. 71.6 (for ‫גוזי‬: read ‫)?עוזי‬. At one time this rendering was seen as evidence for a reading ‫ סתרתי‬here (so still BHS), but it now seems likely to preserve an alternative (and probably original) meaning for )‫וזמרת(י‬: see Note i on the translation. LXX also had no equivalent to ‫;יה‬ the O-text adds κύριος. Tgg expand the text, TgO with ‫דחילא‬, ‘the fearsome One’ (no doubt based on ‫ נורא‬in v. 11, where ‫ תהלת‬follows), which TgJ,N,F(V) extend by ‘in all ages’; TgJ,N,F with ‫רוב‬, ‘magnitude of’ before ‘our praise’; and TgF(P) with ‘he is the Master of all worlds’, a liturgical formula (Jastrow, p. 1440). Sy adds mryʾ, its usual equivalent to the divine name, to yh, perhaps from Isa. 12.2. ‫( ויהי לי‬15.2) LXX ἐγένετό μοι ignores the waw, making ‫ עזי וזמרת‬the subject or (Wevers, Notes, p. 228) complement of the verb. All the Tgg prefix



15.1-21

379

‘he said by his Memra’: the reason is not clear, unless it is to recall that God promised that he would deliver Israel (through Moses presumably, in 14.1314; or perhaps implied in 14.4, 17-18). TgO,J and Vulg render ‫ לי‬by ‘to me’ (like LXX), but the Pal Tgg and Sy continue their first person pl. forms. ‫( לישׁועה‬15.2) LXX εἰς σωτηρίαν and Vulg in salute reflect the ‘action noun’ of the Heb. idiom; Tgg and Sy use ‘agent nouns’ to fit the personal subject and the intended sense. ‫( זה אלי‬15.2) LXX, TgO and Vulg render MT (with which SP agrees) straightforwardly, as does Sy, which now follows MT’s first person sing. forms, whereas the other Tgg once more have first person pl. Most of the latter also contain, in various forms, a Tosefta whose nucleus (based on Ps. 8.2b) appears in MRI (Lauterbach 2, pp. 11-12): see the detailed study of M.L Klein, ‘The Targumic Tosefta to Exodus 15:2’, JJS 26 (1975), pp. 61-67 (= Michael Klein on the Targums [2011], pp. 133-40), where a fuller version from an Ashkenazi maḥzor (MS Parma 2887: fourteenth cent.) is presented. In TgN,F(P) most of the Tosefta is missing, but the superfluous words ‘the Israelites said’ must derive from an exemplar (like TgF(V)) which included a form of it: TgNmg restores it in that form. ‫( ואנוהו‬15.2) So also SP: almost all the Vss have a verb meaning ‘praise’, which the context requires (see also Note m on the translation), but TgO ‫ואבני‬ ‫ ליה מקדשׁ‬found here a reference to the future temple, probably on the basis of the use of the noun ‫ נוה‬in v. 13 and other refs. in the Note there: this interpretation appears, among others, in MRI (Lauterbach 2, pp. 25-26). Sy does not represent the initial waw here or with the following verb (Propp, p. 472). ‫( אבי‬15.2) Tgg (including TgO ‫ )אבהתי‬make explicit a reference to the ‘fathers’ of the people as a whole (cf. MRI [Lauterbach 2, p. 29]); Sy, as in most of the second half of the verse, follows MT precisely. ‫( וארממנהו‬15.2) TgO (but not the other Tgg here) renders ‫ואפלח קדמוהי‬, with the common ‘distancing’ of God from human words and perhaps an allusion to temple worship. ‫( יהוה‬15.3) TgJ prefixes ‘The Israelites said’ (cf. TgN in v. 2). Two ‘liturgical’ (Klein) Pal. Tg mss (TgG(U) and TgF(P)) introduce their rendering of the verse with the midrash which TgJ and the other Pal. Tgg have in its original place at 14.13 (see Text and Versions there). ‫( אישׁ מלחמה‬15.3) SP and the Vss (except LXXFb and TgN: see below) found various ways of reproducing the sense of MT (or at least providing an appropriate substitute) without giving the impression that Yahweh was a human being (‫)אישׁ‬: for the concern see MRI (Lauterbach 2, p. 34). In most cases ‫ גבור‬or its Aram. equivalent is used in place of ‫אישׁ‬, probably as an adj. = ‘mighty’, and ‫ מלחמה‬is paraphrased in various ways. Thus SP has ‫ גבור מלחמה‬and Sy has gnbrʾ wqrbtnʾ, ‘mighty and warlike’, while TgJ and most of the Pal Tgg begin with ‘mighty, who fights our/your wars’ which is then elaborated in various ways. TgN ‫ גוברא עבד קרביא‬is closer to MT and

380

EXODUS 1–18

perhaps the result of assimilation to it. TgO ‫ מרי נצחן קרביא‬and Vulg quasi vir pugnator (cf. MT at Isa. 42.13: also MRI [Lauterbach 2, p. 30-31, where ‫ גבור‬is also used]) exhibit different ways of achieving the same end. LXX συντρίβων πολέμους, ‘breaking [ending?] wars’, as also in Isa. 42.13, makes a larger change to the meaning, but one that is based on other biblical passages where συντρίβω is used (Hos. 2.20; Ps. 76.7: cf. 46.10): cf. also Fritsch, p. 9. The mg of LXXF preserves the correction ἀνὴρ πολέμου, which may derive from Aq. ‫( יהוה שׁמו‬15.3) Vulg renders the divine name here with omnipotens, which is usually its equivalent for ‫( שׁדי‬cf. 6.3: in 34.23 it renders ‫)האדון‬: Jerome seems to have regarded all these expressions as synonymous, presumably as being implied by Dominus, his usual rendering for ‫יהוה‬. TgJ and the Pal. Tgg have ‘as his name is, so is his power (‫)גבורתא‬, may his name be praised for ever and ever’, which the two liturgical versions (TgG(U) and TgF(P)) elaborate further. ‫( פרעה‬15.4) TgF(P) adds the epithet ‘wicked’ (cf. TgN in v. 9, TgJ in vv. 1, 9 and 21, TgF in v. 9 and TgG(U) in v. 9). ‫( וחילו‬15.4) Although von Gall gives the same reading for SP, many mss (including those used by Tal, Sadaqa and, in three cases, Crown) read the pl. form ‫וחיליו‬, and this is supported by TgJ and the Pal. Tgg (see also Text and Versions on 14.9). The pl. became frequent in exilic and later BH and in postbiblical Heb. and Aram., but older texts use only the sing. and that is likely to be the original reading here (cf. LXX, TgO, Sy, Vulg). ‫( ירה‬15.4) SP reads ‫ירא‬, due to its common confusion of the gutturals (cf. GSH §12a). In TgN,F(V) ‫ ירה‬is taken as a reference to shooting arrows (of fire in TgN), but the additional obj. required shows that this was not the original meaning. ‫( ומבחר שׁלשׁיו‬15.4) LXX (which like Vulg has no equivalent to the waw: Cross and Freedman [Studies, p. 58] saw it as a secondary addition) here equates the ‫( שׁלשׁים‬τριστάτας as in 14.7: see Text and Versions there for this and what follows) with the ‘rider(s)’ of v. 1 by prefixing ἀναβάτας. Only Vulg (principes, instead of duces in 14.7) gives the sense ‘commanders’: in Tgg and Sy ‘warriors’ appears throughout here, but with the specification ‘young’ added in TgJ,N,F,G (due to a double rendering of ‫ מבחר‬as in the mg of LXXF?). TgN specifies that the warriors were Pharaoh’s. ‫( טבעו‬15.4) MT’s pl. is also attested by SP, LXXB, TgO, Vulg and two of the oldest mss of Sy (5b1 and 7a1). But LXX* κατεπόντισεν (cf. most mss of Sy) points to a sing. active form (with Yahweh as subj.: so more ‘anthropomorphic’ than MT, as also in v. 5 [Fritsch, p. 62]), which Cross and Freedman thought could go back to an early spelling in which final waw was not written (Studies, p. 58). But the sing. may be due to the influence of v. 4a and also v. 1: in TgJ and most of the Pal. Tgg (not TgF(V),Nmg) ‫ רמא‬is actually imported from v. 1 alongside a sing. ‫ וטמע‬or ‫וטבע‬. ‫( תהמת‬15.5) Because LXX saw Yahweh as the subj. of ‫( יכסימו‬see the next note) it rendered ‫ תהמת‬by an instrumental dative πόντῳ. Aq, Symm and Theod



15.1-21

381

ἄβυσσοι conformed to the straightforward understanding of the Heb., which all the other Vss exhibit. LXXO (cf. Syh) seems to have read πόντος, perhaps an earlier correction. ‫( יכסימו‬15.5) So also some mss of SP, but most read ‫יכסמו‬, avoiding the unusual retention of the third root-letter (on which see Note s on the translation). LXX ἐκάλυψεν, which keeps Yahweh as the subj. (as in v. 4a and in LXX also v. 4b), may have been based on the same reading (this could explain why LXX is more ‘anthropomorphic’ here, as Fritsch, p. 62, noted): but it must be secondary. LXX’s aorist, like all the other Vss, recognises the preterite sense of the Heb. (cf. vv. 6, 7, 12, 14, 15). A Genizah ms. (cf. BHS) reads ‫תכסיומו‬, with an additional mater lectionis making the pl. form apparent and a fem. prefix to match the more common gender of ‫( תהום‬but it can be masc.: cf. BDB, p. 1062). The two ‘liturgical’ Pal. Tgg mss (TgG(U) and TgF(P)) add ‘the waters of the sea’ (cf. v. 19), as a gloss on ‫ תהמת‬presumably. ‫( ירדו‬15.5) TgJ,N add ‘and sank’ (cf. v. 10) and TgG(U),F(P) have this instead. Sy’s addition of wtbʿw draws instead on v. 4 to enrich the description. ‫( במצולת‬15.5) TgJ adds ‫דימא‬, another of its (here hardly necessary) explanatory additions. The addition of ‫ דימא רבא‬in TgG(U),F(P) is more interesting, as it appears to be based on an explanation of the verse in MRI (Lauterbach 2, p. 38), which sees the ‘deep waters’ as resulting from the ‘Great Sea’ (i.e. the Mediterranean) breaking through into the Yam Suf. This phrase already appeared in TgF(P) in 14.23: see Text and Versions there for its other occurrences in connection with the Egyptians’ fate. Propp (p. 473) suggests that LXX’s sing. may imply a sing. Heb. here, but βυθός is mostly used in the sing. and so cannot be pressed in this way. ‫( כמו־אבן‬15.5) The sing. is understood collectively, ‘stones’, in TgJ,F(V) and Sy (note the seyame). TgJ,N,F(V) add a verb ‘were made like’ or ‘made themselves like’, possibly an allusion to an interpretation in MRI (Lauterbach 2, p. 39): ‫על שׁהקשׁו את לבם כמו אבן‬. ‫( נאדרי‬15.6) Many SP mss (inc. all of Crown’s and Camb. 1846) read ‫ נדארי‬by metathesis, which is found elsewhere involving aleph (cf. 2.24; 6.5 and GSH §20a) and probably involves no lexical difference (cf. SamTg). LXX, TgJ and the Pal. Tgg take it with ‫( ימינך‬likewise Rashi), despite the gender difference, but Vulg magnifice and possibly TgO and Sy construe it as a vocative with ‫יהוה‬. ‘Glorious’ is the sense generally given, but TgJ,Nmg,F(V) have ‘praiseworthy’. ‫( בכח‬15.6) TgG(G) gives two renderings of the verse, one close to TgO and the other expanded with a list of Israel’s deliverances similar to what MRI (Lauterbach 2, pp. 45-46) has on v. 7. This unusual ms., which continues to v. 16, is characterised throughout by a ‘base text’ close to TgO and expansions which have few if any parallels in other Tg witnesses for this passage: see further the Introduction to the Commentary 2 (ii) c. ‫( ימינך‬15.6)2o Here, for ‘poetic variation’ (Wevers, Notes, p. 229), LXX adds χείρ to its previous rendering ἡ δεξιά σου: Syh, following Aq, Symm, Theod, omits it.

382

EXODUS 1–18

‫( תרעץ‬15.6) Most of the Vss render in the past tense, but TgJ ‫ תכרית‬is either future (cf. MRI [Lauterbach 2, p. 42]) or iterative (AramB). TgF(V),Nmg neatly combine the two interpretations: ‫דרצצת ומרצצת‬. ‫( אויב‬15.6) TgO and Vulg follow MT’s sing., LXX ἐχθρούς takes it collectively. TgN,G(U),F(P) add ‘and the adversary’, a word which some Tgg have in the next verse (cf. Sy ‘your adversaries’ here), and TgG(G) ‘the son of iniquity’; TgN names him as ‘Pharaoh’ (cf. v. 4), TgG(U),F(P) with the same identification in view prefix ‘the army of’. TgJ and TgF(V),Nmg generalise here too but in different ways. ‫( גאונך‬15.7) The variant ‫ גאוניך‬in many SP mss (inc. Crown’s) is phonetic (GSH §55bγ) and does not affect the meaning. TgO,G(G) and Sy render ‘your might’ from the context. ‫( תהרס‬15.7) TgO,G(G),G(U),F(P) render ‘you broke, shattered’ (cf. AramB 7, p. 42 n. 13 and ‫ תרעץ‬in v. 6) and LXX συνέτριψας takes the same view (as it does in Ps. 58.7), apparently also finding a metaphorical use of ‫ הרס‬too bold. A similar difficulty may lie behind the treatment of its object here in some Tgg (see the next note). TgJ,N relate the verbs in this verse to the future (cf. MRI [Lauterbach 2, pp. 47-48]). ‫( קמיך‬15.7) TgJ,G(U),F(P) prefix ‘the walls of’, presumably supposing that ‫ הרס‬implies the removal of such structures. This supplement also found its way, less obviously, into TgF(V),Nmg in v. 6. Only Sy lsnʾyk among the Vss rendered the suffix precisely: LXX ignored it (Greek usage perhaps being reinforced by exegetical considerations here: Fritsch, p. 11, compares 23.27 and Deut. 32.10 for similar safeguarding of God’s majesty), the Tgg have ‘the adversaries of your people’, in line with the explanation justified at length in MRI (Lauterbach 2, pp. 42-47), and Vulg’s original adversarios meos (of Moses?) is probably an adaptation of the same approach. TgG(G) has a longer addition here. ‫( חרנך‬15.7) TgJ,N prefix ‘the might of’ and add ‘against them’; TgG(U),F(P) read ‘the angel of (your) wrath’, distancing the intervention from God himself and recalling the ‘destroying angel’ found in 12.13, 23 by TgJ (cf. TgNmg). TgG(G), like TgO, avoids these elaborations but adds ‘to weaken their armies’. ‫( יאכלמו‬15.7) LXX, TgG(U),F(P) and Sy avoid the asyndeton by adding ‘and’ (cf. Vulg quae). ‫( כקשׁ‬15.7) The Tgg clarify the comparison by inserting references to ‘fire’ (so more briefly Sy ʾyk dlḥbtʾ, ‘as [for] stubble’). ‫( וברוח אפיך‬15.8) Most of the Tgg paraphrase with references to divine speech (‘of your mouth’ in TgO, ‘from before you’ in the remainder) to avoid the strong anthropomorphism of MT, which they evidently presuppose (as does Sy’s literal rendering). LXX τοῦ θυμοῦ σου and Vulg furoris tui (cf. TgG(G)) suggest a Vorlage ‫ אפך‬rather than ‫אפיך‬, and this is exactly what most SP mss have (inc. Tal, Sadaqa, 3 of Crown’s mss and Camb. 1846): it, rather than von Gall’s ‫( אפיך‬for which cf. GSH §55bγ), is likely to be the oldest SP reading (cf. SamTg). Though early (cf. LXX), it is the easier reading, as it too



15.1-21

383

avoids the physical anthropomorphism (cf. Deut. 33.10 and Fritsch, p. 14), and MT must be original. TgN,G(U),F(P) add ‘O Lord’ to leave no doubt about who is addressed (cf. MT in v. 6). ‫( נערמו‬15.8) The sense of this rare verb is represented by the Three, TgJ, the Pal. Tgg and Sy as ‘were heaped up’. Vulg congregatae sunt is less specific (it is used again for ‫ )קפאו‬but fits the context. LXX διέστη, ‘were separated’, is (like its treatment of ‫ )נד‬based on 14.21-22, while TgO ‫ חכימו‬fancifully related the form to ‫ערום‬, ‘crafty’, a view also attested in MRI (Lauterbach 2, pp. 50-51, where ‘he made them like heaps’ is also found). ‫( נצבו‬15.8) TgJ,G(W),F(P),Nmg (TgG(U) is no longer extant) add ‫להון‬, ‘for them’. This could refer to the enemies of v. 7 (as does TgJ’s ‫ עליהון‬later in the verse) and accords with the interpretations given in MRI (Lauterbach 2, pp. 51-52: see the next note). LXX ἐπάγη, ‘solidified’ (which it also has, more precisely, for ‫)קפאו‬, is from a word that is used only here to represent the common verb ‫( נצב‬which caused the other Vss no difficulty): presumably the translator was looking for a word to fit his rendering of ‫ נד‬by τεῖχος. TgG(G) has ‘separated this way and that’. ‫( כמו־נד‬15.8) TgO (on which TgG(G) seems to depend here) has ‘like a wall (‫’)שׁור‬, which has no etymological basis. The other Tgg related ‫ נד‬to ‫נֹאד‬, ‘skin, bottle’, adding ‘tied up’ (‫ )שׂרירין‬to clarify the image (cf. Sy). This interpretation was known to MRI but there it is applied to the drowning Egyptians, not the waters, and the ‫ נזלים‬are taken to be ‘sweet waters’ for the Israelites. Vulg adopted neither of these devices and gave no equivalent at all here, as unda fluens is presumably its rendering of ‫נזלים‬. ‫( נזלים‬15.8) TgN has ‫דמיא נזליא‬, ‘(like skins) of flowing waters’, whereas other Vss correctly take ‫ נזלים‬as the subj. of ‫נצבו‬. ‫( בלב־ים‬15.8) For ‫ ים‬TgJ and the Pal. Tgg (except TgG(G)) all have ‫ דימא רבא‬here (see the note on ‫ במצולת‬in v. 5). For ‫ בלב‬they present what look like two textually related readings: TgN,F(P) read ‫בפלגות‬, ‘in the midst of’, which is a close rendering of MT, but TgJ,G(W) have ‫פילגוס‬, preceded by ‫ בגו‬or ‫ב‬, which introduces a Greek loanword for ‘the high sea’ that occurs in the Tgg elsewhere only in Ps. 46.3 (also followed by ‫)דימא רבא‬. (See Jastrow, p. 1163, and CAL for further references.) ‫( אמר‬15.9) TgO,J,G(G) (but not the main Pal. Tgg texts) prefix ‫ד‬, which is probably to be translated ‘because’ (not ‘so that’ as in AramB 7): the clue to what is intended is in MRI (Lauterbach 2, p. 54), where this verse is related to the beginning of the episode (i.e. 14.5-8), not (as is in fact more likely to be meant) the Egyptians’ entry into the sea. ‫( אויב‬15.9) TgJ,N,G(W),F identify the enemy as ‘wicked Pharaoh…the adversary’ (Sy uses the final word as its equivalent to ‫ אויב‬as in v. 6): cf. MRI (Lauterbach 2, p. 55). ‫( ארדף‬15.9) Each of the verbs and short phrases in the remainder of the verse is amplified in TgJ and the main Pal. Tgg witnesses. Here TgJ,N,G(W),F add ‘after the people of the Israelites’.

384

EXODUS 1–18

‫( אשׂיג‬15.9) LXX καταλήμψομαι (cf. LSJ, p. 897), TgO and Sy wʾdrk simply give the sense of MT; Vulg comprehendam, ‘I will seize’, is probably based on a misunderstanding (via the OL, which had the same rendering) of the meaning of LXX (in 14.9 it has a better, if not ideal equivalent for ‫ נשׂג‬Hiph.). The other Tgg (except TgF(P), ‘confound’) also render the verb accurately but amplify it either with ‫( בתקוף ידי‬TgG(G)) or with a much longer addition, in various forms, which draws on 14.9 and anticipates the capture of the ‘spoil’ which is presupposed in the next phrase of MT (TgJ,N,G(W),F). ‫( אחלק שׁלל‬15.9) LXX, Vulg, TgO and Sy render MT straightforwardly, but other Tgg have explanatory additions: TgJ,N,G(W),F specify the recipients of the spoil as Pharaoh’s army, while TgG(G), again differently, identifies the spoil with what the Israelites had taken from the Egyptians (3.22; 11.2; 12.36). ‫( תמלאמו נפשׁי‬15.9) LXX ἐμπλήσω [the O-text adds αὐτῶν] ψυχήν μου assimilates the expression to the first person sing. verbs in the context (possibly on the basis of a Vorlage ]‫)אמלא[מו‬, a secondary variation. Sy renders the verb with tblʿ, ‘will devour’. SP, TgO and Vulg agree with MT, which is also the basis for the elaborations in the other Tgg, whether the prefixing of ‘when’ or ‘until’ in TgJ,N,G(W),F (TgJ also amplifies ‘them’ to ‘the blood of their slain’) or the addition of ‘when I surround them with my armies and troops’ in TgG(G), which relates this element of MT to what follows rather than what precedes, as is also presupposed in one comment in MRI (Lauterbach 2, p. 57). ‫( אריק חרבי‬15.9) Most of this phrase survives in 4QExc; the omission of an equivalent to ‫ חרבי‬in TgF(V) is no doubt accidental. LXX ἀνελῶ (τῇ μαχαίρᾳ μου) shows that the translator did not recognise the Heb. idiom (as again in Lev. 26.33 and 3x in Ezek.): he replaced it with a plausible sense (‘destroy, kill’) that the other Vss found in the next verb. They had no difficulty with the idiom here, but TgJ,N,G(W),F prefixed ‘after this’ to underline the sequence of events as indicated in their renderings of the previous phrase. TgF(P) added ‘from its sheath’ for additional clarity. ‫( תורישׁמו‬15.9) LXX κυριεύσει (with αὐτῶν added in the O-text), ‘shall dominate’, is a rare (cf. Jer. 30.3) but defensible equivalent for ‫ירשׁ‬. Or perhaps, as Propp suggests (p. 473), LXX derived the form from ‫רשׁי‬, ‘have power’. The other Vss all give the sense ‘destroy, kill’, which is less appropriate. In TgJ,G(W),F,Nmg the first sing. verb (with ‫ ב‬prefixed to the next word) will again be due to assimilation to the previous verb(s): the other Tgg follow MT. ‫( ידי‬15.9) TgJ,N,G(W),F specify Pharaoh’s ‘right’ hand, perhaps to match his boast more closely to the role of Yahweh’s right hand in vv. 6-12, on the ‘measure for measure’ principle spelt out for other expressions in MRI (Lauterbach 2, pp. 57-58). ‫( נשׁפת ברוחך‬15.10) SP spells the verb ‫נשׁבת‬, so ensuring consistency with the only other Pentateuchal occurrence of the verb in Gen. 15.11: it is also the more common spelling in MT (see Note hh on the translation). As the difficilior lectio MT is to be preferred here. The strong anthropomorphism, which must be original, was removed in various ways in the Vss, the boldest



15.1-21

385

variation being TgO,G(G) ‫אמרת במימרך‬, to which TgG(G) added a reference to the death of magicians and sorcerers. LXX ἀπέστειλας τὸ πνεῦμά σου (cf. Fritsch, p. 15) also adopted a quite different verb (which was ‘corrected’ by the Three). The Tgg and Sy used causative forms of ‫נשׁף‬/‫ נשׁב‬as a less drastic way of overcoming the problem, some (like LXX) ignoring the preposition ‫ב‬ and making ‫ רוחך‬the object. Vulg (cf. TgNmg) also evaded it and made ‫ רוחך‬the subject. TgJ and the Pal. Tgg, as elsewhere, make use of the formula ‘(from) before you’ to distance the ‫ רוח‬from God himself. TgJ,N,F(P) added ‘O Lord’ as in v. 8 to identify the ‘you’. ‫( כסמו‬15.10) TgG(W), which is an idiosyncratic member of the main Pal. Tg group in this verse, reads ‘you covered’. ‫( ים‬15.10) TgN,F(P) prefix ‘the waters of’, anticipating ‫ מים‬later in the verse (and cf. v. 19). TgJ has the puzzling ‫ גירין‬instead: CAL derive it from a by-form of ‫גילא‬, ‘clay’, with reference to the wet clay at the bottom of the sea. TgG(G) simply added ‘and their mouths with which they uttered blasphemies were shut up’. ‫( צללו‬15.10) TgJ,N prefix ‘they went down and’ on the basis of v. 5. ‫( מים אדירים‬15.10) The adj. is variously rendered ‘violent, mighty’ (LXX, TgO,N,G(G), Vulg, Sy) or ‘glorious’ (TgJ,G(W),F(P)). ‫( מי כמכה‬15.11) SP and 4QExc (which preserves only the first occurrence) read the older spelling ‫כמוך‬, without the final vowel letter: cf. Note kk on the translation and GK §9d. TgO completely rewrites this phrase in both its occurrences, turning the questions into statements, not about incomparability but about existence: ‘There is none except you…There is no (other) god’.106 ‫( באלם‬15.11) In place of this TgO has ‘You are (the only) God’; Sy simply omits the troublesome suggestion that other gods exist. LXX ἐν θεοῖς takes the Heb. at face value, and the plene reading ‫ באלים‬of SP and 4QExc confirms the MT vocalisation as a pl. noun. MRI, however, knew the consonantal text of MT (which has the appearance of an archaic spelling) and, in one of its explanations (Lauterbach 2, p. 60) derived it from the MH verb ‫א ַלם‬,ָ ‘be strong’, hence ‘among the strong’: cf. here LXXFb (Aq?) (ἐν) ἰσχυροίς, Symm ἐν δυναστείαις, Vulg in fortibus. TgJ and the Pal. Tgg, on the other hand, agree with MT, only adding ‫מרומא‬, ‘on high’ (perhaps from Ps. 89.7), which left no doubt that heavenly beings were intended, but perhaps angels, as such expressions were often understood in Judaism (cf. P.S. Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Early Exegesis of “Sons of God” ’, JJS 23 [1972], pp. 60-71): certainly this is how another interpretation of ‫ באלם‬in MRI understood it (Lauterbach 2, p. 61: ‫)באלו שׁמשׁמשׁין לפניך במרום‬. TgG(G) begins like TgJ and the Pal. Tgg but then adds words of praise and answers the question with a strong negative statement, similar though not identical to that found in TgO: ‘there is none like you’. 106   For others who interpreted the verse in this way see Salvesen, Symmachus, p. 94.

386

EXODUS 1–18

‫( נאדר בקדשׁ‬15.11) SP reads ‫ נאדרי‬as in v. 6, no doubt a secondary assimilation. 4QExc does not survive for this word. Most of the Vss render ‫ נאדר‬as they do in v. 6, but TgJ has ‘glorious’ here (the other two witnesses for ‘praiseworthy’ there offer nothing) and TgG(G), which has ‫ אדיר‬like TgO, again adds an extra question, ‘Who is like you, revealing mysteries before the sun?’, and answers it like the previous ones. Most of the Vss render ‫ קדשׁ‬as an abstract (this may even be the case with Symm [ἐν] ἁγιασμῷ: so Salvesen, p. 94), but LXX ἐν ἁγίοις personalises it, ‘among holy ones’ (cf. Ps. 89.8), most likely understood as angels, and Cross and Freedman (Studies, p. 61), among others (cf. BHS), read ‫ קדשׁ(י)ם‬on the basis of this. It makes a good parallel to ‫באלם‬, but perhaps too good: the less obvious sing. of MT, SP and the other Vss (and apparently 4QExc) should be preferred. ‫( נורא תהלת‬15.11) Tgg follow MT (with which SP agrees), and Vulg and Sy ‘fearsome and praiseworthy’ give a recognisable unpacking of its meaning. LXX θαυμαστὸς ἐν δόξαις takes liberties with both Heb. words: θαυμαστός anticipates ‫ פלא‬in the next phrase; and δόξα, which only here stands for ‫תהלה‬, suggests objective ‘glory’ rather than ‘praise’. ‫( עשׂה פלא‬15.11) SP ‫ פלאה‬uses a unique fem. form (for such variation in gender cf. GSH §145). Most of the Vss (not TgG(G), which keeps the sing.) rightly take ‫ פלא‬to mean ‘wonderful deeds’ in the pl., with some amplification in TgJ,N,G(W),F(P). ‫( נטית ימינך‬15.12) TgJ,N,G(FF,W),F prefix a midrash to this verse (with some variations of wording) to explain why it was the earth and not the sea which ‘swallowed up’ the Egyptians: there was an argument between sea and earth which was resolved when God swore an oath (‘stretched out his hand’: cf. the idiom in 6.8 etc.) that no guilt would be attached to the earth for this on the day of judgement. The same explanation appears in MRI (Lauterbach 2, pp. 67-68) and elsewhere (for refs. see AramB 2, p. 204 n. 23); but not in TgO or TgG(G) (on which see below). 4QExc is damaged but seems to have read ]‫( [הרי]מו[ת‬DJD XII, p. 118), which corresponds to the rendering of TgO,G(G) and Sy (for earlier instances of such a rendering of ‫ נטה‬see Text and Versions on 14.16, 21, 26). The other Vss agree with MT (and SP) here, except that Vulg has manum instead of the expected dextram and TgG(G) adds some general statements about the activity of God’s hand for good and evil before repeating its rendering of MT. ‫( תבלעמו ארץ‬15.12) The preterite sense of the verb is recognised in all the Vss: TgJ,N,G(FF,W),F prefix ‘opened its mouth’ (from Num. 16.32) to it. SP reads ‫הארץ‬: such variations from MT in the use of the article are frequent (cf. GSH §166), but this is the only place in the poem where SP adds an article. 4QExc uses a final mem in its writing of ‫תבלעמו‬, as it does in the similar form in v. 15: since it omits the archaic waw altogether twice in v. 17, this may be a deliberate signal that the shorter form was to be preferred. SP retains the long form with verbs, but avoids it with nouns in Deut. 32 (cf. GSH §55bγ).



15.1-21

387

‫( נחית‬15.13) Most of the Vss give a straightforward rendering of MT (only Vulg’s dux fuisti[…populo] occasions some surprise, but cf. 13.21; Deut. 32.12; Pss. 31.4; 48.15; 78.72); TgO,G(G) ‫( דברהי‬cf. TgF(P)), however, must surely mean either ‘he led (it, sc. the people)’ or ‘lead (it)’ (imper.).107 R.P. Gordon (personal comm. 19 February 2014) suggests to me that it is an imper., expressing a prayer for the Jews of the Targumists’ own times (cf. Tg to Zech. 2.16: Gordon, Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets, from Nahum to Malachi [VTSup 51; Leiden, 1994], pp. 130-31). ‫( בחסדך‬15.13) LXX τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου employs a surprising equivalent for ‫ חסד‬which (apart from Prov. 20.28; Isa. 63.7: cf. 57.1) only appears in the Pentateuch (5x Genesis; 2x Exodus [cf. 34.7]). For its 13 other occurrences in the Pentateuch (from Gen. 24.12 on) LXX has the expected ἔλεος, which Aq introduced here. The implications of the wider use of δικαιοσύνη (and δίκαιος) by the LXX translators deserve further study (cf. D. Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms [SNTSMS 5; Cambridge, 1967], pp. 104-106). Here the other Vss render in their normal way: Vulg by misericordia (cf. ἔλεος) and Tgg and Sy by ‘kindness, good deeds’. ‫( עם זו גאלת‬15.13) SP replaces the rare ‫ זו‬with ‫זה‬, as it does again in v. 16, clearly preferring the more familiar form. 4QExc does not preserve the word. Most of the Vss adopt the interpretation ‘this’, which is also suggested by the maqqeph in MT, and presumably supply the rel. pron. (and in some cases the possessive ‘your’) from the context: Vulg (quae alone) looks like an exception, but in view of its iste in v. 16 it may simply offer a freer version of the analysis in the other Vss. The correct understanding of ‫ זו‬here (see Note ss) seems only to have become established in the course of the sixteenth century (Luther, Tremellius; then the AV: see my ‘Some Points of Interest’, pp. 25152). TgG(G) continues the sentence with ‘from darkness, to sustain them with quail and manna and to shade them from the heat of your sun’. ‫( נהלת‬15.13) For SP von Gall gives the MT reading, but nearly all SP mss (inc. Tal, all of Crown’s and Camb. 1846; also SamTg) read ‫נחלת‬, presumably Piel in the sense ‘you caused to inherit/possess’ (cf. TgJ ‫)ואחסינת‬. The reading probably originated in the frequent interchange of the gutturals in SP mss (cf. GSH §12h), but owed its popularity to its straightforward and welcome sense. The following ‫אל‬, however, only really fits with the MT reading, which must be original. The Vss seem to have had serious difficulty with the sense (and not only here): only Sy gives a precise equivalent. TgO has the imper. again; TgN has a future form; LXX renders with παρεκάλεσας, ‘you invited’, which Symm ‘corrected’ to διεβάστασας, ‘you carried through’ (cf. Vulg); and

  Both Grossfeld (AramB 7, p. 42) and Klein (1, p. 250; Fragment-Targums, 2, p. 47) translate ‘you led’, without comment. 107

388

EXODUS 1–18

TgG(G),F(P) have the imper. of ‫סובר‬, ‘carry’. The use of verbs for ‘carry’ may be guided by the expression ‫ אשׁר נשׂאך יהוה‬in Deut. 1.31; the other variations are probably due to puzzlement at the use of the perfect of a stage in the journey which still lay in the future at the point when the song was supposed to have been sung (cf. AramB 2, p. 204 n. 24). ‫( אל־נוה קדשׁך‬15.13) The required sense ‘dwelling’ for ‫ נוה‬is conveyed in various ways in the Vss, with the elaboration ‘the house of (your holy) Shekinah’ in TgJ,N,G(W),F(P); TgJ also prefixes ‘the mountain of your sanctuary’, to make the reference to the (Jerusalem) temple even clearer (cf. MRI [Lauterbach 2, p. 70]; this may well be correct: see the Explanatory Note). ‫( שׁמעו‬15.14) Vulg adtenderunt, ‘gave heed’ (as apparently only elsewhere in Jer. 29.8), gives ‫ שׁמע‬a sense which it can certainly have, but its reason for preferring it here is elusive. ‫( עמים‬15.14) LXX ἔθνη reflects its tendency to avoid the more frequent equivalent λαός when ‫ עם‬refers to a foreign people (so especially clearly in 19.5): 23.11 is a rare case where ἔθνος is used for ‫ עם‬referring to Israel. A marginal note in one ms. (Fb) records the variant λαοί, which might be from Aq. ‫( ירגזון‬15.14) SP reads ‫וירגזו‬, with waw added to make the connection and the paragogic nun omitted (cf. GSH §189bβ and 63b respectively: in both cases the variation from MT can go either way), and 4QExc has the same reading. LXX, Vulg, TgO,G(G,W),F(P) and Sy also have ‘and’, but the doubly unusual reading of MT (cf. TgJ,N) is most likely original. LXX and Vulg give ‫ רגז‬the sense ‘be angry’ (which it can have, esp. in Aram.: cf. ‫ כעס‬here in MRI [Lauterbach 2, p. 71]), but are probably only following the interpretation they gave it (more plausibly) on its previous occurrence in Gen. 45.24: here it does not fit the context as well as ‘trembled, were fearful’, which Tgg and Sy have (Schleusner’s view, reported by Wevers, Notes, pp. 232-33, that ὀργίζομαι could mean ‘be frightened’ is most unlikely). Aq ἐκλονήθησαν, ‘rushed wildly’, and Symm ἐταράχθησαν, ‘were confused’, showed their dissatisfaction with LXX here.108 After this word TgG(G) has a plus which expands the description of the peoples’ distress and attributes it (in a literal rendering of Isa. 59.17bα) to God’s intervention. ‫( חיל‬15.14) LXX ὠδῖνες and Vulg take ‫ חיל‬in its more frequent sense of ‘(birth-)pains’, but Tgg and Sy give the contextually more probable sense ‘trembling, fear’ (see Note xx on the translation). ‫( ישׁבי פלשׁת‬15.14) LXX, Vulg and TgJ use the gentilic ‘Philistines’, despite its oddness after ‘inhabitants of’, apparently influenced woodenly by the fact that ‫ פלשׁת‬often refers (or could refer) to the people. The addition of 108   TgJ is the only version to render the verb as a future (cf. its handling of the verbs in v. 7), but its reading may be corrupt, as it uses the perfect for ‫יאחזמו‬ in v. 15.



15.1-21

389

‘the land of’ in TgJ,N,G(W),F(P) will have a similar origin. For ‫ ישׁבי‬TgJ has ‫כל עמודי‬ ‫דיירי‬, for which AramB 2, p. 204, gives ‘All the pillars of the inhabitants of’: TgJ has a similar equivalent for ‫ כל ישׁבי כנען‬in v. 15 (from which the ‫ כל‬here no doubt derives), and cf. Gen. 46.28 (with n. 28 on it in AramB 1A) and 49.19. While, however, ‫ עמודי‬might be an expression for ‘leaders’ here, one wonders whether it is a (consistent) miswriting of ‫( עמורי‬cf. Sy’s ʿmwrʾ/ʿmwryh for ‫ ישׁבי‬in v. 15), which is a common word in Syriac for ‘inhabitant’. The verb ‫עמר‬ occurs in TgProv 2.21; 25.24; 30.28 according to some editions (cf. Jastrow, p. 1090; CAL). Jastrow also recognises the possibility that ‫ עמד‬may have had the sense ‘stay, dwell’ in Aram. (p. 1086; pres. as a Hebraism). Either way ‫ עמודי‬will represent part of a double rendering of ‫ ישׁבי‬here and in v. 15: ‫ דיירי‬is the equivalent given in TgN,G(W),F(P). ‫( אז‬15.15) In general the Vss render ‫ אז‬in the same ways as in v. 1. Here TgN certainly has ‫בכד(י)ן‬, ‘at that time’, as does TgG(W). TgG(G) joins the witnesses to ‫בכ(י)ן‬, agreeing with TgO as it does throughout its rendering of MT in this verse. ‫( נבהלו‬15.15) LXX ἔσπευσαν, ‘hastened’, follows a sense which ‫ בהל‬can have in LBH and TgAram., but the context requires its other meaning, ‘were agitated, disturbed’, which Vulg conturbati sunt (cf. ἐθορυβήθησαν in an unnamed Gk. version) and probably the Tgg’s use of the Aram. cognate attest. Sy’s dḥlw, ‘feared’, is guided too much by the context. Walters (pp. 144-48) argues that ‘were frightened’ was the meaning intended by LXX. ‫( אדום‬15.15) TgJ,N,G(W),F(P) have the gentilic ‘of the Edomites’.109 ‫( אילי מואב‬15.15) Here the same Tgg have the gentilic, as does LXX. LXX and Sy prefix ‘and’, no doubt as a secondary addition. For ‫ אילי‬LXX has ἄρχοντες, as it does again in Ezek. 31.11. Sy gbrʾ, probably in the sense ‘strong or mighty man’ (Payne Smith, p. 59), would belong with Tgg ‫תקיפי‬ and Vulg robustos here (cf. LXX at 2 Kgs 24.15 [in a καιγε section] and the Three at Ezek. 31.11; Vulg at Ezek. 17.13; 31.11; 32.21; Tg at Ezek. 31.11; 32.21; Sy at Ezek. 31.11), which evidently related ‫ איל‬to ‫ ֵאל‬in the sense of ‘strength’ (BDB, p. 43, sect. 7; cf. the use of ἰσχυρός for ‫ ֵאל‬as a divine title in some books of LXX and more widely in the Three). There seems to be no trace in the Vss of the modern view that ‫ איל‬in the sense of ‘leader, ruler’ is a metaphorical development from ‫‘ = איל‬ram’ (on which see Note zz on the translation).

  In 4QExc there may be an empty space (at the end of a line) after this word: there are ‘dark spots’ in it, but DJD XII, p. 119, is doubtful if they are the remains of writing which would form an addition to MT. TgG(G) has another of its expansions at this point, attributing the disturbance to ‘the report of the dwellers of Zoan’, who are less likely to be the Israelites (Klein 1, p. 250 n. 8) than Egyptian informants. 109

390

EXODUS 1–18

‫( יאחזמו‬15.15) 4QExc again uses a final form of mem: see Text and Versions on ‫ תבלעמו‬in v. 12. ‫( רעד‬15.15) TgG(G) adds ‘and they drank the cup of wrath and wormwood’ (cf. Jer. 25.15). ‫( נמגו‬15.15) The (metaphorical) sense ‘melted’ is reproduced in LXX and, with the addition of ‘their hearts (within them)’, in TgJ,N,G(W); TgO,G(G) and Sy ‘were frightened’ (cf. CAL on ‫ )תבר‬will be an explanation of this (TgF(P) has elements of both these renderings). Vulg obriguerunt, ‘became stiff, hard’, is more puzzling, but since Vulg elsewhere renders ‫ מוג‬by prostrari, ‘be thrown to the ground’ (e.g. Josh. 2.24, with timore), the sense intended may be ‘numb, motionless’. ‫( כל ישׁבי כנען‬15.15) On TgJ see above on ‫ ישׁבי פלשׁת‬in v. 14. TgN,G(W),F(P) again have ‘the land of (Canaan)’ here. ‫( תפל‬15.16) All the Vss render as a future/jussive rather than a preterite: TgJ,G(W),F have a second person sing. Aphel form, making Yahweh the subject (this reading also appears in some TgO sources, and consequently in TgG(G)). At first sight MRI seems to continue its past tense interpretation, since it correlates both this and the next verb with events in the Exodus-conquest narrative (cf. the tr. in Lauterbach 2, pp. 74-75). But it does refer to prayers here and it may cite the events because they were seen as the fulfilment of the text as a prayer. ‫( אימתה‬15.16) SP has ‫ אימה‬and this standardisation of the unusual form in MT (cf. Note ccc on the translation) was made at an early date, as it also appears in 4QExc. Aq oddly gave it the sense ‘amazement’, probably by using κατάπληξις (cf. 23.27). Some Tgg elaborate, either by reading ‘fear of death’ (TgJ,Nmg,F(V): cf. Ps. 55.5) or by adding ‘of you’, i.e. God (TgN,G(W)). ‫( ופחד‬15.16) TgN,G(W) again add ‘of you’, while TgG(G) has a distinctive addition, ‘upon every people and tongue’ (for the expression cf. Isa. 66.18 and Tg there). ‫ תברא‬in TgNmg,F(V) is probably just an alternative, if more intense, word for ‘fear’ (see the note on ‫ נמגו‬in v. 15). TgG(W) adds ‘O Lord’, as other Tgg do in vv. 8 and 10. ‫( בגדל‬15.16) SP mss all (inc. Tal, Sadaqa, Crown and Camb. 1846) have the plene form ‫בגדול‬, as does 4QExc, confirming MT’s vocalisation (on which see Note ddd on the translation). Von Gall’s bracketing of the waw, implying that it should be deleted (cf. p. lxix), exemplifies his tendency to prefer MT readings even against massive SP evidence and should be ignored. The use of nouns in the Vss to render this word is not evidence for a reading ‫ ְבּג ֶֹדל‬: as modern EVV. show, a noun may just as well stand for MT. ‫( זרועך‬15.16) TgO,G(G),F(P) avoid the anthropomorphism by substituting ‫ ;בת(ו)קפך‬the other Tgg bring out the same meaning by additions. ‫( ידמו כאבן‬15.16) Again the Vss give the verb a future/jussive sense (cf. above on ‫)תפל‬. LXX ἀπολιθωθήτωσαν, ‘let them become like stone’, apparently derived ‫ ידמו‬from ‫דמה‬, ‘be like’, and Sy nṭbʿwn will be modelled (quite inappropriately) on the stone-imagery in v. 5, where Sy uses the same verb.



15.1-21

391

The Tgg (inc. SamTg) recognised the verb as ‫ דמם‬in the sense ‘be silent’, with ‘be still, stupefied’ in addition in TgN and instead in TgF(V): Aq and Theod taceant (for σιγάτωσαν?) and Symm immobiles fiant (cf. Vulg: for ἀκίνητοι γενηθήτωσαν?) correct LXX accordingly. TgJ,N,G(W),F(V) and Sy hve the pl. ‘like stones’ (cf. v. 5 and the note).110 ‫( יהוה‬15.16) Tgg (except TgF(V), which omits the whole of v. 16bα) add ‘(the streams of) the Arnon’ to specify which river was ‘crossed’. TgG(G) also adds ‫בניסין‬, ‘with miracles’. ‫( עם‬15.16) LXX and TgJ,F(P) repeat the possessive suffix from the previous clause, unnecessarily because of the words that follow. ‫( זו‬15.16) Here Vulg joins the other Vss in having a double rendering iste quem (see the note on ‫ זו‬in v. 13). SP again reads ‫זה‬, displacing the less familiar form. 4QExc has ֹ‫[ז]ו‬, but little survives. ‫( קנית‬15.16) LXX, Vulg and TgJ (cf. MRI [Lauterbach 2, pp. 75-76]) have the expected sense ‘you acquired, possessed’, but all the other Tgg and Sy have ‘you redeemed’, which is clearly drawn from v. 13. AramB 7, p. 43 n. 23, attributes this to influence from the Talmudic interpretation of the passage as attesting the double redemption and entry into the land after the Exodus and the Babylonian exile (B.Sanh. 98b). The fact that ‘redemption’ in the strict sense is a kind of ‘purchase’, which ‫ קנה‬can mean, may also have played a part. Afterwards TgO,N,G(W) add ‘(the ford of) the Jordan’ and TgJ,F(P) ‘the ford of the Jabbok’: TgF(V), which has a conflated rendering of the end of the verse ending ‘which you acquired for your name’, mentions both. The Jordan, which is also mentioned in MRI (Lauterbach 2, pp. 75), fits the Exodus story well, but the Jabbok in central Transjordan suits a journey from the north into (future) Israelite territory better (cf. Deut. 3.16), like Jacob’s in Genesis 32. TgG(G) adds ‘with great (or many) marvels’ after ‘redeemed’ and nothing more survives: but, given its basic similarity to TgO, it most likely ended with ‘the Jordan’. ‫( תבאמו ותטעמו‬15.17) 4QExc has the regular form of the suffix with both verbs; compare its use of a final mem where it has the longer form in vv. 12 and 15. LXX and Vulg idiomatically represent the suffix with only one of the verbs, and for the first LXX as often uses the Greek participle (cf. Aejmaleus, On the Track, pp. 7-16; Lemmelijn, pp. 146-48). As in v. 16 all the Vss render these verbs in the future tense. ‫ ותטעמו‬is rendered straightforwardly by LXX, Vulg, TgJ,F(V) and Sy. TgO ‘you will cause them to dwell’ unpacks the metaphor, while TgN,G(W),F(P) elaborate it with ‘you will give them an inheritance’ on the basis of the following phrase. ‫( בהר נחלתך‬15.17) TgJ ‫ בית מוקדשׁך‬interprets the ‘inheritance’ to mean the temple here (cf. MRI [Lauterbach 2, pp. 77-78]). TgN,F(V) add ‫ בית‬with the same intention. TgG(W) omits the phrase altogether. Neither SP nor SamTg 110   Most SP mss read ‫( ידמאו‬or ‫)ידאמו‬, which is a merely orthographic variation (cf. Num. 21.18 and GSH §16a).

392

EXODUS 1–18

contains any sectarian addition here, but M.Marqa 2.10 clearly brings out the connection with Gerizim/Bethel in Samaritan understanding of the verse (on Gerizim see further Crown, Companion, pp. 99-103, and the addition in SP after Exod. 20.17). ‫( מכון לשׁבתך‬15.17) These words can be treated as in apposition to the previous phrase, with a rel. pron. supplied before ‫( פעלת‬so LXX, Vulg, TgG(W),F(P)), or they can be seen as the obj. of ‫( פעלת‬so TgO,J,N,F(P), Sy), making a close parallel with ‫ מקדשׁ‬in the second half of the verse. The ambiguity of the verb ‫ כון‬and a desire to play down the reality of a divine dwelling on earth led to considerable variations in the translation of this phrase. LXX ἕτοιμον related ‫( מכון‬viewed as a part.?) to the sense ‘prepare’ for ‫כון‬, which also influenced the renderings of TgN,F(P) and one of the two which appear side by side in TgJ. Alongside it TgJ has ‘a place which corresponds to (pass. part. Pael of ‫ ’) ָכּוַ ן‬God’s heavenly dwelling (‘the throne of your glory’), a view of the temple deduced in MRI (Lauterbach 2, p. 78) from Ps. 11.4 and 1 Kgs 8.13. Other Vss have no such qualms and render ‫ מכון‬as ‘a (strong: cf. ‫= כון‬ “establish” – TgO [cf. Vulg]) place’ (TgG(W),F(V),Nmg, Sy) and expand ‫ לשׁבתך‬to ‘a house for your dwelling’/(holy) Shekinah’ (TgO,N,Nmg,G(W),F and the other version in TgJ) or represent it without any modification (LXX, Vulg, Sy). Aq (and possibly Symm), with ἕδρασμα εἰς καθέδραν σου, seems more intent on etymological correctness than theological niceties (cf. his use of ἑδράζω for ‫ כוננו‬later in the verse). ‫( פעלת‬15.17) MT’s reading is supported by SP (in 4QExc and 4Q365 there are lacunae) and the renderings of LXX, Vulg and Sy (cf. MRI [Lauterbach 2, pp. 78-79]), but the Tgg use ‫ תקן‬Aph. (TgO,J,N,F(P),G(W)) or ‫( זמן‬TgF(V/N),Nmg), both words that correspond to the meanings of ‫כון‬. Since they are so used by some Tgg elsewhere in the verse, it is probably not necessary to assume a different Vorlage here: the Tgg avoid the idea that God ‘made’ the temple and substitute a more general word attributing it to his oversight. ‫( מקדשׁ‬15.17) The MT accents and the Vss indicate a break in sense before this word, but the SP mss put the break after it, presumably construing it as the obj. of ‫ פעלת‬and also implicitly of ‫כוננו‬. SamTg does not help. Most Sy mss add the suffix ‘your’ to match those earlier in the verse, but 5b1 and the other witnesses agree with MT’s reading, which must be original. TgJ prefixes ‫בית‬. ‫( אדני‬15.17) SP, 4QExc and 4Qflor(174) have ‫ יהוה‬again and according to BHS so do many Masoretic mss and at least one from the Cairo Genizah. The Vss are no help in determining their Vorlage. Cross and Freedman read )‫יהו(ה‬ here, and the Qumran attestation of this reading gives it strong support. But it is easy to see how an original ‫ אדני‬might have been changed to ‫ יהוה‬to match its uniform use elsewhere in the poem (vv. 1[, 2], 3, 6, 11, 16, 18, as well as the preceding phrase in v. 17), so certainty is impossible. ‫( כוננו‬15.17) LXX, TgO and Vulg render according to the standard meanings of ‫ כון‬on which their treatments of ‫ מכון‬were based (see above: similarly Aq); also Sy, although its tqnyhy bʾydyk turns the words into a prayer



15.1-21

393

(reading MT as ‫כונן‬, sing. imperative, plus ‫ו‬-, object suffix). The other Tgg use here forms of ‫שׁכלל‬, which can mean ‘establish’ as well as ‘finish’. ‫( ידיך‬15.17) At first sight it seems that there is evidence for a sing. form which might be intended to resist the bold anthropomorphism of MT. But SP’s ‫ ידך‬probably represents the pl. (cf. GSH §55bγ), and in 4QExc the kaph of ‫ ידך‬is said by DJD XII, p. 119, to have been overwritten on ‘two descending strokes, perhaps yod-waw’, so that the scribe may have intended the yodh to be retained (see Pl. XIX). In TgO,N,F ‫ ידך‬is of course a possible way of writing the dual noun with the suffix (Stevenson, §13), as their verbal forms confirm. TgJ,N,F.G(W) actually emphasise the dual sense by adding ‫תרתן‬, ‘two’, no doubt reflecting the view that it showed how precious the temple was to God (MRI [Lauterbach 2, p. 79]). The normal dual ending is found in 4Qflor and reflected in LXX, Vulg, Sy and TgJ,G(W). ‫( ימלך יהוה‬15.18) The imperfect verb is rendered as a future in Aq, Symm, Vulg and Sy (cf. MRI [Lauterbach 2, p. 80]), but by a present participle in LXX (rendered qui regnas in some OL witnesses) and Theod and by nominal periphrases in the Tgg, presumably to avoid any suggestion that God is not yet the King (cf. Salvesen, Symmachus, p. 96). Other LXX translators had no such qualms about using the future of βασιλεύω of God (Ezek. 20.33; Mic. 4.7; Ps. 145.10), even where the Heb. had the perfect (Isa. 24.23; 52.7) or the noun ‫( ֶמ ֶל‬Ps. 10.16); but the Exodus translator has already shown his preference for the timeless present and participle in 3.14. Here as there the Tgg take the opportunity to give a full doctrinal exposition of the text. The transliteration of the divine name as ΠΙΠΙ in Aq, Symm and Theod is recorded here (cf. the lists of other attestations in Hatch and Redpath, p. 1135): this, or rather the original form in the palaeo-Heb. script, was apparently the general practice in Jewish Greek biblical mss (cf. Jellicoe, Septuagint, pp. 131, 271-72: to the evidence mentioned 8HevXIIgr should now be added). The Syhex presentation of Symm has dylk after it, which Salvesen (ibid., noting possible parallels in Isa. 51.22; 52.7) finds ‘unclear’ and Wevers, (Notes, p. 235 n. 25) views as an error. Perhaps it is an indication that Symm at least expected ΠΙΠΙ to be read as (ὁ) κύριος. ‫( לעלם ועד‬15.18) SP reads ‫( עולם ועד‬or ‫עולם ועוד‬: see below), an alternative expression that appears in the Pss (see Note ppp on the translation). It is an old reading, attested in all the three Qumran witnesses which survive at this point (4QExc, 4Q365 and 4Qflor) and it could be the Vorlage for LXX (see below). TgO, Sy and Vulg probably presuppose the ‫ ל‬like MT, but the paraphrases of the other Tgg (see below) are harder to penetrate. Since in general ‫ לעלם‬is such a common expression, it is more likely to have arisen as a secondary reading and ‫ עולם ועד‬is probably original here. LXX τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ ἐπ’αἰῶνα καὶ ἔτι is a unique expression, requiring explanation in several respects. τὸν αἰῶνα is less likely the obj. of βασιλεύων (Salvesen, ibid.) than an accusative of duration ‘for ever’ (NETS), as it is several times elsewhere in LXX (e.g. Ezek. 43.7, 9). It need not be a gloss on the unique ἐπ’αἰῶνα, as such expanded renderings of ‫ (ל)עלם ועד‬are frequent in the Psalms (e.g. 9.6;

394

EXODUS 1–18

10.16), presumably for emphasis. ἔτι, like ἐπέκεινα in Mic. 4.5 and ultra in Vulg here, will be due to the misreading of ‫ וָ ֶעד‬as ‫וָ עֹד‬. TgJ and the Pal. Tgg see in the double expression here a reference to Yahweh’s kingship both in this world and in the world to come (and in TgN before creation as well: cf. 3.14): possibly TgO’s ‫ ועלמי עלמיא‬for ‫ ועד‬has the world to come in view too. The SP variant ‫ ועוד‬noted above occurs in a significant number of early mss (9 out of the 12 consulted for Schorch’s edition: cf. also von Gall’s apparatus) and is presupposed in mss of SamTg and SamArab, which confirm that it was understood in the sense ‘and beyond’. Probably the Samaritan tradition had both this reading and ‫ ועד‬from its beginning and ‫ ועוד‬shows the impact of a two-age eschatology at this point there too, as also in a related variation in Gen. 8.22 (S. Schorch, ‘In aeternum et ultra. Die Vorstellung eines Zeitenendes nach Gen 8,22 und Ex 15,18’, in J. Kotjatko-Reeb et al. [eds.], Nichts Neues unter der Sonne? Zeitvorstellungen im Alten Testament [FS E.-J. Waschke; BZAW 450; Berlin and New York, 2014], pp. 371-82). In addition TgJ and the Pal. Tgg make this verse a separate utterance of the Israelites and TgJ (to which TgF(V) is very close) and TgN,G(FF) recapitulate the events at the sea which gave rise to it. TgF(P) has the ‘Four Nights’ midrash here instead of at 12.42 (see Text and Versions there). ‫( כי‬15.19) All the Vss understood the sense to be causal rather than temporal, but a minority reading in LXX is ὅτε, which Wevers describes as ‘much simpler’ than the unclear connection of ὅτι (Notes, p. 235). ‫( סוס‬15.19) The evidently collective sense was handled in different ways. LXX’s ἵππος could be intended as the fem. form = ‘cavalry’, as the def. art. makes clearer in 14.9, 23 (cf. v. 7). Vulg equus (the reading eques is secondary) departs from its equitatus in 14.9, 23 (and OL here) and renders the Heb. in its normal sense (as in 15.1, 21), no doubt intending a collective sense for the sing., which Tgg and Sy bring out more clearly by using pl. forms here. ‫( ברכבו‬15.19) Here all the Vss use the pl. Sy and TgG(W) ignore the ‫ ב‬and LXX the suffix: an equivalent to the latter is added in the Three and the O-text. ‫( ובפרשׁיו‬15.19) Not only Sy and TgG(W) but LXX, Vulg and TgJ,F pass over the ‫ ב‬here, and LXX again does not represent the suffix: the Three and the O-text add αὐτοῦ. As for the previous word, there is no need to envisage a Vorlage different from MT and SP. LXX ἀναβάταις continues to use the equivalent which it introduced in 14.23. ‫( בים‬15.19) Sy bgw ymʾ assimilates to ‫ בתוך הים‬at the end of the verse. ‫( וישׁב‬15.19) LXX ἐπήγαγεν (cf. OL adduxit) is, as Wevers observes (Notes, pp. 235-36), a free and rare match for ‫ שׁוב‬Hiphil: ἐπάγω is more often used for ‫ בוא‬Hiphil. The other Vss (inc. Vulg reduxit) follow the Heb. attested by MT and SP, which retains the verb used in the Qal in 14.26-28 and is no doubt original. ‫( יהוה עלהם‬15.19) Most Sy mss, including 7a1, invert the word-order, probably for stylistic reasons: 5b1 and 8b1 follow MT.



15.1-21

395

‫( את־מי הים‬15.19) SP and 4QExc agree with MT, but 4Q365 has replaced ‫ מי‬with ‫מימי‬, which is the form of the constr. st. elsewhere in Exod. ‫( ביבשׁה בתוך הים‬15.19) 4Q365 continued with the words which follow this phrase at the end of 14.29 to complete the recall of the earlier narrative. TgJ has a different addition: ‘and there sweet springs came up, and fruit trees and green plants and choice fruit at the bottom of the sea’, partly anticipated in MRI (Lauterbach 2, pp. 51-52, on 15.8). For the fruit AramB 2, p. 205 n. 38 compares Exod.R. 21.10.111 ‫( ותקח‬15.20) Vulg sumpsit ergo makes the kind of causal connection between vv. 19 and 20 which some have found to be implied by ‫ כי‬in the former verse. But for Vulg enim (‫ )כי‬there clearly made a connection with the preceding poem. ‫( את־התף‬15.20) The Vss all use words for ‫( תף‬also later in the verse) which mean ‘drum’, not ‘tambourine’, according to the most recent authorities: cf. Note uuu on the translation. TgN has the pl. here, probably a mistake caused by the pl. form later in the verse: the other Pal.Tgg have the sing. ‫( ותצאן‬15.20) The (secondary) plene form appears in SP, 4QExc (probably) and 4Q365 ([‫ו]תֹצינה‬: for the spelling cf. GK §74k and Qimron, pp. 22-23 (100.61). ‫( בתפים ובמחלת‬15.20) SP and 4QExc agree with MT (4Q365 has only the first ‫ ב‬before a lacuna) and LXX and Vulg render as expected, perhaps also TgO (but see below) and TgF(P),G(W). TgN,F(V) understandably paraphrase with ‘they were dancing with drums’. But Sy wbrbyʿʾ (pl.) took ‫ מחלה‬to mean another musical instrument (‘a square or oblong tabor hung from the neck’ [Payne Smith, p. 526]), and a similar understanding of it is presupposed in MRI (Lauterbach 2, pp. 82-83). This may also be intended by TgO’s ‫בחנגין‬: although CAL gives only the meanings ‘(circle) dance, fair’, both Levy (1, p. 265) and Jastrow (p. 458) cite occurrences of this rare root which seem to involve musical instruments. Certainly this is how TgJ understood it in 32.19, where it adds ‘which were in the hands of the wicked’, and its expansion of the paraphrase in TgN,F(V) here by the addition of ‘and with ‫ חנגייא‬they were ‫( ’מחנגין‬AramB ‘and playing the hingas’) points the same way. ‫( ותען להם‬15.21) The meaning ‘sing’ is clearly represented in TgJ,F(P), Vulg and Sy. In Sy the Aphel gives the special sense ‘lead in singing’, which is also indicated in Vulg and in LXX ἐξῆρχεν (cf. MRI [Lauterbach 2, pp. 7-8, 83]). TgF(P), Sy and Vulg make explicit that ‫ להם‬refers to the women in the previous verse (cf. Note yyy on the translation), and LXX αὐτῶν probably does too. TgO ‫( ומעניא‬cf. TgNmg) and TgN ‫ וענת‬use forms of Aram. ‫עני‬, ‘answer, respond’ (cf. the renderings in AramB), which Jastrow (p. 1093) and CAL agree can mean ‘sing a response, refrain’ in the Pael. Whether such a special usage is involved here or not, the use of ‫ עני‬suggests that ‫ להם‬is being taken to refer 111   Two Sy mss (7h13, 8b1) have ‘through the sea as on dry land’, harmonising with the Peshiṭta’s tr. of 14.29.

396

EXODUS 1–18

not to the women but to those who sing vv. 1b-18 (TgO,N both use the masc. form ‫ )להון‬and that Miriam alone sings (?) a response to them. Aq and Symm κατέλεγεν (followed in Aq at least by αὐταῖς) is a word which stands for ‫ענה‬ I in its special legal sense in LXX at Deut. 19.16: it can mean ‘recount, repeat, recite’ (but not ‘answer’) and it is also used by Aq and/or Symm for ‫ ענה‬IV (= ‘sing’) in Num. 21.17, 1 Sam. 21.12 and Ps. 147.7, as well as in Jer. 25.30; 51.14 where ‫ ענה‬IV may have a related but different meaning (see Note xxx on the translation). These revisers of LXX were evidently seeking a consistent equivalent that fitted the passages where ‘answer’ was not appropriate, but they seem to have either not known or ignored the possibility that ‘sing’ was meant. In all three approaches to the sense here there was a strong preference for presenting the action as continuous: only TgJ,N have the perfect tense that most closely corresponds to MT. ‫( מרים‬15.21) LXX added λέγουσα, providing an introduction to the direct speech (followed by Vulg dicens after OL) as it does occasionally elsewhere (e.g. 3.12) in imitation of Heb. ‫( לאמר‬see THGE, p. 255). ‫( שׁירו‬15.21) Here too, as with ‫ אשׁירה‬in v. 1 (see the note), the Vss generally substitute a first pl. form for the Heb. (in the Tgg, as in v. 1, with two verbs). MT finds support in SP, 4QExc, TgO (except for its extra verb), Sy (cf. Brockelmann, §173) and the mg of LXXF (ᾄσατε, perhaps from Aq). ‫( כי גאה גאה סוס ורכבו רמה בים‬15.21) LXX, Vulg, TgO and Sy reproduce their renderings of the same words in v. 1 and SP has the same variant ‫גוי‬ for the first ‫ גאה‬as there: on the details see the notes on v. 1. The other Tgg are broadly but not exactly similar to what they have there. TgF(P) is the only surviving text to have all three of the expansionary elements (see the footnote on ‫ גאה גאה‬in Text and Versions on v. 1); TgJ,N omit the general statement about punishment here, but they have (different) introductory formulae of praise (cf. Sy, and TgJ in v. 1) which TgF(P) lacks. Minor variations between these Tgg reflect a complex pattern of exegetical development which cannot be explored here. A different and perhaps older expansion of the Song of Miriam appears, sadly in a fragmentary form, in 4Q365 fr. 6a ii + 6c, 1-7 (cf. DJD XIII, pp. 269-71). Only the right-hand portion of these lines at the top of a column is preserved. The text of 15.22-26 lower down on the fr. suggests a ‘letter space average’ of 63 per line (DJD XIII, p. 270), so a substantial amount of text has been lost between the sections that survive. Probably not much is missing from the beginning of the expansion, as the end of v. 20 is likely to have been close to the bottom of the previous column (47 lines reconstructed including it [DJD XIII, pp. 256, 269], which seems an unusually high figure: see the comparative data in Tov, Scribal Practices, pp. 84-99).112 The state of 112   Cf. A. Feldman, ‘The Song of Miriam (4Q365 6a ii + 6c 1-7 Revisited’, JBL 132 (2013), pp. 905-11 (907, where his partial reconstruction and translation of the text can be found).



15.1-21

397

the fragments makes the reconstruction of connected sense-units impossible. Second sing. masc. forms appear in ll. 1, 3 and 6, suggesting direct address to God as in vv. 6-17: the second pl. fem. form ‫ רוממנה‬in l. 6 perhaps introduces words which the women of v. 20 are to say in response to Miriam’s own praise. The language used parallels that of the Song of Moses at several points (‫ גאות‬in ll. 2, 7; ‫גדול‬ ֯ and ‫ ]מושיע =[ ֯מו֯ שיא‬in l. 3, ‫ במים אדירים‬in l. 5, ‫מרומם‬ in l. 6, ‫ ]עו[שה‬in l. 7), so the supplementer may have been seeking to create a fuller song for Miriam which echoed the canonical poem. The nominal use of ‫ )שונא =( שונה‬for ‘enemy’ is found in BH (BDB, p. 971), in Ben Sira and at Qumran (DCH 8, pp. 169-70), and several other words appear in the Qumran hymns (‫בזה‬, ‫גאות‬, ‫גדול‬, ‫)מים אדירים‬, while ‫ פדות‬is common in the War Scroll.113 This is ‘the largest preserved expansion of 4QRPc’ (DJD XIII, p. 270), but the preserved text provides no evidence for a direct connection with the expansionary material in the Tgg: the few parallels of language that there are can be explained in other ways.114 No other ancient text appears to preserve a similar composition or a reference to one.115

113   For these and other comparisons of the vocabulary with texts from Qumran see H. Tervanotko, ‘ “The Hope of the Enemy has Perished”: The Figure of Miriam in the Qumran Library’, in A. Lange et al., From Qumran to Aleppo (FRLANT 230; Göttingen, 2009), pp. 156-75 (166-67), and more fully and with wider reference to other ancient literature in Denying her Voice: The Figure of Miriam in Ancient Jewish Literature (JAJSup 23; Göttingen, 2016), esp. pp. 147-61. 114   Tervanotko, art. cit., pp. 170-73, thinks a connection is possible, in the light of her proposal to read ‫ נש[בח‬at the end of l. 4: this verb is known in Heb. in the sense ‘praise’, and also occurs in the Targumic expansions of the Song of Miriam. 115   There is a broad similarity of purpose to the poems in LXXDan. 3.26-45, 52-90, as was pointed out to me by Dr N.A. Wormell, who also drew my attention to Franz Schubert’s cantata The Song of Miriam, a setting of Grillparzer’s Miriams Siegesgesang. Further comparisons are made by G.J. Brooke, ‘Power to the Powerless: A Long-Lost Song of Miriam’, BAR 20/3 (1994), pp. 62-65, who renders l. 6 ‘and he exalted her to the heights’: Judith 16; 1QM 11 and 14; Luke 1.46-55 (the Magnificat); more generally Philo, De Vita Cont. 83-88. See also especially the works of Tervanotko and Feldman referred to above for details of other references to Miriam in Second Temple literature (including Qumran) and some alternative readings of the 4Q365 text.

THE JOU R N E Y TO T H E M O U NTAIN OF GOD (15.22–18.27)

C h ap t er 1 5 . 2 2 - 2 7 Sw e e t Wate r an d L aws at M ar ah a nd Elim

This section is clearly marked off from the preceding verses by the conclusion of the episode at the sea and the introduction of themes that belong to the wilderness journey. For that reason 15.22 is the beginning not only of a new pericope but of a fresh major section of the Exodus narrative, and the break is reflected in both the Jewish and the Samaritan manuscript traditions (MT; 4Q365; SP).1 This new main section extends to the end of ch. 18 and further ‘wilderness narratives’ appear in Num. 10.11–21.20 (see section 3 [ii] of the Introduction to the Commentary, where their distinctive characteristics are outlined). Here it is possible only to note some of the main topics of modern scholarly study of these chapters. At one time interest in the route of the Israelites’ journey was prevalent, after the opening up of the Sinai peninsula and neighbouring regions to modern exploration and mapping (see the classic work of E.H. Palmer, The Desert of the Exodus, for example). This subsequently generated a literary and comparative study of the texts describing the purported route, initiated by Noth’s article ‘Der Wallfahrtsweg zum Sinai’, PJ 36 (1940), pp. 5-28 (see further the Excursus on the wilderness itinerary in the introduction to 12.28-42, 50-51). But well before this studies of the origins of the wilderness tradition had suggested that the idea of a journey by stages through the desert was artificial. Instead, it was proposed, the individual stories reflected a long period which Israel’s ancestors had spent at Kadesh

1

  No other Qumran evidence is available at this point.



15.22-27

399

(cf. Deut. 1.46), during which major developments in their religious life had taken place.2 Noth, who had identified ‘the leading through the wilderness’ as an old element of the Pentateuchal tradition, was sceptical about this hypothesis, allowing only that Exod. 17.1-7 had its roots at Kadesh, and it no longer enjoys much support.3 More attention is given to the recurring motif of ‘murmuring’ or, as Coats prefers, ‘rebellion’ by the people against Moses, of which examples have already appeared earlier in the narrative (5.20–6.1; 14.1114).4 Important as this motif is, it should not be overlooked that it is interwoven with the more positive theme of Yahweh’s provision for his people’s needs of sustenance and protection on their journey.5 Finally, on a different front, the past sixty years have also seen fresh advances in the study of the geography and archaeology of the Sinai Peninsula, which contribute in various ways to the understanding of the wilderness narratives.6

2   See already Wellhausen, Prolegomena4, pp. 348-49, ET, pp. 342-43, with further developments of the theory in Meyer, Israeliten, pp. 60-82, and especially Gressmann, Mose, pp. 386-92, 419-24, 431-48; Anfänge, pp. 77-116. A brief summary is given by Schmidt, Exodus, Sinai und Mose, pp. 106-109. 3   Noth, pp. 111-12, ET, 140; more fully in ÜGP, pp. 62-63, 180-82. Schmidt, op. cit., p. 109, is similarly unconvinced: see further the criticisms of H.F. Fuhs, ‘Qades – Materialen zu den Wüstentraditionen Israels’, BN 9 (1979), pp. 54-70, and L.E. Axelsson, The Lord Rose Up from Seir: Studies in the History and Traditions of the Negev and Southern Judah (CBOT 25; Stockholm, 1987), pp. 113-18. Blenkinsopp, on the other hand, gives Kadesh a prominent place in his history of tradition (pp. 137-38, 162-63, 179 n. 6). 4   Cf. Coats, Rebellion, passim, with further contributions from Childs, pp. 256-64, Van Seters, Life, pp. 165-75, and Frankel, The Murmuring Stories. 5   On this, and its greater emphasis elsewhere, see C. Barth, ‘Zur Bedeutung der Wüstentradition’, in Volume du Congrès, Genève 1965 (VTSup 15; Leiden, 1966), pp. 14-23. Another pertinent qualification is that in the non-Priestly narrative the murmuring motif appears only in the sections which we will conclude (on other grounds) come from the ‘J’ strand: it is not present in 15.25b; 16.4-5, 21, 26-31; 17.8-16, 18.1-27. 6   E.g. B. Rothenberg et al., God’s Wilderness: Discoveries in Sinai (London, 1961); T.L. Thompson, The Settlement of Sinai and the Negev in the Bronze Age (Beiheft B8 to TAVO; Wiesbaden, 1975); Lipschitz, Sinai; Z. Meshel and I. Finkelstein (eds.), Sinai in Antiquity: Researches in the History and Archaeology of the Peninsula (Heb.; Tel Aviv, 1980); Meshel, Sinai: Excavations and Studies (BARIS 876; Oxford, 2000), esp. ‘An Explanation of the Israelites’ Wanderings in the Wilderness’, pp. 152-61.

400

EXODUS 1–18

The end of the present section has traditionally been placed after 15.26 (see Text and Versions there), without any break between 15.27 and 16.1. This accords with the text’s geographical connections: 15.27 is a notice of the arrival at Elim which has no explicit connection with the preceding narrative, whereas Elim is mentioned again (twice) in 16.1. It was only the introduction of the Latin chapter-divisions in the medieval period that placed a division after 15.27, probably because both it and the Marah-story shared a concern with the provision of water, which is absent from ch. 16.7 The standard Masoretic and Samaritan textual traditions have no divisions within vv. 22-26, but the enlarged waw after v. 25 in 4QpalExm indicates a break there, apparently absent from 4Q365, which might preserve a memory that v. 26 was a later addition to the story (see below). 4Q365 seems to have had a vacat after v. 22 (see Text and Versions), i.e. before the Marah-story proper begins. Verse 22 is a transitional narrative of the beginning of the wilderness journey, with three verbs of movement and a final clause indicating a general absence of water. The arrival at Marah, with its undrinkable water (v. 23), leads to the people’s complaint (v. 24) and, through the intercession of Moses, a God-given solution to the problem (v. 25a). The reader expects that the journey will continue, as it does with the movement to Elim in v. 27, but first comes a puzzling statement about legislation and a test for the people ‘there’, i.e. apparently at Marah (v. 25b). The subject of the two verbs is not explicit but is probably Yahweh (see the Explanatory Note). The reference to legislation is then picked up in an explanatory speech by Yahweh with a quite general scope and with no expressed addressee, though the second sing. verbs and pronouns presumably refer to the people (like the third person sing. pronouns in v. 25b). Thus the framework of the section is provided by a journey narrative (vv. 22-23aα, 27), into which have been set (a) a short narrative of divine help (vv. 23aβb-25a) and (b) a brief account of divine instruction (vv. 25b-26). The passage’s 7   The Latin division might be due to a homiletic association of Marah with Elim through Christian symbolic interpretation in terms of law and gospel (cf. Jerome, Ep. 69.6; Maximus of Turin, Serm. 67-68: ACCS 3, p. 84). By contrast Philo, VM 1.181-91, and Josephus, AJ 3.9-32, seem to have associated 15.27 with ch. 16.



15.22-27

401

diversity of form, as well as other features, has led to a variety of views among modern scholars about the process of its composition, especially with regard to (b). Wellhausen (Composition, pp. 77-79) attributed the whole section to JE, rejecting the older view (e.g. of Knobel, pp. 157-58; cf. Num.-Josh., p. 532) that the itinerary-sections in vv. 22-23 and 27 were from P. Dillmann agreed for vv. 22-23 but not for v. 27 (pp. 161-64). On this issue Wellhausen’s view was followed by most later commentators until Noth and it continues to be influential (cf. Childs [p. 266], Levin [pp. 348-51], Van Seters [Life, pp. 155, 175-76], Dozeman [pp. 359-60] and Albertz [pp. 264-65]). Noth (p. 101, ET, pp. 127-28; ÜGP, p. 18) limited the itinerary-frame to v. 22aα (thus only a note of departure) and 27 (a note of arrival) and attributed this to P because of the ‘stereotyped phrases’ which ‘continue to occur…within the framework of the narratives in P’: he presumably had 16.1, 17.1 (although it is not attached to a P narrative) and 19.1-2a in mind.8 Some subsequent scholars have agreed with Noth (Coats, Rebellion, p. 47 [including also v. 22aβ]; Hyatt, pp. 171, 173; Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, p. 170), and some others have taken the same view only about v. 27, because of its formal link to 16.1 (Fritz, Israel, p. 7 and n. 4; Graupner, Elohist, p. 90 n. 290: cf. Gressmann, Anfänge, pp. 77, 82). A more widespread and lasting departure from Wellhausen’s unified view of the passage concerns vv. 25b and 26. Verse 25b, which Wellhausen had described as ‘a poetic fragment’, was attributed to E by some for a time (Carpenter/Harford-Battersby, Holzinger, Gressmann, McNeile), but Jülicher’s early assignment of it to a Deuteronomistic redactor (‘Die Quellen’, pp. 275-76) gradually became the dominant view. The main alternative has been that it is not in fact to be separated from the main Marah narrative (so Smend, Eissfeldt, Rudolph [in part], Childs, Baden [p. 139]), a view that is of course easier to maintain for those who regard the J source as a whole as exilic in origin (Van Seters, Life, pp. 177-78). For v. 26 a Deuteronomistic origin has been generally accepted, though its final clause (and sometimes more) is often attributed to the main narrative (Carpenter/Harford-Battersby, Smend, Gressmann, Eissfeldt, Rudolph, Childs, Baden [ibid.]).9 The discussion of these verses in older commentaries was complicated by the then popular view that ‘he tested them’ in v. 25 was a relic of a tradition about Massah, hence Kadesh (on which see above).

8   Noth appears to forget that he had been content to attribute 12.37 and 13.20 to J. 9   Lohfink (‘Ich bin Jahwe, dein Arzt’, p. 41, ET, p. 63) concludes that the style of the verse (and v. 25b) has Priestly features too, so that it belongs to the ‘Pentateuch redactor’ or later, but this view has found little support.

402

EXODUS 1–18

Apart from some early advocates of E (Knobel [i.e. his Rechtsbuch, cf. Num.-Josh., p. 532]; Dillmann, Baentsch), most source-critics assigned the main Marah narrative to J, with more or less conviction (see Baentsch, p. 141, for the difficulty in resolving the issue on the evidence of vocabulary). Fritz contents himself with the observation that the passage attaches itself well to the J strand in chs. 13–14 (p. 8), but when he comes to discuss the geographical terminology he recognises that ‘Yam Suf’ does not occur there, so that this location of the crossing of the sea comes ‘after the event’ (nachträglich [p. 38]; cf. Levin, p. 348), which is surely surprising. Smend (pp. 145-46) and those who followed him attached the passage to J1/L/N because they thought that it would duplicate the narrative in 17.1-7 if it occurred in J(2) or E, but this was never a strong argument and was weakened further when doubts arose about that passage’s division between two parallel accounts (see the introduction to 17.1-7). Newer kinds of analysis of the Pentateuch have generally attributed the nucleus of the section to its oldest narrative layer, whatever they call it, but Lohfink’s study left open the possibility that it was only inserted by the Pentateuch redactor or a later supplementer (‘Ich bin Jahwe, dein Arzt’, p. 31, ET, pp. 53-54). Propp, in what is admittedly a very tentative exploration of the issues (pp. 574-76: see the further ‘Speculation’ in vol. 2, pp. 749-50), seems to be the only scholar who has been attracted by this possibility.

The account of the ‘sweetening’ of the water of Marah (vv. 2325a), with its introduction in v. 22, should probably be regarded as a literary unity. There are no awkward connections or signs of parallel narratives in these verses, and arguments based on an ‘itinerary style’ or Priestly characteristics overlook the differences from real itineraries (and extracts from them) and the regular features of Priestly narrative. Those who seek to separate off an ‘itinerary introduction’ have not been able to agree where it ends. Each word of v. 22aα (‘Then Moses…Yam Suf’), which features in all such proposals, is distinct from Priestly and/or itinerary style: the verb for ‘departure’ is in the causative form with Moses as the subject; ‘Israel’ is an expression of the older source(s); and ‘Yam Suf’ is not used to describe the sea that was crossed in P or in the itinerary in Numbers 33 (see further below on its relevance for the attachment of the section to the earlier narrative). There is a general similarity in vv. 22-23aα to what is found in Num. 33.8, but even in the expression that is most similar, ‘they went…for three days’, the Numbers parallel has the additional word derek, ‘a journey of’, and the name given to the wilderness is ‘Etham’ and not ‘Shur’. There is insufficient agreement to establish a literary dependence in



15.22-27

403

either direction. Already the end of v. 22 and the beginning of v. 23 are shaped to prepare for the divine intervention that will make the water of Marah drinkable: there is no interest in an encampment at Marah as such (though it is not excluded by the word ‘came’). Apart from its lack of Priestly characteristics, the passage is difficult to assign to a particular narrative strand. The use of the divine name Yahweh need not exclude an attribution to E after the revelation and explanation of the name in 3.13-15 (contrary to Graupner’s argument in Elohist, pp. 89-90). On the contrary, the use of ‘Yam Suf’ as the first goal of the departing Israelites in 13.18 might seem to support such a view (so also Graupner, p. 90). ‘Yam Suf’ also occurs, in a non-Priestly context, in 10.19, which is generally attributed to J, but we have argued (see the introduction to 10.1-20) that the verse belongs to E as part of the main plague-narrative that has been preserved in Exodus. Nevertheless even this indicator is not decisive. No mention of the Israelites’ arrival at ‘the sea’ that can be attributed to J seems to have been preserved – ‘the sea’ first appears in J (if we are right to assign 14.21aβ to E) in 14.27b – and that is where a specific name for it would most likely have been given, perhaps ‘Yam Suf’.10 For the moment we must be content with the description of the narrative as ‘non-Priestly’, but the following discussion may provide some indirect evidence to resolve the issue. At first sight (and this is no doubt intentional) the ‘There’ at the beginning of v. 25b makes a strong connection with what has preceded, as if v. 25b (and v. 26) formed the conclusion to the Marah narrative. But what it says bears no obvious relation to the main story and its very vagueness, both grammatically and in its context, only adds to its strangeness (see the Explanatory Note). No similar conclusion appears at the end of any of the other wilderness narratives in Exodus and Numbers. Even if it is possible to imagine a reason why the statement about legislation and testing was placed here (see below), it is virtually certain that this was not originally the conclusion of the Marah story. As is suggested in the Explanatory Note, it seems most probable that ‘there’ was first intended to mean the wilderness as a whole, including ‘the mountain of 10   Some other vocabulary items might be cited in favour of a J origin for the narrative, but in most cases they occur in passages attributed to E as well: see Baentsch, p. 141.

404

EXODUS 1–18

God’, and that it stood in a different context at the beginning of an account of the wilderness period of Israel’s early history, to pick out what the author of that account saw as the most important themes of the wilderness narrative. Possibly that is its purpose in its present position, but the natural inference that ‘There’ now means ‘at Marah’ implies rather that the redactor who placed it here had in mind a specific act of legislation and testing at the beginning of the wilderness journey, as soon as the Israelites began their ‘march of freedom’. His intention may have had something in common with the institution of a permanent ritual remembrance that was introduced in chs. 12–13. There is a clue to where the redactor found this summary of the wilderness journey in the reference to God ‘testing’ Israel here, as in the ‘test’ of Abraham’s ‘fear of God’ in Genesis 22 (cf. v. 1), which is picked up again in Exod. 20.20 – both passages being normally attributed to E in source-critical analyses (the ‘fear of God’ is another well-known characteristic of E’s theology: cf. 14.31a). It is true that Yahweh’s testing of Israel in the wilderness is also the focus of Deut. 8 (cf. vv. 2 and 16: later 13.4) and that in v. 26 which follows the language is strongly Deuteronomistic (see below). But the use of the nouns ‘statute’ and ‘ordinance’ in the singular here, albeit probably in a collective sense (see Note l on the translation), is most uncharacteristic of Deuteronomic style and belongs rather to the sources which the Deuteronomistic Historian used (Josh. 24.25; 1 Sam. 30.25) and to the non-Priestly narrative in Genesis (47.26). The idea that anyone, whether God or Moses, gave the people laws in the wilderness is also quite alien to Deuteronomic thinking. Verse 25b is then best regarded, as several early critics saw, as an extract from (the beginning of) E’s wilderness narrative and the story to which it was then rather abruptly attached will presumably be from J, as many have thought (see above). Van Seters, who takes this view, went on to argue that ‘the motif of murmuring and intercession in vs. 23-25a’ supports his argument that J is of exilic origin (Life, pp. 177-78, cf. 167-75). Moses’ role as an intercessor in Exodus is, however, expressed in quite different language from that found in Deuteronomistic literature and the prophetic intercession of Amos (7.2, 5) is a pre-exilic parallel that is not so easily discounted as Van Seters supposes. As has just been said (and as is agreed by nearly all scholars), the literary affinities of most of v. 26 are with the Deuteronomic tradition (for details see the Explanatory Note). It provides, in classic



15.22-27

405

Deuteronomic terms, a homiletic elaboration of the reference to legislation in v. 25b by indicating the rewards for obedience to the law (cf. Deut. 28.1-14). The explicitly positive emphasis of this verse corresponds closely to the longer exhortation that concludes the Book of the Covenant (23.20-33), where both the frequent reinforcement of the opening of the conditional clause (‘If you will indeed obey…’: Heb. infinitive absolute) and the very rare word used for diseases here (cf. Note m on the translation) recur (23.22, 25). But it has often been observed that the final clause of v. 26, with its reference to Yahweh as the ‘healer’ from disease, does not share the general Deuteronomic character of the language of the verse. The verb ‘to heal’ (Heb. rāpāʾ) is also used in a metaphorical sense of making unpleasant water drinkable in a story about Elisha located at Jericho in 2 Kgs 2.19-22 (cf. vv. 21-22: NRSV ‘[made] wholesome’), that is in a narrative taken up by the Deuteronomistic Historian. There is therefore in the use of this verb at least a loose connection with the Marah story and presumably the redactor either introduced it here to correlate his parenesis more closely with the narrative context or found it as the original conclusion of the Marah story and modified it into a conditional promise to take account of the reference to legislation which he or an earlier redactor had included by the addition of v. 25b. It is possible that the other divergences from Deuteronomic style in v. 26 which have been carefully identified by Lohfink (‘Ich bin Jahwe’, pp. 33-39 = ET pp. 55-61) are not, as he thinks, due to Priestly influence but to v. 26 being from an early stage of the Deuteronomic tradition, to which the redactor who combined J and E (and the author of 23.20-33 if they are not the same) has sometimes been thought to belong (cf. A. Reichert, ‘Der Jehowist und die sogenannten deuteronomistischen Erweiterungen im Buch Exodus’ [unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Tübingen, 1972], pp. 89-95, esp. 90-91). Verse 27 is linked by its reference to Elim to 16.1 (and through it to 17.1 and 19.2a). It is a separate itinerary-note, which in fact corresponds only to the second (arrival) element of the standard form, and it has no connection beyond the references to water with the Marah-story. Its wording is almost identical to Num. 33.9, where it also follows Marah in the list of stopping-places (see the Explanatory Note for minor variations between the two verses). The widespread attribution of the verse and those associated with it to J (or the oldest layer of narrative in some recent writing) has no

406

EXODUS 1–18

real justification. A Priestly origin has more in its favour because of the connection to 16.1 (and 17.1), where some features of Priestly language appear in the present text, but it will be argued in the commentary there that these features are secondary additions deriving from the dominant Priestly version of the manna-story in ch. 16. Like 12.37 and 13.20 all these verses (and 19.2a) most likely derive from an ‘itinerary-redaction’ which has a Deuteronomistic background (see the Excursus on the Wilderness Itinerary in the introduction to 12.28-42, 50-51 and especially my ‘The Wilderness Itineraries and the Composition of the Pentateuch’). With this section of the narrative the landscape changes and a new group of themes is briefly introduced. The first stage of Israel’s onward journey quickly brings them face to face with the hardships of travel through the desert which lies between Egypt and the promised land of Canaan. The first is the shortage of water, or at least drinkable water, and it leads the people to complain to their leader Moses, who had secured their release from Egypt (14.31). True to his role as Israel’s mediator with Yahweh, he intercedes for them and through Yahweh’s help the problem is solved (just as a later prophet will do in 2 Kgs 2.19-22). A new attribute of Yahweh as the ‘Healer’ of his people is made known (v. 26). This short ‘story of deliverance’ has been elaborated to introduce here, right at the beginning of the journey, two further ways in which Yahweh will deal with his people in the future: by providing guidelines for their behaviour which must be followed if they are to continue to know his protection, and by testing them to ensure that they recognise his authority over them (cf. 16.4; 20.20). But the journey is not all hardship, as appears from another addition (v. 27) which inserts a halt at an oasis before further travel through the desert begins in 16.1. 22 Then Moses made Israel departa from the Yam Suf and they went outb into the wilderness of Shur. They went through the wilderness for three days and found no water. 23 Then they came to Marah, but they could not drink the water from Marahc, because it was bitter – that is why its namee was calledd Marah. 24 So the people complainedf to Moses, saying,g ‘What can we drink?’h 25 He cried out to Yahweh and Yahweh showed himi a piece of woodj. He threw it into the water and the water became sweet. [There khe made statutes and ordinancesl for them, and



15.22-27

407

there he tested themk]: 26 [he said, If you will indeed obey the voice of Yahweh your God and do what is right in his sight and hearken to his commandments and keep all his statutes, I will not inflict on you all the diseasesm which I inflicted on the Egyptians, for I am Yahweh your healer.] 27 [Then they came to Elim, wheren there were twelve springs of water and seventy palm-treeso, and they camped there by the water.]

Notes on the Translation a. Heb. ‫ויסע‬, Hiph. of ‫נסע‬, for which see earlier 12.37 and 13.20, in itinerary-notes of a more regular kind, and the notes there. In the absence of any further specification the sense ‘depart’ is implied by the following ‫מן‬. The Hiph. is used with a divine subject in a similar sense in Pss. 78.52; 80.9 (and in Ps. 78.26 with a wind as the object [cf. Num. 11.31]), but this is the only case in BH of its use with a human ‘leader’: for other verbs which express this idea in relation to the Exodus see the Explanatory Note. b. Heb. ‫ויצאו‬. On the textual variants see Text and Versions. ‫ יצא‬is more often followed by ‫ מן‬than ‫( אל‬and often so in the Exodus traditions), but occurrences with ‫( אל‬or a word with he locale) are by no means infrequent, both of persons and of places (for the latter cf. 16.3). c. Heb. ‫ממרה‬. The sense ‘because of bitterness’ is theoretically possible (cf. Prov. 14.10) but unlikely, as the reason is already expressed in a different way in the following words. Although ‘the water of’ is more commonly expressed by the constr. state of ‫מים‬, ‫ מן‬is occasionally used (like Eng. ‘from’) even where there is no preceding verb that requires it (7.18, 21; 2 Sam. 23.15 par. 1 Chr. 11.17). d. Heb. ‫קרא‬, an indefinite use of the third person m.s., which is equivalent to a passive as in Gen. 11.9 etc. (cf. LXX ἐπωνομάσθη) here. GK §144d-e and JM §155d-e follow the medieval view that in such cases a cognate parti�ciple (which appears e.g. in Deut. 17.6) is understood (cf. Driver, Samuel2, p. 132, on 1 Sam. 16.4). e. Heb. ‫שׁמה‬. The omission of the object marker ‫ את‬here is especially common in this formula (cf. 2.10; 17.7, 15), but by no means universal (e.g. 2.22). f. Heb. ‫וילנו‬. For the plural verb with a collective sing. subject see GK §145b. The verb ‫( לון‬which is to be distinguished from ‫לין‬, ‘lodge, pass the night’) occurs only in the Hexateuch (Exod. 15.24; 16.2, 7-8; 17.3; Num. 14.2, 27, 29, 36; 16.11; 17.6, 20; Josh. 9.18) and, probably, in Ps. 59.6. In Exodus and Numbers it appears chiefly in Priestly passages (only Exod. 15.24; 17.3 are normally regarded as non-Priestly): cf. the related noun ‫( תלנה‬Exod. 16.7, 8 [2x], 9, 12; Num. 14.27; 17.20, 25). Both Niphal (as here) and Hiphil forms are attested in MT, sometimes with variations within a passage and between

408

EXODUS 1–18

Kethibh and Qere, but without any apparent difference in meaning.11 Such synonymity between the Niphal and the Hiphil is unusual (more often [e.g. ‫ ]סתר‬the Niphal represents the passive or reflexive of the Hiphil): the Niphal is found with other verbs representing sound (e.g. ‫אנח‬, ‫)אנק‬, and possibly the Hiphil was meant to introduce a note of wilfulness (cf. its use with ‫זעק‬ and ‫)רוע‬. The common translation ‘murmur’ (Tyndale, AV; and see Text and Versions) has been criticised by G.W. Coats, Rebellion, pp. 21-28, on the ground that the frequent connection with ‫ על‬implies stronger opposition or ‘rebellion’ (cf. TWAT 4, 528-30 = TDOT 7, p. 510-12; contra Childs, pp. 266, 268), but there are other words for this. The milder ‘complain’ would fit the contexts just as well (so REB, NRSV). If the form ‫ וילינו‬in Ps. 59.16 is derived from this verb (with some versional support), the meaning there is probably ‘growl’ (so Gunkel, Psalmen, p. 252, noting the comparison to dogs in the previous verse): a similar sense has been found in the Phoenician Kilamuwa inscription (KAI 24.10; J.C.L. Gibson, Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, 3, Phoenician Inscriptions (Oxford, 1982), p. 34: ‘whimper’), but the reading is not certain and interpretations vary (J. Tropper, ‘ “Sie knurrten wie Hunde”. Psalm 59,16, Kilamuwa:10 und die Semantik der Wurzel lwn’, ZAW 106 [1994], pp. 87-95; DNWSI, p. 575). g. Heb. ‫לּאמר‬: see Note b on the translation of 6.10–7.5. Unusually the verse has no athnach: the tiphchah under this word serves as the principal disjunctive accent here (GK §15f, no. 5; Yeivin, Introduction [Chico CA, 1980], pp. 177-79): likewise in v. 18. h. Heb. ‫נשׁתה‬. The imperfect is probably modal (cf. ‫)לא יכלו לשׁתת‬: JM §113l, Joosten, Verbal System, pp. 273-74. i. Heb. ‫ויורהו‬. For the sense ‘show’ cf. Gen. 46.28; Ps. 45.5; Prov. 6.13 (‫ ;)באצבעתיו‬and perhaps Job 6.24. Earlier in Exodus (4.12, 15) it had the sense ‘teach, instruct’. j. Heb. ‫עץ‬. ‘A tree’ is unlikely to be the meaning, as what is ‘shown’ is also ‘thrown’. The sense ‘a piece of wood’ is mainly found in the pl. (e.g. 1 Kgs 17.12) or with reference to a wooden artefact (Deut. 19.5; 2 Sam. 21.19), but presumably a broken branch of a tree is meant here. BDB’s ‘shrub?’ (p. 781) is less likely. k. Heb. ‫שׂם לו…נסהו‬. The antecedents of the subjects of the verbs and the pronominal suffixes are not as clear as they could be: the last sing. verbal subject is Moses (‫ )וישׁלך‬and the last pronominal object (‫ )ויורהו‬also referred to him. The speech introduced by ‫ ויאמר‬in v. 26 refers at first to Yahweh in the third person, but in the latter part of the verse the speaker is clearly identified as Yahweh himself (see also the Explanatory Note). While it is just possible that Moses is the subject of the verbs in v. 25b, the content is much more

11   On the unusual vocalisation of some Hiphil forms in Exodus and Numbers see Note o on the translation of 16.1-36.



15.22-27

409

appropriate to Yahweh (but see below), who has been mentioned twice earlier in v. 25. The sing. pronominal suffixes might then refer to Moses, but again the content and parallels elsewhere (see the Explanatory Note) make this less likely and the people as a whole are probably meant (cf. ‫ העם‬in v. 24, even though the verbs of which it is the subject there are plural), as they are by the second sing. verbal forms and suffixes in v. 26. The lack of clarity may well be due to the clumsy insertion of material that once stood elsewhere (cf. 18.5 [where ‫ שׁם‬also occurs] and the commentary there; and the introduction to this section). l. Heb. ‫חק ומשׁפט‬. ‫ חק‬has occurred in a special sense in 5.14 and in its more common legal sense in 12.24 (cf. ‫ חקה‬in 12.14, 17, 43; 13.10); for occurrences later in Exodus see 18.16, 20; 29.28; 30.21 (‫ חקה‬in 27.21; 28.43; 29.9). ‫משׁפט‬ occurs in Exodus as a word for a ‘rule’ also in 21.1, 9, 31; 24.3; 26.30 (the meaning in 23.6; 28.15, 29, 30 [2x] is different). The exact definition of this usage is debated: F. Horst and R. Hentschke think that civil laws are meant, as distinct from the cultic laws denoted by ‫חק‬, while Alt saw the ‫ משׁפטים‬as those with a casuistic form (‘Die Ursprünge des israelitischen Rechts’ [first published in 1934], in his Kleine Schriften 1, pp. 278-332 [289, ET, p. 92]), from which others such as G. Liedke and Hentschke have deduced that ‫חק‬ stands for ‘apodictic legal rules’ (cf. THAT 1, 629-30 = TLOT 2, p. 470; THAT 2, 1005-1007 = TLOT 3, p. 1397). Others again have questioned whether there is sufficient basis for such distinctions and it is widely agreed that in lists of legal terms the words become virtually synonymous (cf. TWAT 3, 152-53 = TDOT 5, pp. 142-43; TWAT 5, 103-105 = 9, pp. 94-96). It might seem that in 21.1 ‫ משׁפטים‬means civil or casuistic laws in view of the sequence that follows (cf. also vv. 9, 31), but it may be arbitrary to limit the scope of the title to 21.2–22.26 and not include the apodictic and (in part) cultic laws in 22.17–23.19 as well. A stronger case can perhaps be made on the basis of other meanings of ‫ משׁפט‬and their association with court procedure, but such connections need not mean that ‫ משׁפטים‬were not enacted or imposed as much as ‫חקים‬. Indeed a verse like Exod. 15.25 suggests that they were (cf. Josh. 24.25; 1 Sam. 30.25; Ezra 7.10). So the distinction between the terms may be more between different aspects of laws than different types of laws. A final issue is whether the sing. expressions here mean a single ‘statute and rule’ or have a collective sense, as we have translated them. The similar expressions just mentioned support both possibilities: in 1 Sam. 30.25 (cf. Gen. 47.26 with ‫ חק‬alone) a single regulation about the distribution of booty seems to be meant, while in Josh. 24.25 and Ezra 7.10 a more comprehensive corpus of laws is involved. m. Heb. ‫כל־המחלה‬. In view of ‫ כל‬a collective sense equivalent to a plural is presumably intended. ‫ מחלה‬is a rare equivalent to the much more common ‫( חלי‬24x in BH): it occurs elsewhere only in 23.25 (part of the parenesis in 23.20-33 which is similar to 15.25b-26 in other ways) and in 1 Kgs 8.37 and its par. in Chronicles. It is not used in Deuteronomy (or anywhere else in Deuteronomistic literature), where the words for sickness are ‫חלי‬, ‫ מכה‬and ‫מדוה‬

410

EXODUS 1–18

(cf. Deut. 7.15; 28.27, 59-61). Some of the other language used here is also not characteristically Deuteronomic: ‫רפא‬, ‘heal’, with a divine subj. belongs rather to JE (Gen. 20.17; Num. 12.13: cf. Deut. 32.39) and (metaphorically) to Hosea (6.1; 7.1; 11.3; 14.5) and ‫ האזין‬only occurs in Deuteronomy twice (1.45, with God as subj.; 32.1 of the heavens), but widely elsewhere, including two probably northern psalms (Pss. 77.2; 80.2). n. Heb. ‫ושׁם‬. ‫ שׁם‬often stands at the beginning of a clause (cf. v. 25 and BDB, p. 1027) to highlight the connection with what has preceded: with waw and a noun-clause as here (cf. Num. 13.22; 1 Sam. 1.3; 24.4; 2 Kgs 4.8; Jer. 37.13; Neh. 10.40; 1 Chr. 11.4) it in effect introduces a relative clause (cf. GK §156b). o. Heb. ‫תמרים‬. The date-palm is meant: MH ‫ ָתּ ָמר‬and Ar. tamrun are both used for the fruit, which is not explicitly mentioned in BH; but cf. Song 7.8-9, and it may be the source of the ‘honey’ (Heb. ‫ )דבשׁ‬in 3.8, 17; 13.5 and elsewhere (ABD 2, p. 807). Jericho, known as ‘the city of palms’, was the classic palm-oasis in the OT (Deut. 34.3 etc.).

Explanatory Notes 22. The celebrations of their deliverance completed, it is time for Israel (the name as in 14.30-31a) to move on from the Yam Suph (on which see the notes on 13.17-18 and 15.4). Unusually for such notes of movement (but cf. 14.15) Moses’ leadership is emphasised by the use of the causative form of the verb ‘depart’ (see Note a on the translation). Elsewhere this idea is expressed by similar forms of the verbs ‘go out’ (yāṣāʾ) and ‘go up’ (ʿālāh): cf. 3.10-12; 14.11; 17.3; 32.1, 7, 23, 33.1, 12 (in 6.13, 26-27; 16.3 together with Aaron), and SP and LXX extend it to to the following verb here (see Text and Versions). The people first enter ‘the Wilderness of Shur’, which is mentioned only here.12 But ‘Shur’ occurs in other contexts relating to the northern part of the Sinai peninsula, and in three of them it is close to or ‘before’ (perhaps ‘east of’) Egypt (Gen. 25.18; 1 Sam. 15.7; 27.8: cf. Gen. 16.7; 20.1). So ‘the Wilderness of Shur’ was most likely a broad term referring to the desert of north-western Sinai. ‘Shur’ (Heb. šûr) is a poetic word for a ‘wall’ in Gen. 49.22 and 2 Sam. 22.30 = Ps. 18.30 (here apparently of a defensive wall) and it may have been used of the well defended eastern border of 12   In the full itinerary in Num. 33.1-49 the corresponding region is called ‘the Wilderness of Etham’ (v. 8), after a place on the edge of it which is named in vv. 6-7 and also in Exod. 13.20.



15.22-27

411

Egypt (cf. Lipschitz, Sinai [Part I] [Tel Aviv, 1978], pp. 27, 44, 51-52; ABD 5, p. 1230): Egyptian texts refer to this as ‘the Wall of the Ruler’ (cf. ANET, pp. 19, 446).13 On ‘three days’ as a short but imprecise period see the Explanatory Note on 3.18. 23. In Hebrew the name Marah sounds like a feminine form of the word for ‘bitter’ (mārāh), and this is the basis for the connection made between its ‘bitter’ waters and the name that had been given to it by travellers. (There is no suggestion here that the name was due to the specific experience or behaviour of the Israelites, unlike 17.7 and Num. 11.3 and 34.) On the meanings of this and other ‘taste’ words in Hebrew and related languages see P.D. King, Surrounded by Bitterness (Eugene OR, 2012), pp. 326-29: while some of its applications do relate to substances which are scientifically ‘bitter’ (Exod. 12.8; Deut. 32.32; Isa. 24.9), Heb. mar could be used, as here, more generally of anything unpleasant to the taste or harmful, just as ‘sweet’ need not mean ‘sugary’ but rather ‘pleasant’ (cf. Isa. 5.20; Prov. 27.7). The common inference that the water of Marah was salty or brackish is therefore fully justified.14 Ora Lipschitz, describing the hydrology of the Sinai peninsula, notes that high salinity is a general problem in the region southeast of Suez, affecting such places as Bir Murrah, Uyun Musa, Ain Sudr, Wadi Gharandel and Wadi Tayibeh (Sinai 1, pp. 10-11). Earlier travellers to the area observed the same widespread phenomenon and identified particular places with Marah on the basis of the especially unpleasant water there and their own views about the location of the sea-crossing: from north to south Bir el-Murr (Murrah), east of Suez (M. Harel, Masaʿe Sinay [Tel Aviv, 1968], pp. 46, 232-33), Uyun Musa (Deacon Peter [Egeria?]: cf. Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels, pp. 207-208) and most commonly among nineteenth-century travellers Ain Hawwara c. 40 mi. SSE of Suez (Robinson, Biblical Researches 1, pp. 89-90, 96-98; Stanley, Sinai, pp. 37, 68; Palmer Desert 1, pp. 35, 40, 272-73). Gressmann, by contrast, but in line with his overall theory, identified Marah with Ain el-Qudeirat in northern Sinai (Anfänge, p. 78). It would seem 13   šûr is more widely used as a word for ‘wall’ in Aramaic (all periods). For other suggestions see HAL, p. 1348; also Text and Versions for the Targumic renderings. 14   In fact, as King points out, a cognate Akkadian word (marratu) was similarly used of sea-water (ibid., p. 328: cf. AHw, p. 612).

412

EXODUS 1–18

that the placing of this narrative, whatever its ultimate origin, at the beginning of the wilderness journey at least corresponds to some knowledge of natural conditions in the west of the Sinai peninsula. 24-25a. The verb ‘complain’ (Heb. lwn: see Note f on the translation, where its other occurrences are listed) occurs here for the first time in the wilderness narratives, in which it represents a regular response of the Israelites to the hardships of their journey (cf. the classic study of Coats, Rebellion, and the general introduction to the wilderness tradition above). The motif is especially prominent, in distinctive forms, in the Priestly narrative (see e.g. the commentary on 16.1-12 and Frankel, The Murmuring Stories), but signs of Priestly authorship are lacking here and in 17.1-7* and these stories have generally been attributed to the non-Priestly wilderness narrative (see the introductions to these sections). The complaint here is addressed simply to Moses and there is no explicit indication at this stage that such complaints are a criticism of Yahweh’s provision for the people (contrast 16.7-8; 17.2, 7). Nor is there the nostalgic look back to the better conditions in Egypt which appears elsewhere (cf. 16.3; 17.3: also 14.11-12), but simply the understandable and even desperate question, ‘What can we drink?’. The sequel is similarly straightforward and briefly narrated: Moses cries out to Yahweh for help, Yahweh directs his attention to the branch of a tree (Heb. ʿēṣ can mean a piece of wood as well as a whole tree: see Note j on the translation), he throws it into the water, the water becomes drinkable and (this is evidently presumed, as it is in 17.6) the people drink it. In other words, put in its simplest terms, the people face a crisis, their representative appeals for Yahweh’s help on their behalf and the crisis is overcome (Childs’s ‘Pattern I’: pp. 258-59). This is not a narrative of rebellion, like some others set in the wilderness; nor is it an etiological narrative, for the etiology in v. 24 is only incidental to the main plot line. It is a short ‘story of deliverance’, expressing the same assurance of Yahweh’s readiness to help his people when in need as inspired their simplest psalms of prayer and thanksgiving. 25b-26. ‘There’, so according to the narrative sequence at the place where Yahweh had shown his ability and willingness to help his people in the face of their need for water on their journey through the desert, ‘he’ made laws for ‘them’ (literally ‘him’ or ‘it’, but the people have been referred to in the singular as well as the



15.22-27

413

plural in vv. 22-24) and ‘he tested them’; and ‘he’ goes on to say that if the people (now ‘you’) are obedient they will be spared the diseases which have afflicted the Egyptians, because ‘I am Yahweh your healer’. Only in the final words of v. 26 is it made unambiguously clear that the words spoken are Yahweh’s words (though the two preceding first person verbs leave little doubt that this is the case). From this it is possible to work backwards and deduce that the ‘he’ at the beginning of v. 26 and in v. 25b is also Yahweh. But the reader is at first faced with some uncertainty about the actor in v. 25b and the speaker in v. 26, and even with some counterindications to the ‘obvious’ inference that both are in fact Yahweh. The last preceding singular subject is not Yahweh but Moses (‘He threw it…’) and in v. 26 Yahweh is at first referred to in the third person rather than the first person, as though someone else were the speaker. Moreover, surprising as it may seem, the first expression in v. 25b, ‘he made statutes and ordinances for them’, is used elsewhere with a human subject (Josh. 24.25 [Joshua]; 1 Sam. 30.25 [David]: cf. Gen. 47.26 [Joseph] and Ezra 7.10 [Ezra ‘teaching’]), and ‘tested’ (Heb. nissāh) is used at least once of what one human does to another (1 Kgs 10.1 [the queen of Sheba to Solomon]).15 It is understandable therefore that some commentators have thought that Moses is the subject both in v. 25b and at the beginning of v. 26.16 The change to divine first-person speech in v. 26b can in fact be paralleled in Deuteronomy (7.4; 11.13-15; 17.3; 28.20; 29.45; the reverse shift in 1.8 [Houtman, p. 312]), where the speaker is normally Moses.17 However, the association of ‘made (laws)’ and ‘tested’ must tip the balance the other way: they must have the same subject and it is only Yahweh who can do both. The association is paralleled in 16.4 (probably non-P); 20.20 as well as in Deut. 8.2; 13.4-5; 33.8-10; Judg. 2.22; 3.4. Yahweh’s ‘testing’ of Abraham in   In later biblical Heb. also in Qoh. 2.1; 7.23; Dan. 1.12, 14.   So Coats, Rebellion, pp. 49-50; V. Turgman, De l’autorité de Moïse: Ex 15,22-27 (Eilsbrunn, 1987), pp. 15-18, 20; Houtman, pp. 308, 312, 314 (only v. 26: cf. Nachmanides); Van Seters, Life, pp. 178-79, 181. 17   Albertz (p. 262 and n. 1) observes that a similar inconsistency appears in Exod. 23.23-33 and 34.11-26, though this involves the occasional change to thirdperson reference to Yahweh in what is otherwise a divine speech, i.e. the opposite of Deuteronomy. It is also sometimes found in speeches attributed to angels: Gen. 16.10-11; 22.12. 15 16

414

EXODUS 1–18

Gen. 22.1 (cf. v. 18) is also not greatly different. Israel is sometimes said to ‘test’ Yahweh (17.2, 7; Num. 14.22; Pss. 78.18, 41, 56; 95.9; 106.14) or warned against it (Deut. 6.16), but that is not the sense here. Much remains obscure about what exactly is referred to here. There is no indication of what the ‘statutes and ordinances’ (on the meanings of these terms see Note l on the translation) are and speculation about them is fruitless. As for the ‘test’, it might be the lack of drinkable water, in which case v. 25b provides ‘interpretation and commentary’ (Houtman, p. 314) on the preceding story. Or (and this seems more likely in view of what precedes and follows) it might be the choice between obedience and disobedience to the laws of Yahweh. The mention of law-giving at this point in the narrative is itself a surprise, when the tradition lays so much weight on Mount Sinai/Horeb as the place of law-giving. True, the authors of Deuteronomy felt at liberty to relocate the main giving of the law to the people on the edge of the Promised Land (though with an explanation to ‘bridge the gap’ in 5.28–6.3) and according to Josh. 24.25 a covenant with ‘statutes and ordinances’ was made at Shechem. But what was so special about Marah?18 Most likely it was not Marah or the episode located there as such that was important but the fact that it marked the beginning of the wilderness journey (or, to put it differently, the nearest possible occasion to the liberation of the Israelites from Egypt): here surely some instruction about their new life of freedom was needed.19 But the change of topic in the middle of v. 25 is, as many commentators have noted, very abrupt and both it and the uncertainties that have already been discussed could well be due to the connection not being original, with v. 25b either having been moved from another point in the narrative or being an extract from a different account

18   Some have found the key in ‘Yahweh showed him’ earlier in the verse (Heb. hôrāh can mean ‘taught’ [see Note i on the translation] and is related to the word tôrāh): see Houtman, p. 313, for some examples of this view, which Houtman rightly rejects as a distortion of the real meaning. Gressmann (Mose, pp. 121 n. 1, 414) saw it, with v. 25b, as a relic of an underlying ‘Massah tradition’ originating at Kadesh. 19   Levin (p. 351) thinks it was specifically the need to back up the reference to a law in Exod. 16.4.



15.22-27

415

of the wilderness journey.20 The possibility that ‘There’ originally referred not to a specific place but to the wilderness as a whole, hinted at by Propp (p. 579), deserves serious consideration: the short statements in v. 25b would make an apt prologue (or ‘exposition’, to borrow Coats’s term) for the wilderness narrative, picking out what seemed to be its two most memorable themes. They were certainly taken up in Deuteronomy (esp. 8.2-5, 15-16: cf. 13.4), but they are also evident elsewhere in the non-Priestly narrative of the Pentateuch (cf. Gen. 22.1; Exod. 16.4; 18.16, 20; 20.20).21 In v. 26 the language is much more distinctively Deuteronomic and the introduction of a conditional element into the promise of Yahweh’s protection corresponds to one of its central emphases. Even if the latter can also be found later in Exodus itself (19.5-6; 23.22), the wording of this verse is (except for its final words, interestingly) strongly characteristic of Deuteronomy and Deuteronomistic editing elsewhere. This is particularly true of ‘Yahweh your God’ (Deut. 1.10 etc.; 282 x in Deuteronomy), ‘obey the voice’ (18x Deuteronomy),22 ‘do what is right in his sight’ (5x Deuteronomy and often in editorial passages in Kings), ‘commandments’ and ‘statutes’ together (15x Deuteronomy, otherwise mainly in Kings) and ‘keep’ in the sense of ‘observe’ (with ‘statutes’ in Deut. 4.40; 26.17: in other similar expressions c. 50x in Deuteronomy). ‘The diseases of Egypt’ also appear in Deut. 7.15 and 28.60 (and only there), even though the Heb. is different (see Note m on the translation). The verse is clearly an exposition of the implications of v. 25b and was probably added by an editor close to Deuteronomy.

20   Lohfink makes the important observation that elsewhere in Hebrew prose narrative an introductory ‘there’ is almost always preceded by ‘and’ (Heb we: cf. v. 27): the only real exceptions are Gen. 49.31 and Deut. 10.6 (‘Ich bin Jahwe, dein Arzt’, p. 19 n. 19, ET, p. 41 n. 19). 21   Since Wellhausen (Prolegomena, p. 349, ET, p. 343; cf. Noth, p. 102, ET, p. 129) ‘tested’ (Heb. nissāh) has been associated with the place-name Massah (on which see the Note on 17.7) and hence with Kadesh. But this is a false trail (see e.g. Childs, p. 268, and the general introduction above to the wilderness narrative). 22   There is a minor difference in the Heb. idiom, since Exod. 15.26 has the preposition le, ‘to’, before ‘voice’, whereas Deut. consistently has the more common be.

416

EXODUS 1–18

Its closing words, however, have no such associations. The idea of Yahweh as ‘healer’ is widespread in the Old Testament but (apart from the poem in Deut. 32) absent from Deuteronomy (see M.L. Brown, Israel’s Divine Healer [Carlisle, 1995]; TDOT 13, pp. 593602; for a possible Ugaritic parallel see DDD, 558-60; DNWSI, pp. 742-43). Yahweh heals Abimelech and his family (Gen. 20.1718) and Miriam (Num. 12.10-15), and he is Israel’s true healer in Hosea (6.1; 7.1; 11.3; 14.5) and other prophetic passages, as well as (without the word being used) in Num. 21.8-9. ‘Healing’ was also an expression for making foul water safe and drinkable (2 Kgs 2.19-22; Ezek. 47.8-11), as in the story of Marah, and this may explain the choice of this expression here, although it was clearly intended in its normal sense. 27. The next stopping-place recorded, with no narrative attached, is an oasis, whose name Elim (like that of the more frequently mentioned Elath or Eloth at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba: Deut. 2.8 etc.) probably alludes to the number of palm-trees there.23 These would have been date-palms, which are the most common type in the Sinai peninsula and serve the needs of the Bedouin in a variety of ways (Lipschitz, Sinai, p. 15). Large oases are few and far between in the peninsula: the oasis in Wadi Feiran was particularly notable and was the site of a town in antiquity (Rothenberg, God’s Wilderness, p. 136). Otherwise the oases are smaller and generally on the coastal plain, east and west, where streams come down from the mountains. Early Christian travellers located Elim either at Wadi Gharandel (Arandara: cf. Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels, p. 208) c. 50 mi. SSE of Suez (which has remained a popular identification in modern times (cf. Abel, Géographie 2, p. 210) or at a place called Rhaethou (Ammonius, Forty Martyrs; Cosmas Indicopleustes, Christian Topography 5.14: see Davies, Way of the Wilderness, pp. 38, 43), which was probably at et-Tur in the far south-west of the peninsula. The latter received renewed support from E. Meyer, Israeliten, pp. 100-103, citing Agatharchides, On the Erythraean 23   So BDB, pp. 18-19; HAL, p. 40; Ges18, p. 48. The older view that Heb. ʾayil, ʾēlāh and ʾēlôn meant ‘terebinth’ in BH, as they do in later Heb., has now been generally abandoned in favour of the less specific ‘mighty tree’, which might apply to large palm-trees as well as to other species (cf. HAL, pp. 39, 50; Ges18, pp. 46, 60, 62; ABD 2, p. 808).



15.22-27

417

Sea (ap. Diodorus Siculus 3.42-43; Strabo 16.4.18)24 for the name Phoenikon in the second cent. B.C., but it is too far south and the ancient identification will no doubt have derived from the early monastic community there, which still survived in the 1920s (D.J. Chitty, The Desert a City [Oxford, 1966], pp. 168-73; cf. F.S. Bodenheimer and O. Theodor [eds.], Ergebnisse der Sinai-Expedition 1927 [Leipzig, 1929], pp. 1-3).25 The brief and isolated note of movement to Elim, which is continued in 16.1, is unlikely to have formed part of a discursive narrative tradition and must have been based on a geographical source of some kind (like 12.37, 13.20 and 14.2); cf. Noth, p. 101, ET, p. 128: ‘surely based on local knowledge’. This could well have been the complete itinerary in Num. 33.1-49, where v. 9 contains almost identical wording, so that a literary relationship between the two texts becomes almost inevitable.26 Modern scholars have tended to prefer the view that Num. 33.1-49 is a compilation from the main narrative in Exodus and Numbers and some other source(s) (cf. Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, pp. 161-62). But it then becomes necessary to assume the existence of another source for passages like 15.27 and 16.1. Text and Versions ‫( את־ישׂראל‬15.22) LXX τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἰσραήλ and Sy ldbyt ʾysryl expand the designation as often elsewhere (cf. 12.21; 14.25). ‫( מים־סוף‬15.22) 4Q365 has just ‫מים‬, which conforms to v. 19 (and Num. 33.8), though oddly without the def. art., as if this were still poetry (cf. ‫ ים‬in v. 10). ‫( ויצאו‬15.22) SP ‫( ויוציאהו‬von Gall’s ‫צאהו‬- is supported by only four of his mss) and LXX ἤγαγεν αὐτούς read the verb as a sing. causative like ‫ויסע‬,

  See further S.M. Burstein, Agatharchides of Cnidus, On the Erythraean Sea (with ET of the surviving fragments; London, 1989), pp. 147-50. 25   The location of Elim at ‘Surandala’ in the Itinerary of ‘Antoninus’ (para. 41: cf. Way of the Wilderness, p. 46) may have had Wadi Gharandel in view. 26   The differences are: (i) here there is no mention of the departure from Marah; (ii) Num. 33.9 has ‘and in Elim’ instead of ‘where’; (iii) Num. 33.9 lacks ‘by the water’ at the end. The Exodus redactor may have tailored his source to the narrative context by departing from the rigid pattern of the itinerary, as in 12.37. 24

418

EXODUS 1–18

with ‫ו‬- taken as the sing. obj. suffix. The other Vss assume MT’s reading. Its transition to a pl. reference to Israel is not a problem (GK §145c) and if SP’s unambiguous reading were original it is hard to see why it would have been changed to ‫ויצאו‬. 4Q365 continues with [‫וילכו במדבר ֯ש‬, apparently omitting ‫ ויצאו‬and its whole clause: [‫ ֯ש‬is probably the first letter of ‫( שלשת ימים‬with a variation in the word-order), not of ‫( שור‬as reconstructed in DJD XIII, pp. 270-71). The line will then have been noticeably short and may have ended in a vacat before v. 23. ‫( אל־מדבר־שׁור‬15.22) For ‫ מדבר‬TgF(VN) has ‫אורחא‬, probably an assimilation to its rendering of ‫ דרך שׁור‬in Gen. 16.7: TgNmg ‫ ארעא‬might be a corruption of this. LXX, Vulg and Sy transliterate the toponym ‫ ;שׁור‬but the Tgg give, as elsewhere, an interpretation of it by a contemporary place-name. TgJ,N,F have ‫חלוצא‬, ‘Halutsa’ or Elusa, the name of an originally Nabataean settlement about 30 mi. S of Gaza which became the chief city of the western part of Palestina Tertia in the fourth cent. A.D. (cf. Avi-Yonah, The Holy Land, pp. 121, 123, 125; EAEHL 2, pp. 359-60; Avi-Yonah, Gazetteer of Roman Palestine [Qedem 5; Jerusalem, 1976], p. 54). The ‫ חגרא‬of TgO is nothing to do with el-Hejra in Arabia but a name for the line of Roman forts nearby which was probably given a formal status as the limes Palaestinae by Diocletian in the early fourth cent. (cf. Avi-Yonah, The Holy Land, pp. 119-21, 162-64; Davies, ‘Hagar, el-ḥeǧra and the Location of Mount Sinai’, VT 22 [1972], pp. 152-63 [154-58]). Both these renderings define ‘the wilderness of the wanderings’ from the point of view of Palestine, unlike ‫ שׁור‬itself (see the Explanatory Note).27 ‫( שׁלשׁת ימים‬15.22) As noted above, these words were probably placed after ‫ במדבר‬in 4Q365. SP prefixed ‫( דרך‬on its omission by von Gall see Baillet, ‘Corrections’, p. 30: it is included in the mss used by Sadaqa, Tal and Crown and in Camb. Add. 1846) and equivalents appear in TgO,N and Sy. The obvious explanation is assimilation to Num. 33.8, but the longer phrase is also frequent elsewhere for defining the length of a journey (e.g. Exod. 3.18; 5.3; 8.23). ‫( ולא מצאו מים‬15.22) TgJ prefixes ‫בטלין מן פקודייא‬, a technical expression for neglecting (the study of) the Law (cf. TgJ on 17.1 etc.; AramB 2, p. 206 n. 41). MRI (Lauterbach 2, pp. 89-90) shows that this expansion was based on what was taken to be a figurative use of ‘water’ for the Law in Isa. 55.1. After ‫ מים‬LXX adds ὥστε πιεῖν (cf. ‫ לשׁתת‬in 17.1 and Num. 20.5), perhaps to distinguish drinkable water from the water of Marah in v. 23 (Wevers, Notes, p. 237). Syh notes the variation from MT with the obelus. ‫( מרתה‬15.23) Some early translations suggest uncertainty about the vowel in the first syllable: LXX (εἰς) Μέρραν, Symm (in Syh) mwrt, Sy (l) 27   MRI (Lauterbach 2, p. 87; cf. Jastrow, p. 616) describes it as ‘the wilderness of ‫’כוב‬, i.e. thorns, a reminder of the difficulties of the journey (so also in other rabbinic writings cited by Jastrow).



15.22-27

419

mwrt, Theod (in Syh) mwrʾ.28 TgO ‫ ָמ ָרה‬and Vulg marath have the ‘a’ of MT. Sy, Symm and Vulg (cf. TgN,F(P)) evidently did not recognise that the taw was the result of morphological variation before the directional ending (GK §90i). ‫( יכלו‬15.23) 4Q365 ‫ י]כולו‬exhibits the full orthography for this form which is also found in 4Q401 f14 ii 4 and 11Psa at 129.2 (compare the pausal form in MT at 8.14; 2 Kgs 3.26; Jon. 1.13 [J. Joosten, pers. comm.]): for a brief comment see Qimron, p. 42 n. 60. ‫( מים‬15.23) Rahlfs followed LXXB and a few other witnesses in omitting any equivalent, but the other uncials have ὕδωρ and Wevers judges this to be original (cf. his explanation in Notes, p. 238; for another Propp, p. 574). ‫( קרא‬15.23) LXX and TgF(P) render idiomatically in the passive (cf. Note d on the translation); the other Vss reproduce MT’s sing. active form (except for Sy8b1 qrw), either regarding Moses as the subject (so apparently Vulg) or treating it as indefinite. ‫( שׁמה‬15.23) LXX and Sy have ‘the name of that place’, clarifying with the help of the language of 17.7. ‫( מרה‬15.23) LXX Πικρία, providing an explanation for those with no knowledge of the Semitic languages, as it did in 17.7. Vulg evidently did not find this sufficient and provided an extended paraphrase of v. 23b. ‫( וילנו‬15.24) SP and 4Q365 both read the sing. (4QpalExl is not extant here); likewise LXX and Vulg, but λαός generally takes a sing. verb in Exodus (Wevers, Notes, p. 238) and Latin grammar is even stricter over agreement in number, so their evidence is inconclusive. Tgg and most mss of Sy reproduce MT’s plural, which as the difficilior lectio is to be preferred. Most of the equivalents used in the Vss mean ‘murmur, grumble, complain’, but TgF has ‫( ואדיינו‬from ‫דין‬, ‘dispute, quarrel’), which is closer to Heb. ‫ריב‬. ‫( לאמר‬15.24) Sy adds lh as in v. 26. ‫( ויצעק‬15.25) This is also the spelling in SP, but 4Q365 uses the by-form ‫זעק‬, as it did in 14.15 (see Text and Versions there): 4QpalExm does not survive here. Tgg and Sy render with ‫צלי‬, ‘pray’, as in 14.15. SP, 4Q365, LXX, TgF and most mss of Sy add ‘Moses’ as the subject. ‫( ויורהו‬15.25) SP reads ‫ויראהו‬, presumably Hiphil: one might conjecture an older reading ‫ וירהו‬behind both this and MT. Since both ‫ ירה‬and ‫ ראה‬in the Hiph. can bear the sense ‘show’ (see Note i on the translation), the renderings of LXX, Vulg, TgJ,N,F(VN) do not reveal which appeared in their Vorlagen. Neither 4QpalExm nor 4Q365 survives at this point, but MRI (Lauterbach 2, p. 92) evidently knew the variant preserved in SP and rejected it in favour of ‫ ויורהו‬taken in the sense ‘taught’, which opened the way to the ‘discovery’ of an allusion to the Torah in the word ‫( עץ‬see the next note). The use of ‫אלף‬   Might the (?) ‘o’-vowel be the result of an interpretation which, on the basis of ‫ויורהו‬, explained the name as ‘a place of teaching’ (cf. the modern views in Houtman, p. 313)? Or is it (cf. Propp, p. 576) a reflection of ‫מ ָֹרה‬, ‘bitterness’, in Gen. 26.35 (cf. LXX later in the verse)? 28

420

EXODUS 1–18

by TgO,F(P) picks up this interpretation. 4Q365 has a lacuna at this point, with room for some extra text. TgF,Nmg expand the subject of the verb to ‘the Memra of Yahweh’. ‫( עץ‬15.25) The Tgg (other than TgO) draw on several strands of early interpretation of the verse, especially those preserved in MRI (Lauterbach 2, pp. 92-94: see further the sources referred to in AramB 2, p. 69 n. 22, and J. Bienaimé, Moïse et le don de l’eau dans la tradition juive ancienne: Targum et Midrash (Rome, 1984), pp. 11-16, 42-44). TgJ,F(VN),Nmg identify the tree with a ‘bitter’ creeper; TgJ,Nmg add that Moses (or God?) wrote the divine name on it (perhaps to equate it with the staff mentioned in 4.20: see Text and Versions there);29 TgN,F(P) make associations with the Law and the ‘tree of life’ (cf. Prov. 3.18). Josephus, AJ 3.7 understands a branch of an unspecified tree to be meant. ‫( שׁם‬15.25) 4Q365 has the longer form ‫ שׁמה‬with the same meaning, as it does elsewhere: this use of ‫ שׁמה‬without a directional sense, which is already found in BH (BDB, p. 1027), was widespread at Qumran (cf. DCH 8, p. 421; more generally Qimron, p. 69). SP agrees with MT in what is certainly the older reading. ‫( שׂם‬15.25) TgJ,Nmg specify the subject as ‘the Memra of Yahweh’. The verb itself is rendered as one might expect in most Vss, but ‘showed’ (TgF(VN),Nmg), ‘read/proclaimed’ (TgF(P)) and ‘taught’ (Sy) avoid the idea of enactment. ‫( חק ומשׁפט‬15.25) SP, 4QpalExm, 4Q365 and TgO support MT’s sing. expressions, but all the other Vss have plurals (on the possibility of a collective interpretation of the Heb. see Note l on the translation). The equivalents used for ‫ משׁפט‬here all have a judicial background, but Aram. ‫ דין‬was often used for ‘law’ and this sense may have been adopted in the use of κρίσεις and iudicia in LXX and Vulg: it seems not to be paralleled in the secular use of these words. MRI (Lauterbach 2, p. 94) presented the different views of R. Joshua and R. Eleazar about which laws were meant (apparently preferring the former) and TgJ gives a list which draws on both (cf. ‫ סדרי דינין‬in TgN,F). At 16.28 MRI (p. 121) follows R. Joshua’s view that 15.25 refers to the sabbath law. ‫( ושׁם‬15.25) The early SP ms. Camb. Add. 1846 does not have the waw: probably an error due to the occurrence of ‫ שׁם‬earlier in the verse, as all other SP mss (and 4QpalExm) have it. ‫( נסהו‬15.25) Camb. Add. 1846 has ‫נסיהו‬, again differing from all other SP mss: this time the reason is probably phonetic, due to the pronunciation of the suffix as -ēhu (cf. similar variants at Gen. 41.52 in von Gall’s apparatus; GSH §55bαγ, 105a). TgJ,F(VN),Nmg add ‘with the tenth test’ (cf. Num. 14.22): if, as the place of its citation of Num. 14.22 (before that of Exod. 17.7) suggests, PRE 44 [345] is referring to the Marah episode, it too makes the subject of 29   The identification is made more explicitly in the Samaritan Asaṭīr (Elfick, ‘The Staff of Moses’, p. 53), which is now dated to the mediaeval period.



15.22-27

421

‫ נסהו‬Israel;30 TgF(P) has instead ‘and he stood up to his test’ (as said also of Abraham in Aboth 5.4), which will presuppose the general view that God is the subject (e.g. MRI [Lauterbach 2, p. 94]). In 4QpalExm ‫ נסהו‬is followed closely by an enlarged waw, which in view of its practice elsewhere probably indicates not only a division in the text (which is not paralleled in MT or SP) but that the edge of the fragment is close to the end of a line (as does the waw at the end of v. 26: cf. DJD IX, pp. 58-61, 91). ‫( ויאמר‬15.26) Sy wʾmr lh adds the addressee as e.g. in 10.29 and 12.31. ‫( שׁמוע תשׁמע‬15.26) TgO,J use the verb ‫קבל‬, which brings out the intended sense ‘obey’ more clearly (cf. 16.20 and the note there). TgN,F(P) have second person pl. forms here and throughout the verse. ‫( לקול יהוה‬15.26) A Genizah ms. cited in BHS has ‫בקול יהוה‬, which is the more common idiom for expressing obedience, but for that very reason it is likely to be secondary. TgO,J substitute ‘the Memra’ for ‫( קול‬as they do at 5.2) and TgN,F(P) add it after it. ‫( הישׁר‬15.26) LXX τὰ ἀρεστά, ‘what is pleasing’ (cf. ‫ שׁפיר‬in TgN, Sy), appears a little imprecise (unlike TgO,J ‫ כשׁר‬and Vulg rectum), but it is LXX’s regular equivalent for ‫ ישׁר‬in the Pentateuch (Wevers, Notes, p. 240) and may have been chosen because of its alternative meaning ‘acceptable, approved’ in secular Greek (LSJ, p. 238). ‫( בעיניו‬15.26) 4Q365 appears to read ‫בעינו‬, but this would only be a phonetic variant (cf. Qimron, p. 59). All the Vss (not only the Tgg) avoid a reference to Yahweh’s ‘eyes’ by a periphrasis. ‫( למצותיו‬15.26) TgN has no equivalent to the suffix, perhaps a simple error, or alternatively a reflection of colloquial reference to ‘the commandments’ (cf. above on TgJ in v. 22). There is room in a lacuna in 4Q365 for an additional word or two after this word, perhaps ‫ ולתורותיו‬or ‫ולמשׁפטיו‬. ‫( כל־חקיו‬15.26) 4Q365 prefixes ‫ את‬and uses the pl. of ‫ חקה‬rather than ‫חק‬: the latter corresponds to the preference of the Temple Scroll for the fem. form in the pl. (on the distribution in BH see BDB, p. 350). ‫( כל־מחלה‬15.26) The SP ms. Camb. Add. 1846 prefixes waw, which would make an idiomatic transition to the apodosis. But it is probably secondary, and perhaps due to dittography from the previous word. ‫( במצרים‬15.26) Most of the Vss understood ‘the Egyptians’ to be meant, but Vulg in Aegypto and ms. 5b1 of Sy bmṣryn point to the location ‘in Egypt’. ‫( עליך‬15.26) TgJ has an addition warning of punishment for disobedience but promising mercy for repentance, probably deduced from the final words of the verse (cf. MRI [Lauterbach 2, pp. 96-97]).

  This need not mean that TgJ is based on PRE here, as the ‘ten times that Israel tested God’ was a well known theme (cf. Aboth 5.7): for more general questioning of the common view that TgJ is dependent on PRE see R. Hayward, ‘Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’, JJS 42 (1991), pp. 215-46. 30

422

EXODUS 1–18

‫( רפאך‬15.26) Both 4QpalExm (by an enlarged waw) and 4Q365 (by a vacat) indicate the division here which is also regular in MT and SP mss. TgF(PVN),Nmg add ‘by my Memra’, identifying God’s ‘word’ as the means (not the intermediary) by which he heals (cf. Hayward, Divine Name, p. 119, and the cautionary comments of Chester, Divine Revelation, pp. 293-313 [esp. 311-13]). MRI (Lauterbach 2, p. 96) cites Prov. 3.8 and 4.22 in support of the Torah being the source of life and health. ‫( אילמה‬15.27) SP omits the directional ending: although SP has no aversion to this ending as such, it more often omits it after the m.pl./dual ending (cf. 7.15; 8.16; 9.8: GSH §148d). There is no Qumran evidence in this case. ‫( ושׁם‬15.27) So also 4QpalExm (‫ )]שׁם‬and most of the Vss. SP, TgJ and three LXX miniscules of the b family support ‫ובאילים‬, most likely by independent assimilation to Num. 33.9. ‫( עינת מים‬15.27) TgJ,N,F observe that the number ‘twelve’ meant one for each tribe (cf. Philo, VM 1.189; MRI [Lauterbach 2, p. 98]). ‫( ושׁבעים תמרים‬15.27) For ‫ תמרים‬LXX has στελέχη φοινίκων, lit. ‘trunks of date palm-trees’ as at Num. 33.9 and also Job 29.18 (sing.) and Sir. 50.12, where the Heb. is different: the intention must be to indicate which meaning of φοίνιξ is intended. This did not stop Ezek.Trag. (Exag. 254-69) from adding a description of the Phoenix-bird to his account of the scene at Elim (see on this the very full note of Jacobson, Exagoge, pp. 152-64). A corrector of LXXF noted that ‘the Hebrew’ had φοίνικες alone, but (although there is room for doubt) Ezekiel probably lived too early to have used such a Hebraising revision of LXX. TgO,J,F and Sy used just ‫( דקלים‬cf. Vulg palmae) but TgN follows it with ‫דתמרים‬, presumably to make clear that the Heb. refers to a date-palm. TgJ takes up MRI’s observation (cf. Philo, VM 1.189; De Fuga 186) that the number ‘seventy’ corresponds to the number of ‘the elders’ of Israel (Lauterbach 2, p. 98: cf. Exod. 24.1, 9; Num. 11.16, 24-25), and the Pal. Tgg make a further comparison with the number of the later Sanhedrin, as TgF(VN) also does at Num. 33.9. This brief account was also represented in one of the synagogue mosaics from the fifth–sixth cent. A.D. found at Huqoq in Lower Galilee. In the summer of 2019 it was announced that a scene showing the collection of dates from a row of palm-trees is accompanied by a caption formed by the first two words of Exod. 15.27. I am grateful to Professor G. Mattingly for drawing this discovery to my attention. On earlier mosaic discoveries at the site see J. Magness et al., ‘The Huqoq Excavation Project: 2014–17 Interim Report’, BASOR 380 (2018), pp. 61-131 (98).

C h ap t er 1 6 . 1 - 3 6 M an n a an d Q u ai l s i n t h e Wi ld er n es s of Sin The boundaries of this long unit, the longest in Exodus 1–20 except for 3.1–4.1-17, are firmly fixed by the subject-matter, from the location of the (first) divine provision of food in v. 1 to the explanatory parenthesis in v. 36. The isolated verse about Elim in 15.27, which was traditionally linked to ch. 16 (see the introduction to 15.22-27), relates to a separate stage on the wilderness journey and has no material connection with the following narrative. 17.1 marks the next stage(s) and leads into a new episode, as both the Masoretic mss and the two or three Qumran mss that are available recognise (see the introduction to 17.1-7). The narrative mostly progresses in a logical way, with the following main sub-divisions: (i) itinerary-note marking the arrival in the Wilderness of Sin and its date (v. 1); (ii) the complaint of the Israelites about lack of food (vv. 2-3); (iii) the promise of Yahweh to provide food and his purpose in doing so (vv. 4-5); (iv) the responses of Moses and Aaron (vv. 6-9) and then of Yahweh (vv. 10-12) to the Israelites’ complaint; (v) the provision of two kinds of food (vv. 13-15); (vi) Moses’ instructions about the daily collection of manna (vv. 16-21); (vii) the special arrangements for the Sabbath day (vv. 22-30), with Yahweh’s reaction to the disobedience of some Israelites (vv. 27-29); (viii) four concluding notes (vv. 31-36). Only the beginning of (iii) is marked by a division in the Masoretic mss (and also in 4QpalExl), which is for the same reason that they also have divisions before vv. 11 and 28 (in the latter case anticipated by 4QpalExl), namely that at these points a divine speech begins. In addition the Leningrad codex (alone) has a division before v. 6 and 4QpalExm, less naturally, has one (within a line) before v. 33. As indicated more fully in the Explanatory Notes, there are features within the chapter which have suggested that it was not originally composed as a single unit.1 For example there are dupli1   Houtman, who does not provide full source-critical analyses, clearly recognises this (pp. 323, 350-51).

424

EXODUS 1–18

cations between vv. 4 and 11-12, between vv. 14-15 and v. 31 and within v. 35; v. 21 sits awkwardly in its present position; and the Priestly language and concerns which are strongly present in much of the chapter are absent in other parts of it (vv. 4-5, 13-15, 26-31). Since at least the middle of the nineteenth century two main ‘hands’ have been identified at work in its composition, along with minor additions here and there (for a detailed review of scholarship up to 1974 see Maiberger, Das Manna, pp. 33-86). At first the two ‘hands’ were seen as the authors of two separate source-documents, corresponding to the later J and P. Knobel took this view and already in 1869 E. Schrader had defined their contents in a way that, broadly speaking, has remained influential until the present day, with vv. 4-5, 27-31 and 36 attributed to J and the remainder to P.2 Their argument was based largely on affinities of the language used to other passages, but was reinforced by the instances of duplication in the chapter. Closer study led Schrader’s followers to attribute both less and more than this ‘core’ to J (in the latter case, one may conjecture, also the desire to recover a fuller J version). In fact the shortage of conclusive data (and perhaps a relentless quest for greater precision) has led to an unusual divergence of detail even in this group of commentators, let alone between it and the other two groups to be treated below. Baentsch took up the suggestion already made by others that vv. 4bβ and 28 were Deuteronomistic additions and has been widely followed in this (not, however, by Beer/Galling, Hyatt, Childs, Propp and Baden). Only a minority of scholars have continued to regard v. 31 as from J (Gressmann, Noth, Coats [Rebellion, pp. 83-96], Fritz, Childs, W.H. Schmidt, Propp, Dozeman) and some, following the lead of Noth (ÜGP, pp. 18, 32), excluded v. 27 (Coats, Fritz, W.H. Schmidt, Propp). By contrast (in addition to some of the ‘loners’ to be considered below) others enlarged the contribution of J(E) to the present text by including parts at least of vv. 13b-15, 21 and 35 (Wellhausen, Baentsch, Gressmann [not v. 35], Beer, Hyatt [not v. 35], Childs, Propp, Dozeman [‘non-P’]).3 A few who excluded the other verses did attribute part of v. 35 to J (Noth, Coats, Fritz, W.H. Schmidt; cf. Dillmann); Coats added v. 32 (!) and Baden v. 26. 2   Knobel, Exod.-Lev. (1857), pp. 157-58 (cf. Num.-Jos., p. 548), seems to have been the first to question the unity of the chapter. For Schrader see W.M.L. de Wette, Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die Bibel Alten und Neuen Testaments (Berlin, 8th ed., 1869), pp. 281, 284. The attribution of v. 36 to J rather than P has, however, found little later acceptance: it is probably a relic of the old view that J was later than P. 3   Wellhausen originally (Composition, p. 78) also attributed parts of vv. 16-20 to JE but this part of his analysis received little support and he himself came to doubt it as well as some of his other earlier attributions (see the Nachtrag on p. 329 of the 3rd ed. [1889]).



16.1-36

425

A second group of scholars, mainly at the beginning and end of the period under review, found no evidence of a J source here and attributed the whole chapter to P and later revisers. The lead in advocating this alternative against a source-critical solution to the problems was taken by Abraham Kuenen in one of several critical responses to Wellhausen’s Composition that was first published in Dutch in 1880 (‘Manna en Kwakkelen’, ThT 14, 281-302; Gn. tr. in Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur biblischen Wissenschaft [Freiburg and Leipzig, 1894], pp. 276-94). Kuenen reaffirmed his view in the revised edition of his Historisch-critisch onderzoek in 1885 (ET The Hexateuch [London, 1886], pp. 331-32; Gn. tr. Historisch-kritische Einleitung 1.1 [Leipzig, 1887], p. 317), but in 1889 Wellhausen politely but firmly rejected Kuenen’s alternative approach (Composition3, pp. 325-29). Kuenen’s argument is initially traditio-historical, arguing that the negative view of the manna in Num. 11.6(-9) and 21.5 (and according to him also in Deut. 8.3 [and 16?] and 29.5) must be more original than its, to him, idealised description in Exodus 16. In any case the Sabbath observance insisted on in vv. 27-30 as well as vv. 2226 was impossible in JE and must be an addition made when the narrative was located after the law-giving at Sinai, like vv. 32-35. The language of the chapter was predominantly that of P (though Kuenen acknowledged that this was not the case in vv. 4b, 15a and 28-29), and its purpose was to give the provision of manna the positive evaluation and prominence which the older tradition in Numbers 11 had denied it. The disorder in the Priestly text in vv. 6-12 was due to the clumsy insertion of vv. 4-5: vv. 11-12 had originally stood at the beginning of this section. Two years after Kuenen’s original article the young Adolf Jülicher, in his long study of the sources of Exodus chs. 7–24 (‘Die Quellen’), came to very similar conclusions to Kuenen about Exodus 16, though partly with different arguments (pp. 279-94). He too found no place for JE in the chapter, attributing most of the chapter to P and (more significantly in the light of what was to come later) vv. 4-5, 6-7, 20, 27-30 and apparently 32-34 to a late Deuteronomistic redactor (pp. 288-90). Wellhausen thought highly of Jülicher and remained on friendly terms with him from 1880 to near the end of his life (see the correspondence in R. Smend [ed.], Julius Wellhausen: Briefe [Tübingen, 2013], esp. pp. 78, 134-35, 319-20, 651), even though he would not have agreed with his analysis of this chapter any more than with Kuenen’s. The torch remained with Wellhausen and his successors for almost a century: apart from the special case of B.D. Eerdmans,4 only some detailed observations of Kuenen and Jülicher found their way into the (varied) mainstream analyses of the chapter. But in 1974 E. Ruprecht chose Exodus 16 as the place to say his ‘Farewell to the Yahwist’ (‘Stellung und Bedeutung’). To be sure, the Yahwist for him means the minimal ‘remains’ found in the 4   On Eerdmans see Houtman, Pentateuch, pp. 173-78; his conclusions about the present chapter are summarised by Maiberger, Das Manna, pp. 52-54.

426

EXODUS 1–18

present text by Noth, Coats and Fritz (see above), which it was not difficult to describe as fragments between which ‘die Phantasie gewaltige Lücken ausfüllen müsste’ (p. 271). Ruprecht’s chosen method insisted that formcritical considerations must take precedence over Literarkritik, a popular if one-sided slogan of the time and one which it is not immediately easy to see as the basis for Ruprecht’s analysis. He chooses to begin, not at the beginning of the chapter but in the middle, with the Priestly section about the provision of manna for the Sabbath (vv. 22-26), and then asks what it ‘needs’ (and does not need) to make a complete narrative. His conclusion is that it needs v. 30 (and 35a?) as a conclusion, vv. 16-21 (sic) as the normal pattern for days other than the Sabbath, and vv. 2-3, 6-7(8), 9-15 to indicate the people’s need and its satisfaction in general terms. Everything else is dispensable and therefore secondary, and vv. 4-5, 28-29 and 31-32 constitute a Deuteronomistic layer of expansion overlaid on the Priestly narrative, with vv. 33-34 and 35b-36 being even later additions. This analysis of the chapter received some early support (Fritz, Tempel und Zelt [WMANT 47; Neukirchen, 1977], p. 2 n. 10; L. Perlitt, ‘Wovon der Mensch lebt (Dtn 8,3b)’, in J. Jeremias and L. Perlitt [eds.], Die Botschaft und die Boten [FS H.W. Wolff; Neukirchen, 1981], pp. 403-26 [408-409]), but it was rejected by W.H. Schmidt (Exodus, Sinai und Mose, pp. 97-99). The exclusion of the Yahwist is shared by Maiberger’s much more methodical work (Das Manna, pp. 87-142, esp. 134-42). But his original P narrative is much more limited in scope (vv. 1-3, 6-7, 9-15, 21, 31, 35a) than Ruprecht’s and he regards the Sabbath section in vv. 22-26 as being not the centre of the story but the first of three layers of expansion (of which vv. 4-5 and 27-30 are the last). Blum does not go into detail, but agrees that vv. 4 and 28 are part of a post-Priestly redactional layer, while allowing the possibility that some older material might have been used in such additions (Studien, pp. 158, 361, 378). More recently L. Schmidt’s two studies have developed an account of the chapter in which v. 1aα is the only old element and the original Priestly narrative comprises vv. 1*, 2-3, 9-15 (except for 14bβ), most of vv. 21-26 and v. 35a, with vv. 4-5, 27, 29-30 being from the ‘Pentateuch redactor’ (Studien zur Priesterschrift, pp. 36-45; ‘Die Priesterschrift in Exodus 16’, ZAW 119 [2007], pp. 483-98). Albertz has a broadly similar view but manages also to accommodate vv. 6-7, 16-20, 27 and 30 within the earliest Priestly composition: vv. 4-5 and 28-29 are taken to be insertions by the same ‘Malakredaction’ that was responsible for 15.25b-26 (pp. 262-65). This is not so far from Ruprecht’s proposal. If this second group of analyses makes a Priestly narrative the main, indeed the only independent contribution to the text, several of the very varied third group, by contrast, expand both the extent and the importance of the non-Priestly narrative within the source-materials available to the redactor(s). But this is not true of the earliest of them: Carpenter/HarfordBattersby, followed by McNeile, were close to Kuenen but found fragments



16.1-36

427

of an E account in vv. 4 and 15, while Holzinger added v. 31 and perhaps (with Wellhausen) vv. 19-20 and 21b to the remnants of JE (which he did not attempt to divide). Smend (pp. 148-51) and Eissfeldt were the first to greatly expand the non-Priestly contribution (divided between their two ‘Yahwist’ sources), because they saw the provision of two kinds of food as a defining characteristic of the Priestly narrative and therefore confined it to parts of vv. 2-14. Rudolph (pp. 34-36) accepted Kuenen’s approach but turned it on its head by making the J narrative the only continuous account (vv. 1a, 2*, 3, 4abα, 13b-17, 21, 31), leaving a lot of secondary material (much of it Priestly in character). This is not too different from the more recent analyses of Levin and Van Seters. The former (pp. 352-55: cf. Kratz, Komposition, pp. 246-47) finds no independent Priestly narrative in this chapter (although he generally does elsewhere in Exodus) and attributes sections with a ‘Priestly’ character to several very late layers of redactional expansion. For his (exilic) J, which includes an older form of the narrative, there remain vv. 1a, 4a, 13b-15, 21 and 31: v. 4b and all references to the Sabbath are among the late redactional additions. Van Seters’s account (pp. 181-91) at least has the merits of simplicity, with all the text allocated either to an original J narrative or to a single Priestly reworking of it. To provide his J (also exilic) with an appropriate introduction, Van Seters ‘borrows’ vv. 1-3 (apart from their Priestly overlay) and 6-7 from what is ascribed to P by almost all other critics; for the rest it includes vv. 4-5, 13b-15, 21, 27-31 and 35a. The remainder is P. The exposition of the ‘murmuring theme’ in vv. 2-3 and 6-7 is compared to other passages in J (pp. 185, 230, 368-69: but the case for regarding Num. 14.2-3 and 16.3-4 as J rather than P is very disputable) and the exilic date for J is held to follow from its claimed dependence on Deuteronomy 8 and Ezekiel 20. D. Frankel’s study is part of a larger and in many ways valuable examination of all the ‘murmuring’ episodes in the Priestly source (The Murmuring Stories: see pp. 63-117). Here parallel accounts from J and P are envisaged, and Frankel is particularly critical of Van Seters’s approach to the non-Priestly (‘J’) text as a product of the exilic period (pp. 57-61): for him it is substantially pre-exilic in origin. In this he is similar to the source-critics examined above, but he stands apart from them especially in his treatment of the Priestly material, which is in part closer to Kuenen and his followers and in part distinctively his own. He begins by arguing that what most have seen as the heart of the Priestly account in vv. 10b-14a (and also associated material in vv. 3aβ, 7a and 8) is in fact one of the latest elements in the chapter. He sees a contradiction between vv. 9-10a, where the presence of the Tabernacle is presupposed (cf. ‘Come near before Yahweh’), and the appearance of Yahweh’s glory in v. 10b in ‘the wilderness’, not as later in the Tabernacle. The latter fits the story’s present position before the revelation at Sinai, but this is for him a (much) later stage in its development than its existence as an independent narrative set in the vicinity of the Tabernacle. It is this which formed the ‘Early Priestly Story’, not yet part of the Priestly source, which comprised vv.

428

EXODUS 1–18

2, 9-10a, 14b-15a, 31, 33, 34-35a, 36 (pp. 90, 109). Unlike the non-Priestly account (vv. 4abα, 5, 21, 27-28a, 29-30: cf. pp. 73-81) this included nothing about the institution of the Sabbath, it was a simple story about the provision of manna to sustain the people. As such it reflects the oldest surviving form of the story and it must have a pre-exilic origin. A Priestly editor combined this with the non-Priestly version, still as an independent story (here Frankel follows Cassuto, pp. 188-90), adding the Sabbath and other legislation in vv. 16-20 and 22-26; and finally, with further additions, it was incorporated into its present position in the Pentateuchal narrative (pp. 96-117). There seems to be no place here (or in Frankel’s treatment of the other Priestly murmuring stories) for a continuous independent Priestly narrative: by the time murmuring stories are incorporated into a comprehensive account of Israel’s origins, they have already been combined with their non-Priestly counterparts. Such wider issues about the composition of the Pentateuch as a whole evidently lay outside the scope of Frankel’s study, but its overall tenor again justifies his inclusion among the ‘loners’ of our survey.

In the face of such widespread and continuing disagreement about the literary origins of the chapter it is necessary to be cautious in one’s conclusions about it and to some extent to be content with broad results which have extensive support. It is often where details in the text are made to bear excessive weight and where attempts are made to define too closely the stages through which the text has passed that disagreements arise. Sometimes, especially among what we have called the ‘loners’, an idiosyncratic approach to the Pentateuch as a whole may distort judgements about this particular text. It is, first of all, very widely agreed that much of the chapter comes from the Priestly tradition in a broad sense. As is shown in detail in the Explanatory Notes, distinctively Priestly language and concerns appear in most sections of the chapter (especially in vv. 1-3, 6-12, 16-20, 22-24, 32-35). Cross-connections with these sections make a Priestly origin likely for vv. 13a, 25 and 36 too. Within the Priestly material v. 8, which is an incomplete sentence based on vv. 6-7 and 12 but introduced by its own speech-formula, is clearly a secondary expansion which disrupts its context. It has often been suggested that either vv. 16-20 or vv. 22-25(26), or both, and vv. 32-34 are also additions to an originally shorter Priestly story. But in these cases the arguments, such as they are, are not decisive. Still less are they when attempts have been made to detect layers of composition within these sections. Nevertheless it is possible to imagine the story without them and we should not rule out the possibility that one or more of them was not part of the original story.



16.1-36

429

It is equally well recognised that vv. 4-5, 13b-15, 21, 27-30 and 31 do not exhibit distinctively Priestly characteristics, while vv. 4-5 and 27-30 duplicate features which appear in vv. 11-12 and 22-25. As Wellhausen first observed, v. 27 also seems (especially in the Hebrew text) to begin an account of the Sabbath day after this stage in the narrative has already been reached in vv. 24-25. Verses 4-5 and 27-30 are therefore generally seen as a separate element in the chapter, connected by a common concern with the Sabbath and Yahweh’s instruction or law(s) and by the use of the non-Priestly expression ‘the people’ for the Israelites, as well as by Yahweh’s provision of ‘bread’, which is a constant theme throughout the chapter. But since the days of Wellhausen and Kuenen it has been debated whether this ‘separate element’ comprises extracts from a complete parallel version of the manna story or additions made by a redactor to introduce his own concerns into the main Priestly account. The strongly theological character of these verses certainly makes the latter explanation a serious possibility, and the references to law(s) have led many to see here the activity of a specifically Deuteronomistic redactor.5 But before attempting, at least provisionally, to resolve this issue it is important to consider whether vv. 4-5 and 27-30 are the only verses in the chapter which belong to this ‘separate element’. A number of scholars have associated vv. 13b-15 with it (see above) and from a linguistic point of view there is nothing against this. On the other hand it is difficult to separate v. 13b (and 14) from v. 13a, which must be from P since only its account speaks about meat as well as bread, and some mention of the coming of manna is needed to prepare the way for the Priestly instructions in v. 16. Certainty is impossible, but it is most likely that vv. 13b-15 are from P. It has also often been suggested that the first half of the repetitious v. 35 is non-Priestly; but in the Explanatory Note we take the view (shared by a number of others) that the whole verse is Priestly, displaying one of its typical stylistic characteristics. On the other hand, if vv. 13b-15 are Priestly, it would be strange to have the very similar statements of v. 31 in the same source and v. 31 might well be the   Wellhausen already noted that ‘Der Ton in v. 27-30 erinnert an das Deuteronomium’, while continuing to maintain that these verses belonged to JE (Composition, pp. 79, 329); Jülicher unambiguously spoke of ‘Rd’ (‘Die Quellen’, 288-89). 5

430

EXODUS 1–18

original conclusion of the ‘separate element’ and a further doublet. More important, v. 21 stands out in its Priestly context for its repetitiveness and its inconsistency with v. 23 (see the Explanatory Note) and it too should be attributed to the non-Priestly text, as many commentators have seen. It is also likely that v. 26 is not the conclusion of the Priestly Sabbath legislation but part of the non-Priestly account (see the Explanatory Note): nothing in its wording is against this. Since it would follow v. 5 perfectly, it is likely that v. 21 originally stood after it: its present position is due to the compiler’s understandable wish to keep all text about the weekday provision of manna together before proceeding to the Sabbath. There is then, even without vv. 13b-15, more to be reckoned with when it comes to determining whether the ‘separate element’ is from a parallel account or the addition of a redactor. To use an expression favoured by supporters of the latter view there are more ‘fragments’ than they usually recognise (perhaps because they have picked out the verses that are most amenable to a redactional explanation) and taken together they comprise a virtually complete alternative version of the story (vv. 4-5, 26, 21, 27-30, 31), which duplicates several features of the Priestly version. Already this makes the case for an extract from a source stronger, perhaps even compelling. In addition the quails story in Numbers 11, in which there is no sign of P, takes its departure from the people’s dissatisfaction with their monotonous diet of manna (vv. 4-9).6 This implies knowledge of an account of the provision of manna in what is probably an ‘old’ narrative and it would be surprising if some trace of such an account were not preserved in the wilderness narrative, especially as there is a further passing reference to manna in Num. 21.5 (not to speak of Deuteronomy 8, where familiarity with such a narrative is taken for granted).7

6   The crucial verses are vv. 4-6 and they are clearly presupposed in vv. 10-15. Verses 7-9 are a parenthesis and are related in some way to both non-Priestly (v. 7: cf. Exod. 16.31) and Priestly sections (vv. 8-9: cf. Exod. 16.13-14, 23) of Exodus 16. But even if the whole of this parenthesis is a late addition to Num. 11 based on the combined narrative of Exodus 16, that still leaves Num. 11.6 as a reference to manna in the older narrative. 7   See further Wellhausen’s closing response to Kuenen’s theory in Composition3, pp. 328-29, which still carries considerable weight.



16.1-36

431

It is more difficult to be precise about the literary origins of the non-Priestly manna story. Some parallels of vocabulary with the J source have been pointed out (e.g. Fritz, Israel in der Wüste, p. 9 n. 3; Wellhausen, Composition3, p. 329, more cautiously spoke of them as ‘jehowistisch’, i.e. with JE), but they are hardly sufficient to exclude an Elohistic origin for these verses.8 The latter receives strong support from the key theological term ‘test’ in v. 4, as in 15.25b (for discussion see the introduction to 15.22-27), but it occurs in a clause which has been widely suspected of being (with v. 28) a Deuteronomistic addition. This suspicion arises from the use of the words ‘law(s)’ (Heb. tôrāh/tôrôt) and ‘commandments’ (miṣwôt), which are certainly common in Deuteronomy. In v. 4 tôrāh can be translated ‘instruction’, which fits the specific and isolated guidance which is given in v. 26. But the plural forms in v. 28 can hardly be explained in this way, even if (see the Explanatory Note) the language is hyperbolic. Still, in view of the occurrence of such legal language in Hos. 8.12 (plural) and the north Israelite Ps. 81.4-5, it should not be assumed that such expressions are impossible before Deuteronomy.9 The chapter thus comprises mainly (see below on v. 1) portions from JE (more likely E than J) and from P. A summary of each account, so far as it is preserved, will clarify the differences between them and the way in which the literary form of the tradition developed (the latter will have been more complex if the Priestly account was built up in several stages). In JE (vv. 4-5, 26, 21, 27-30, 31) the promise of Yahweh to provide bread in the wilderness may originally have been preceded by a reference to the people’s hunger (or even a complaint), but if so the compiler preferred the Priestly introduction in vv. 2-3. The provision is introduced as a test of obedience (v. 4b) and includes a double provision on the sixth day (v. 5). This receives its explanation in the instruction in v. 26, which 8   The metaphorical use of ‘rain down’ (Heb. māṭar Hiphil) in Exod. 9.18, 23, which is usually attributed to J, occurs in sections which are from E according to our analysis (see the introduction to 9.13-35); and ‘the people’ as a designation for Israel is found in passages commonly attributed to both J and E. 9   The more so when the existence of divinely authorised legal collections like the Book of the Covenant (cf. 20.22-26), the Decalogue and less certainly Exod. 34.10-27 in pre-exilic times is taken into account.

432

EXODUS 1–18

refers to the seventh day as ‘a sabbath’, when no ‘bread’ will be provided. The people gather it each morning, before it melts in the sun (v. 21). On the seventh day, despite the warning, some of the people go out to look for more, but in vain (v. 27). Their disregard for Yahweh’s instruction and extra provision leads him (or, if v. 28 is an addition, perhaps Moses) to rebuke the people and remind them of his twofold gift, of ‘bread’ and a day of rest (vv. 28-29). The people rest and give the ‘bread’ the name ‘manna’, and its appearance and taste are briefly described (v. 31). The original Priestly account included vv. 2-3, 6-7, 9-20, 22-25, 32-36, to which v. 1b would make an apt introduction (see below). The people (referred to as ‘the whole congregation of the Israelites’) criticise Moses and Aaron for failing to provide them with food and even for bringing them out from what they regard as a comfortable life in Egypt (vv. 2-3). Moses and Aaron reply that they will soon know that it was not they but Yahweh who brought them out of Egypt and they will ‘see his glory’; for it is really against him that they have complained, and he has heard it (vv. 6-7). No assurance is given at this stage that Yahweh’s appearance will do them good rather than harm (v. 8 is a later addition) and the summons to meet Yahweh (v. 9) leaves the outcome open. Only when Yahweh’s glory is seen outside the camp and he speaks to them through Moses is it made clear that he is not angry with them but will provide them with special desert food (vv. 10-12), which comes in the form of quails and a strange substance which the people do not recognise and call mān, ‘manna’ (vv. 13-15a). This, Moses says, is the ‘bread’ which Yahweh promised in v. 12 (v. 15b). Moses then gives instructions for the family heads to collect each day a set amount (defined by an otherwise unknown measure) for each member of their households (vv. 16-18). None of it is to be left overnight; when some Israelites do so it becomes inedible and Moses indicates his disapproval; nothing more, the point has been made (vv. 19-20). On the sixth day, evidently without prior warning, the family heads find that there is sufficient for them to collect twice as much as on other days. When their tribal leaders report this to Moses, he tells them that Yahweh has commanded that the following day should be a day of rest and that what remains after they have prepared enough for the sixth day should be kept until the next morning (vv. 22-23). When they do so, it does not become inedible as before and Moses instructs them to



16.1-36

433

eat it, because nothing more will be provided that day (vv. 24-25). There follows a further divine command, mediated through Moses, that a day’s portion of manna should be preserved for future generations to see (v. 32). Moses instructs Aaron to see to this and to put it in a sacred place (‘before Yahweh’) and Aaron places it in the most holy place of the Tabernacle (vv. 33-34). The account ends with a report that this provision continued until the Israelites reached the land of Canaan and an explanation of the mysterious ‘omer’ measure (vv. 35-36). Both accounts combine the provision of food in the desert with the first revelation of the Sabbath to Israel. The murmuring motif is much less prominent in this narrative than in those which surround it: it is not present in JE and it disappears from P after v. 12 (cf. Coats, Rebellion, p. 88; curiously he then concludes [p. 96] that ‘This narrative is dominated by the murmuring motif’!). Even in P the focus is more on the side-motif of who is responsible for the Exodus and the leadership claims of Moses and Aaron (vv. 3, 6-7: Coats, ibid., pp. 89-93). In JE the episode is presented above all as a test of the people’s obedience, which some of them fail (v. 27). In P the account is much longer and more detailed. This is partly due to the extended treatment of the people’s initial complaint, which is introduced in vv. 2-3 and referred to further in vv. 6-7 and 9-12. The initial uncertainty about how Yahweh will respond to it prepares for three further Priestly narratives which are structured in a similar way: the episode of the spies (Num. 13–14*), the rebellion about the extent of the priestly hierarchy (Num. 16–17*) and the complaint about the lack of water at Meribah (Num. 20.1-13), all of which end with a painful outcome, either for the people or for Moses and Aaron.10

10   This pattern seems first to have been identified by R. Rendtorff in 1961 and was more fully explored by C. Westermann in 1971 (for references see Blum, Studien, p. 267 n. 145). Childs (pp. 279-80) used the first three examples to provide an initial rebuttal of the common view that the narrative sequence in vv. 6-12 was not original and needed to be amended either by rearrangement or by the omission of vv. 6-7(8); see further L. Schmidt, Studien zur Priesterschrift, pp. 35-206, and the idiosyncratic but valuable treatment in Frankel, The Murmuring Stories.

434

EXODUS 1–18

Five more expansions of the basic themes of food provision and the Sabbath are also introduced in the Priestly version. First, a parallel provision of meat, in the form of flocks of quails, that appears later in the non-Priestly narrative (Num. 11), is anticipated and described in the first half of the narrative (vv. 3, 6[, 8], 12, 13). Secondly, detailed instructions for the gathering of manna on weekdays are given and (for the most part) fulfilled (vv. 16-20). Thirdly, the procedure for preparing and eating food at the end of the week is carefully spelt out, with emphasis on the consultation of Moses and the people’s obedience to Yahweh’s command (vv. 2225). Fourthly, arrangements are made and carried out for the preservation of a day’s portion of manna in a holy place (vv. 32-34). Finally, the provision of manna is said to have continued throughout the wilderness journey and an explanation of the measure used for it is given (vv. 35-36). Most of these additions are concerned only with the manna, which therefore remains (as it was in the nonPriestly version: cf. Deut. 8) the dominant theme of the narrative. The provision of quail, which has been stripped of the unpleasant consequences which it has in Num. 11, seems to be thought of as no more than a short-term addition (it is significantly not mentioned in v. 35), as indeed one might readily deduce from Numbers 11. Not surprisingly, even at a time when the full tabernacle cultus has not yet been set up, language and other features which belong to it frequently appear (vv. 7, 9-10, 12, 19, 33-34: see the Explanatory Notes). It is these features especially (but also the references to the Sabbath) which have repeatedly led to the suggestion that the Priestly version of the story (or even the whole chapter) was originally placed after the Israelites’ departure from Mount Sinai (so first de Wette apparently [Beiträge zur Einleitung in das AT, 2 (Halle, 1807), pp. 222-24]: a recent advocate of this view is J.S. Baden, ‘The Original Place of the Priestly Manna Story in Exodus 16’, ZAW 122 [2010], pp. 491-504, where reference is made to others who have adopted it). This is probably unnecessary: the most blatant ‘anachronism’ (in v. 34) can be seen as a parenthetical anticipation of what happened later, like v. 35, while the ‘discovery’ of the Sabbath before Sinai is not incompatible with its inclusion later in the Decalogue and elsewhere. In other cases the Priestly writers must have envisaged some form of the ‘accompanying presence’ of Yahweh with the Israelites on their journey (as the non-Priestly narrative did in 13.21-22; 14.19-20, 24), even before the construction of the Tabernacle.



16.1-36

435

Verse 1, the itinerary-note which with 17.1 frames the whole, requires separate discussion. It bears clear signs of Priestly authorship (‘the whole congregation [Heb. ʿēdāh]; the date-formula in v. 1b) and it has commonly been attributed in its entirety to P. But the ‘join’ to the similar verse about Elim in 15.27, which has no Priestly characteristics, raises doubts and Eissfeldt reasonably saw it as an older non-Priestly verse which had been overlaid with Priestly features when the Priestly manna story was inserted (Hexateuchsynopse, pp. 37, 43-44, 139*; cf. Rudolph, pp. 34-36, 275; Levin, p. 352). The underlying itinerary-note was probably taken, with the rest of the ‘string’ to which it belongs (15.27; 17.1*; 19.2a), from a fuller itinerary by a redactor with a Deuteronomistic perspective on the wilderness journey (see the Excursus on ‘The Wilderness Itinerary’ in the introduction to 12.28-42, 50-51; and my ‘The Wilderness itineraries and the Composition of the Pentateuch’). Verse 1b (the date-formula) may well have been the original introduction to the Priestly story. Recently L. Schmidt has proposed that only the words ‘They departed from Elim’ are from the older narrative and that (since he does not think there ever was a non-Priestly manna story at this point) they were originally joined to the arrival notice ‘and they camped at Rephidim’ in 17.1 (‘Die Priesterschrift’, pp. 484-86; cf. Albertz, p. 263). The second half of the itinerarynote and the rest of the verse (and also 17.1a) were then added to provide a location for the Priestly manna story. There are several reasons for rejecting this analysis. Schmidt’s linguistic observation about the postponement of the subject in 16.1a overlooks an established feature of narrative style (see Note a on the translation); the fragmentation of the two itinerary-notes is artificial and improbable (‘the Wilderness of Sin’ is not mentioned in the P story, only ‘the wilderness’ in vv. 2 and 10); and we have provided reasons above for finding a non-Priestly manna story in the chapter to which the two itinerary-notes (in full) could have been attached by the redactor. The occurrence of manna (and indeed the quails introduced at this point by P) can plausibly be associated with natural phenomena which have been observed in the Sinai peninsula in both ancient and modern times (see the Explanatory Note on vv. 13-15). No doubt, as with the features that lie behind the narratives in 15.22-27 and 17.1-7, stories about them told by travellers circulated in the neighbouring regions from early times (cf. Gressmann, Mose, pp. 124-45; Noth, ÜGP, pp. 129-31) and already at this stage they would very

436

EXODUS 1–18

likely have been seen as a provision by their gods for those fortunate enough to be in the right place at the right time. Even the earliest traditions that began to be formed around the memories of Israel’s origins (or more precisely the origins of those ‘proto-Israelites’ who either were in Egypt or visited Sinai as the mountain sanctuary of their god Yahweh) may well have included such stories. In their extant form the oldest written accounts (JE here; the earliest portions of Num. 11) include didactic elements as well, whose antiquity is impossible to determine. The observance of the Sabbath as a day of rest and worship is attested as early as the eighth century B.C. (Isa. 1.13; Hos. 2.13; Amos 8.5) and does not seem to be a new feature then. An aetiology of its origin could well have appeared in Israel’s origin traditions by this time: it is not necessary to associate it only with a time when its neglect was criticised (as in Ezek. 20.21 etc.) or when it had become especially prominent as a religious institution in Israel (as in Isa. 56.3-8; cf. Gen. 2.1-3). The provision of food to Israel’s ancestors in the wilderness was another of the marks of Yahweh’s care for them in the past (cf. Deut. 8.3, 16; Pss. 78.23-28; 105.40) which must have encouraged the belief that he (and not Baal) was also the provider of food for them in a more fertile place (cf. Deut. 8.17-20). Both accounts in Exodus 16 speak of miraculously abundant provision (‘rain’ in v. 3; ‘in abundance’ in vv. 8 and 12; for the quails even more so in Num. 11.31-32). In grace Yahweh gives even to those who deny him (v. 3), but he expects his people in need to ‘draw near’ to him (v. 9: cf. 2.23-25). The special provision for the Sabbath (vv. 5, 22, 29) is an assurance that abstinence from work on it will not lead to hunger. Each account lays emphasis on one side of the practice. For JE it is above all a gift from Yahweh to the people as much as the manna (v. 29), even when it is a commandment whose observance Yahweh requires (v. 28); in P it is a holy day for Yahweh as well as a time of rest (vv. 23, 25). In the combined account it is clearly both. The Sabbath ‘was made’, appointed by God, but it was ‘made for human beings’ (Mark 2.27), here at least in the first place for Israel (‘you’). 1 [All the congregationa of] [the Israelites set out from Elim and came to the Wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai,] on the fifteenth day of the second month of/after their departureb from the land of Egypt. 2 All the congregation of the Israelites complainedc against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness. 3 The



16.1-36 Israelites said to them, ‘If only we had diedd by Yahweh’s hand in the land of Egypt when we sat by the pot of meat and ate bread in abundance! For you (pl.) have brought us out to this wilderness to kill this whole assemblye with hunger.’f 4 Yahweh said to Moses, ‘I tell you, I am going to rain downg food(?) for you from heaven and the people shall go out and gather a day’s portion each day, so that I may test them, to see whether they will liveh by my instruction or not. 5 On the sixth day, when they prepare what they bring in, it will be double what they gather daily.’ 6 Moses and Aaron said i to all the Israelites, ‘When evening comes you will knowj that it was Yahweh who brought you outk of the land of Egypt, 7 and when morning comes you will seel the glory of Yahweh, because he has heard your complaintsm against Yahweh – for we, what are wen that you complaino against us?’ 8 [Moses said, ‘When Yahweh gives you meat to eat in the evening and bread in abundance in the morning, because Yahweh has heard your complaints with which you are complaining against him – for we, what are we?p Your complaints are not against us butq against Yahweh.’] 9 Moses said to Aaron, ‘Say to all the congregation of the Israelites, Come near before Yahweh, for he has heard your complaints’. 10 When Aaron spoke to all the congregation of the Israelites, they looked towards the wilderness, and there the glory of Yahweh appeared in the/a cloud.r 11 Yahweh spoke to Moses as follows: 12 ‘I have heard the complaints of the Israelites. Speak to them as follows. Between the two eveningss you shall eat meat and in the morning you shall have abundance of bread and so you will know that I am Yahweh your God. 13 In the evening quailst came up and covered the camp. In the morning there was a layer of u dew around the camp, 14 and after the layer of dew had gone up, there on the surface of the wilderness was a powdery dustv, fine like hoar-frost on the ground. 15 The Israelites saw it and said to each other, ‘It is man(na)’w, because they did not know what it was. Moses said to them, ‘It is the breadx which Yahweh has given you to eat. 16 This is what Yahweh has commanded you: Each of you gather of it what he can eat, an omer per head of the number of your persons – you shall each take for those in your tent.’ 17 The Israelites did this, one gathered more and another less. 18 They measured it by the omery: the one who gathered more did not have too muchz and the one who gathered less did not have too littlez. Each gathered according to what he could eat. 19 Moses said to them, ‘No one must let any of it remain until the (following) morning’. 20 But someaa did not hearken to Moses and let part of it remain

437

438

EXODUS 1–18 till the morning, and it became full of wormsbb and stank, and Moses was angry with them. 21 They gathered it every morning, each according to what he could eat, but when the sun became hot it would meltcc. 22 On the sixth day they gathered double the amount of breaddd, two omersee per person, and all the leaders of the congregation came and told Moses. 23 He said to them, ‘It is whatff Yahweh has spoken of: tomorrow is a day of restgg, a holy sabbath for Yahweh. Bakehh whatff you want to bakeii and boiljj whatff you want to boilii, and putkk all the surplus aside for keeping until the morning. 24 So they put it aside till the morning, as Moses had commanded, and it made no stink and there were no worms in it. 25 Moses said, ‘Eat it today, for today is a sabbath for Yahweh: today you will not find it outside. 26 Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day is a sabbath: there will be none on it’. 27 On the seventh day some of the peoplell went out to gather, but they found none. 28 Yahweh said to Moses, ‘How long do you refusemm to keep my commandments and instructions? 29 See that Yahweh has givennn you the sabbath: that is why he gives you bread for two days on the sixth day. Stay each of you where you are; no one shall go out from his place on the seventh day.’ 30 So the people rested on the seventh day. 31 The house of Israel called its name man(na): and it wasoo like coriander seed, white, and its taste was like a waferpp with honey. 32 Moses said: ‘This is what Yahweh has commanded: an omer-full of it is for keeping throughout your generations, so that they may see the bread with which I fed you in the wilderness when I brought you out from the land of Egypt’. 33 Moses said to Aaron, ‘Take a jarqq and put an omer-full of man(na) there and placerr it before Yahweh for keeping throughout your generations’. 34 As Yahweh commanded Mosesss, Aaron placed ittt in front of the decreeuu for keeping. 35 The Israelites atevv the man(na) for forty years, until they came to an inhabited landww; it was the man(na) that they atexx until they came to the edge of the land of Canaan. 36 The omeryy is a tenth part of an ephahyy.

Notes on the Translation a. Heb. ‫עדת‬, as in vv. 2, 9-10, 22: see Note b on the translation of 12.1-20 and the Explanatory Note on 12.3-5. The subject of the two verbs is the same and Houtman (p. 328) has noted a number of other cases where the subject is placed after the second verb (Lev. 1.1; Num. 20.22; Josh. 3.1; 2 Kgs 19.36).



16.1-36

439

While this could sometimes be due to the process of literary composition from separate documents (as is probable in Num. 20.22), such an explanation is not always likely and it seems that, at least with closely connected verbs, Hebrew style allowed the postponement of the subject (see also v. 20 below). b. Heb. ‫לצאתם‬. For similar expressions cf. 19.1; Num. 1.1; 9.1; 33.38; 1 Kgs 6.1: especially the last of these suggests that the sense of ‫ ל‬here is ‘after’, rather than ‘of’ as in other uses of ‫ ל‬in dates, such as in ‫ לחדשׁ‬just before. c. Heb. ‫וילינו‬, from ‫לון‬, on which see Note f on the translation of 15.22-27; see also Text and Versions here. d. Heb. ‫מי־יתן מותנו‬, lit. ‘Who will give, i.e. grant, our dying [inf. constr.]?’, a common formula to express a wish more forcefully than by the jussive etc. (GK §151a-d; JM §164d); more straightforwardly and probably originally of a desire for a future benefit but here and in 2 Sam. 19.1 (there also with an inf. constr.) of a wish relating to the past (expressed by ‫ לו‬in Num. 14.2). e. Heb. ‫הקהל‬. On its difference in sense and range in use from ‫ עדה‬see Note l on the translation of 12.1-20 and the Explanatory Note on 12.6-7. ‫ קהל‬is very rare in the non-Priestly portions of Genesis–Numbers (Gen. 49.6; Num. 22.4; the related verb in Exod. 32.1: cf. TWAT 6, 1208-209 = TDOT 12, pp. 549-50). f. Heb. ‫ ָבּרעב‬. The def. art. (cf. ‫ ַבּצמא‬in 17.3) is presumably due to the treatment of ‫ רעב‬as a kind of abstract (‘to represent whole classes of attributes or states’: GK §126n), which is quite common but by no means universal (cf. Gen. 12.10; 26.1 etc.). g. Heb. ‫הנני ממטיר‬. On the use of ‫ הנה‬to ‘reinforce affirmation’ and to draw attention in a non-visual way see JM §164a and Muraoka, Emphatic Words, p. 138 (cf. 4.23; 7.17, 27; 8.17; 10.4; 14.17), and on the predicative part. after ‫ הנה‬to represent action in the imminent future GK §116p; JM §121e. h. Heb. ‫הילך‬, lit. ‘walk’, in a very common metaphorical use of the verb (BDB, pp. 234-35). i. Heb. ‫ויאמר משׁה ואהרן‬. Before a compound subject the verb is often in the sing. (GK §146f): so with Moses and Aaron in 4.29; 7.6, 10; 8.8; 10.3; 24.9. j. Heb. ‫ערב וידעתם‬. ‫ ערב‬is adverbial and as such is followed by the perfect consecutive as if it were a full temporal clause (GK §118i, 112oo; waw of the apodosis in JM §176g). k. Heb. ‫יהוה הוציא‬, with the prefixed subject indicating emphasis upon it and the contrast with ‫ הוצאתם‬in v. 3. l. Heb. ‫ובקר וראיתם‬. See Note j above. m. Heb. ‫את־תלנּתיכם‬. ֻ For the defective writing followed by gemination (as also in vv. 8 [2x] and 9; Num. 14.27; 17.20) see BL §24i, 26i′, 61tη: the etymologically correct full spelling occurs only in v. 12 and Num. 17.25. n. Heb. ‫ נחנו מה‬is well represented by LXX ἡμεῖς δὲ τί ἐσμεν; ‫ מה‬almost invariably comes first in its sentence, and its displacement gives special emphasis to the word that precedes it. The latter is not really a casus pendens

440

EXODUS 1–18

(as in Num. 16.11: Andersen, Verbless Clause, p. 39), even if it is convenient to represent it in that way in a written translation. ‫ נחנו‬also appears in v. 8 but elsewhere only in Gen. 42.11, Num. 32.32, Lam. 3.42 and AHI 1.004.10-11. The longer form )‫ אנחנ(ו‬is standard in early North-West Semitic (DNWSI, p. 81: no attestations in Ug.), so ‫ נחנו‬was perhaps a colloquial shortening of this, the agreement with the presumed Proto-Semitic *na/iḫnw (Moscati, p. 105) being coincidental. o. Heb. (Qere) ‫ת ִלּינוּ‬.ַ MT’s vocalisation of the Hiphil imperf. here (and in Num. 14.36Q; 16.11Q) and of the Hiphil part. in v. 8 (and Num. 14.27 [2x]; 17.20) is based on the Aram. spelling of some forms of Double Ayin verbs and may (cf. ‫ נוח‬Hiphil: see Note kk below) be designed to avoid confusion with forms of ‫ לין‬I = ‘lodge, pass the night’ (GK §72ee). But in 17.3 the standard form is used. The imperfect may bear an iterative sense, for which the part. is used in the secondary expansion in v. 8, but a modal interpretation is also possible (cf. Joosten, Verbal System, pp. 78, 278-79). p. Heb. ‫ונחנו מה‬. See Note n above. q. Heb. ‫כי‬. Here in the sense ‘but’, as often after a negative (BDB, p. 474). r. Heb. ‫בענן‬. If this verse originated in a separate Priestly document, the def. art. would have been used there (if it was) in an ‘anticipatory’ sense (cf. LXX ἐν νεφέλῃ), since the theophanic cloud had not previously been mentioned (cf. GK §126q). But in the extant text, in which the references in 13.21; 14.24 (cf. vv. 19-20) have preceded, ‘in the cloud’ is preferable. s. Heb. ‫בין הערבים‬, as in the Passover legislation in 12.6: see Note m on the translation of 12.1-20. t. Heb. ‫השׂלו‬. Older editions of MT (e.g. Letteris) record a Qere ‫השׂליו‬, which is found in some mss: it (or ‫ )הסליו‬is the spelling in later Heb. and Jewish Aram. (cf. Jastrow, p. 994). 4QNumb is the only Qumran evidence (at 11.32) and it reads ‫השלו‬. This must be original: the SP spelling (‫ )השלוי‬resembles that in Ar. and some forms of Aram. (cf. TgN, Sy) and is presumably secondary. Since quail have not previously been mentioned, the def. art. will be anticipatory (GK §126q), like that in ‫ שׁכבת הטל‬later in the verse. ‫ שׂלו‬generally appears as a collective sing. (cf. Num. 11.32; Ps. 105.40), and the single occurrence of a pl. ‫ שׂלוים‬in Num. 11.31 may be corrupt (cf. BHS). u. Heb. ‫שׁכבת‬, constr. st. of ‫שׁכבה‬, which occurs outside this passage in BH (6x in Leviticus, once in Numbers) only with ‫ זרע‬in the senses ‘lying’, then ‘fluid’ (cf. ‫ ְשׁכ ֶֹבת‬4x). Some of the Vss (see Text and Versions) apparently saw it as a part. or other verbal form, with ‫ הטל‬as the subject, but this is impossible because ‫ טל‬is masc. The influence of this view can still be seen in Luther, Tyndale, AV and even RV; but by this time the association with the usual sense of ‫שׁכב‬, ‘lie’, was established (cf. Gesenius, Thesaurus, pp. 1402-403, and the later lexica). It is, however, unusual for this verb to be used of a thing (likewise the cognate nouns apparently). Job 38.37 is an example, though some have preferred to associate ‫ שׁכב‬there (and even some of the nominal forms) with a homonym related to Ar. sakaba, ‘pour out’ (cf. Barr, Comparative Philology, p. 137; HAL, pp. 1377-79).



16.1-36

441

v. Heb. ‫דק מחספס‬. ‫ דק‬is usually an adj. (as in its second occurrence in this verse), but here a noun is required, as in Isa. 40.15. On the (secondary) variant ‫ כחספס‬for ‫ מחספס‬see Text and Versions. Morphologically the word is unique in BH. It is generally explained from the root ‫( חסף‬which is probably correct: see below), with a curious kind of reduplication in which not the final stem-letter or two was repeated at the end (as e.g. in ‫ אמלל‬and ‫)סחרחר‬, but just the middle letter of the stem: so BDB, p. 341, GK §55k, Bergsträsser §20e note a, HAL, p. 325, Ges18, p. 378, DCH 3, p. 284, with a variety of unparalleled proposals for the process behind it. Rather than speculate in the dark it is better to follow the evidence of other Semitic languages which have verb-forms in which an s is added to the end of the stem even if it does not already contain one (cf. Moscati, p. 131, for Ar.; Segal, Grammar, p. 56, for MH; perhaps Jastrow, p. 175, for JewAram [‫)]בלעס‬. In Ar. such forms have an intensive meaning. Interpretations of the word have been many and various (see the review by Maiberger, Das Manna 1, pp. 309-22). The traditional ‘round thing’ of AV and RV (cf. Luther, Tyndale) goes back to the medieval rabbis and ultimately to Saadya Gaon, but it has no etymological basis and seems to be a guess on the basis of the comparison with coriander seed in v. 31. A number of the Vss and Rashi render ‘peeled’ (see Text and Versions), evidently connecting the form with the root ‫ חשׂף‬as it is used in Gen. 30.37 of the peeling off of bark from a stick: in post-biblical Heb. this word was spelt ‫( חסף‬Jastrow, p. 489). The majority of modern interpreters have followed this approach but preferred a slightly different meaning of the root which is attested in Aram., Ar. and Eth., ‘be scaly’ (so Gesenius, Thesaurus, p. 504, BDB, p. 341, Maiberger, p. 315, RSV, NEB, NJPS, NRSV). HAL, p. 325, and Ges18, p. 378, developed a suggestion of Michaelis based on Ar. ḫašafa = ‘be frozen, crackle’ and suggested ‘knisternd’ or (Ges18) ‘krystallisiert’ (cf. Noth, pp. 103, 107: the ET has ‘flake-like’ [pp. 130, 134]; Propp, pp. 595-96). The problem with both these theories is that they ignore the fact that ‫ מחספס‬is spelt with samekh, whereas a verb with the meanings suggested would, according to the normal correspondences of consonants between Semitic languages, be spelt with śîn in BH.11 A different approach may therefore be preferable. In Jewish Aramaic ‫ חסף‬is used in the Pael for ‘to pound’, e.g. of grain or pepper (Jastrow, p. 489: not in CAL) and it is presumably the basis for Vulg pilo tunsum. This verb would be cognate with Phoen. ‫‘ = חסף‬break’ in KAI 1.2 (DNWSI, p. 393: cf. the idiom with Ug. tbr in KTU 1.6.6.29) and a passive part. would mean ‘pounded, powdery’, a meaning that fits very well with the preceding ‫דק‬, ‘dust’ (so already H. Vincent, ‘Les fouilles de Byblos’, RB 34 [1925], 161-93 [186-87], and JB).   Within BH (esp. LBH) there is already some alternation between ‫ ס‬and ‫שׂ‬ (cf. Ezra 4.5; Eccl. 1.17: with ‫ חשׂף‬in Sir. 42.1), but it remains exceptional at this stage. Ug. ḥsp, cited by Cassuto (p. 195) in support of the meaning ‘revealing (itself)’, does not mean this, but ‘draw, collect [a liquid]’: DULAT, p. 373. 11

442

EXODUS 1–18

w. Heb. ‫מן הוא‬. ‫ ָמן‬is clearly the Heb. word for ‘manna’ (the English word is derived from the Aram. equivalent) – it is so used in a number of other OT passages (and cf. vv. 31, 33, 35) – and it must be related to Ar. mannu, ‘honeydew’, the name for various natural juices that are exuded by trees in the Sinai desert and elsewhere, especially in Kurdistan: see the Excursus in the Explanatory Note on vv. 13-15. But the following words (cf. ‫)מה הוא‬ seem to imply that it was given this name because ‫ ָמן‬meant ‘what?’ (see Text and Versions for the readings of LXX, Vulg and Sy). The element mn is not otherwise known in Heb. as an interrogative (despite what Josephus says in AJ 3.32), but it does so appear in several other Semitic languages (BDB, p. 577, cited Ar., Aram. [for BibAram. see p. 1100], Mand. and Eth., to which ESA [Moscati, p. 115], Amorite [H.B. Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts (Baltimore, 1965), p. 231] and Akkadian [AHw, pp. 603, 655-56] must now be added), though almost invariably to mean ‘who?’ The only instances of ‘what?’ are mān in late Syriac, where it is a contraction from māʾ dēn, and mīnu in Akk.12 The first of these cannot have been known to the biblical writers and the latter does not correspond exactly. There is also a little evidence that mān was an alternative for ‘what?’ in Canaanite (cf. Cassuto, p. 196; Noth, p. 107, ET, p. 135: some instances in Ug. [Sivan, Grammar, p. 59; DULAT, p. 560] and several in Amarna Canaanite [e.g. EA 286.5: cf. Rainey, Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets 1, pp. 111-13]), and mainly on this basis HAL, pp. 564-65, and Ges18, p. 692, maintain the possibility that such a word also existed in BH. However, an etymology is not a strong basis for such an inference when imprecise etymologies are quite widespread in the OT (cf. Y. Zakovitch, ‘A Study of Precise and Partial Derivation in Biblical Etymology’, JSOT 5 [1980], pp. 31-50), and other explanations are equally if not more likely. Possibly the writer did not know any explanation of the word (as seems to be the case in v. 31); possibly the closeness of sound between ‫ ָמן‬and ‫( ָמה‬or even ‫)מה־נָּ א‬ ַ was enough to suggest that the name was given on this basis (for further discussion along these lines see H. Schult, ‘Mān hūʾ und mah-hūʾ in Exodus 16,15’, DBAT 1 [1972], pp. 1-9; Maiberger, Das Manna, pp. 267-79). x. Heb. ‫הלחם‬. The narrative has already used ‫ לחם‬of the ‘bread’ which the Israelites had eaten in Egypt (v. 3) and of what Yahweh promised to provide in the wilderness (vv. 4, 8, 12). In v. 4 it might have the general meaning ‘food’, as it does occasionally elsewhere (BDB, p. 537, 2 and 3): this may be its most ancient meaning, as in Ar. laḥmun means ‘meat’, with a different specialisation of the meaning from Phoen., Heb. and Aram.13 But in vv. 3, 8 12   For Aram. CAL s.v. mn, mnʾ (‘what?’) says: ‘The form is extremely common in Syriac but relatively rare in Jewish dialects…’ 13   In Ug. both specialisations may occur, as well as this more general sense: lḥm can be baked (ʾpy: KTU 1.14.2.30 par.), but sometimes it seems to mean ‘meat’ (cf. DULAT, pp. 496-97).



16.1-36

443

and 12 it has its usual sense ‘bread’ in contrast to ‘meat’ (‫)בשׂר‬, and here ‫לחם‬ refers specifically to the manna and not to the quails (vv. 13-15). The same will be true in vv. 22, 29 and 32, and the use of ‫ אפה‬in v. 23 suggests that it was being made into a kind of bread. Yahweh has promised ‘bread’ and the manna is the fulfilment of this promise and so is designated by the same word, even though it did not look or taste like normal bread, as the descriptions in vv. 14 and 31 make clear: it was more like flour or grain. The fact that it was baked (v. 23) gave further justification for describing the giving of it as (in its product) a gift of bread.14 y. Heb. ‫בעמר‬. Here (and also more clearly in vv. 32-33) the ‫ עמר‬is a vessel that holds the quantity that is elsewhere denoted by this word (as in vv. 16, 22, 36: for its size see the Explanatory Note on v. 36). For the ambiguity compare ‫איפה‬. z. The Hiphils are best understood as ‘internally causative’ (GK §53d). aa. ‫ אנשׁים‬is the subject of both verbs: cf. v. 1 and Houtman, p. 328. bb. Heb. ‫וירם תולעים‬. ‫ וירם‬is not from ‫רום‬/‫ רמם‬I = ‘be high’, but from ‫רמם‬ II = ‘become wormy’ (cf. Rashi), which only occurs here and may be a denominative from ‫( ִר ָמּה‬v. 24).15 On the form see GK §67n. ‫ תולעים‬seems hardly necessary, but is probably used after the analogy of verbs like ‫מלא‬, ‘be full of’ (see GK §117z; JM §125d: the explanation given in GK §121d note is unnecessarily complex). For a possible wider sense of ‫ תולע‬etc. see IDB 4, p. 878, and TgO here. cc. The perfect consecutives ‫ וחם‬and ‫ ונמס‬are iterative in meaning (cf. GK §112f-g). dd. Heb. ‫לחם משׁנה‬. Cf. Gen. 43.12: like regular numerals (GK §134a-c, g) ‫ משׁנה‬may either precede or follow its noun. ee. Heb. ‫שׁני העמר‬, lit. ‘the two omers’, with reference back to vv. 5 and 16: see also Note yy below. ff. Heb. ‫ אשׁר‬is used three times in this verse to introduce an ‘independent’ relative clause (GK §138e): on the first occasion it produces an entirely acceptable equivalent to ‫ הדבר אשׁר‬in vv. 16 and 32, and as there it introduces a new revelation and command. Similar formulae do sometimes refer back to an earlier statement in a narrative (e.g. Gen. 42.14; 2 Kgs 9.36), but in Lev. 10.3(P) the same phrase is used to open a new explanatory revelation. gg. Heb. ‫שׁבתון‬, ‘rest’, an abstract noun formed from the verbal root ‫שׁבת‬ (cf. ‫ צמאון‬from ‫צמא‬, and other exx. in BL §498b-d), which then designates a ‘period of rest’. Most often it occurs in the phrase ‫שׁבת־שׁבתון‬, underlining the key feature of the Sabbath day (so in 31.15; 35.2), but the phrase was then also applied to the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16.31; 23.32) and (like ‫ )שׁבת‬to the sabbatical year (Lev. 25.4). ‫ שׁבתון‬was used alone for rest days at New Year 14   Vulg generally used panis (sing. or pl.), but has cibus (pl.) in vv. 22 and 29 (cf. ‫ מזון‬in TgNmg here and elsewhere in the ch.). 15   BDB (esp. p. 93) follows the more general sense in Ar. ‘grow rotten, decay’.

444

EXODUS 1–18

and at the beginning and end of the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev. 23.24, 39), and also to designate the sabbatical year as a ‘year of rest’ for the land (Lev. 25.5). All these other occurrences are in P and H contexts. Only here does it precede ‫שׁבת‬, to provide an explanation in advance for the religious term in apposition which, while certainly not new to its first readers, had not previously appeared in the Pentateuchal narrative (in Gen. 2.2-3 only the related verb is used). hh. Heb. ‫אפוּ‬,ֵ with the occasional lengthening of the first syllable where it begins with aleph (GK §23h, 76d), as more commonly in Aram. (Rosenthal, p. 47; Stevenson, p. 13). The construction here and in the following words is a variant of the idem per idem pattern found elsewhere in Exodus: see Note k on the translation of 4.10-17. ii. Heb. ‫תאפו‬. For the desiderative use of the imperfect see JM §113n and Joosten, Verbal System, p. 275. jj. On the meanings of ‫ בשׁל‬see Note t on the translation of 12.1-20. Alongside ‫ אפה‬it is more likely that it means specifically ‘boil’ than ‘cook’ more generally. It could refer to the cooking of the quail meat, but Num. 11.8 says that the manna could be boiled (‫)בשׁל‬, so it is not certain that the quail are in mind here. kk. Heb. ‫ ַהנִּ יחוּ‬is (like ‫ ויניחו‬in v. 24: see also vv. 33-34) another example of the ‘Aramaising’ pronunciation of some Hiphil forms of Ayin Waw/Yodh verbs (see Note o above) and in this case the variation from the normal form again corresponds to a difference of meaning: ‘put, place’ rather than ‘give rest (to)’ (for the latter see 17.11 and 33.14). ll. Heb. ‫מן־העם‬. For the partitive ‫מן‬, even without a preceding numeral or noun, see BDB, p. 580. mm. Heb. ‫מאנתם‬. On the use of the perfect see Note i on the translation of 10.1-20. nn. The subject precedes the verb, which usually gives it special emphasis: the point could be that the practice is not merely of human origin. But Muraoka has noted that when the subject is God or his representative this alone sometimes seems sufficient reason for placing it first (Emphatic Words, p. 35; cf. JM §155ne). oo. Heb. ‫והוא‬, so that the sentence structure (noun clause linked to verbal clause by waw) is like that of many circumstantial clauses (JM §159). But there seems to be no special nuance in the connection here, only the attachment of a (further) description of manna. pp. Heb. ‫כצפיחת‬. The word is a hapax in BH, and the only similar word is ‫צ ַפּ ַחת‬,ַ ‘(water-)jug’, in some places evidently a portable one (1 Sam. 26.11, 12, 16; 1 Kgs 19.6), so perhaps ‘flask’ and typified by the flat so-called pilgrim flasks found at Iron Age sites (cf. Amiran, Ancient Pottery, p. 276; BRL2, p. 184). The cognates listed in the lexica suggest the idea of flatness, which would support this. In MH a similar word means a thick ‘batter’ that could be poured on to a flat surface (M.Maksh. 5.9: cf. Jastrow, p. 1296).



16.1-36

445

qq. Heb. ‫ צנצנת‬is another hapax in BH. The later interpretations cited by Jastrow, p. 1293, are only guesses and modern lexicography has not been any more successful. The Vss suggest ‘jar’ (see Text and Versions), which is followed by the medieval rabbis. The addition of ‫ אחת‬is an instance of the occasional use of the numeral as an indefinite article, which is generally lacking in Heb. (GK §125b; BDB, p. 25, deriving it from the ‘semi-definite’ use in 1 Sam. 1.1 etc.: for a comparable use of (‫ חד)ה‬in Aram. see BDB, p. 1079; DNWSI, pp. 33-34). According to JM §137u this usage is found ‘especially in the books of Judges, Samuel and Kings’, and they cite no instances from the Pentateuch. In many apparent cases in the Priestly laws a different idiom is involved and the ‘unnecessary’ instances in lists such as Lev. 16.5; 23.18 may reflect the influence of accounting procedures. But Exod. 29.1, 3 (cf. Houtman 1, p. 60); Num. 13.23; 15.27 are plausible parallels in the Pentateuch, and the usage does appear in exilic and post-exilic literature (cf. Ezek. 8.8; Dan. 8.3; 10.5), possibly as an Aramaism. rr. Heb. ‫והנח‬. On the ‘Aramaising’ form of the Hiphil and its meaning (as also in v. 34) see Note kk above. ss. Heb. ‫ אל־משׁה‬is unexpected after ‫צוה‬, which generally takes a direct object (38 times out of 39 elsewhere in Exodus according to Sanderson, Exodus Scroll, p. 58, not including the 12 cases where the object is a pronominal suffix). There are only two other examples with ‫( אל‬2 Sam. 17.23; 1 Kgs 11.10) and a few more with ‫ל‬, including Exod. 1.22. The variation was probably due to assimilation to the construction with verbs such as ‫ אמר‬and ‫( דבר‬cf. v. 33). On a variant reading here and a proposal to emend the text see Text and Versions. tt. Heb. ‫ויניחהו‬, with waw of the apodosis after the preceding subordinate clause, here (unusually) a comparative clause as in Num. 1.19 (JM §174b, 176a-c). Sy, Vulg and probably LXX did not recognise this and so linked v. 34a to v. 33, but a third person reference to Moses would be most unusual in his own words (Sy and one ms. of OL significantly read ‘[to] me’ instead). uu. Heb. ‫לפני העדת‬. For this phrase cf. 30.36; Num. 17.19, 25. In the Hexateuch ‫ עדות‬in the sing. is found almost exclusively in Priestly contexts, where it occurs 34 times (the exceptions are Exod. 32.15 and Josh. 4.16); on the few occurrences elsewhere in the OT see the Explanatory Note. In P it consisted of the two ‘tablets’ of the Law (31.18; 34.29; cf. 32.15), which were placed inside the ark (25.16, 21; 40.20); it was consequently known as ‫( ארון־העדות‬25.22 etc.). The ancient translation of ‫ עדות‬as ‘testimony’ (cf. Text and Versions), based on a presumed association with ‫‘ = ֵעד‬witness’, has remained surprisingly popular until the present day (cf. RSV, JB, NEB, NIV, REB; cf. BDB, p. 730, HAL, p. 747, Ges18, p. 925, DCH 6, pp. 278-80). But a ‘testimony’ or ‘witness’ is a remarkable word to use of Yahweh’s laws, and even more so for the pl. form which occurs, for example, frequently in Psalm 119. In fact two of the recent lexica (HAL and Ges18) have abandoned it in favour of ‘command, law’ for the pl. form and more appropriate translations

446

EXODUS 1–18

have been adopted for the sing. here in NJPS (‘pact’) and NRSV (‘decree’: cf. Ges18’s mediating ‘Verordnung, Gesetz als Zeugnis des Rechtswillens Gottes, priesterl.[icher] Ausdr.[uck] f.[ür] die Sinaigesetzgebung’). There is a good justification for these newer renderings in the meanings of the underlying verb, ‫ עוד‬Hiph. Although it is used a few times of ‘bearing witness’ (1 Kgs 21.10, 13; Mal. 2.14; Job 29.11) or ‘calling as a witness’ (Deut. 4.26; 30.19; 31.28; Isa. 8.2; Jer. 32.10, 25, 44), it occurs over twice as often in more general senses which have nothing to do with ‘witnessing’. It can mean ‘warn’ (e.g. Deut. 8.19), ‘teach’ (1 Sam. 8.9; Ps. 50.7) and especially ‘command’ (Exod. 19.23; Deut. 32.46; 2 Kgs 17.13, 15; Jer. 11.7; 42.19; Ps. 81.9; Neh. 9.34), in other words any kind of solemn declaration, but especially it seems the words of a prophet. It should therefore not be regarded as a denominative of ‫עד‬,ֵ except perhaps for the technical uses noted above. T. Veijola has made a very convincing case for dissociating the other occurrences from the idea of witness (‘Zur Ableitung und Bedeutung von hēʿīd im Hebräischen’, UF 8 [1976], pp. 343-51: cf. TWAT 5, 1107-30 = TDOT 10, pp. 495-516), but he perhaps ties his argument too closely to the derivation of Heb. ‫ עדות‬from Akk. adê and OAram. ʿdn (both pl. words), which mean ‘treaty stipulations’ and then ‘treaty’, so that ‘command’ would be the primary sense. In any case ‫ העדות‬in P clearly refers to the tablets of the law (cf. above) regarded as the ‘decree’ of Yahweh in the singular.16 On the earlier background to this use of the expression (and also the anachronism that seems to be involved in its use here) see the Explanatory Note. vv. The subject precedes the verb, because this is not the continuation of the narrative stream (which is in 17.1), but a parenthesis that refers to the whole wilderness journey (cf. 12.38, and more generally JM §159f). ww. Heb. ‫ארץ נושׁבת‬. Niphal participles sometimes convey a potential rather than an actual sense (cf. GK §116e; JM §121i), so ‫ נושׁבת‬could mean ‘habitable’, just as ‫ נורא‬in 15.11 means ‘fearsome, to be feared’. But the other occurrences of ‫ נושׁב‬all seem to be straightforward passives. xx. The object unusually precedes the verb, either to create a partial chiasmus between the two almost synonymous parts of the verse (JM §155ng) or to emphasise that the manna was all that the people ate during the journey (JM §155o). yy. The use of the def. art. with ‫ עמר‬may refer back to its use earlier in the chapter, but it seems from Ezek. 45.11-12 that at least the better-known measures were regularly determined by the article in such general statements, which will explain ‫ האיפה‬here: cf. the criterion of ‘identifiability by the hearer’ proposed by P. Bekins, ‘Non-Prototypical Uses’.

16   NJPS ‘pact’ is based on the treaty connotations of the Akkadian and Aramaic cognates, but this is less appropriate to P’s covenant theology, which does not regard the commandments as the conditions of a covenant as Deuteronomy does.



16.1-36

447

Explanatory Notes 1. The long narrative that is to follow is first located, in the Wilderness of Sin, by an itinerary-note of the typical two-part form, with a double expansion in v. 1aγb. Elim, the point of departure, makes a connection with the isolated itinerary-note in 15.27.17 16.1 forms part of an ‘itinerary-chain’ which also includes 17.1 and (part of) 19.1-2. The same sequence, with some additional names, appears in the extensive itinerary in Num. 33.1-49 (cf. vv. 9-15), from which it may have been extracted (see the Excursus on ‘The Wilderness Itinerary’ in the introduction to 12.28-42, 50-51). The presence of Priestly features here (‘congregation’ and the date-formula, on which see respectively the Note on vv. 2-3 and below) and in 17.1 (see the note there) has led many commentators to attribute the ‘chain’ to P, but in 19.1-2 the ‘two-part formula’ (v. 2a) is clearly separate from and duplicated by the Priestly note of arrival at Sinai in v. 1. The Priestly features here (and in 17.1) are therefore secondary and the result of assimilation to the dominant Priestly character of the following narrative, as Eissfeldt already saw (Hexateuchsynopse, pp. 139-46*; cf. my ‘The Wilderness Itineraries and the Composition of the Old Testament’, pp. 2-3). The original wording, ‘(They) departed from Elim and came into the Wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai’, will have been added by a redactor originally to introduce the older non-Priestly manna story of which sections survive in vv. 4-5 and elsewhere in the chapter (see also the discussion of 15.27 in the previous section). The words ‘which is between Elim and Sinai’ are not present in Num. 33.11, where the geographical situation is clearer, but were perhaps needed here to avoid the possible misconception (which has recurred in modern times: e.g. Noth, p. 106, ET, p. 133; Propp, p. 592) that Sin and Sinai were two names for the same place: they do differ by only a single final letter and may indeed be connected in some way. The date-formula at the end of the verse is part of a sequence of dates in the Priestly narrative (cf. 12.40-42 with v. 6; 19.1; 40.1, 17; Num. 1.1; 10.11) and may originally have been the beginning of its story of Yahweh’s feeding of his people in the wilderness, which now begins in v. 2. LXX in fact connects the date-formula grammatically 17   As a result the standard (and ancient) division of the Heb. text includes 15.27 with the first part of ch. 16 (see Text and Versions on ‫ רפאך‬in 15.26).

448

EXODUS 1–18

with the ‘complaining’ in v. 2 (see Text and Versions), and ‘in the wilderness’ there may have been the only geographical location originally given for the Priestly version of the story. The reason for giving such a precise date here may have been, as early Jewish exegesis suggested (see Text and Versions), to fix the time when the (unleavened) bread baked in Egypt ran out and was replaced by the manna. But it may also have been to mark the date when, as the following narrative in both its versions envisages, Israel was believed to have begun to observe the Sabbath for the first time (cf. vv. 22-30). The Wilderness of Sin is mentioned only here, in 17.1 and in Num. 33.11-12: there is no useful evidence for its location outside the Bible.18 The name is unlikely to have anything to do with Sin in Ezek. 30.15-16 (though the Heb. spelling is the same), perhaps the older name for Pelusium on the Mediterrranean coast of Egypt (but the text may be corrupt), or with Sîn the Mesopotamian moon-god, for which the West-Semitic equivalent often begins with Sh- (see DDD, 1480-81): there is no evidence in either case for a connection with the region that is likely to be meant. A location for the Wilderness of Sin can only be conjectured on the basis of its place in the biblical wilderness itinerary and a choice between the various candidates for the identification of Mount Sinai (which is so named for the first time in Exodus here: cf. 19.1-2, 18, 20, 23). Even if the traditional view that the latter was in the south of the Sinai peninsula is accepted (e.g. my Way of the Wilderness, pp. 63-69), there remain two competing possibilities, as this part of the itinerary can be mapped on a ‘northern’ or a ‘southern’ route. According to the former view, favoured by Abel (Géographie 1, pp. 435-36; 2, pp. 210-13: cf. Knobel, pp. 163-64, and M.-J. Lagrange, ‘L’itineraire des Israélites du pays de Gessen aux bords du Jourdain’, RB 9 [1900], pp. 63-86, 273-87, 443-49 [83-86]), the Wilderness of Sin was inland, at Debbet er-Ramleh, close to Serabit el-Khadem; according to the latter, which had early support from Egeria/Peter the Deacon (Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels, p. 208) and continued to be advocated in the nineteenth century (Robinson, Biblical Researches 1, pp. 106-107; Stanley, Sinai, pp. 37-39, 69; Palmer, Desert 1, p. 275), it was on the coastal plain at el-Marḫa close to the mouth of Wadi 18   The equation with Alush (Num. 33.13-14) in Bereshit Rabbah 48 and elsewhere is based purely on etymology and is of no geographical value.



16.1-36

449

Sidri.19 For identifications based on different presuppositions about the location of Mount Sinai see e.g. J. Koenig, ‘Le Sinai montagne de feu dans un desert de ténèbres’, RHR 167 (1965), pp. 129-55 [153-54] (a general name for the volcanic ḫarrat of N.W. Arabia), and Harel, Masaʿey Sinay, pp. 205-206 (south of Uyun Musa near the entrance to Wadi Sudr and Jebel Sin Bisher). 2-3. Unlike 15.22-23 and 17.1 this story of divine provision begins with the people’s complaint: the reason for it is only stated in their words at the end of v. 3, ‘with hunger’. The complaint itself becomes a prominent feature of the first part of the story, not immediately, but in vv. 7-9 and 12 (on the translation ‘complained’ see Note f on the translation of 15.22-27). The people are referred to as ‘(all) the congregation [ʿēdāh]’ of the Israelites (cf. vv. 9, 10, 22), a designation that is restricted to the Priestly strand of the Pentateuchal narrative (from Exod. 12.3 onwards: see the Explanatory Note there) and passages influenced by it, including 16.1 and 17.1. The inclusion of Aaron with Moses as an object of their complaint reflects the development of his role as a leader of the people in the Priestly narrative, which continues to be prominent later in the story (vv. 6, 9-10, 33-34). The complaint itself takes up a traditional motif, which is found also in the non-Priestly account(s): by comparison with life in the wilderness the time of slavery in Egypt is recalled as one of relative comfort and safety, and the people’s leaders are accused of being responsible for their present peril (in non-P cf. 14.11-12; 17.3; Num. 11.4-6, 18, 20; 14.3-4; 16.12-13; 20.5; elsewhere in P Num. 14.2; 20.3b-4). The responsibility of the leaders is highlighted by the words ‘you have brought us out (sc. from Egypt)’ and it is no accident that this makes the accusation substitute their role for that which both older tradition and the Priestly narrative itself (cf. 6.6-7; 7.4-5; 12.42, 51) had given to Yahweh: hence the responses to this part of the complaint in vv. 7-8. The contrast with Egypt speaks of two kinds of food, meat and bread, and this too will be taken up in the two-fold provision of food later in the story (vv. 8, 12, 13-14). Sitting ‘by the pot of meat’ no doubt reflects common eating practice at the time of writing: the meat was boiled on a fire and the family or larger group used a utensil to take pieces from the cooking pot. Such pots 19   Bodenheimer (Ergebnisse, p. 83) located it a little to the south, near Wadi Feiran.

450

EXODUS 1–18

are well known from archaeological excavations (see e.g. Amiran, Ancient Pottery, plates 42, 75, 76) and are mentioned in biblical narratives (e.g. 1 Sam. 2.12-17; 2 Kgs 4.38-41). According to the stricter Priestly laws (Lev. 17.2-4) meat was to be eaten as part of a sacrificial ritual (Deut. 12.15-27 is less restrictive), but this is not always mentioned in the narratives and may not have been a universal practice (cf. King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, pp. 67-68: further on meat consumption N. Macdonald, What Did Ancient Israelites Eat? [Grand Rapids, 2008], pp. 61-79) 4-5. Yahweh’s words to Moses make no mention of Israel’s complaints (unlike the otherwise similar statement in vv. 11-12) but they do deal with the same issue, namely Israel’s hunger in the wilderness. In their present position they can be read as showing a gracious willingness on Yahweh’s part to overlook the people’s discontent and accusations and to provide for their needs out of undeserved kindness and faithfulness, and this may well be what the compiler of the narrative intended. But their language and in part their content are very different from vv. 2-3 and the later verses which are more closely connected with them (especially vv. 6-12). Unlike v. 12 they speak only of a single kind of food – even if Heb. leḥem is translated ‘food’ here (as we have done with some hesitation), this differs from its specific use for ‘bread’ as opposed to meat in v. 3 and the rest of the chapter. The purpose of testing Israel’s willingness to obey Yahweh’s ‘instruction’ (or ‘law’, Heb. tôrāh) is not alluded to again except in v. 28, which is part of another section of the story that sits awkwardly in its present position (see the notes on vv. 22-30), and the parallels to it are in passages which show none of the Priestly characteristics of vv. 2-3 and the bulk of this chapter (see the Explanatory Note on 15.25b-26). Verses 4-5 are therefore generally thought to come from either a different account of this episode or, less likely, a later redactional reworking of the Priestly narrative (see further the introduction to this chapter). The vivid metaphorical use of ‘rain down’ for other kinds of ‘downpour’ sent by God is paralleled in 9.18, 23; Gen. 19.24; ‘the people’ is a common expression for the Israelites in the non-Priestly narrative (e.g. 15.24); and the expression ‘a day’s portion each day’ (debaryôm beyômô) appears also in 5.13, 19, but not elsewhere in this chapter, where other expressions are used. The ‘test’ appears from the sentence division here (which corresponds to the break between v. 4 and v. 5) to be the daily collection of sufficient ‘food’ for each



16.1-36

451

day; the additional food collected on the sixth day is more of a bonus, to ensure that the people do not have to work on the Sabbath (cf. v. 29). If so, then vv. 27-30 represent an unanticipated violation of the divine plan. The language of ‘food/bread’ from heaven is recalled in Ps. 105.40 (cf. 78.23-25) and Neh. 9.15 (cf. v. 20): in all these passages the meaning of leḥem is clearly ‘bread’. For the later development of this narrative of divine provision in Judaism and the New Testament (especially John 6) see P. Borgen, Bread from Heaven (NTSup 10; Leiden, 1965); B.J. Malina, The Palestinian Manna Tradition (AGSU 7; Leiden, 1968). 6-7. The response of Moses and Aaron (including the naming of the latter) does take up the Israelites’ complaint, though explicitly only at the end (v. 7b). But from the beginning they insist that it is misdirected, for it was not they who had ‘brought you out of the land of Egypt’, but Yahweh himself (v. 6b): the word-order of the Heb. indicates that this is an emphatic correction of the people’s words in v. 3b (see Note k on the translation). Something will happen ‘in the evening’ to make them ‘know’ this – it is not clear what at this stage – and ‘in the morning they will see the ‘glory’ (Heb. kābôd) of Yahweh. All this is ‘because Yahweh has heard your complaints’ which, it is now explicitly stated, are ‘against Yahweh’ himself. Taken by itself, as the narrator probably intended his readers to do, this response gives no clear indication that Yahweh will respond positively to the people’s direct challenge to him, if anything the opposite is suggested. In the majority of the Exodus narrative and most recently in 14.4, 18 it is the recalcitrant Egyptians who are to ‘know’ who Yahweh is when he ‘gets glory’ (Heb. kbd Niphal) over them by punishing them. The better expectation of what such ‘knowledge’ could mean that was encouraged in 6.7 and 10.2 might seem to have been nullified by the people’s ungrateful words. 8. But there follow words (now attributed to Moses alone: perhaps because he alone has heard Yahweh’s promise in v. 4?) which, while having much in common with vv. 6-7 (including their threatening finale), remove any suggestion that Yahweh is going to punish his people for their recalcitrance: evening will bring the ‘meat’ and morning the ‘bread in abundance’ that they recall having enjoyed in Egypt (v. 3). There is no doubt that v. 8 is modelled on vv. 6-7 and is intended to specify their meaning in a way that is confirmed by what happens in vv. 12-14. In fact even grammatically the verse is an appendage to what Moses and Aaron have said: it is,

452

EXODUS 1–18

as our translation makes clear, an incomplete sentence consisting only of a temporal clause followed by a parenthesis (the rendering of the parenthesis as a main clause [Maiberger, Das Manna, pp. 114-15; Houtman, p 334] is forced). This alone makes it likely that the verse is a later addition to the Priestly narrative. But by its premature anticipation of the outcome announced by Yahweh in v. 12 in very similar terms, it clumsily removes the tension which vv. 9-10 actually sustain (see below). Different authorship also helps to make better sense of some minor linguistic variations between vv. 6-7 and v. 8: the fuller expressions for ‘in the evening’ and ‘in the morning’ and the use of the participle rather than the imperfect for ‘you complain’, both in a simple sense more ‘correct’. 9-12. Thus far Moses and Aaron have only told the Israelites what ‘will’ happen and corrected their misguided complaint about their lack of food. Now, addressing them with their full designation as ‘the congregation of the Israelites’ used earlier in vv. 1-3, they call them to come into Yahweh’s presence to receive his response to their complaints. Aaron speaks to them on Moses’ behalf, as he had earlier been appointed to do with Pharaoh (7.1-2; for Aaron’s role as an intermediary cf. also 4.14-16 and Aaron’s performance of acts of power in 7.8-10 etc.). This is not established as a regular pattern in the ensuing narrative, although Aaron is sometimes given specific tasks to fulfil in connection with the sanctuary, as in vv. 33-34 (see the note there). Here too the gathering of the people ‘before Yahweh’ is a kind of cultic activity (for the phrase see 16.33; 27.21; 28.12 etc.) and Aaron’s later priestly responsibilities for such activity are evidently anticipated here, even though as yet there has been no mention of a set place of worship or his appointment as a priest. In any case, when Yahweh’s ‘glory’ appears here it is not, as later, in the camp of the Israelites (40.34-35) but outside it in the wilderness (v. 10), just as it will first settle on Mount Sinai itself before entering the camp (24.16-18). Yahweh’s ‘glory’ (Heb. kābôd) is the visible manifestation of his presence in the Priestly narrative, where it is a concept of central theological importance (cf. THAT 1, 802-812 = TLOT 1, pp. 596-602; also TWAT 4, 23-40 = TDOT 7, pp. 22-38). It is described as ‘like a devouring fire’ (24.17), and when it appears at the time of the ordination of Aaron and his sons to be priests ‘Fire came out from Yahweh and devoured the burnt offering…’ (Lev. 9.23-24; cf. 10.1-2). It is regularly, as here, associated with a theophanic cloud and when the tabernacle has been completed,



16.1-36

453

it ‘fills’ it so that Moses is no longer able to enter it (40.34-35: cf. 29.43). Later, on another occasion when the Israelites had complained about their situation, Yahweh’s glory appeared there and he spoke to the people in great severity (Num. 14.10, 26-39*; cf. 16.19-20; 17.7-9). Both the expression and the manifestation which it describes seem to have their roots in older tradition. Indeed parallels to the latter are widespread in the portrayal of deites and kings in the ancient Near East (cf. TWAT 4, 30-32 = TDOT 7, pp. 29-31). The term kābôd appears in cultic texts from the pre-exilic temple, though perhaps not at first with reference to Yahweh’s presence there (Pss. 19.2; 24.7-10; 29.1-3, 9; 97.6; Isa. 6.3). But by the time of Ezekiel, to whom the Priestly conception of Yahweh’s kābôd is most closely related, the majestic ‘glory’ of Yahweh was evidently seen as the mode in which his presence in the Jerusalem temple was to be understood (cf. Ps. 63.3 and perhaps Moses’ request in Exod. 33.18, though significantly it is declined), so that its departure would leave the temple and the city unprotected (cf. Ezek. 1; 8-11; and by contrast 43.1-5). From a visual point of view the Priestly description seems to draw on the tradition of the pillar of cloud and fire which accompanied and protected the Israelites on their journey through the desert (cf. 13.21-22; 14.19-20, 24). But for the Priestly writer (see above) the appearance of Yahweh’s kābôd is as capable of bearing a threatening note as a reassuring one, and perhaps the more so when, as here, it is seen outside the camp rather than within it. It is not until Yahweh speaks to Moses in vv. 11-12 that it is finally made clear that his hearing of the people’s complaints will lead him to provide for their needs rather than rebuking and bringing judgement upon them as he had upon the Egyptians. In the end the pattern established earlier in the Priestly account (2.23-25; 6.5: note the recurrence of ‘(have) heard [šāmaʿ]’ there) continues and Yahweh passes over the angry words of his people, as he does again in Num. 20.6-11 when they lack water. The provision of meat in the evening and bread in the morning corresponds to the eating habits of at least some Israelites (cf. Gressmann, Anfänge, p. 86: however, his reference to 1 Kgs 17.6 is based on acceptance of the shorter LXX text). Two other passages (Gen. 18.6-7; 1 Sam. 28.24) suggest that meat and bread were eaten together as one might expect. In the older tradition too Yahweh had responded in this way to his people’s cry for help, even if it was couched in words of complaint (14.10-12; 15.24-25a; 17.1-6: perhaps also here in vv. 4-5, though any such

454

EXODUS 1–18

beginning of the older version has not been preserved). Two further features of Yahweh’s response here display its Priestly origin. The phrase ‘between the two evenings’ (i.e. at twilight) specifies more precisely than ‘in the evening’ the occasion of feeding with ‘meat’ and coincides with the timing of the slaughter of the Passover victim and the evening offering in the tabernacle ritual (12.6 [see the Explanatory Note there]; 29.39, 41): perhaps both are deliberately recalled here. That Israel ‘will know that I am Yahweh your God’ when their need for food is met also picks up a Priestly formula, one that has already been used in the message of deliverance from Egypt which Moses was given for the Israelites (6.7): it will recur in 29.46, where it indicates that such knowledge is to be confirmed again when Yahweh, or rather his ‘glory’, takes up residence in the tabernacle.20 The ‘recognition-formula’ was apparently taken over by P from Ezekiel, where it occurs very frequently, and adapted to the specific contours of the Exodus narrative.21 Earlier in this chapter Moses and Aaron have already used it in their response to the Israelites’ complaints (v. 6). Some commentators have seen this as a sign that vv. 6-7 are a later elaboration of the original Priestly narrative or originally followed v. 12 (see the introduction to the chapter), but the differences between vv. 6-7 and v. 12 justify seeing them in their present sequence as parts of a unified, developing narrative. The words of Moses and Aaron do not reveal whether the people’s coming recognition of Yahweh as the God of the Exodus will mean judgement (as it did for the Egyptians) or the assurance that Yahweh will provide for their needs. Now in v. 12 it is made clear that it is the latter and the inclusion this time of ‘your God’   A similar expression occurs in 31.13, with ‘who sanctify you’ in place of ‘your God’, wording which corresponds very closely to Ezek. 20.12 (cf. v. 20, also Lev. 20.8; 21.8, 15, 23; 22.9, 16, 32). Exod. 31.12-17, which expounds the meaning of the Sabbath day, is commonly regarded as a secondary expansion of the original Priestly account of the plans for the tabernacle (e.g. Noth, p. 192, ET, p. 234). 21   For a full discussion of it see the studies of W. Zimmerli, ‘Ich bin Jahwe’, ‘Erkenntnis Gottes nach dem Buch Ezekiel’, and ‘Das Wort des göttlichen Selbsterweises (Erweiswort), eine prophetische Gattung’, reprinted in his Gesammelte Aufsätze, 1 (Munich, 1963), pp. 11-40, 41-119, 120-32; ET in I Am Yahweh (ed. W. Brueggemann: Atlanta, 1982), pp. 1-28, 29-98, 99-110. For a different view of the ultimate origin of the ‘self-identification formula’ see J.W. Hilber, Cultic Prophecy in the Psalms (BZAW 352; Berlin, 2005), pp. 132-33. 20



16.1-36

455

underlines the basis for this in the covenant relationship that was central to 6.7 (and 6.2-8 as a whole). On the other hand, the fact that v. 12 tells Moses to do exactly what he has already done according to v. 8 adds weight to the arguments noted in the comment there for that verse being a clumsy and secondary elaboration of vv. 6-7. 13-15. The narrative continues from v. 12 as expected, with the provision of two kinds of food. The ‘meat’ and the ‘bread’ that had been promised turn out to correspond (to some extent at least) to phenomena that have continued to be observed in the Sinai peninsula. The meat comes in the form of quail, probably Coturnix coturnix, the common quail, whose migratory route from Europe and Western Asia to and from Africa took many of them, in autumn and spring respectively, across Egypt and the Sinai peninsula (Cansdale, Animals of Bible Lands, pp. 167-68: cf. Jos., AJ 3.25 [in the Ἀράβιος κολπός, apparently the Gulf of Suez]). Quail (pʿrt) were in fact popular in ancient Egypt as food, to judge from surviving grave-reliefs: the favoured time for catching them was the harvest-month of Paophi (LexAeg 6, 1094-95). A rare example of a tomb-painting showing the use of a net to catch them appeared in the tomb-chapel of Neb-Amun (cf. R. Parkinson, The Painted Tomb-Chapel of Nebamun [London, 2008]), pp. 35, 118). Alfred Kaiser, who spent many years living in the Sinai peninsula, reported that quail congregated on the Mediterranean (northern) coast, but for the southern part of their journeys they generally followed either a south-westerly path (through the Nile valley) or a south-easterly one (via Transjordan and N.W. Arabia) to maximise the food supply: only much smaller numbers were observed in the central and southern parts of the peninsula (‘Neue naturwissenschaftliche Forschungen auf der Sinai-Halbinsel [besonders zur Mannafrage]’, ZDPV 53 [1930], pp. 63-75 [72]; cf. C.S. Jarvis, ‘The Forty Years’ Wanderings of the Israelites’, PEQ 70 [1938], pp. 25-40 [30-31], and Yesterday and Today in Sinai, pp. 183-84, 258-64). Josephus (see above), however, seems to have known of larger numbers in the Gulf of Suez. They are mentioned only briefly here (v. 13a; but see the Note on v. 23); a fuller account of them is given in Num. 11.31-33 and, without the name of the species, Ps. 78.26-31 (more briefly in Ps. 105.40). They are not included in the lists of ‘unclean’ birds in Lev. 11.13-19 and Deut. 14.11-20, which name only those forbidden as food. It is not clear whether the writer here regards them as a provision for a single occasion (as e.g. Houtman deduces

456

EXODUS 1–18

from their absence in the second half of the chapter [p. 321]) or as one which continued. The issue is complicated by the fact that Numbers 11 seems to regard them as a new, unprecedented provision to add variety to a previously limited diet (cf. vv. 4-6), but the contradiction is probably due to the different ordering of events in the Priestly and non-Priestly accounts (see the introduction to this chapter). The ‘bread’ is described much more fully, in what seems to be a unified account (vv. 13b-15) which is partly paralleled in v. 31 and more fully in Num. 11.7-9. Unlike the quail, presumably, this other kind of nourishment was unfamiliar (v. 15: cf. Deut. 8.3, 16), no doubt to most readers of the narrative as well as to their ancestors. So these verses explain its origin, describe its appearance (on the translation ‘powdery’ and other views see Note v on the translation) and give it a name (see Note w), though it continues to be referred to as ‘bread’ (vv. 15b, 22, 29, 32) until near the end of the chapter (vv. 31, 33, 35). From ancient times it has been compared to a phenomenon which was known to occur in the Sinai peninsula and elsewhere (Jos., AJ 3.31; Origen on Num. 11.6; Ambrose, Ep. 64; Anon.Plac., Itinerarium 39 [CCSL 179, p. 149]). Excursus on Observations and Studies of Phenomena Comparable to the Biblical Manna22 The early sources do not go into any detail about the origin of the ‘manna’ of their own time, except in some cases to say that it ‘came down’ from heaven or the sky like rain or dew. But it is likely that they are referring to what was later recognised as a product from the tamarisk trees which are still widespread in the Sinai peninsula (see below). In the Middle Ages comparison with phenomena specific to the peninsula was displaced by references to a product of the al-ḥāj bush, which grows in dry areas across much of the Middle East.23 In Armenia, Mesopotamia and especially in parts of Persia it exudes a sweet, syrupy substance (taranjabin in Persian), which has long been collected for medical use and as a source of sugar. This is probably what Georgius Syncellus (c. A.D. 800) had in mind when he wrote of τὸ μάννα κομισθὲν ἐκ τῆς Παρθικῆς which he had seen and tasted (Ecloga 22   See further and for fuller references the very detailed study of Maiberger, Das Manna, pp. 325-438; more briefly IDB, 3, 259-60. 23   Cf. Maiberger, Das Manna, pp. 336-50.



16.1-36

457

Chronographica 244 [ed. Mosshammer]), and it is named as such in one explanation cited in the Tafsīr of aṭ-Ṭabarī (c. 900) on Sura 2.57 of the Koran (other explanations mention only ‘trees’) and in Ibn Ezra’s vigorous refutation of the late ninth-century Jewish rationalist Ḥī wī al-Balḫī (who came from what is now northern Afghanistan) in his longer commentary on Exodus (Rottzoll 1, p. 446). In the fifteenth century the biblical manna was sometimes (e.g. by Pico della Mirandola) equated with a juice harvested from a kind of ash-tree (Fraxinus Ornus) in Calabria and Sicily. But with the renewal of travel to the Sinai peninsula, beginning with Johannes Tucher and Sebald Rieter in 1479, attention was drawn again to the ‘manna’ that could still be found there, though it was not (except for the isolated and only much later published account of Samuel Kiechel [1588]) thought to be a product of a particular type of tree until the late eighteenth century and only U.J. Seetzen in 1807 and J.L. Burckhardt in 1812 could conclusively establish that the tamarisk (gallica) was its source. This species is widely attested in North Africa and the Middle East, but it only produces ‘manna’ in certain parts of the southern Sinai peninsula and of Persia.24 There seems to have been a suggestion even before this that an insect may have played a part in its production, but this was only confirmed in the 1820s by the researches of C.G. Ehrenberg, who observed numbers of lice of a species which he named Coccus manniparus (it is now known as Trabutina mannipara) on the branches of the tamarisks. But he mistakenly assumed that, as with similar phenomena on other trees, they simply bit into the bark of the tree and so released the juice which turned into ‘manna’. It was only a hundred years later that closer study by A. Kaiser and F.S. Bodenheimer established that the lice consumed the juices and then excreted a liquid rich in carbohydrates which they did not need, from which the ‘manna’ was formed. Bodenheimer also discovered another insect (Naia­coccus serpentinus) which was involved in the same process.25 It should be noted that this phenomenon has only been observed in the mountainous region of the peninsula and in some wadis that run westwards to the Gulf of Suez and that it does not occur throughout the year or in every year. It is clearly related to the availability of water, either on the surface or underground, and the rainfall varies from year to year. The quantity produced is of course not large and it forms only a small part of the diet of the Bedouin who

  For a list of the places where it has been found in Sinai see Maiberger, Das Manna, pp. 389-90. 25   See Kaiser, ‘Neue naturwissenschaftliche Forschungen’ (an appreciative review of Bodenheimer’s Ergebnisse which followed an earlier publication of his own in 1924); Bodenheimer, Ergebnisse der Sinai-Expedition 1927 (Leipzig, 1929), pp. 45-89; id. ‘The Manna of Sinai’, BA 10 (1947), pp. 2-6; and the summary in Maiberger, Das Manna, pp. 401-403. 24

458

EXODUS 1–18

collect it. It is possible that larger stands of tamarisks existed in earlier times, before many were cut down for their wood, but there is no reason to suppose that climatic changes have occurred in the past 5,000 years which would have made the ‘manna’ available over a wider area. In the meantime a rival explanation had been put forward and attracted considerable support, because it could offer a closer parallel to some aspects of the biblical narrative.26 The latter affirmed that the manna could be ground and boiled (Num. 11.8; cf. Exod. 16.23), neither of which is possible with tamarisk manna; and newer studies of the latter had made clear that it was in no sense ‘rained’ from heaven or connected with dew (Exod. 16.4, 13-14; Num. 11.9). All these features were, however, matched in a lichen found in south-east Europe, south-west Asia and North Africa, about which a growing number of reports reached Europe in the first half of the nineteenth century (Lecanora esculenta, L. desertorum, L. Jussifii). A ‘manna-rain’ was first reported in 1824. A number of popular writers seized on this parallel, but it seems to have gained little support from biblical scholars, although both P. Haupt and R. Meyer found a place for it in their accounts of the biblical descriptions of manna.27 The fatal objection to this theory was that this lichen has never been found in Palestine, Sinai or Egypt.

In the Exodus narrative the origin of the ‘bread’ is associated with dew, but not identified with it (similarly in Num. 11.9). The account might be read as saying that when the dew evaporated the ‘bread’ was left where it had been. Here it is emphatically said to lie ‘on the surface of the ground’, thus resembling a layer of frost, and perhaps in colour also (cf. v. 31). It is ‘fine’ or ‘thin’ (Heb. daq can have both meanings). There is no mention of any association with trees here (though the comparison with bedōlaḥ, probably ‘bdellium’ or ‘gum resin’, in Num. 11.7 could imply one). There is debate about the translation of the Israelites’ response in v. 15 (see further Note w on the translation). Probably the majority of modern scholars follow the view already taken in some of the   It was not the only rival to the two most persuasive natural explanations of the biblical manna. In addition to the ‘ash-manna’ mentioned above, numerous exudations from other trees have been observed and referred to as ‘manna’, such as the Kurdish ‘oak-manna’ and others noted by Maiberger, Das Manna, pp. 32528, 419-21. It is of course not necessarily the case that the use of the name is meant to equate such phenomena with the biblical manna: it may simply reflect their similarity to descriptions of it. 27   Cf. Haupt, ‘Biblical Studies’, AJP 43 (1922), pp. 238-49 (247-49); TWNT 4, 466-70 = TDNT 4, pp. 462-66. 26



16.1-36

459

ancient translations that they asked a question: ‘What is it?’, as the explanation that follows might seem at first to suggest. Moses then answers the question at the end of the verse. But the word translated ‘What?’ is not the regular Hebrew word for this (mah): it is mān, which is elsewhere in Hebrew, including vv. 31, 33 and 35 below, always the word for manna. So it is more natural to understand it in that way here and to translate: ‘It is manna’. The Israelites are then thought of as coining a new name for something they have not seen before. The suggestion that mān was originally an alternative word for ‘What?’ in Hebrew lacks any support in the language itself, whatever one may make of the possible parallels in related languages. Its true etymology remains uncertain (see Maiberger, Das Manna, pp. 280-308, for a review of earlier proposals and the conclusion that it was originally used, like Arabic mannu, for a ‘thin’ deposit on various trees and plants that was believed, like the dew, to come down from heaven). The author of v. 15 probably saw sufficient similarity between this word and the regular Hebrew expression for ‘What?’ to suggest why the name came to be given. Such etymological speculation, which is often not based on precise linguistic equivalence, is common in the biblical explanation of names (e.g. 2.10: see the Explanatory Note there). 16-21. In these verses the daily gathering of the manna is precisely regulated by Moses’ instructions in vv. 16 and 19 and, while obedience to them is rewarded (vv. 17-18), disobedience leads to spoiling of the divine gift and an angry response from Moses (v. 19). This corresponds closely to a recurring pattern of the Priestly corpus (e.g. 39.42-43; 40.16-34; Lev. 10.1-3, 16-18; 24.10-23; Num. 15.32-36). The instructions and the account of their fulfilment also correspond in some details to the Priestly regulations for Passover in ch. 12 (as earlier in v. 12: compare vv. 16 and 18 with 12.4, v. 17 with 12.28, vv. 19-20 with 12.10) and to the clearly Priestly appendix to this chapter (compare v. 16 with v. 32; and the references to the omer). There is some tension between v. 21 and the rest of the section: the first part of the verse (in which ‘according to what he could eat’ is expressed differently from vv. 16 and 18 and also 12.4) duplicates the end of v. 18 and would come more naturally before than after vv. 19-20, while the statement that the manna melted in the sun seems incompatible with v. 19. So v. 21 may be from a different (older?) version of the story, like vv. 4-5 (see further Frankel, The Murmuring Stories, pp. 78-81).

460

EXODUS 1–18

22-30. The special arrangements for the Sabbath day’s provision are described in greater detail, which befits the importance of Sabbath observance, but there are signs that they may be drawn from two different accounts of the episode. In vv. 22-25 features of the Priestly corpus are again strongly present: in v. 22 the omer and ‘the leaders of the congregation’ (neśîʾê hāʿēdāh: here mentioned for the first time, next in Num. 1.16 and with this designation in Num. 16.2); in v. 23 the expressions ‘a day of rest’ (see Note gg on the translation), ‘a holy Sabbath for Yahweh’ (cf. 31.14-15; Lev. 23.3) and ‘for keeping’ (cf. vv. 32-34); in v. 24 ‘as Moses had commanded’ (Lev. 9.5, 21), while the reference to lack of worms and stink is clearly meant to contrast with, and presupposes, v. 20; in vv. 23 and 25 Moses continues to guide the people’s behaviour as in vv. 16 and 19. But from v. 26 on such features are lacking until v. 32 and ‘the people’ (Heb. hāʿām) becomes the designation for the Israelites (vv. 27, 30), as in v. 4 and more generally in the non-Priestly sections of Exodus (cf. 14.21; 15.24). Both the special provision on the sixth day (v. 29) and, more distinctively, the mention of Yahweh’s ‘instruction(s)’ are anticipated in vv. 4-5. The beginning of Yahweh’s rebuke of the Israelites is almost identical in form to that addressed to Pharaoh in 10.3, a non-Priestly passage.28 The precise demarcation line between the two versions is a little uncertain. Verse 26 could be (as most analyses conclude) the end of the Priestly account, summing up its teaching in a form which resembles the Sabbath commandment in the Decalogue, which is clearly in the background of this whole section of the chapter. The attachment of it to Moses’ words in v. 25, with the same second person plural (‘you’) address to the people, would support this. On the other hand, the wording is not particularly close to 31.15(P) and v. 26 (the end of which duplicates the end of v. 25) might be the beginning of the non-Priestly account: without it v. 27 begins abruptly and it is not clear what the ‘commandments and instructions’ in v. 28 are. On balance there is much to be said for this alternative, and then v. 26 could originally have been the end of Yahweh’s words in vv. 4-5, inaugurating the Sabbath for the first 28   As Wellhausen observed (Composition, p. 78), it is also strange that v. 27 has a new introduction to the Sabbath day (this is clearer in the Heb.: cf. v. 22) when vv. 24-25 have already brought the narrative to that point.



16.1-36

461

time.29 The join is smooth as far as the content is concerned and the use of the second person to refer to the people (instead of the third person in vv. 4-5) could be an adaptation to fit its present context. But the first part of v. 4 has ‘for you’, so a reversion to the second person in the original source is also possible. According to this analysis, what was probably the older version of this section led on directly from Yahweh’s announcement to Moses in vv. 4-5. The logical position for v. 21 in the underlying source would be after v. 26: its present placing would be due to the redactor’s careful organisation of the material before him. Originally it prepared the way for v. 27, which recounts the violation of the Sabbath by a (small?) group of Israelites. Yahweh’s rebuke, like his promise in vv. 4-5 (and the warning in v. 26), is mediated through Moses and probably speaks of ‘commandments and instructions’ in the plural for greater rhetorical effect: it is clearly only breach of the Sabbath that is in view. The reminder of what Yahweh requires (v. 29) keeps to the wilderness situation in its wording and need not in the mind of the writer have had in view the later rulings against travel on the Sabbath: it simply uses the narrative context to reinforce the ban on work on the Sabbath and emphasises that this is as much a ‘gift’ as the provision of the manna. Appropriately v. 30 speaks positively, not negatively, about what the people do: they ‘rested’.30 The Priestly version, at least in what has been preserved, contents itself with commands about the observance of the Sabbath day (though v. 24 in effect indicates the people’s obedience). The Sabbath is initially introduced to the people, not by a word from Yahweh, but by the double provision of manna which they find on the sixth day (v. 22). It is only when their tribal leaders report this to Moses that he informs them of what Yahweh has declared (to him, evidently): the seventh day is to be a day of rest dedicated   So already Baden, ‘The Priestly Manna Story’, pp. 492-93.   A problem for the unity of vv. 28-29 is sometimes seen in the fact that v. 28 is a word of Yahweh, while the use of the third person of him in v. 29 would fit more easily with it being a word of Moses. But the emphasis placed on the subject by the word-order may have led to the grammatical shift in v. 29. See also the parallels for such a change cited by Baden, ‘The Priestly Manna Story’, 494 n. 13. Of course if v. 28 is an addition, as many think, this would remove the problem altogether. 29 30

462

EXODUS 1–18

(‘holy’) to Yahweh and henceforth to be known as the Sabbath.31 In the present text, where the two accounts have been combined, it is possible to see Moses as referring back to what he has been told in v. 5 (though that did not say anything about the sanctification of the seventh day); in the independent Priestly version he was explaining an unexpected event by passing on to the people a new word of Yahweh (as in vv. 16 and 32), which also contained his instructions for what to do (on the linguistic issue cf. Lev. 10.3 and Note ff on the translation). Careful preparation is to be made on the day before (here ‘bake’ and ‘boil’ may have the normal means of cooking bread and meat in view, though Num. 11.8 represents both as methods used in the preparation of the manna itself) and then the food prepared may be eaten on the Sabbath (vv. 23, 25). Cooking is evidently regarded as work and so to be avoided on the Sabbath as in the Mishnah; it required the lighting of a fire, which was prohibited according to 35.3.32 31. It is surprising to find this further statement about the naming of the manna and its description, as though nothing similar had appeared earlier (in vv. 14-15), and it presumably belongs to a different version of the story.33 Although some scholars have attributed vv. 13-15 or part of them to the older (‘J’) narrative (see the introduction to this chapter), they fit smoothly into the surrounding Priestly context and something like them is needed to bridge the gap between v. 12 and v. 16. It is therefore likely (and there is nothing against it) that v. 31 belonged to the non-Priestly version and in fact formed (part of, perhaps: see below on v. 35) its conclusion, following directly on from v. 30.34 ‘The house of Israel’ is a relatively   A (probably later) Priestly law for the longer-term observance of the Sabbath appears in 31.12-17. 32   Frankel (p. 106), following Weinfeld, denies this and takes leaving the manna for the Sabbath uncooked overnight as a test of the people’s obedience (cf. v. 4). But this depends on his view that vv. 22-26 come from the editor who combined the P and non-P stories together. 33   This is often denied (e.g. by Baden, ‘The Priestly Manna Story’, p. 495 n. 20), but it remains the most plausible explanation, especially (but not only) if, as we have done, the people’s words in v. 15 are translated as a statement about the manna. 34   The objection that ‘its name’ then has nothing to refer back to (so recently Frankel, p. 74; L. Schmidt, ‘Priesterschrift’, p. 493) is pedantic: ‘it’ throughout the chapter has been the manna, and ‘bread’ in v. 29 has been a recent reminder of this. 31



16.1-36

463

uncommon expression in the Pentateuch and elsewhere occurs only in P and H (40.38; Lev. 10.6; 17.3, 8, 10; 22.28; Num. 20.29). But it is much more common in the rest of the Old Testament, especially in the historical books and in prophecy (where 83 of its 147 occurrences are in Ezekiel), and it can refer either to the northern kingdom (as in 1 Kgs 12.21) or to the whole people (e.g. 2 Sam. 6.5; 16.3). It therefore need not point to a Priestly origin for the verse and it may perhaps have been deliberately chosen to attribute the use of the name ‘manna’, according to this writer, to people of his own time, rather than to the wilderness generation as in v. 15. The description of the manna given here is different from that in v. 14 and corresponds closely to features of the ‘tamarisk manna’ which is still found in the Sinai peninsula (see the Excursus on vv. 13-15).35 As was already recognised by Rashi and other Jewish commentators, ‘like coriander seed’ and ‘white’ are two separate descriptions, since the coriander seed is black or grey (cf. IDB 1, pp. 681-82; 2, p. 289; Maiberger, Das Manna, p. 179) and the manna is compared to it because of its size and shape, not its colour. Since the statement in v. 21 that the manna melted in the sun also corresponds to observed reality, the older narrative as a whole displays a closer acquaintance than v. 14 (and vv. 20 and 23) with the actual phenomena.36 32-34. Finally, before what may be called an appendix to the narrative (vv. 35-36), by Yahweh’s command an omer of manna is set aside as a witness to future generations of Yahweh’s provision for their ancestors’ needs. The three verses make a connected sequence: Moses announces a divine command addressed to the people as a whole (v. 32), he tells Aaron to take the necessary steps (v. 33) and Aaron fulfils the instruction (v. 34). Inevitably there is a good deal of repetition between these verses, but the writer varies the wording to allow different aspects of the memorial to be introduced at each stage: the purpose in v. 32, the container in v. 33 and

35   Cf. Bodenheimer, Ergebnisse, pp. 86-87. Alfred Kaiser denied the similarity to coriander seed (‘Neue naturwissenschaftliche Forschungen’, 72), but he may have been attaching too much importance to the difference in colour. 36   Cf. Maiberger, Das Manna, p. 403. Num. 11.7-8 seems to be a later and artificial addition based on the combination of the two accounts in Exod. 16, and it has a different view of the taste of the manna. But the comparison with bdellium is a new feature which matches both the texture and, at times, the colour of tamarisk manna.

464

EXODUS 1–18

the precise location in v. 34. The repeated elements – the quantity, the long-term intention, Aaron’s role (all mentioned twice) and the ‘keeping’ of the manna (thrice) emphasise the key components of the process. Several features link these verses to Priestly sections earlier in the chapter (the prominence of Aaron [cf. vv. 2, 6, 9-10: here especially because of the place where the manna is to be kept], the wording at the beginning of v. 32 [cf. v. 16], the omer measure [vv. 16, 18, 22], ‘for keeping’ [v. 23]) or elsewhere (‘throughout your generations’ [cf. 12.14, 17, 42; 29.42 etc.], ‘the decree’ [25.16, 21-22 etc.]). There is a particularly close parallel with the placing of Aaron’s staff ‘before the decree’ in Num. 17.25-26 as a warning to anyone who would challenge his family’s priestly prerogatives, and these verses are sometimes ascribed to a later layer of P as a result (so Albertz, pp. 276-77). But here such concerns about the priestly hierarchy are only hinted at and the primary purpose is, as with Passover and Unleavened Bread, to provide a material reminder of Yahweh’s care for his people at the time of the Exodus (v. 32; cf. 12.14, 42). In v. 34 ‘before the decree’ is probably the best translation of Heb. lipnê hāʿēdūt (for full discussion see Note uu on the translation). The older translation ‘before the testimony’ is certainly wrong, as the idea of ‘witness’ can only be artificially introduced in the occurrences of ʿēdūt. The related verb has a wider meaning of ‘solemnly declare’ in a variety of contexts, including the word of God through a prophet (Deut. 8.19; Ps. 81.9; 2 Kgs 17.13, 15). The renderings ‘pact’ (NJPS) and ‘covenant’ (NRSV) here are certainly an improvement, but probably keep too close to the meanings of cognate words in Aramaic and Akkadian. A better guide is the use of the plural in Deuteronomy (4.45; 6.17, 20) and elsewhere, where it is clearly an alternative word for the laws in that book and NJPS has ‘exhortations’ and NRSV has ‘decrees’. Elsewhere in the Pentateuch (always in P except for 32.15) the singular form is used for the tablets of the law which were kept in the ark (cf. 25.16, 21; 31.18; 34.29). Neither the ark nor the tablets of the law have been mentioned hitherto, but in P they were to be kept in the holy of holies of the Tabernacle whose construction is described in Exodus 25–31 and 35–40. The expression ‘before the decree’ (hāʿēdūt) is also used for the placing of the holy incense (30.36) and the staffs of Aaron and other tribal leaders (Num. 17.19, 25) in the holy of holies.



16.1-36

465

Thus the expression presupposes the Priestly Sinai narrative and in particular the construction of the Tabernacle later in Exodus. According to some (most recently Baden in ‘The Priestly Manna Story’) this is because the Priestly manna story was originally placed somewhere in the middle of the book of Numbers, for which other arguments are brought forward, including the anticipation of the arrival in Canaan in the next verse (see further the introduction to this chapter). Such a drastic solution is probably unnecessary, as the Priestly author (or redactor, if vv. 32-34 are a secondary addition to P) may have attached his account of what happened later to the main account of the manna here. It remains to consider the possible origin of the Priestly use of ʿēdūt to refer to the tablets of the law and the reason for its choice. As already noted, the plural of the same (or according to some, a similar) word is used in Deuteronomy for the individual laws included there. Since it always appears there with other expressions, it is possible that it was intended to designate the Decalogue in particular, which appears again in Deut. 5.6-18(21). But there is no proof of this and elsewhere Deuteronomy refers to the Decalogue only as ‘the (ten) words’ (Heb. debārîm: 5.22; 9.10; 10.2, 4: cf. Exod. 20.1; 34.1, 27(?), 28). So the use of ʿēdūt for the Decalogue may be an innovation of P as well as the choice of the singular to emphasise the unity and special character of these commands, even if the word itself was taken over from earlier theological usage. There are also a few other possible traces of the earlier use of ʿēdūt in the singular which may be relevant. The most securely dated is the reference to the ʿēdūt that was given to King Joash by Jehoiada the priest at his coronation (2 Kgs 11.12 par. 2 Chr. 23.11: the former tendency to emend this word to one for a piece of jewellery seems to have been abandoned since von Rad’s 1947 essay on ‘Das judäische Königsritual’, TLZ 72 (1947), pp. 211-16, ET in his The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh, 1966), pp. 222-31; cf. HAL, Ges18, G.H. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings [NCB; London, 1984), p. 481). It would appear that it is only mentioned here because of the exceptional circumstances and that it was a regular part of the coronation ceremony. The contents of the document are unclear. In Ps. 78.5 ʿēdūt is used of the laws given to Israel by Yahweh (cf. the pl. in v. 56 and again in Ps. 99.7). In Pss. 81.6 and 122.4, both of which may well be pre-exilic, ʿēdūt refers to a regulation requiring attendance at a festival, the former probably at a northern shrine (cf.

466

EXODUS 1–18

‘Joseph’: perhaps Bethel) and the latter in Jerusalem. Psalm 93.5 uses the plural of decrees associated with Yahweh’s temple. Any or all of these models may have been drawn upon by Deuteronomy and P, with the first and last being most likely in P because of their connections with the temple and the priesthood. Why did P adopt this expression for such a central place in its presentation of the Sinai narrative? It is likely to be connected with P’s concept of covenant and the significance of the revelation at Sinai for P’s theology. Unlike the conditional covenant theology of Deuteronomy, P uses the expression ‘covenant’ (Heb. berît) for unconditional, irrevocable commitments of God to mankind and to his people, made with Noah (Gen. 9), Abraham (Gen. 17) and Phinehas the grandson of Aaron (Num. 25.10-13, probably from a later stratum of P). There is no mention in P of a covenant being made at Sinai as in Deuteronomy 5 (and indeed in Exod. 24.3-8): for P Sinai is primarily the place where Israel’s cult and priesthood were instituted. But evidently P did not wish, or did not feel able, to deny that the ten commandments had been given to Israel at Sinai. What was needed was an expression to describe them (and the ark in which they were placed) which did not echo the Deuteronomic language about a covenant at Sinai (or Horeb as it calls it), since the covenant which now (again?) defined Israel’s standing before God was the covenant with Abraham (and Isaac and Jacob), which P mentions as such in Exod. 2.24 and 6.4-5. P evidently regarded the commandments, like the revelation about worship, as a declaration of Yahweh’s will which was not part of a conditional covenant and the term ʿēdūt, in the sense of ‘decree’, was ideally suited to this purpose. 35. Here again, as in the previous verse, the narrator jumps forward to take in what was still in the future at this stage of the story, this time in a parenthesis (the first of two with which the chapter concludes) which makes no secret of its longer-term perspective. The provision of manna throughout the forty years of the wilderness journey also forms part of the parenesis in Deut. 8.2-3. Joshua 5.11-12 specifies the encampment at Gilgal, just after the crossing of the river Jordan, as the occasion when the Israelites first ate the crops of Canaan and the manna ceased. This conforms to the view of the eastern frontier of Canaan which is found in Ezek. 47.18 and in some other passages which exhibit connections with the Priestly literature (e.g. Num. 34.10-12; 35.14; Josh. 22.9, 24-25,



16.1-36

467

32): from the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea the boundary follows the Jordan river and the regions in Transjordan occupied by some of the Israelite tribes are not in Canaan. This appears to be an ancient conception, since it corresponds (so far as the evidence goes) to the use of the term ‘Canaan’ in second-millennium sources such as the Amarna letters and in earlier Old Testament passages (cf. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible, pp. 67-77; A.R. Millard, ‘The Canaanites’, in POTT, pp. 29-33; TWAT 4, 231-38 = TDOT 7, pp. 217-24). The vocabulary of v. 35 is not distinctively Priestly, though ‘inhabited’ (Heb. nôšāb) is attested elsewhere only (three times) in Ezekiel. The repetitiveness of the verse has led some scholars to divide it between the two main sources found in the chapter (see the introduction), but the chiastic inversion between the two halves of the verse corresponds to a frequent stylistic feature of biblical Hebrew, and especially the Priestly source (cf. Gen. 1.5, 27; Exod. 27.44; Lev. 10.13-14; 16.33: see M. Paran, Forms of the Priestly Style, pp. 49136 [summary pp. viii-xi]; McEvenue, Narrative Style, pp. 43, 51-52). So the verse should not be divided and it may well belong to P. The statement here and in the other passages mentioned above that manna was gathered throughout the wilderness journey does not correspond to observations of the ‘tamarisk manna’, which are limited to the southern part of the Sinai peninsula and to a short period in each year. If, as seems likely, that is what lies behind this narrative, the claim made in this verse (like the quantity of manna involved and the weekly interruption in its provision) is an indication of the extent to which the narrative has developed from the natural phenomenon on which it is based. 36. This second parenthesis, which belatedly explains the measure ‘omer’ that has appeared several times in Priestly sections of the chapter, must be part of (or more likely an addition to) the Priestly account. In its form it resembles Ezek. 45.11-12, but its purpose seems to be different. The Ezekiel passage may well be introducing a reform of the system of weights and measures (for archaeological evidence on the different pre-exilic relation between gerah and shekel see R. Kletter, Economic Keystones [JSOTSup 276; Sheffield, 1998], esp. pp. 80-84), but here an otherwise unknown (and possibly invented) measure is being explained. Elsewhere the tenth part of an ephah is called an ʿiśśārôn, ‘a tenth’, from the numeral ten, ʿāśār (29.40 and 32 other occurrences, all in P), or the expression

468

EXODUS 1–18

employed here, ‘a tenth of an ephah’ (ʿaśîrît hāʾêpāh), was used (Lev. 5.11; 6.13; Num. 5.15; 28.5). The ephah was a well-known measure for grain (e.g. Deut. 25.14-15; Amos 8.5). Its equivalent in modern terms has been variously calculated, as the evidence is complex and ancient norms may well have varied: BRL2, p. 205, suggests a little under 20 litres, while ABD 6, pp. 903-904, prefers a lower figure, closer to 10 litres.37 Text and Versions ‫( בני־ישׂראל‬16.1) TgJ has simply ‫דישׂראל‬, probably to conform to ‫סבייא‬ ‫ דישׂראל‬in its addition at the end of 15.27. ‫( בחמשׁה עשׂר יום‬16.1) LXX τῇ δὲ πεντεκαιδεκάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ separates the date-formula from the note of arrival (as if a waw had preceded the date) and links it instead to the complaint in v. 2 (where the initial waw is ignored or treated as waw of the apodosis). This appears to presuppose the tradition recorded in Jos., AJ 3.11 and in MRI (Lauterbach 2, pp. 99-100; cf. TgJ on 12.39 and 16.2) that the bread baked when leaving Egypt ran out on the 15th of Iyyar. ‫( לחדשׁ השׁני‬16.1) TgJ adds that it was the month of Iyyar, just as it had inserted the name ‘Nisan’ in 12.8. ‫( לצאתם‬16.1) LXX (ἐξεληλυθότων αὐτῶν) and Vulg explicitly understand ‫ ל‬to mean ‘after’ here, whereas TgNmg and Sy point to ‘during’ (see Note b on the translation). Sy replaces the suffix with ‘the Israelites’, perhaps because it too, like LXX, took the date-formula with v. 2. ‫( מארץ מצרים‬16.1) Sy has just ‘from Egypt’, in line with MT’s reading elsewhere, most recently in 14.11 (cf. vv. 6 and 32 below). ‫( וילינו‬16.2) The Kethibh has the Hiphil form (cf. the part. ‫ מלינים‬in v. 8), but the Qere ‫ וַ יִּ לּוֹנוּ‬is the Niphal as in 15.24, which SP and 4QpalExl ‫ וילנו‬were probably also intended to represent (plene forms are preferred for the third person pl. Hiphil according to GSH §82cβ). With so much variation (see also v. 7), which could be due in part to the similarity of waw and yodh in early forms of the square script, it is difficult to be confident of the original reading. But there may be something to be said for the view that ch. 16 originally used the Hiphil throughout and that the Niphal forms were assimilated to

37   Earlier estimates were even more divergent, if more confident and precise: Gressmann, Anfänge, p. 82 n. 6, was in no doubt that an omer was 3.64 litres, so that the ephah would be 36.4 litres; while McNeile (p. 100) reckoned the ephah as 65 imperial pints in biblical times, but later under Greek influence it was 71.28 pints.



16.1-36

469

15.24. Here, as in 15.24, LXX and Vulg (but this time not SP) again have the easier and therefore secondary sing. form. The Vss mainly render with the same verbs as in 15.24 but Sy shifts to wrṭnw, which has the same meaning as wʾtrʿmw had there but is less ambiguous, and it maintains this preference in vv. 7-8. TgJ prefixes a statement that the bread brought from Egypt had run out (cf. the note on ‫ בחמשׁה עשׂר יום‬in v. 1). ‫( עדת‬16.2) TgJ has no equivalent, like Heb. in v. 3. By contrast TgN has ‫ עדת‬as well as its standard translation ‫כנישׁתא‬, a very obvious case of the intrusion of MT language into TgN. ‫( במדבר‬16.2) LXX has no equivalent (one is supplied in Symm, Theod and the O-text): since the expression is scarcely necessary after v. 1, this might be the original text, with the other witnesses pedantically adding ‫ במדבר‬to prepare for ‘to this wilderness’ in v. 3. ‫( מי יתן מותנו‬16.3) The Vss render with the appropriate idiom for expressing a strong wish in their own languages. TgN again adds the MT wording to its translation (cf. above on ‫ עדת‬in v. 2), including ‫ מותנו‬in place of an Aram. equivalent. ‫( ביד־יהוה‬16.3) Tgg avoid the anthropomorphism as in the other three instances in the Pentateuch (9.3; Num. 11.23; Deut. 2.15), using ‘before the Lord’ (TgO,N) or ‘by the Memra of the Lord’ (TgJ). LXX substitutes πληγέντες ὑπὸ κυρίου here, but renders literally in the other passages, so it is only clarifying the meaning, as also in 24.11 (cf. Fritsch, p. 14). ‫( סיר הבשׂר…לחם‬16.3) LXX and Vulg use pl. forms to match the reality more closely, but Tgg and Sy do so only with ‫סיר‬.38 ‫( לשׂבע‬16.3) Tgg and Sy all paraphrase slightly by attaching the part. of the related verb in the pl. ‫( כי‬16.3) Vulg cur intensifies the accusation by borrowing the language of 17.3. ‫( אל־המדבר הזה‬16.3) TgO has no equivalent to ‫הזה‬, perhaps for stylistic reasons (cf. below on Vulg). ‫( את־כל־הקהל הזה‬16.3) Vulg has no equivalent to ‫הזה‬, and Sy (except for 5b1) has ‘of the Israelites’, both probably to avoid the excessive repetition of the demonstrative. LXX has συναγωγήν (its usual word for ‫ )עדה‬for ‫ קהל‬here, as it does quite frequently (e.g. Lev. 4.13-14), lending support to J. Barr’s contention that LXX does not see a fundamental difference between the two Heb. words (cf. Semantics, pp. 119-29). It remains striking, however, that ἐκκλησία is used regularly outside the Pentateuch for ‫ קהל‬but never for ‫עדה‬. After v. 3 4QpalExl has a vacat, which indicates the antiquity of the division at this point which is found in MT and SP mss. 38   Muraoka (Lexicon, p. 68) gives ‘food’ rather than ‘loaves’ as the meaning of the pl. of ἄρτος: perhaps this was a device of the translators to distinguish the broader and narrower meanings of ‫לחם‬.

470

EXODUS 1–18

‫( יהוה‬16.4) TgNmg as often prefixes ‘the Memra of’. ‫( ממטיר‬16.4) On LXX ὕω see Text and Versions on 9.18. Vulg pluam (alone) indicates the (imminent) future reference that is intended. Tgg ‫מחית‬, ‘send down’, eliminates the metaphor, but they use the same verb even in Gen. 7.4, where actual rain is involved. ‫( לחם‬16.4) LXX ἄρτους and Vulg panes have the pl. as in v. 3 and their renderings have a curiously literal character (cf. vv. 7-8). ‫( מן־השׁמים‬16.4) TgJ adds ‘which has been reserved for you from the beginning’, recalling the tradition that manna was one of the special items created on the eve of the first Sabbath day (cf. MRI [Lauterbach 2, pp. 12425]; TgJ on Gen. 2.2; Num. 22.28). ‫( ויצא‬16.4) Tgg and Sy have the pl. form, conforming to the verb that follows. ‫( ולקטו‬16.4) Vulg colligat follows the stricter Latin rules of concord. ‫( דבר־יום ביומו‬16.4) Tgg and Sy follow MT closely, though TgN ‫סכום‬, ‘amount’, and Sy mʾkwltʾ, ‘food’, aptly use more specific alternatives for ‫דבר‬. LXX’s paraphrase, though less free than in 5.13, 19 (and Vulg here), was harmonised with MT by the addition of ῥῆμα and αὐτῆς in Aq and the O-text. ‫( אנסנו‬16.4) So also 4QpalExm and nearly all SP mss (Camb. 1846 reads ‫אנסינו‬, which must be a secondary phonetic variant); LXX πειράσω αὐτούς (cf. Tgg, Sy) will be an adaptation to its pl. variant for ‫( הילך‬see the next note). TgNmg has second person pl. pronouns for the people both here and there, perhaps reflecting liturgical use. ‫( הילך‬16.4) Most SP mss read the pl. ‫הילכו‬, breaking the concord with the suffix of ‫ אנסנו‬but agreeing with ‫ולקטו‬, the last verb of which the people were the subject. LXX, Tgg and Sy also have pl. forms here, but Vulg agrees with MT’s sing. There is no Qumran evidence. The difficilior lectio here is ‫הילכו‬ and it is probably original, with MT having assimilated it to the suffix of ‫אנסנו‬. ‫( בתורתי‬16.4) The Vss all render ‫ תורה‬here with words meaning ‘law’: it is only in recent times that EVV have departed from this (NJPS, NEB, NIV, REB, NRSV). A number of SP mss (including one of Crown’s and Camb. 1846) support a pl. reading of the noun, as do TgJ,N and Sy. But this may be due to no more than the influence of the pl. form of this word in v. 28. ‫( והכינו‬16.5) Vulg parent (cf. sit) in the subjunctive implies the subordination of v. 5 to ut in v. 4 – a typical piece of ‘tidying up’ the looser syntax of Heb. (and OL). TgN ‫ויצנעון‬, ‘they shall set aside’, seems to be thinking only of the Sabbath portion: the mg, like the other Vss, has ‘prepare’. ‫( יביאו‬16.5) Some SP mss (inc. Sadaqa) read ‫הביאו‬, with a similar concern to mark the ‘future perfect’ to SP’s ‫ ברכך‬in Deut. 16.10 (cf. GSH §172a). TgNmg substitutes ‫ ילקטו‬from v. 4; TgJ has a long addition incorporating the rules about the erub from B.Erub. 71a-b (MRI [Lauterbach 2, p. 104] refers to this more briefly). ‫( משׁנה על‬16.5) LXX has just διπλοῦν, which to make a grammatical connection with what follows should probably be parsed as a neuter part., ‘doubling’: the other Vss render freely with idiomatic equivalents.



16.1-36

471

‫( יום יום‬16.5) Many SP mss (inc. all of Crown’s and Camb. 1846) read ‫( יום ויום‬cf. SP at Gen. 39.10), a variation found in late BH (Esth. 2.11; 3.4) and at Qumran (11QT 15.1, 5; 4Q210[Aram.] fr.1 3.4-5), with a distributive use of waw that is ‘late’ and post-biblical (BDB, p. 253), cf. TgJ here: TgO, Aq and Theod reproduce MT, which must be original. The other Vss render freely, either idiomatically (Symm, Sy, Vulg) or awkwardly due to repetition of their equivalents for ‫ דבר־יום ביומו‬in v. 4 (LXX [in part], TgN). ‫( ויאמר‬16.6) So also SP; among the Vss only Vulg has a pl. verb. ‫( אל־כל־בני ישׂראל‬16.6) LXX πρὸς πᾶσαν συναγωγὴν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ follows vv. 1-2, where ‫ כל‬also appears. ‫( ערב‬16.6) The early Sy ms. 5b1 adds bhdʾ, ‘this’, a rare case of its varying from MT. ‫( אתכם‬16.6) TgJ,N add ‫פריקין‬, ‘redeemed’, as often, most recently in 13.14 (see Text and Versions). ‫( מארץ מצרים‬16.6) Sy has no equivalent to ‫ארץ‬, as in v. 1 (see the note). ‫( וראיתם‬16.7) TgJ has ‘(the glory of the Shekinah of the Lord) shall be revealed against you’, using the same expression as it (and TgO,N) has in v. 10 for ‫( נראה‬cf. Chester, Divine Revelation, pp. 80-81). TgN also introduces the Shekinah here, but TgO follows MT. ‫( בשׁמעו‬16.7) LXX omitted an equivalent to the suffix because the reference to God was clear enough from the context (Wevers, Notes, p. 246), but αὐτόν was added by the Three and the O-text and κύριον (from v. 8) in many other mss. TgO,J and Sy turn the expression into a passive form; likewise in TgN with the m. sing. part. ‫ ושׁמיע‬but the causal connection is ignored.39 ‫( את־תלנתיכם‬16.7) LXX and Sy have sing. forms of the noun here and in vv. 8, 9 and 12, Vulg (perhaps for the sake of variety) only here and in vv. 8b and 9: only in v. 12 is the consonantal text of MT truly ambiguous, but a Vorlage reading ‫ תלנתכם‬may have existed and even have given the original reading. The Tgg evidently knew the pl. reading. ‫( על־יהוה‬16.7) Tgg and Sy render ‫ על‬with ‘before’; LXX ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ (cf. vv. 8-9) perhaps stresses the human–divine contrast (Wevers, ibid.). ‫( ונחנו מה‬16.7) SP ‫ אנחנו‬normalises the form of the personal pronoun. TgJ,N,F, as well as (like Sy) repeating ‘we’, add ‫חשׁיבין‬, ‘reckoned’, presumably to exclude even the idea that Moses and Aaron might be divine. ‫( תלונו‬16.7) The Niphal of the Kethibh is probably intended by all mss of SP except one, while 4QpalExl’s damaged text seems to have the Hiphil of the Qere. On the variation in general see the note on v. 2. ‫( ויאמר משׁה‬16.8) Sy interposes, as elsewhere, lhwn, ‘to them’. ‫( בתת יהוה‬16.8)  Most of the Vss leave the sentence incomplete as a temporal clause, but Vulg dabit and TgJ’s prefixing of ‘Then you will know’ (from v. 7) smoothen the connection. TgJ departs from the straightforward meaning of ‫ בתת‬in rendering with ‫( בדיזמן‬AramB: ‘prepares’). 39   ‫ ית‬suggests an active verb, but it seems to be used (with the subj.!) even in passive renderings.

472

EXODUS 1–18

‫( בשׁמע יהוה‬16.8) Tgg again give a passive rendering, but Sy has the active of the Heb. this time. TgNmg preserves an unusual use of ‫ גלי קדם‬for God hearing. ‫( את־תלנתיכם‬16.8) Vulg has a pl. noun here but later in the verse it reverts to the sing. exhibited elsewhere by LXX and Sy, while Sy paraphrases by repeating the verbal expression used just before. ‫( עליו‬16.8) LXX καθ’ἡμῶν ‘corrects’ the Heb. to agree with the narrative in v. 2 (and the wording of the end of v. 7). ‫( ונחנו מה לא עלינו‬16.8) LXX and Vulg both tighten the logic of Moses’ words here by inserting ‘For’, though at different points. ‫( על־יהוה‬16.8) LXX again uses θεός for the divine name here, as in v. 7 (see the note there) and again in v. 9, but earlier in the verse it twice has κύριος. Tgg created distance between the murmurings and the divine name, either by inserting ‘the Memra of’ (TgO,J) or by replacing ‫ על‬with ‘before’ (TgN, like all the Tgg in v. 7): notably none of them felt the same scruple over the suffix referring to God in ‫עליו‬. ‫( קרבו‬16.9) So all the Vss; in AramB (p. 71) TgN ‫ קרבו‬is rendered ‘Offer sacrifice’, which the Pael can mean, but there is no reason to introduce this idea here (cf. MRI [Lauterbach 2, p. 106]). ‫( שׁמע‬16.9) Tgg (but not Sy) again render as a passive with ‘before him/ the Lord’. ‫( תלנתיכם‬16.9) LXX, Vulg and Sy again have the sing. noun. ‫( בני־ישׂראל‬16.10) TgJ has just ‫ישׂראל‬, as in v. 1. ‫( ויפנו‬16.10) LXX ἐπεστράφησαν (cf. Theod.) follows the sense ‘turn’ for ‫פנה‬, like Tgg and Sy; Aq ἔνευσαν (cf. Symm) uses its regular equivalent for ‫פנה‬, the change being not so much a change of meaning as to distinguish between renderings of ‫( שׁוב‬which ἐπιστρέφω most often translates) and ‫פנה‬. Vulg respexerunt plausibly prefers the sense ‘look’ (cf. the following ‫ והנה‬and Lev. 26.9; Num. 12.10). ‫( והנה‬16.10) LXX has simply καί; the Three and the O-text add ἰδού. ‫( כבוד יהוה‬16.10) TgJ,N interpose ‘the Shekinah of’ as in v. 7 and elsewhere: see the note on v. 7. ‫( נראה‬16.10) All the Tgg render with ‫אתגלי‬: for the equivalence see Chester, Divine Revelation, pp. 31-79. ‫( בענן‬16.10) TgJ renders with ‫בענן יקרא‬, a phrase introduced already in Gen. 2.6 (cf. also Lev. 16.2; Deut. 31.15) and one which reflects the close association of ‫ כבוד‬and ‫ ענן‬in the Heb. text (cf. 24.16; 40.34-35; Num. 17.7). ‫( וידבר‬16.11) Sy uses ʾmr (rather than the expected mlyl) here and also for ‫ דבר‬in v. 12: cf. 14.1-2 and Text and Versions there. The Vatican ms. of TgO omits the whole verse, as it does wherever this expression occurs (cf. AramB 6, pp. 36-37). ‫( יהוה‬16.11) TgNmg prefixes ‘the Memra of’. ‫( שׁמעתי‬16.12) Tgg again paraphrase in the passive, as in vv. 7-8, but here TgO,J also have the m. sing. form ‫שׁמיע‬, as TgN does throughout. TgNmg, as in



16.1-36

473

v. 8, preserves a rendering with ‫גלי‬. TgJ (cf. TgNmg) reads ‘before him’, mistakenly following its version of v. 7. ‫( תלונת‬16.12) SP ‫ תלנות‬clearly indicates the pl. form here. LXX and Sy have the sing. again, but Vulg follows the pl. reading here. TgNmg has ‘your murmurings’, another error based on v. 7. ‫( בין הערבים‬16.12) The Vss render essentially as they do in 12.6 (see the comments in Text and Versions there). LXX prefixes τὸ to πρὸς ἑσπέραν, perhaps to match τὸ πρωί in the next phrase, and Vulg vespere blurs the precision of the Heb., so avoiding a conflict with ‫ בערב‬in the next verse: Vulg generally uses ad vesperam/um, the only other exception being 29.39, where v. 41 provides the more precise expression. ‫( בשׂר…לחם‬16.12) LXX and Vulg again have pl. forms. ‫( בערב‬16.13) LXX ἑσπέρα, apparently the subj. of ἐγένετο, could suggest a Vorlage ‫( ערב‬for the expression cf. Gen. 1.5 etc.), but SP and all the other Vss agree with MT: LXX itself might be a paraphrase of the majority reading. The Three and the O-text read ἐν ἑσπέρᾳ. ‫( השׂלו‬16.13) See Note t on the translation for the variant (and secondary) spellings of SP and some mss and edd. There is no Qumran evidence here but at Num. 11.32 4QNumb reads ‫השלו‬. LXX ὀρτυγομήτρα (its regular rendering: for its meaning see LSJ, p. 1257) and TgJ,Nmg ‘pheasants’ identify the birds as a related species, for reasons that remain unclear. ‫( שׁכבת הטל‬16.13) The rarity of ‫ שׁכבה‬and the obvious inappropriateness here of the senses which it has in its other occurrences (on which see Note u on the translation) led the Vss to a variety of interpretations in this and the following verse. LXX and Vulg saw ‫ שׁכבת‬as a verbal form; καταπαυομένης τῆς δρόσου in the former possibly associated it with √‫( שׁבת‬so Barr, Comparative Philology, p. 137 n. 2; cf. Wevers, Notes, p. 249), but perhaps more likely uses καταπαύω in the sense ‘give rest to’, which it has several times in LXX (cf. Exod. 10.14; 33.14; Deut. 3.20; 12.10; 25.19), as a tolerable equivalent to ‫( שׁכב‬cf. BAlex, p. 183, ‘se déposait’, and its note).40 Vulg iacuit has a more obvious connection with ‫( שׁכב‬like Aq, Symm and Theod in v. 14). TgO ‫ נחתת‬is evidently based on Num. 11.9 (for the idea cf. 2 Sam. 17.12): the vocalisation in Sperber’s text suggests a participle, ‘(was) coming down’, but in v. 14 a constr. noun is required so probably here too, ‘(was) a descent, fall of (dew)’; similarly Ibn Ezra, citing Job 38.37 and Num. 11.9. The other Tgg and Sy are more speculative and obscure: TgJ ‫ אנחות‬was apparently meant in the sense ‘tray, board’ (cf. Jastrow, p. 82) in view of the addition ‘congealed   Barr’s view presupposes that the translator read the word as ‫כשׁבת‬: in another place he cites two further passages where LXX is based on a different ordering of the consonants from MT (‘Vocalisation and the Analysis of Hebrew among the Ancient Translators’, in Hebräische Wortforschung [FS W. Baumgartner; VTSup 16; Leiden, 1967], pp. 1-11 [10]). 40

474

EXODUS 1–18

[cf. AramB 2, p. 208 n. 14], arranged like tables’ (cf. MRI [Lauterbach, p. 111]); TgN ‫( עננית‬or ‫ות‬-) may mean ‘a little cloud’ (AramB; cf. TgJ in v. 14, but CAL follows Sokoloff with ‘a covering’); and Sy dymtʾ is rendered ‘a mist’ or (here) ‘a fall of dew’ by Payne Smith, p. 90, but ‘a type of cloud’ in CAL. None of this provides any basis for departing from the readily intelligible text of MT (and SP) as it is now understood. ‫( ותעל שׁכבת הטל‬16.14) TgO,N and Sy follow MT, using the same equivalents for ‫ שׁכבת‬as before. LXX* omitted the clause, perhaps thinking that it added nothing new, but the gap was filled by the Three and in the O-text (which used Symm’s version: cf. Wevers, Notes, p. 249 n. 10), and also in Vulg: its free version (cumque operuisset [sc. the dew] superficiem terrae) seems to follow the rabbinic tradition that the manna came down on top of the dew. The latter is clearly present in TgJ’s expansion: ‘The clouds went up and brought down the manna on the tray of dew’ (see further AramB 2, p. 208 nn. 15-16). ‫( והנה על־פני המדבר‬16.14) Vulg apparuit in solitudine is still free, but closer to the Heb. than in the previous clause. ‫( דק‬16.14)1o While LXX λεπτόν and Vulg minutum represent the meaning well, they do not retain the association of ‫ דק‬with grinding and crushing as well as the equivalents in Tgg and Sy. ‫( מחספס‬16.14) 1QEx reads ‫כחספס‬, which might seem to be the Vorlage for LXX and Vulg, which both have a comparative particle. But LXX ὡσεὶ κόριον is certainly based on v. 31 (presumably to deal with an unintelligible word) and Vulg’s quasi (pilo tunsum: see the discussion of this in Note v on the translation) could have been derived independently from the context. The reading of 1QEx (which Propp, p. 586, regards as original) could have a similar origin, helped perhaps by the similarity between mem and kaph in the Qumran script. The other Vss follow MT’s reading as a passive participle: TgO ‫ מקלף‬and Sy wmtqlp, ‘peeled, stripped’, derive the Heb. from ‫( חשׂף‬cf. Gen. 30.37), as Aq and Theod (latinised by BM and Wevers as decorticatum: λελεπισμένον acc. Wevers, Notes, p. 250 n. 11) and Symm (manifestum: cf. LXXFb ἀνασυρόμενον) will also have done; TgJ ‫ מסרגל‬and TgN,F ‫ מפספס‬are less clear, but Salvesen, Symmachus, pp. 96-97, suggests ‘levelled out’ and ‘spread out’ respectively (cf. Jastrow, p. 1023; CAL, s. vv.: it has ‘arranged in straight lines’ for ‫מסרגל‬, which is closer to its meaning elsewhere). ‫( דק‬16.14)2o Most of the Vss render as before, but LXX λευκόν, ‘white’, will have been erroneously imported from v. 31 with its equivalent for ‫מחספס‬ (cf. TgNmg) and Vulg does not render it all, seeing the repetition as otiose or mistaken. TgO reinforces with ‫דגיר‬, ‘heaped up’ (so AramB), unless the variant ‫כגיר‬, ‘like lime’ (so Rashi), is followed. ‫( ככפר‬16.14) Some SP mss (cf. Tal, Crown, Camb. 1846) vocalise ‫ככופר‬. πάχνη in LXXFb (and Symm?) is perhaps preferred because of the ambiguity of LXX πάγος, which can mean ‘rock’. ‫( על־הארץ‬16.14) The ms. of TgJ prefixes ‘which (is)’, attaching the phrase to ‘hoar frost’ since the manna has already been located earlier in the verse: it need not presuppose a Vorlage different from MT and SP.



16.1-36

475

‫( ויראו‬16.15) LXX and Vulg subordinate to the following clause and add an object for stylistic reasons; TgJ interposes ‘and they were amazed’. ‫( מן הוא‬16.15) LXX assumes that the meaning is the same as ‫ מה־הוא‬later in the verse (cf. Symm), as does Vulg which transliterates the Heb. with man hu before explaining it, in the way that some Semitic expressions are interpreted in the Gospels (e.g. Mk. 6.41). Sy mnʾ (5b1 mnw) probably intended the same as LXX. TgO ‫( מנא הוא‬cf. TgN) and TgJ ‫ מאן הוא‬are commonly translated in the same way (cf. AramB), but these Vss use ‫מא‬/‫ מה‬later in the verse for ‘what?’ and they may therefore imply ‘It is man(na)’ here (on the problem see B. Malina, The Palestinian Manna Tradition, pp. 55-56). This is also a view recorded in MRI (Lauterbach, p. 114) and it seems to lie behind the attempt at an etymology in Rashi and Ibn Ezra. ‫( מה־הוא‬16.15) For LXX’s τί ἦν (the imperfect is due to the subordination to οὐ γὰρ ᾔδεισαν) LXXFb preserves the Hebraising reading τί αὐτό. ‫( הלחם‬16.15) LXX ἄρτος and Vulg panis continue their specific rendering of ‫לחם‬, though now more precisely in the sing. TgJ adds a further reference to the primordial creation of manna (cf. v. 4).41 ‫( לאכלה‬16.15) LXX φαγεῖν (cf. Vulg) renders as if there was an infinitive in the Heb., assimilating to v. 8: in Gen. it uses βρωσις for ‫אכלה‬. The forms used in Tgg and Sy may be more precise, as they are attested as nouns as well as infinitives. ‫( זה‬16.16) Sy whnʾ makes the connection explicit: the asyndeton of the other witnesses will be more original. ‫( אישׁ לפי אכלו‬16.16) LXX ἕκαστος εἰς τοὺς καθήκοντας (cf. v. 18), ‘each for his associates’, anticipates the clear specification at the end of the verse (contrast LXX’s precise rendering in 12.4). καθήκων in this sense is most unusual and perhaps an error of the translator for the classical προσήκων. The Three follow MT (on the specific replacement of ἕκαστος by ἀνήρ in Theod and Aq see O’Connell, Theodotionic Revision, pp. 275-78); Vulg’s paraphrase omits any equivalent to the suffix of ‫אכלו‬, so avoiding any conflict with the rest of the verse. ‫( עמר‬16.16) LXX and Vulg transliterate (γόμορ; gomor) and Tgg reproduce the Heb. word; Sy kylʾ, ‘a measure’, provides clarification without being specific. ‫( לגלגלת‬16.16) TgN ‫ לכל גלגלת‬brings out the sense of the Heb. idiom. ‫( לאשׁר באהלו‬16.16) LXX σὺν τοῖς συσκηνίοις ὑμῶν, ‘with your tentmates’, is probably a free (and not entirely accurate) paraphrase of the Heb.; the O-text has τοῖς ἐν in place of σύν and Vulg quae habitant in tabernaculo 41   G. Vermes, ‘ “He is the Bread”: Targum Neofiti Exodus 16:15’, in E.E. Ellis and M. Wilcox (eds.), Neotestamentica et Semitica (FS M. Black; Edinburgh, 1969), pp. 256-63, took TgN’s ‫ הוא לחמא‬as a reference to Moses himself because the ms. reads ‫ משׁה‬for the preceding ‫ מה־הוא‬of MT. But this is probably a scribal error (cf. the editio princeps ad loc. and p. 60*; Childs, p. 274).

476

EXODUS 1–18

takes the correction further: TgO and Sy follow MT, on which TgJ,N are evidently also based. ‫( וילקטו‬16.17) TgJ supplies an object by adding ‘the manna’. ‫( המרבה והממעיט‬16.17) Tgg (and in effect LXX) render literally; Symm ὁ μέν… ὁ δέ… (cf. Wevers, Notes, p. 252 n. 14) improved the Greek style, followed by Vulg alius…alius (cf. Sy). TgNmg records a version which added ‫שׁבטא‬, ‘the tribe’, to each expression (also in v. 18), presumably thinking of the larger and smaller numbers for each tribe in the census lists (for a different kind of specification see MRI [Lauterbach, p. 115]). ‫( וימדו‬16.18) LXX* probably rendered precisely by the indicative καὶ ἐμέτρησαν. Rahlfs καὶ μετρήσαντες followed the reading of A(c), B and some miniscules, but it does not connect with what follows and it is likely to be a secondary variant influenced by the wording of v. 17 (Wevers, Notes, p. 252; THGE, p. 219). In any case the underlying Heb. would be the same (= MT, SP). Symm and Sy add ‘it’ to provide an object. ‫( בעמר‬16.18) LXX again transliterates, but Vulg ad mensuram gomor recognises that a container is now involved: cf. perhaps TgJ’s addition of ‘from the measure’ in the next two clauses. ‫( ולא העדיף‬16.18) LXX and TgJ have no ‘and’: this could be the original reading, as the conjunction is more often added than omitted. LXXO conforms to MT as usual.42 A few SP mss, including Camb. Add. 1846 and one or two other early mss, read ‫ עדיף‬here and ‫ חסיר‬in the next clause: the adjectives may have been substituted for the Hiphils of the standard text as a typical instance of SP simplifying an unusual expression. Unfortunately 4QpalExl preserves only the end of ‫ )ה(עדיף‬and so is unable to show whether this was an early variant. ‫( לפי אכלו‬16.18) LXX rendered as in v. 16 but with the addition of παρ’ἑαυτῷ to reflect the suffix of ‫( אכלו‬presumably read as equivalent to ‫אכליו‬, ‘those who ate with him’): in v. 16 παρ’ἑαυτῷ was added in the O-text alone for the same reason. ‫( לקטו‬16.18) Vulg congregarunt uses a verb which almost always applies to people or animals; its stylistic concern not to repeat the same equivalent for a Heb. word is also very evident in the two preceding clauses. ‫( ויאמר‬16.19) Most mss of Sy have just ʾmr, but 5b1 as usual keeps to MT and preserves the waw. ‫( ולא שׁמעו‬16.20) TgO,J ‫ ולא קבילו‬as usual bring out the contextual sense ‘(did not) obey’; the other Vss use their standard renderings of ‫שׁמע‬. ‫( ויותרו‬16.20) Vulg’s dimiserunt should mean ‘let go’ rather than ‘leave, keep’, and OL had used relinquo here as in v. 19: Vulg again seems to be seeking variety, but less successfully than in v. 18.

  The reading καὶ οὐχ εὗρον πλέον attributed to Symm in Syh does not make sense and εὗρεν should be read instead. 42



16.1-36

477

‫( אנשׁים‬16.20) TgJ (cf. TgNmg) identified them as Dathan and Abiram, of whom ‫ אנשׁים‬is used in Num. 16.26, and added ‘sinful’, its rendering for ‫רשׁעים‬ there (cf. the midrashic sources in AramB 2, p. 208 n. 22, and TgJ’s additions in 2.13 and 14.3). MRI (Lauterbach 2, p. 116) instead gives the general and apt explanation that the ‘men’ were ‘lacking in faith’ and ‘not good’. ‫( ממנו‬16.20) Vulg oddly has (quidam) ex eis, presumably taking the suffix collectively (though it correctly had ex eo in v. 19!). ‫( וירם‬16.20) The closest rendering to the modern understanding of this hapax legomenon (see Note bb on the translation) is TgN’s ‫ועבדו‬, which seems to have recognised the tautology. LXX ἐξέζεσεν, ‘broke out in’ (idiomatic Greek for a worm infestation: cf. Hdt. 4.205), Symm ἀνέβρασεν, ‘boiled up with’, and the ‘swarmed’ of TgO,J and Sy are probably all (as more clearly the ‫ רמרם‬of TgF,Nmg) based on a free understanding of the form as derived from ‫‘ = רום‬be high’. ‫( תולעים‬16.20) Most Vss have a word for ‘worms’ here, but TgO has the more general ‫רחשׁא‬, ‘creeping things’. ‫( ויבאשׁ‬16.20) LXX ἐπώζεσεν preserves the connotation of ‘smell’ which is characteristic of BH ‫באשׁ‬, but the Aram. Vss use words which reflect the wider sense, which it has in Aram., of ‘be bad, decay’: hence no doubt Vulg computruit. ‫( ויקצף‬16.20) LXX ἐπικράνθη (only elsewhere for ‫ קצף‬at Jer. 37[MT].15) surprisingly departs from its normal association of ‫ קצף‬with ὀργή and θυμός: perhaps the translator thought that ‘vexation’ was more appropriate than ‘anger’ to the ‘humble’ (πραΰς) Moses of Num. 12.3 (cf. the ideal in Jos., AJ 4.328-29). ‫( אתו בבקר בבקר‬16.21) Vulg abbreviates, with no equivalent to ‫ אתו‬and mane only once (but its imperfect verb is another way of indicating the regularity). TgJ rephrases the temporal expression and makes additions to locate the melting of the manna at ‘the fourth hour’ (cf. MRI [Lauterbach 2, p. 117]). ‫( אישׁ כפי אכלו‬16.21) LXX ἕκαστος τὸ καθῆκον αὐτῷ is closer to the sense than in vv. 16 and 18 but still omits any reference to eating. SP reads ‫ לפי‬as in vv. 16 and 18, a clear case of assimilation, and a Geniza ms. (cf. BHS) and TgO,J do likewise; LXX, Vulg and Sy are too free for any conclusion about their Vorlagen to be drawn. Aq and Symm appear to presuppose ‫כפי‬, but Theod εἰς τοὺς ἐσθίοντας αὐτό points to ‫לפי‬, with a rendering of ‫ אכלו‬which, though more literal, oddly analyses it like LXX earlier as a plural part. with suffix. ‫( וחם‬16.21) SP ‫ וחמה‬adjusts the ending to fit the usual fem. gender of ‫שׁמשׁ‬. There is no Qumran evidence to determine the antiquity of the change. TgO, like LXX and Vulg here and elsewhere, creates a subordinate clause out of the Heb. parataxis and also prefixes ‘what remained of it (sc. the manna) on the surface of the open country’ to provide a precise subject for ‫ונמס‬. TgO,J,N all add ‘upon it’ to make explicit the connection with the manna. TgN curiously has ‘rose’ for ‫( חם‬and its mg even more curiously ‘set’!).

478

EXODUS 1–18

‫( ונמס‬16.21) TgJ has a long addition about what happened to the molten manna, as in MRI (Lauterbach 2, p. 117), except that the Israelites are the beneficiaries rather than Gentiles. ‫( לחם‬16.22) LXX τὰ δέοντα, a Koine expression for the ‘necessities’ of life, i.e. food (cf. 21.10; 1 Kgs 5.2; Prov. 30.8; Tob. 5.15; 2 Macc. 13.20: for pars. cf. LSJ, p. 379; BAG, p. 171 [s.v. 5] with evidence from papyri). Aq, Symm and Vulg follow MT, the last adding id est to connect with the next phrase. ‫( לאחד‬16.22) TgJ,N (cf. Nmg) expand to make clear that all humans are meant. ‫( נשׂיאי‬16.22) Most of the Vss use general words for ‘leaders, officers’, but Sy qšyšy equates them specifically with the ‘elders’ (for this word cf. 10.9; 17.5; 19.7: more often Sy uses sb for ‘elder’). ‫( העדה‬16.22) TgNmg prefixes ‫עם‬, the other word used for the community in the chapter (cf. its additions in vv. 10 and 35). ‫( ויאמר‬16.23) LXXB carelessly has κύριος as the subject (cf. Wevers, Notes, p. 254; but its addition of οὐ before τοῦτο is a stylistic ‘improvement’ intending a question: cf. BDF §440 and the question mark in Swete ad loc.); almost all other LXX witnesses have ‘Moses’, like TgJ,N and Sy. 4QpalExl has no addition here and there is probably insufficient space for one in the lacuna after ‫( אלהם‬DJD IX, p. 37). The shorter text of MT and SP is certainly superior. ‫( הוא‬16.23) LXX (τοῦτο τὸ ῥῆμά) and TgN expand to agree with the fuller expressions in vv. 16 and 32. Again the editor of 4QpalExl (loc. cit.) considers that there would not have been space for the additional word in the lacuna. ‫( יהוה‬16.23) TgNmg as often prefixes ‘the Memra of’; TgJ’s addition of ‫עבדתון‬, ‘you have done’, wrongly identifies what Yahweh has spoken of with the people’s action rather than his provision (cf. v. 5). ‫( שׁבתון שׁבת־קדשׁ‬16.23) The order of words in the Heb. is unique here (see Note gg on the translation) and only Vulg (requies sabbati sanctificata) preserves it, though with ‫ שׁבתון‬apparently in the constr. st.: the rest follow the usual order, with ‫ שׁבת‬before ‫שׁבתון‬. This is particularly clear in LXX and Sy, where non-cognate words (ἀνάπαυσις and nyḥʾ) render ‫שׁבתון‬, but in TgO,J the initial ‫ שׁבא‬is a form of the word for ‘sabbath’ (cf. Jastrow, p. 1509; CAL) and TgN ‫ שבת שבתא קדש‬should probably be understood in the same way, as this is its regular rendering of ‫ שׁבת שׁבתון‬elsewhere. The unusual wording of MT and SP will have been assimilated in these Vss to the familiar expression found elsewhere: its distinctiveness is appropriate here, as the Sabbath is being mentioned for the first time by name and needs explanation. ‫( ליהוה‬16.23) Tgg as usual have ‫ קדם‬in place of ‫ל‬. ‫( את־אשׁר תאפו אפו ואת אשׁר־תבשׁלו בשׁלו‬16.23) LXX, Tgg and Sy render the Heb. precisely, with the Aram. Vss employing the cognate verb in each case and only TgJ adding ‘tomorrow’ and ‘today’ to insist that food to be eaten on the Sabbath must be cooked on the day before (cf. the next note). Vulg curiously renders the first clause in a very general way (quodcumque operandum



16.1-36

479

est facite) and the second in a way that that loses the specificity of the Heb. here (as already in OL): quae coquenda sunt coquite. From its use of coquere to render both ‫( בשׁל‬in 12.9) and ‫( אפה‬in 12.39) it seems to have been ignorant of (or uninterested in) the distinction between them: Latin certainly had the means to express it if required. ‫( ואת כל־העדף‬16.23) TgJ adds in the light of post-biblical interpretation of the Sabbath law (as e.g. in M.Shab. 1.10; 3.1-3; cf. MRI [Lauterbach 2, p. 118]: on evidence for the development of the regulations see de Vaux, Institutions 2, pp. 380-82, ET pp. 482-83; ABD 5, pp. 853-54) ‘from what you eat’, i.e. what has already been cooked. ‫( לכם‬16.23) LXX has no equivalent: it probably seemed unnecessary, but Heb. generally specifies the keepers (cf. 12.6). ‫( למשׁמרת‬16.23) LXX εἰς ἀποθήκην, ‘into store’ (as again in v. 32), and Sy qryrʾ, ‘cool’ (or possibly ‘as dough’ [cf. 12.34]) depart from their usual renderings in the light of the context. ‫( עד־הבקר‬16.23) SP ‫עד בקר‬, without the article; both MT and SP exhibit the variation (cf. vv. 19-20, 24), but SP several times assimilates to a preceding form (so in 14.27 after 14.24, and in 29.34 after 27.21: but not in 16.24!) and may do the same here. 4QpalExl does not preserve the end of the verse and the Vss provide no decisive evidence (not even LXX εἰς πρωί: cf. vv. 19-20, 24!). ‫( ויניחו אתו עד־הבקר‬16.24) Vulg feceruntque ita avoids repetition and abbreviates: LXX and Sy have ‘from it’, i.e. ‘some of it’, for ‫אתו‬, hardly appropriately and probably drawing on vv. 19-20 (cf. Wevers, Notes, p. 255). ‫( צוה‬16.24) LXX adds αὐτοῖς, which is obelised in Syh and omitted in part of the O-text. Sy pqd ʾnwn again agrees with LXX. ‫( היתה‬16.24) So also SP, but Sadaqa has ‫יהיה‬, which must be a slip based on v. 26, either in his ms. or in his copying. Vulg inventus est provides enrichment to the bare statement of the Heb., but at the price of adding a fourth occurrence of the verb to the three in vv. 25-27. ‫( בו‬16.24) ἐν αὐτῷ (Rahlfs, Wevers) must be the original LXX reading: LXXB’s ἐν αὐτοῖς can only be an error, perhaps caused by its αὐτοῖς earlier in the verse. TgN ‫ בגויה‬is a slight imprecision, which its mg corrects. ‫( ויאמר משׁה‬16.25) Sy in this case does not (except for 5b1) represent the waw, preferring asyndeton for the direct response (cf. vv. 19, 23); as often it specifies the addressee, adding lhwn. ‫( אכלהו‬16.25) LXX φάγετε, with the object understood: the Three and the O-text add αὐτό to agree with MT. Possibly the suffix is secondary in MT and the other witnesses (cf. below on ‫)תמצאהו‬, but both the main Heb. traditions have it. ‫( היום‬16.25)2o Vulg has no equivalent, but in view of its tendencies to abbreviate and avoid repetition this need not imply that it was lacking in Vulg’s Vorlage. ‫( ליהוה‬16.25) Tgg as usual have ‫ קדם‬in place of ‫ ל‬before the divine name.

480

EXODUS 1–18

‫( היום‬16.25)3o LXX* has no equivalent, but the translator may have thought it otiose: the Three, Syh and one ms. of the O-text add σήμερον. ‫( לא תמצאהו‬16.25) SP ‫ לא תמצאו‬leaves the object unexpressed, as do LXXAFM and most other mss. The O-text and the Three agree with MT, as do Tgg and Sy. LXXB, a few miniscules and Vulg turn the expression into a passive form and both Rahlfs and Wevers regard this as the original LXX reading: in any case it probably presupposes MT’s suffix. Again, however, the latter could be secondary (cf. the wording at the end of v. 27). ‫( בשׂדה‬16.25) TgN’s ‫ באפי ברא‬might seem to be an expansion based on MT’s phrase in v. 14 (‫)על־פני המדבר‬, but its occurrences in 9.19, 21, 22, 25 suggest that it is probably just an idiomatic equivalent. ‫( תלקטהו‬16.26) As in the previous verse, evidence for the suffix is divided: LXX (apart from the O-text) and Vulg ignore it – both of them also render the imperfect with an imperative (cf. ‫ אכלהו‬in v. 25) – as does Sy5b1. But in addition to MT and SP it seems to have been present in 4QpalExl, and it is translated in Tgg and the other mss of Sy. The agreement of the three Heb. witnesses is probably decisive. ‫( וביום השׁביעי‬16.26) So Sy5b1, but the remaining Sy mss omit ‫ב‬, no doubt influenced by the familiar wording of the Decalogue (20.10: both there and in Deut. 5.14 there is a variant with ‫ב‬, which could have been based on the present passage). ‫( שׁבת‬16.26) Vulg adds Domino from the previous verse; TgJ ‘which is the sabbath’ makes the second half of the verse into a single sentence. ‫( לא יהיה־בו‬16.26) The isolation and total pronominalisation of this statement invited clarification, either by a backwards connection (LXXB,mss ὅτι [on which see Wevers, THGE, p. 244]; Vulg more appositely idcirco) or by rewording (Vulg non invenietur as in v. 25, but here further from MT) or by additions: TgJ adds ‘the manna’ and ‘coming down’, TgN ‫מניה‬, ‘any of it’. LXX*, TgO and Sy (if its hwʾ is a part. equivalent to a future) simply reproduced the Heb. ‫( ויהי ביום השׁביעי‬16.27) Vulg venit septima dies is a neat stylistic paraphrase, but it exposes the duplication in the narrative all the more clearly! ‫( יצאו‬16.27) Vulg et egressi avoids the need for coordination later in the verse, but it has to add et here to connect with venit. ‫( מן־העם‬16.27) TgJ (cf. TgNmg) adds ‘the wicked’; MRI (Lauterbach 2, p. 120) as in v. 20 says that they were people of little faith. ‫( ללקט‬16.27) TgJ adds ‘the manna’ again. After this verse 4QpalExl had both an incomplete line of text and an empty line (cf. DJD IX, pp. 19-20), corresponding to the division in MT and SP mss. ‫( מאנתם‬16.28) On the versional renderings see Text and Versions on 9.2 and 10.3 and Wevers, Notes, p. 257. Here the present tense intended is well represented in the forms chosen.



16.1-36

481

‫( לשׁמר‬16.28) LXX εἰσακούειν is a rare equivalent for ‫שׁמר‬, being most often used for ‫שׁמע‬, as in v. 20: its use there probably suggested it to the translator here. The other Vss render the Heb. more precisely. ‫( מצותי ותורתי‬16.28) Although the vocalisation of MT makes both words pl. (cf. TgN, MRI [Lauterbach 2, p. 121], Sy), their consonants could be read as sing. (likewise the majority of SP mss and, perhaps, 4QpalExl: see DJD IX, p. 37). There is support for a sing. rendering of ‫ תורתי‬in LXX, Vulg, TgO and TgNmg (‫ואחוויית אורתי‬, which is a fuller version of TgJ’s reading here: cf. Lev. 14.54; Num. 6.13), but ‫ מצותי‬is taken as a pl. ‫( כי‬16.29) LXX γάρ takes ‫ כי‬as causal, but Vulg quod (cf. vv. 6, 12) and probably the other Vss intend the sense ‘that’. ‫( השׁבת‬16.29) SP ‘improves’ the grammar by prefixing ‫ ;את‬LXX prefixes τὴν ἡμέραν ταύτην, ‘this day (as)’, emphasising like ‘today’ in v. 25 that the words (and especially those in v. 29b) were spoken on the Sabbath day and refer to it: compare the parenesis in the first comment on the verse in MRI (Lauterbach 2, p. 122). 4QpalExl does not survive at this point, but there is insufficient space for LXX’s longer text (DJD IX, p. 37). ‫( הוא‬16.29) Sy (except 5b1 and some later mss) replaces ‫ הוא‬with mryʾ, presumably for added emphasis: this may also be why LXX unnecessarily rendered ‫ הוא‬by αὐτός. ‫( נ ֵֹתן‬16.29) LXX ἔδωκεν, Vulg tribuerit (perf. subj.) and perhaps TgN render as a perfect rather than MT’s part., assimilating to the form earlier in the verse (Sy yhb may be a part. here). ‫( לחם יומים‬16.29) LXX and Vulg render ‫ לחם‬in the pl., as earlier in the chapter. For ‫ יומים‬Vulg and TgN have ‘double’, perhaps from v. 22. ‫( תחתיו‬16.29) See Text and Versions on 10.23 for the similar treatment of the same expression there; LXX* εἰς τοὺς οἴκους (!) ὑμῶν again prefers a concrete equivalent here, though in other books this is avoided. Many mss have παρ’ἑαυτῷ here, including some witnesses to the O-text, from which it may derive. ‫( אל‬16.29) So also SP according to von Gall, but many of his mss read ‫ואל‬, as do those used by Sadaqa, Tal and Crown (two) and Camb. 1846, so this is the predominant SP reading. But it will be secondary, despite the support of Sy and a few LXX witnesses, since the addition of waw is a frequent textual development. ‫( ממקמו‬16.29) TgJ adds ‘to travel beyond 2000 cubits’, reflecting the limit imposed in rabbinic law (as Rashi notes), just as after its equivalent to ‫תחתיו‬ it has ‘and do not remove anything from “territory” to “territory” beyond 4 cubits’ (cf. MRI [Lauterbach 2, p. 122]; Jub. 2.30; 50.8). Sy’s specific mn trʿ byth, ‘from the door of his house’, probably reflects a Jewish background (as might LXX’s οἴκους in the previous clause), although Weitzman finds this more plausible for the unique (and perhaps older) reading of 5b1, mn tḥwmh,

482

EXODUS 1–18

‘from his limit’, a technical expression of rabbinic law, and attributes the majority reading to the influence of 12.22 (Syriac Version, p. 159; for MH ‫ תחום‬cf. Jastrow, p. 1660). ‫( השׁביעי‬16.29) SP reads ‫( השׁבת‬cf. some mss of Sy); the Vss support MT. Both expressions occur in the context, but ‫ השׁביעי‬is regular in the other temporal expressions nearby: so one might well conclude that SP has simply repeated ‫ השׁבת‬from earlier in this verse. ‫( וישׁבתו‬16.30) SP has the sing. form to correspond exactly to the subj. ‫ ;העם‬likewise LXX, Vulg and some later Sy mss (but see Text and Versions on 15.24). MT follows the common use of the pl. with collectives (GK §145b-c) and will be more original. LXX ἐσαββάτισεν, ‘observed the sabbath’ (cf. Vulg), took ‫ ָשׁ ַבת‬as a denominative here (cf. Lev. 23.32; 25.2: more commonly so in MH and JAram; cf. MRI [Lauterbach 2, pp. 122-23] and Jastrow, pp. 1519-20), but not elsewhere in Exodus, even in the very similar verses 23.12 and 34.21: thus LXX marks explicitly the first observance of the new commandment.43 TgO ‫ ושׁבתו‬may have a similar sense, but the other Tgg and Sy have ‘rested’, which also appears in some witnesses to TgO, mainly printed edd. ‫( ויקראו‬16.31) Only Vulg has a sing. verb here, to agree with its rendering of ‫( בית‬on LXX see the next note). ‫( בית ישׂראל‬16.31) LXX, TgN and Sy have ‘the children of Israel’, conforming to the regular designation used earlier in vv. 1-3, 9-10, 12, 15, 17.44 SP, 4QpalExl, 4QpalExm and the other Vss agree with MT, which is clearly original just because it is so unusual in Exodus (see the Explanatory Note). ‫( מן‬16.31) So also SP: LXX and Vulg transliterate the Heb. here, as in vv. 33 and 35 (so Vulg also in Num. 11 and Ps. 78 [Heb.]), while the Aram. versions naturally have the longer emphatic forms (from which, through their transliterated forms in LXX and Vulg elsewhere, the familiar ‘manna’ is derived).45 ‫( גד‬16.31) The main ancient Vss (except for TgO: see Maiberger, Das Manna, p. 180) all have words for ‘coriander’ but SamGk oddly has ὀρύζης, ‘of rice’ (so also SamTgJ ‫כארז קליף‬, similarly at Num. 11.7: cf. Tal, Dictionary 1, p. 60, ‘like peeled rice’). ‫( כצפיחת‬16.31) Most of the Vss plausibly render the hapax legomenon of the Heb. with words for ‘flour’ or ‘cakes’ (cf. MRI [Lauterbach 2, p. 124]), which have then tended to influence renderings, ancient and modern, of ‫ לשׁד‬in

43   The ἤργησεν, ‘did nothing’, of Fb will be a ‘normalising’, non-specific correction: its source is unknown, but cf. TgJ,N and Sy. 44   MRI (Lauterbach 2, p. 123) attributes this reading to the ‘Allegorists’. 45   Walters (p. 170) suggested that LXX’s exceptional adherence to the Heb. form in vv. 31-35 was designed to recall v. 15, where ‫ מן‬is transliterated in some of the Vss (but not LXX!).



16.1-36

483

Num. 11.8; but Sy and Symm have ‘honeycomb’ (kkrytʾ ddbšʾ; μελικήριον); for ‫ צפיחת בדבשׁ‬here Aq apparently replaced ‘honey’ with the ‘oil’ (ἔλαιον) of Num. 11.8: on both verses see Salvesen, Symmachus, pp. 122-24. ‫( יהוה‬16.32) TgNmg as often prefixes ‘the Memra of’. ‫( מלא‬16.32) The absence of a verb caused SP and most of the Vss some difficulty, which was resolved in two different ways: either ‫ מלא‬was itself taken to be an imperative verb, whether sing. (closer to the Heb.: Vulg) or pl. (conforming to the second pl. forms later in the verse: SP, LXX, TgO), or a verb was supplied (Sy, TgJ). TgN ‫ מלה‬could be a sing. imperative or the noun with ‘let (it) be’ understood, as in MT. ‫( ממנו‬16.32) LXX’s τοῦ μάν might be understood as a clarification (so Wevers, Notes, p. 259: cf. TgJ in vv. 26-27), but one is scarcely needed so soon after ‫ מן‬in v. 31 and so perhaps LXX had (or thought it had) a Vorlage which corresponded (most likely as the result of a secondary assimilation) to the similar phrase in v. 33.46 ‫( למשׁמרת‬16.32) On LXX see the note on v. 23. ‫( יראו‬16.32) Vulg noverint, ‘may know’, is hard to explain as a contextual or paraphrasing rendering and seems most likely to be due to knowledge of the itacistic LXX variant εἰδῶσιν (on which see Wevers, Notes, p. 259). TgJ adds ‘the rebellious generations’ as the subject (cf. MRI’s comparison of Jer. 2.31 [Lauterbach 2, p. 126]). ‫( האכלתי אתכם‬16.32) LXX ἐφάγετε ὑμεῖς is probably a free or careless rendering of the wording presupposed in the other witnesses: the pointless ὑμεῖς must be based on ‫ אתכם‬or something like it. Fritsch (p. 51) connects it with other passages where LXX avoids making God the subject (1.21; 23.7; 34.9). ‫( בהוציאי אתכם‬16.32) Again LXX has a free rendering, ὡς ἐξήγαγεν ὑμᾶς κύριος, which echoes a recurrent formula of ch. 13 as well as the Decalogue; Vulg educti estis exhibits a tendency to use passive forms for the sake of Latin style (with this verb cf. Num. 19.3; Josh. 10.24). ‫( מארץ מצרים‬16.32) Sy has no equivalent to ‫ארץ‬, as often in this formula (see the note on v. 1). After ‫ מצרים‬4QpalExm has a short interval which is not paralleled in SP or MT, but one may have been present in 4QpalExl (DJD IX, p. 38). ‫( צנצנת‬16.33) The Vss all have, as the context would suggest, words for ‘jar’ or ‘flask’: LXX (χρυσοῦν, presumably on the analogy of the other golden objects in the Tabernacle: cf. Heb. 9.4) and TgJ (‫דפחר‬, ‘of clay’: cf. MRI [Lauterbach 2, p. 125], which deduces this from the need to keep the manna cool [‫]צנן‬, as in Sy at v. 23) add descriptions of the material used.   AramB 2, p. 72 and n. oo, takes TgN ‫ מנה‬to mean ‘(of) manna’ as in v. 31, but Tg often writes the third person m.s. suffix defectively (e.g. vv. 16 and 19 above: cf. 12.44-45) and may simply be following MT here. 46

N

484

EXODUS 1–18

‫( שׁמה‬16.33) SP has ‫שׁם‬, which can also mean ‘thither’ in BH (cf. BDB, p. 1027), as it sometimes does elsewhere when MT has ‫( שׁמה‬e.g. Gen. 14.10; 23.13), but not always (cf. 10.26), and sometimes the readings are reversed (Num. 35.6, 11). Neither of the Qumran palaeo-Heb. mss preserves this word and the versional renderings are inconclusive. Although GSH §148dβ attaches little significance to the SP variants, since they were pronounced the same, one might argue that here it is MT which has introduced the more specific form secondarily. ‫( מלא‬16.33) LXX πλῆρες, ‘full’, i.e. ‘in full’, is presumably the complement (cf. 9.8, where ‫ מלא‬must be the noun and so also here). Vulg paraphrases. ‫( והנח‬16.33) SP ‫ והניח‬is its regular form for the Hiphil m. sing. imperative, but its use here suggests that Sam. Heb. did not formally distinguish the two senses of ‫ נוח‬Hiphil as the Masoretes did (see the note on v. 23). 4QpalExm agrees with MT’s spelling of the consonants, but its vocalisation is of course unknown. LXX has καὶ ἀποθήσεις: the future is a relatively rare equivalent for the Heb. imperative (23 cases in the Pentateuch acc. to the tables in Evans, Verbal Syntax, pp. 281-96). ‫( יהוה‬16.33) LXX τοῦ θεοῦ as occasionally elsewhere (cf. Lemmelijn, p. 138), but all the other witnesses (inc. 4QpalExm) agree with MT. TgN adds ‘for a testimony’, summarising v. 32b: the idea is also found in MRI (Lauterbach 2, p. 126). ‫( למשׁמרת‬16.33) LXX now abandons its previous rendering (see the notes on vv. 23 and 32) in favour of the more appropriate εἰς διατηρησιν (as also in v. 34). Wevers, Notes, p. 260, offers a possible explanation for the change at this point. ‫( כאשׁר‬16.34) It is clear that Sy (see the next note) and Vulg (in view of its ‘and’ [posuitque] after it) took v. 34a as the conclusion of v. 33. Wevers may well be correct in thinking that LXX did too (cf. Notes, p. 261), since ὃν τρόπον almost always connects backwards and its και after v. 34a suggests a break there: the waw apodosis is generally not given an equivalent in Exod. (see Aejmaleus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors in the Syntactical and Translation-Technical Study of the Septuagint’, in On the Trail, pp. 49-64 [57]). In the Tgg the function of the waw (which they all reproduce) is unclear; but AramB in each case treats it as waw apodosis. On the likely clause structure of the Heb. see Note tt on the translation: it is not necessary to suppose that a clause has been lost at the beginning of the verse (BHS). ‫( אל־משׁה‬16.34) SP, 4QpalExm and a Genizah ms. (BHS) read ‫ את‬for ‫אל‬ (cf. TgJ,N), while TgO ‫ למשׁה‬supports the MT reading; the datives of LXX and Vulg are inconclusive because the associated verbs regularly take the dative anyway. Sy pqdny, ‘commanded me’, follows out the logical consequences of linking v. 34a to the previous verse (see the previous note) and leaves its Vorlage obscure. Sanderson (Exodus Scroll, p. 58) has argued that ‫את‬ is original, because 38 of the other 39 occurrences of ‫ צוה‬in Exodus which identify the recipient of the command do so with ‫( את‬the exception is in 1.22).



16.1-36

485

The textual evidence for ‫ את‬is weighty too, but weakened by the possibility that it is due to ‘normalising’ the grammar (a frequent characteristic of the tradition to which SP and 4QpalExm belong). The rare construction of MT (which is occasionally found: see Note ss on the translation) is probably original here. ‫( ויניחהו‬16.34) Von Gall printed ‫ וינחהו‬as the SP reading, but it is supported by only three of his mss (not the earliest) and that used by Tal: the remainder read as in MT (and 4QpalExl and 4QpalExm) and surely preserve the original SP reading.47 ‫( לפני העדת‬16.34) The Vss uniformly (except for Vulg which paraphrases with in tabernaculo here) render ‫ עדת‬with words for ‘testimony, witness’ (LXX τοῦ μαρτυρίου, Tgg ‫[ סהדותא‬cf. Sy]), as they continue to do in its many occurrences from 25.16 onwards. This is almost certainly not its true meaning, which was forgotten at an early date (see Note uu on the translation). Sy lshdwtʾ ignores the local implications of ‫ לפני‬and takes the word in a general sense, no doubt to avoid the anachronism which the Heb. seemed to create (for its positive intention cf. TgN’s addition of the same word in v. 33). ‫( ובני ישׂראל‬16.35) TgNmg prefixes ‫ עם‬as in v. 22 to include the alternative designation for the Israelites (used most recently in v. 30). ‫( ארבעים שׁנה‬16.35) Most Sy mss agree with MT, but 7a1 and 7a13 prefix bmdbrʾ (cf. v. 32). TgJ added ‘in the lifetime of Moses’ (see the next note but one). ‫( ארץ נושׁבת‬16.35) TgN has ‘the land of their dwellings’, a phrase it used in Deut. 2.12 for ‫ ארץ ירשׁתו‬and earlier in Exod. 6.4 (and Gen.) for ‫ארץ מגורים‬: the intention is to emphasise that this was to be Israel’s own land. ‫( אכלו‬16.35)2o TgJ adds ‘for forty days after his [sc. Moses’] death’ and after ‫‘ עד‬they crossed the Jordan and’: cf. MRI (Lauterbach 2, pp. 126-28), where alternative calculations are also given, and other refs. in AramB 2, p. 209 n. 31. ‫( אל־קצה ארץ כנען‬16.35) For ‫ קצה‬ms. 5b1 of Sy and some others have a pl. equivalent, a common Aram. idiom (cf. TgO,J,N and 13.20): 7a1’s sing. lswph may be a pedantic correction to MT. LXX εἰς μέρος τῆς Φοινίκης avoids the precise rendering used in 15.15 (and its plus in 12.40), presumably to give readers a contemporary equivalent (cf. 1.11, perhaps 14.2, 9 and [for this expression] 6.15 and Josh. 5.1, 12): for the wider extent of Φοινίκη (reflected in μέρος here) see Strabo, Geog. 2.5.24. Symm corrected to MT, which Vulg also followed (cf. SP, 4QpalExl, Tgg, Sy).

47   Both Rahlfs and Wevers adopt καὶ ἀπέθετο as the original LXX reading, rather than καὶ ἀπέθηκεν of B etc., but Wevers’ justification for this (if that is what it is meant to be: Notes, p. 261) is hardly persuasive: if the active form is indeed secondary (and it is used twice in LXX Num.), it is best regarded as an Atticism (cf. the listings of occurrences in LSJ, p. 223).

486

EXODUS 1–18

There was space for 16.36 in the lacuna at the end of a line in 4QpalExl, but DJD IX, p. 93, notes that there seems not to be room for all of vv. 35-36 in ll. 5-7 of col. xvii of 4QpalExm, since the enlarged waw of 17.1 appears in the middle of l. 7. The editors conclude that it is ‘most likely that the parenthetic statement which is 16.36 was not present’. This is certainly one possibility, but it is not the only one: the repetitiveness of v. 35 means that an omission could have occurred there by homoeoteleuton (most likely on ‫ את־המן‬or ‫ )עד־באם‬and then there would have been room for v. 36. For another (possible) case of omission by homoeoteleuton in 4QpalExm see 31.13-14 (DJD IX, pp. 122-23). ‫( האיפה‬16.35) Most of the Vss assumed that ‫ האיפה‬would no longer be intelligible and expressed its meaning in other terms (only Aq and Vulg transliterated the Heb. word). LXX has τῶν τριῶν μέτρων (cf. Isa. 5.10), where μέτρον has a specific equivalence (cf. LSJ, p. 1089): in Gen. 18.6 it corresponds to Heb. ‫סאה‬. Tgg, with ‘a tenth part of three seahs’, agree with this reckoning (cf. also B.Men. 77a). Sy wkylʾ ḥd mn ʿsrʾ hwʾ lsʾtʾ assumes that a ‫ סאה‬was equal to an ‫איפה‬, as it does also in Isa. 5.10. Payne Smith, p. 356, gives a much larger modern equivalent for sʾʾ than is usual for Heb. ‫סאה‬, which (if reliable) would explain the anomaly. But Sy may have been misled by the fact that LXX often has μέτρον as an imprecise equivalent to ‫איפה‬ when the exact quantity meant is immaterial (cf. Deut. 25.14-15; Prov. 20.10; Amos 8.5; Zech. 5 passim). MRI (Lauterbach 2, p. 128) gives its equivalent in different terms.

C h ap t er 1 7 . 1 - 7 W at er fr om th e R ock at R e p hi di m

The beginning and end of the section correspond to the narrative structure of the text and to corresponding divisions in both MT and SP (for the beginning 4QpalExl, 4QpalExm and less certainly 4QExc provide early agreement; at the end all three mss ended v. 7 in mid-line [see Text and Versions]). The section begins with a note of movement from the location of the last episode and, while v. 8 places the following episode at the same location as vv. 1-7, the two sections of the chapter deal with quite different kinds of danger for the Israelites, lack of water in the former and an enemy attack in the latter. SP has a further division after v. 4 (so also probably 4QExc and 4QpalExm), which will be due to the opening of divine speech in v. 5 and is not significant for the separation of major textual units. The section is dominated by an alternating sequence of utterances by different speakers, who generally respond to a contrasting previous utterance: the people and Moses (v. 2); the people (v. 3b); Moses (v. 4); Yahweh (vv. 5-6a); Moses (implied) and the people (as if recapitulated) (v. 7). By contrast actions and states of affairs are in the background (vv. 1, 3a) or recounted in summary form (v. 6b). Eight short sub-units can be distinguished: (i) itinerary-note marking the movement to Rephidim, where there was no water (v. 1); (ii) the people’s ‘dispute’ with Moses and request for water (v. 2a); Moses’ disputatious response (v. 2b); (iii) the people’s complaint against Moses because they are dying of thirst (v. 3); (iv) Moses’ appeal to Yahweh for help (v. 4) and Yahweh’s reply to Moses, instructing him what to do and promising that by his oversight the people will have water to drink (vv. 5-6a); (v) a summary of Moses’ fulfilment of Yahweh’s instructions (v. 6b); (vii) Moses names the place in accordance with (his view of) the people’s initial behaviour (v. 7a); and (viii) a purported ‘citation’ of the people’s earlier words (v. 7b). The episode is located in the vicinity of the mountain of God, both by the sequence of the itinerary (cf. 19.2) and by the mention of ‘Horeb’ in v. 6, that is, close to the place where Yahweh will meet

488

EXODUS 1–18

with the people and make a covenant with them and they will rebel against him by making and worshipping a golden ‘calf’ (Exod. 32.1-6). A very similar episode, but with some notable differences, is narrated near the end of the wilderness journey (Num. 20.1-13) and its characteristics need to be kept in mind in any assessment of Exod. 17.1-7. It comprises the following elements: (i) itinerary-note recording the people’s arrival at Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin (v. 1a); (ii) the death and burial of Miriam (v. 1b); (iii) lack of water (v. 2a: cf. Exod. 17.1b); (iv) the people’s dispute with Moses (and Aaron) and the charges they bring against them (vv. 2b-5: cf. Exod. 17.2a, 3b); (v) recourse of Moses and Aaron to the Tent of Meeting (v. 6a: cf. Exod. 17.4); (vi) appearance of Yahweh’s glory to them and Yahweh’s instruction of them about bringing water from a rock by speaking to it in the presence of the people (vv. 6b-8: cf. Exod. 17.5-6a); (vii) the action of Moses (and Aaron) in taking ‘the staff’ from ‘before Yahweh’, gathering the people together, challenging them and striking the rock with the staff which produces water for the people to drink (vv. 9-11: cf. Exod. 17.2b, 6b); (viii) Yahweh rebukes Moses and Aaron for their lack of faith and reverence towards him and declares that neither of them will enter the promised land (v. 12); (ix) identification of the place (by the narrator) as ‘the waters of Meribah’, where the people disputed with Yahweh (v. 13: cf. Exod. 17.7). The similarities are evident from the cross-references given: most of the elements of the Exodus story are there. But not all are present, and some details have been changed or moved and others have been added. The addition of Aaron alongside Moses, the description of the people as ‘the congregation’ (hāʿēdāh) and the terminology used in v. 6 leave no doubt that the passage is of (mainly) Priestly authorship, and the incorporation of Moses and Aaron’s disobedience at the end produces a completely different outcome, which is picked up in several later passages (Num. 20.23-29; 27.12-14; 33.38-39; Deut. 32.48-52). Nothing is said here about Massah or about the ‘testing’ of Yahweh by the people. Other passages, in the Psalms, also handle the story in a partly different way from Exod. 17.1-7 (cf. Pss. 78.15-16; 105.41; 106.32-33). But the Exodus passage itself displays some inconsistency in its own presentation of the episode which has given rise to a variety of critical assessments of its origins. Verses 1b-2 and 3 look like



17.1-7

489

alternative introductions (as they stand they overlap to a considerable extent); the names ‘Horeb’ and ‘Meribah’ (which is elsewhere associated with Kadesh: cf. Num. 20.13; 27.14; Deut. 32.41; Ezek. 47.19; 48.28) relate to different stages on the journey; and in v. 7 words of the people are quoted which are quite different from anything that they say earlier in the section. Apart from v. 1 (the attribution of which is discussed separately below), Knobel assigned the whole passage to his Rechtsbuch (the later E: cf. Exod.Lev., pp. 157-58; Num.-Jos., p. 532). Wellhausen ‘reluctantly’, as he says himself (Composition, p. 79), recognised the signs of multiple authorship but could not produce a full analysis and Holzinger got little further. The first to produce a clear division was Dillmann, who assigned vv. 3-6 to E (his B) and vv. 2 and 7 to J (his C: similarly, with an unusual correlation with parts of Num. 20.1-13, C.H. Cornill in his ‘Beiträge zur Pentateuchkritik’, ZAW 11 [1891], pp. 1-34 [20, 33]), and later Smend, Eissfeldt and Beer followed him, allocating in addition only v. 6aα from the central section to J. But before long a much more complex subdivision of the passage between J and E, which distinguished between a ‘Massah story’ and a ‘Meribah story’, became the norm (cf. Carpenter/Harford-Battersby, Baentsch, Gressmann, McNeile) and this still found support with Hyatt and, apparently, Childs. Rudolph (pp. 36-37) reverted to the older view of the passage’s unity (cf. Eerdmans) and so eliminated the E strand, but to deal with the problems he had to transpose v. 3aα after v. 1bα and ‘in Horeb’ to the end of v. 5, in both cases without any textual support. Subsequent scholarship has gradually abandoned the quest for parallel sources in the central verses of the passage, and dealt with the problems in different ways. Noth thought that v. 3 was from E and the Massah/testing sections and ‘in Horeb’ from a redactor (pp. 110-12, ET, pp. 137-40; ÜGP, pp. 32, 39), and explanations for all the non-J material as variants in tradition or redactional additions became increasingly popular (Coats [Rebellion, pp. 53-82 (54-63)], Fritz, Ruprecht [‘Stellung und Bedeutung’, pp. 302-304], W.H. Schmidt, Houtman, Schart, Levin, Graupner). Schart in fact revived the view of Dillmann and Cornill (without the latter’s diversions into Num. 20) that only vv. 2 and 7 needed to be distinguished from the rest, in his opinion as an early redactional addition related to the mention of ‘testing’ and divine presence in Num. 14.11, 22, 39-45 (Mose und Israel, pp. 167-72: cf. N. Macdonald, ‘Anticipations of Horeb: Exodus 17 as InnerBiblical Commentary’, in G. Khan and D. Lipton [eds.], Studies on the Text and Versions of the Hebrew Bible in Honour of Robert Gordon [VTSup 149; Leiden, 2012], pp. 7-19 [10 (with n. 7) and 13 (with n. 16)]). Blum (Studien, pp. 148-52) and Van Seters (Life, pp. 191-98) by contrast agreed with Rudolph about the unity of the passage, without any need for transpositions of text or substantial redactional additions. This was partly due to a better perception of the literary connections within the passage and partly

490

EXODUS 1–18

to the later dates which they gave to the literary works in which the passage was included (Kd according to Blum, exilic J according to Van Seters). For one or both of these reasons the majority of recent commentators have taken a similar view (Propp, Kratz [who dates the section unusually late: Komposition, pp. 246-47, 302-304], Dozeman, Albertz, Baden [pp. 77-80]).

There is insufficient evidence to trace even fragments of two once complete parallel narratives behind the present text, but the problems of the beginning and end of it do require a solution, the more so as the ‘framing’ verses, vv. 2 and 7, are closely connected and embody a distinctive theological critique of the people. It is true that vv. 3-6 reflect a challenge to Moses’ authority which is responded to in the manner in which water is provided, but this is best seen as a feature which attracted the aetiological expansion at its beginning and end, rather than as evidence that the whole passage is a unity.1 It is certainly possible to see vv. 2 and 7 as a redactional addition with Schart and Macdonald (the latter less convincingly identifies the added material at the beginning as vv. 2aβ-3a), related to Numbers 14 and presumably drawing the two place-names from other elements of the wilderness tradition. But the ingenious suggestion of Cornill (see the reference above) that vv. 2 and 7 were originally part of a similar story located at Kadesh (of which other fragments survive in Num. 20.1aβ, 3a, 5) can be developed into a viable alternative in the light of a suggestion made by D. Frankel (The Priestly Murmuring Stories, pp. 284-87). Frankel rejected the view of Rudolph (pp. 84-87), Noth (Numeri, pp. 127-29, ET, pp. 143-47) and L. Schmidt (Studien, pp. 45-52) that elements from Exodus 17 had been secondarily added to the Priestly story in Num. 20.1-13, and argued instead that the non-Priestly material there came from the beginning of the spies story in Numbers 13 (cf. 13.19 and 23 with 20.5), where it would fit well before the surviving non-Priestly text in v. 17. Exodus 17.2, 7 could originally have been part of the same introductory section, which at this stage had nothing to do with a lack of water. As Frankel partly sees (p. 286), possible confirmation of this can be found in Psalm 95. 1   For aetiological features in narratives as commonly secondary see Herrmann as cited below in the Explanatory Note on v. 7, p. 48: to the references given there B.O. Long, The Problem of Etiological Narrative in the Old Testament (BZAW 108; Berlin, 1968), should be added.



17.1-7

491

There Massah and Meribah are also mentioned as a place of rebellion and one which led immediately to the forty-year wandering in the wilderness (vv. 10-11: cf. Num. 14.20-39; Deut. 1.19-40), so that the usual association of this psalm with the episode in Exodus cannot be original. The most likely occasion for the displacement of Exod. 17.2, 7 and Num. 20.1aβ, 3a, 5 to their present positions would be when the Priestly and non-Priestly narratives were spliced together, since it is the redactor’s use of the Priestly introduction to the spies story (Num. 13.1-17a) which has left no room for the original non-Priestly version. The puzzling mention of ‘Horeb’ in v. 6 (see the Explanatory Note) may have been added at the same time: Macdonald (see above) has shown how the keynotes of the text in its present form cohere together and prepare the way for the Sinai narrative in chs. 19–34. As for the main narrative here (vv. 3-6), the mention of Moses’ staff and the specific link to 7.15 in v. 5 point to its belonging to the J strand of the non-Priestly account. The itinerary-note in v. 1 is closely linked, both by the toponym ‘the Wilderness of Sin’ and by the presence of Priestly language, to 16.1, and discussion of its origin has naturally proceeded along similar lines (see on this the introduction to 16.1-36). Here all of v. 1abα (i.e all except the note about the absence of water, which has been associated with [part of] the following narrative) has also been widely regarded as Priestly: so most recently Blum (Studien, p. 148 n. 198, 277-78) and Graupner (tentatively: Elohist, pp. 91-92). But the verse probably has an older basis to it (Davies, ‘The Wilderness Itineraries and the Composition of the Pentateuch’, pp. 2-3, following Eissfeldt; Levin, p. 357): this may comprise not only ‘They travelled from the Wilderness of Sin and camped at Rephidim’ but ‘by stages’ (cf. Gen. 13.3) and ‘where there was no water for the people to drink’ (cf. Num. 33.14).2 Most likely it is part of a large-scale redactional operation which provided the non-Priestly wilderness narrative with most of its detailed geographical structure (see the Excursus on ‘The Wilderness Itinerary’ in the introduction to 12.28-42, 50-51). Whether this 2   For discussion (and rejection) of the recent proposal that only v. 1b is of older origin and that it was originally joined directly to 16.1aα (L. Schmidt; Dozeman; Albertz: so also apparently Schart, Mose und Israel, pp. 167, 168 n. 71, 184-85) see the introduction to 16.1-36.

492

EXODUS 1–18

preceded or followed the insertion of v. 2 (and v. 7) is not certain: 17.1 would lead well into either v. 2 or v. 3. There has been much discussion, especially in earlier scholarship, about the place of this passage in the history of the wilderness tradition. Much of it was based on the assumption that at least one of the names ‘Massah’ and ‘Meribah’ was originally associated with the discovery of a spring in the vicinity of Kadesh (so especially Gressmann, who included his treatment of the passage under the heading ‘Die Quellwunder von Kades’ [Anfänge, pp. 77-80]: see also Coats and Fritz). But if we are right in regarding vv. 2 and 7 as a secondary expansion of the original story, the background of the two main components of the passage must be examined afresh and separately. On the one hand, vv. 3-6 are essentially a miracle story (like the two preceding narratives) and specifically one about the divine provision of water through the agency of Moses, similar to and possibly ultimately derived from the brief fragment of narrative and poetry in Num. 21.16-18 which is now attached to an itinerary referring to a later part of the wilderness journey in Transjordan. This was no doubt originally a free-floating tradition about the journey through the wilderness, like Exod. 17.3-6, and if it ever had a specific location in mind this is no longer accessible to us. Its general background will lie in phenomena like those noted in the Explanatory Note on vv. 5-6, which are also celebrated in Deut. 8.15; Pss. 78.15-16, 20; 105.41; 107.9; 114.8. But it now incorporates the recurrent motif of ‘complaint’ against Moses (which is absent in Num. 21.16-18) and the vindication of his authority by his role in the provision of water.3 The tradition-history of vv. 2 and 7 is more difficult to reconstruct because there is more evidence to consider and their interrelationships are vague and open to different explanations (see the review in the Explanatory Note on v. 7). Formally they are an aetiological 3   Cf. Coats, Rebellion, pp. 60-62. Frankel, Murmuring Stories, pp. 298-300, who draws attention to Num. 21.16-18, is right to point out that the gathering of the people there to witness the event is more closely followed in the P account in Num. 20.8-10 than in Exod. 17.5-6. But this need not mean that there was an ‘early Priestly version’ of the episode, as he supposes: the Priestly author could have drawn this motif, which serves his own purposes in Num. 20.10, directly from Num. 21.16, just as he probably (see below) drew much of the rest of his material from Exod. 17.1-7.



17.1-7

493

supplement to the main narrative, with an explanation for each of the names and an elaboration in the second case (cf. Gen. 4.25; 29.32).4 The two names are brought together only twice elsewhere, in Deut. 33.8 and Ps. 95.8-9. The latter passage almost certainly alludes to Exod. 17.7, whether (as most think) in its present context or, as suggested above, when the verse was part of the non-Priestly narrative now preserved in Numbers 13–14. In either case it does not help to locate the origin of this pairing. Deuteronomy 33.8 is more promising, since it is a part (though not necessarily an original part) of what seems to be a collection of early poetic sayings about the individual tribes of Israel. But it differs considerably from Exod. 17.2 and 7 in its focus on the tribe of Levi alone (or even, according to some, on Moses alone), in the fact that it is Yahweh who is doing the ‘testing’ and ‘disputing’ rather than Israel, and in the positive outcome of the ‘test’. The mention of a ‘testing’ at Meribah alone in Ps. 81.8, probably a north Israelite psalm (cf. ‘Joseph’ in v. 6) and so relatively early, shares the second and third of these characteristics, but (like Exod. 15.25; 16.4; 20.20: cf. Gen. 22.1) it speaks of Israel being ‘tested’, not the Levites or Moses. Both the location and the interrelationship (if there is one) of these passages are obscure, but they share what may be an ancient folk-lore motif which has been applied to Israel and some of its leaders. On its own the name Massah occurs only in Deut. 6.16 and 9.22, in both of which it is a place of Israelite rebellion against Yahweh: the latter verse places it with two place-names that occur in Numbers 11, i.e. in the second part of the wilderness journey, after the departure from Mount Sinai/Horeb. Meribah is also a place of rebellion against Yahweh in Num. 20.1-13(P) and other passages related to it, but these are late passages and probably dependent on Exod. 17.1-7 in more or less its present form. Apart from the place-names, the idea of a challenge to Moses (and Yahweh) by the people is evident in a number of non-Priestly wilderness narratives (as also in Deut. 1.26-35) and this could have led to the revision of an older positive interpretation of the names Massah and Meribah. The specific expression of this in the form of Israel ‘testing’ Yahweh is only found elsewhere in Num. 14.22, 4   In view of these parallels there is no need to regard v. 7bβ as an even later expansion, as some have done (e.g. Herrmann, pp. 51-52).

494

EXODUS 1–18

Deut. 6.16 (with the name Massah) and in Pss. 78.18, 41, 56; 95.9 (with Massah); 106.14, among which Psalm 78 and Numbers 14 are probably the oldest texts to preserve this tradition. By the time of Ezekiel, or to be more precise the time of what is probably one of the latest passages in the book of Ezekiel, there was a place called ‘the waters of Meribath-kadesh’ on or near what was then regarded as the southern boundary of ‘the land of Israel’ (Ezek. 47.19; 48.28). This is very probably the area of springs about 50 miles south-west of Beersheba where the name of biblical Kadesh is preserved in Wadi Qadeis and Ain Qadeis. The name also appears in Num. 27.14 and Deut. 32.41 and it is presupposed in the aetiology in Num. 20.13. It is only in these late texts that the name Meribah is explicitly associated with Kadesh. In what is probably an older description of the southern boundary in Num. 34.4 and Josh. 15.3 Kadesh-barnea appears in its place. If Exod. 17.7 was originally positioned somewhere in the older spies story in Numbers 13–14 (as suggested above), a story which is located at Kadesh according to Num. 13.26 (cf. Deut. 1.19, 46), this would take the association back further (and provide an explanation for the toponym in Ezekiel and P), but it is not clear how far. Even then, the once popular hypothesis that already at the time of the Exodus there were places called Marah and Meribah in the vicinity of Kadesh would remain far from being proved. Equally, the notion that the names originally designated ancient centres of judicial activity (‘Trial’ and ‘Dispute’) is no more than a conjecture, whatever one may make of the isolated reference to ‘En-mishpat (“the well of judgement”), that is Kadesh’ in Gen. 14.7. The narrative, in both its original and expanded forms, combines two topics which both recur a number of times in the wilderness narratives: Yahweh’s provision of water in the desert through the agency of Moses and Israel’s complaints which according to Moses at least call in question Yahweh’s care for them and his presence among them. Both of these themes are taken up in the Psalms and especially in Psalm 78, where Israel’s complaints are regarded not only as a ‘test’ of Yahweh but as forgetfulness of his provision in the past (vv. 11, 42). Yet here, once again, as in the two previous episodes in Exodus, Yahweh shows patience and mercy and responds positively to the people’s need and (as in 15.25) to



17.1-7

495

Moses’ prayer on their behalf. In the end, it is Yahweh’s faithful provision which is remembered and expected again by the prophets of salvation in the book of Isaiah (35.6-7; 43.19; 44.3: cf. 55.1). 1 [The whole congregation of the Israelites travelleda from the Wilderness of Sin by stagesb according to Yahweh’s command and camped at Rephidim, where there wasc no water for the peopled to drink.] 2 [So the people disputed withe Moses and said, ‘Givef us water so that we may drink!’ Moses said to them, ‘Whyg do you dispute withh me? Whyg do you put Yahweh to the test?’] 3 The people became thirsty there for water and the people complained to Moses. They said, ‘Why everi did you bring us up from Egypt, so as to kill usj, ourj children and ourj animals with thirst?’ 4 Moses cried to Yahweh, saying ‘What shall I do withk this people? They are close to stoning mel!’ 5 Yahweh said to Moses, ‘Pass on ahead of the peoplem, and take with you some of the elders of Israeln; and your staffo, with which you struckp the river Nile, take that in your hand and go! 6 I tell youq, I am going to stand therer in front of you on/by a crags [in Horeb], and you shall strike the cragt. Then water will come out of it and the people shall drink.’ Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel. 7 [He called the name of the place Massah and Meribah, because the people disputed and put Yahweh to the test, by saying ‘Is Yahweh in our midst or not?]’

Notes on the Translation a. Heb. ‫ויסעו‬, from ‫נסע‬: for the sense ‘journey, travel’ see 12.37 and Note o on the translation of 12.28-42, 50-51. Here it is the inclusion of ‫למסעיהם‬ (see the next note) which focuses attention on the journey as distinct from its beginning (contrast 13.20 and 15.22). b. Heb. ‫למסעיהם‬. Apart from a few places where it refers to departure (Num. 10.2, 6, 28; perhaps Deut. 10.11), ‫ מסע‬means a ‘journey’ and especially a day’s journey or a ‘stage’ of a journey, as in 40.36, 38 and Num. 33.1-2. Elsewhere expressions like ‫ למסעיהם‬are used of a comparatively long journey that would take more than one day (Gen. 13.3; Num. 10.12) and here it probably also implies that one or more intermediate stops have been passed over (cf. Num. 33.12-14). c. Although ‫אין‬, being originally a noun, gives no indication of tense in itself and most often refers to the present, when it follows a past tense verb it naturally shares that time-indication (cf. Gen. 5.24; 11.30).

496

EXODUS 1–18

d. Grammatically ‫ העם‬may be regarded as either a nominative or a genitive (GK §115e). e. Heb. ‫ ִעם‬is a frequent alternative to the construction of ‫ ריב‬with ‫( ב‬cf. Gen. 26.20; Num. 20.3): see also Note h and Text and Versions. f. The pl. form ‫ תנו‬of MT does not make sense and is probably a corruption of the emphatic form of the sing. imperative ‫תנה‬: see Text and Versions. g. For ‫‘ = מה‬Why?’ see 14.15 and Note kk on the translation of 14.1-31. h. Heb. ‫עמדי‬. The longer form ‫( עמד‬used instead of ‫ ִעם‬only with the first person sing. suffix), which occurs only here in Exodus but 14 times in Genesis, is generally thought to be related to Ar. ʿinda = ‘beside’. i. Heb. ‫למה זה‬, as in 2.20 and 5.22 (see Note z on the translation of 2.11-22). The following inf. may express the result rather than the implied purpose (cf. Jer. 44.7 and IBHS §36.2.3d). j. In these three instances Heb. has first person sing. forms (‘me’, ‘my’), a surprising change from the first person pl. object suffix for the people in ‫ העליתנו‬earlier in the verse, but one that is paralleled in Num. 20.19, where again the initial pl. is seen to imply (there two) sub-units for which the sing. pronouns are used. On the understandable simplification in most of the Vss and one Heb. ms. see Text and Versions. The use of sing. endings for the people as a whole is in itself not uncommon (cf. 15.25-26). As for ‫ואת־מקנַ י‬, the noun ‫ מקנה‬is generally found as a (collective) sing. (see Note g on the translation of 9.1-7), and even some other forms which have the suffixes appropriate to a pl. are generally taken as sing. (GK §93ss; JM §96Ce), so this one (elsewhere only in Num. 20.19) is surely sing. too, perhaps by contraction. k. Heb. ‫לעם‬. ‫ל‬, when construed with ‫עשׂה‬, can have either of its most common meanings, ‘to, unto’ (cf. AV, RV) and ‘for’, and it is used of doing both good (cf. 18.9; 20.6) and harm (18.8: cf. Gen. 42.28), as well as more generally (cf. BDB, pp. 793-94). ‘With’ is the idiomatic (and ambiguous) English equivalent (cf. also Luther ‘mit’) and appropriate in a question which is seeking guidance (though in view of the next sentence it probably expresses exasperation too). Albertz sees its use in questions as generally positive (pp. 286-87: cf. 33.5), but recognises that the following words suggest a more negative reaction here. l. Heb. ‫עוד מעט וסקלני‬, lit. ‘A little more and they will stone me’; the other uses of such expressions are in prophetic announcements of judgement or a similar context (Isa. 10.25; 29.17; Jer. 51.33; Hos. 1.4; Ps. 37.10), but it is only likely that these reflect a wider colloquial usage such as is found here. For the perfect consecutive following a temporal expression see 16.6-7 and Note j on the translation of 16.1-36. m. Heb. ‫ עבר לפני העם‬is to be taken straightforwardly, as e.g. in Gen. 32.17; 33.3, 14. n. Heb. ‫מזקני ישׂראל‬: for the partitive ‫ מן‬cf. 16.27 and BDB, pp. 580-81. o. The ‘fronting’ of the object ‫( מטך‬which creates a chiasmus) and the repetition of the imperative verb ‫ קח‬give added prominence to Moses’ staff and its earlier appearance in the Exodus narrative (7.15, 17[?], 20: see the



17.1-7

497

Explanatory Note here). On the Heb. word-order see Muraoka, Emphatic Words, pp. 38-40; JM §155o, oa. p. Heb. ֹ‫אשׁר הכית בּו‬, with dagesh forte conjunctivum (GK §20f). q. ‫ הנני‬is followed by a participle in Exod. 3.4; 8.17; 9.18; 10.4; 14.17; 16.4; 34.11 and frequently elsewhere, especially in prophecy: see Note g on the translation of 16.1-36 on its function here. r. Heb. ‫ ָשּׁם‬: on the dagesh see Note p above. s. Heb. ‫על־הצור‬. With ‫( עמד‬and ‫ על )נצב‬can mean ‘by, beside’ as well as ‘on’, and this might be the meaning here. Unless reference is made to a wellknown rock at Horeb, which seems unlikely in the context, the def. art. is probably ‘anticipatory’ (cf. Luther: ‘auf einem Fels’), as in ‫ הסנה‬in 3.2 (see also Note o on the translation of 2.11-22). A ‫ צור‬can be a ‘boulder’ (Judg. 6.21; 13.19; 2 Sam. 21.10; Prov. 30.19), but it is more often a much larger expanse of rock (Exod. 33.21-22; Num. 23.9; 1 Sam. 24.3; Isa 2.10, 19, 21; 51.1; Jer. 18.14; Ps. 81.17; Job 22.24; 24.8; 28.10; also in the Siloam tunnel inscription [AHI 4.116.3, 6; cf. 4.402.1]) and this sense also provides a better basis for the frequent metaphorical use of ‫ צור‬as a divine title (Deut. 32.4 etc.): hence BDB, p. 849, gives ‘rocky wall, cliff’ as the primary meaning (see further TWAT 6, 973-83 = TDOT 12, pp. 311-21; A. Gray, Psalm 18 in Words and Pictures: A Reading through Metaphor [BibInt 127; Leiden, 2014], pp. 61-63).5 t. Heb. ‫בצור‬. Usually ‫ הכה‬is followed by a direct object (cf. ‫ את־היאר‬in v. 5) and the other exceptions are, apart from those where ‫ ב‬means ‘among’, all places where ‫ הכה‬means ‘kill’ or ‘defeat’ persons (e.g. 1 Sam. 18.7; 21.12; 29.5 [the same popular cry in each case]; Num. 22.6; 1 Sam. 14.31; 23.2 [2x], 5: see further DCH 5, p. 689, but in Exod. 12.13 ‫ ב‬probably means ‘in’; cf. v. 12). Here the usage may be by analogy with that which is regular with ‫;נגע‬ or, as Ges18, p. 816, suggests, ‫ ב‬may have the sense ‘on’. In any case the anomaly is removed in Num. 20.11 (‫)את־הסלע‬.

Explanatory Notes 1. The beginning of a new episode is marked by a further two-part itinerary-note (cf. 16.1) bringing the Israelites to Rephidim, which is also the scene of the subsequent conflict with the Amalekites according to v. 8. Again there are Priestly features present, as in 16.1 (‘congregation’, ‘according to Yahweh’s command [lit. mouth]’: for the latter cf. Driver, Introduction9, p. 134, and esp. Num. 9.18, 20, 23), but here too they are likely to be a secondary overlay related to the incorporation of the Priestly manna-narrative in ch. 16 (see 5   In the similar episode at Kadesh ‫ סלע‬is used instead of ‫( צור‬Num. 20.8, 10-11).

498

EXODUS 1–18

the Explanatory Note on 16.1). The itinerary-note forms part of a ‘chain’ which continues in 19.2, where the Priestly note of arrival in the wilderness of Sinai in 19.1 is clearly separate. Once again it is likely that it was extracted from the fuller itinerary preserved in an edited form in Num. 33.1-49 (cf. vv. 12-14): there the words ‘where there was no water for the people to drink’ also occur, with only minor differences in the Heb. expressions used. More striking is the fact that the fuller list includes two other stopping-places, Dophkah and Alush, between the Wilderness of Sin and Rephidim: the inclusion of the expression ‘by stages’ here could be the redactor’s way of acknowledging that according to his source further halts had intervened: the use of the same expression in Num. 10.12 also corresponds to a journey of more than one day (cf. Num. 11.35; 12.16). It was a traditional part of the vocabulary for describing a longish journey (cf. Gen. 13.3).6 Both in the sequence of the Exodus narrative (cf. 19.2) and in Num. 33.1-49 Rephidim is the immediately preceding stoppingplace to ‘the wilderness of Sinai’, beside the mountain that is variously called Sinai, Horeb or ‘the mountain of God’ (18.5). The name may be related to the root rpd, which in Heb. seems to mean ‘support’ (Song 2.5; 3.10: cf. ESA rfd, Ar. rafada) and ‘spread out’ (Job 17.13; 41.22: cf. Eth. rafada acc. Ges18, p. 1261), but neither of these meanings provides any clear indication of the origin of the name. On the basis of its proximity to the traditional site of Mount Sinai Faran (an episcopal see in the early Christian period and located by the oasis in Wadi Feiran) or somewhere in its vicinity was regarded as the location of Rephidim (for the evidence see my Way of the Wilderness, pp. 32, 40, 43, 45-46): so still by Palmer, Desert 1, pp. 5-7, 158-62, 168. The name has been thought to be preserved in Wadi (and Jebel) Refayid, much closer to Jebel Musa (Abel, Géographie 2, pp. 213, 435); but Noth drew attention to er-Rafid, a ridge east of the Gulf of Aqaba, in a region where some have located Mount Sinai (p. 110, ET, p. 138; cf. A. Musil, The Northern Ḥeǧâz [New York, 1926], p. 269). If nothing else, these   On the view of L. Schmidt and Albertz (and here also Dozeman) that the whole first half of v. 1 was added to an older reference to Rephidim by the Priestly author of ch. 16 see the introduction to 16.1-36: the objections noted there apply here too. 6



17.1-7

499

toponyms give some support to the name Rephidim as also being an authentic desert place-name, whatever its (and their) meaning may be.7 2. The story proper begins with two complaints by the people about their lack of water to drink, to each of which Moses responds in a different way (vv. 2, 3-4). The first complaint is expressed by the verb ‘dispute’, which seems a strong word for the request to ‘give us water’ which follows, and similarly Moses’ response to the latter is somewhat ‘over the top’. A number of commentators have intensified the meaning of the word ‘dispute’ (Heb. rîb) further by seeing it as a technical expression for a legal dispute in which a person makes a justified claim for a remedy to a grievance which he or she has suffered (Coats, Rebellion, pp. 57-59: so recently Dozeman and Albertz). Both the verb and the related noun can bear such a judicial sense (cf. 23.2, 3, 6: TWAT 7, 496-501 = TDOT 13, pp. 473-79), but there are plenty of cases where it refers to an everyday quarrel which does not reach a lawcourt (see BDB, pp. 936-37: cf. 21.18 and Gen. 13.7-8; 26.20-21) and there is no need to introduce a legal background here. The real reason why rîb is introduced here is made clearer by the fuller wording of Moses’ response, which is explicitly taken up in v. 7 to explain the two names which he gives there to the place where the episode is said to have occurred. It is only here and in the other episode that is related to the name Meribah (Num. 20.1-13) that rîb appears in the wilderness narratives. The second part of Moses’ first response adds a more serious accusation than insubordination to Moses himself as the people’s leader: they are, he says, putting Yahweh to the test. The verb (Heb. nsh) is the same one that was used earlier (15.25; 16.4) for Yahweh’s testing of Israel by the commands or instructions which he gave them. That, it is understood, was his right, but for Israel to test their God’s power and concern for them is seen as most inappropriate, and it is similarly regarded in a series of other passages (Num. 14.22; Deut. 6.16; Isa. 7.12; Pss. 78.18, 41, 56; 95.9; 106.14), most of which appear to refer to this episode. Only in Judg. 6.36-40 (cf. vv. 16-24) is testing of God allowed to 7   A place byt hrpyd occurs in the Lachish Letters (AHI 1.004.5), but this will be much further north, probably in the vicinity of Lachish itself (for discussion and references see Renz, Handbuch 1, p. 419).

500

EXODUS 1–18

be legitimate.8 Generally it is seen as showing a lack of the trust in God’s care which does not need external confirmation (cf. TWAT 5, 477-86 = TDOT 9, pp. 446-54: Ps. 78.22, 42) and a forgetfulness of his previous actions on one’s behalf (Ps. 106.13). 3-4. The second sequence of complaint and response begins with a repetition of the underlying problem, the people’s thirst (v. 1b). This is sometimes seen as a deepening of the crisis: first the people perceive that there is no spring or well at their encampment, then lacking water they become thirsty and complain again (so Nachmanides; recently [as one possibility] Propp, pp. 603-605). But this is an artificial distinction and it is more likely that the repetition is due to different elements which have been awkwardly combined in the narrative. The words of complaint (this time the same verb is used as in 15.24 and 16.2) conform to the description and embody an implicit accusation of Moses, that he has brought the people into a place where they will die of thirst. This probably refers to the effect of his leadership in the Exodus rather than his intention (see Note i on the translation). ‘To kill…with thirst’ parallels ‘to kill…with hunger’ in 16.3 and Fritz therefore attributed this verse to a late redactor who knew the Priestly manna-story (Israel in der Wüste, p. 11). But in other respects the wording is quite different and no direct connection need be presumed: both verses belong to a larger group in which death in the desert has become a recurrent feature of the people’s complaints (cf. 14.11; Num. 16.13 [‘kill’, as here]; 20.4; 21.5). Only here and in Num. 20.4 (a related story about the need for water) do they mention their animals’ needs: for the animals (Heb. miqneh) which they had with them see also 9.4, 6-7; 10.26; 12.38. As in 15.24 Moses responds by crying out for help to Yahweh, this time fearing for his life. In what are probably later reminiscences of the story, the whole people seek Yahweh’s help and nothing is said of any conflict with Moses (Pss. 105.40-41; 107.5-6; Wis. 11.4). 5-6. Yahweh’s lengthy reply consists of instructions (v. 5) followed by reassurance for both Moses and the people (most of v. 6): there is no rebuke for the people, the emphasis is on how their 8   One might add the unusual case of Isa. 7.10-14, where Ahaz is invited to ask God for a ‘sign’ and his refusal to do so (because it would involve putting God to the test) is criticised and overridden.



17.1-7

501

need is to be met (cf. 15.25). In the story as it has been transmitted Yahweh does not act directly but through Moses’ obedience to his instructions, as in 15.25 again and more explicitly in the contest with Pharaoh earlier in the book. In the non-Priestly narrative Moses’ staff is first a sign to convince the Israelites of his divine commission (4.1-5, 17, 28-31), then the means to turn the Nile into blood (7.15, 17-18, 20-21a), then the means by which a wind was summoned to drive back the waters of the sea (14.16a, 21 [part]), and now a blow from it opens a spring to provide the Israelites with water in the desert. The sequence is tied together by the connections made in 7.15 and v. 5 here, which help to distinguish this strand of the narrative from the Priestly focus on Aaron’s staff in 7.9 etc. In 17.9, as in 4.20, the expression ‘the staff of God’, which is in Moses’ hand, points to a related tradition (see the Explanatory Notes there). The presence of some of ‘the elders of Israel’ (cf. 3.16, 18; 4.29; 12.21), another feature of the non-Priestly narrative, affirms their authority alongside Moses and also provides additional witnesses of the miracle (cf. ‘in the sight of’): as the Mekhilta put it, ‘So that the people should not be able to say, “Perhaps there were wells [or springs] there” ’ (Lauterbach 2, p. 131). Moses is told simply to ‘go’, without any specification of a place (cf. Beer, p. 90). Presumably ‘ahead of the people’ was meant to give him the direction to take and he would know the place when he saw Yahweh standing there. It is notable that Yahweh is to stand where the people are not (yet) present, a sign perhaps that the narrative here was not composed to answer specifically the uncertainty expressed in v. 7. Yahweh says that he will be standing on ‘a crag in Horeb’. Apart from here the name represents the mountain of God in Exodus only in 3.1 and 33.6; elsewhere the name ‘Sinai’ is preferred (already in 16.1 [cf. 19.2]; then in 19.1; 24.16; 31.18; 34.29, 32 [all P: cf. 19.20, 23]; and in non-P 19.11, 18; 34.2, 4). ‘Horeb’ occurs predominantly in Deuteronomy (1.2 etc.) but also in Solomon’s prayer (1 Kgs 8.9 par. 2 Chr. 5.10), the Elijah story (1 Kgs 19.8), Mal. 3.22 and Ps. 106.19 (with which cf. Deut. 9.8). It is surprising to find such a specific location suddenly mentioned here when nothing in the context has yet suggested that the Israelites have reached the holy mountain. Opinion is divided over whether the expression ‘in Horeb’ is an original part of the story, but a redactional origin is perhaps more likely (see e.g. Fritz, Israel in der Wüste, pp. 11-12

502

EXODUS 1–18

[with refs.], for it being a Deuteronomistic addition, which Propp, pp. 604-606, strongly opposes; also Macdonald, ‘Anticipations of Horeb’, pp. 12-14), in connection with either the addition of the Massah-Meribah aetiology (see below on v. 7) or the combination of the narrative with ch. 18, where ‘the mountain of God’ is referred to before the formal note(s) of arrival in 19.1-2. The opening of a water source in an apparently dry place is not unknown in the south of the Sinai peninsula, as ground water from the winter precipitation is retained by geological formations underground (dykes). The Bedouin are aware of such resources and even phenomena not unlike that portrayed in the Moses story have been repeated in modern times (in general see Philo, Vita Mosis 1.211; Lipschitz, Sinai, pp. 11-12; A. Perevolotsky and I. Finkelstein, ‘The Southern Sinai Route in Ecological Perspective’, BAR 11/4 [1985], pp. 26-41 [more fully in Z. Meshel and I. Finkelstein (eds.), Qadmoniot Sinay (Tel Aviv, 1980), pp. 385-419 (Heb.)]; I. Beit-Arieh, ‘The Route through Sinai: Why the Israelites Fleeing Egypt Went South’, BAR 14/3 [1988], pp. 28-37). Specific parallels are described by Holzinger, pp. 59-60, based on O. Fraas, Aus dem Orient: Geologische Beobachtungen am Nil, auf der Sinaihalbinsel und in Syrien (Stuttgart, 1867), pp. 24-25; and by Jarvis, Yesterday and Today in Sinai, pp. 174-75; Lipschitz, p. 12. In one of the very few statements in this pericope that recounts events rather than words, Moses’ obedience to Yahweh’s commands is briefly reported: ‘Moses did so…’ Such summary notices are more characteristic of the Priestly narrative in Exodus (cf. 7.10, 20 etc.), but 8.20 and 22 provide non-Priestly parallels and such expressions are also found in Genesis (e.g. 29.28) and frequently in Joshua–Kings. ‘In the sight of the elders of Israel’ confirms (as their earlier mention in v. 5 implies) that the people as a whole are not thought of as going with Moses to the ‘crag’. 7. It is difficult to identify the subject of ‘he called’ as anyone other than Moses after his explicit mention just before, and it is his challenge in v. 2 which provides the basis for the naming here, rather than anything in the intervening verses. The name Massah occurs alone only in two brief references to ‘testing’ of Yahweh and rebellion against him in the wilderness in Deuteronomy (6.16; 9.22) and in neither case is there any explicit connection with the present narrative. ‘The waters of Meribah’ are located in ‘the wilderness of Zin’ in the Priestly version of the same story in Numbers (20.13; cf.



17.1-7

503

Ps. 106.32), where the verb ‘quarrel’ (Heb. rîb) is again prominent (vv. 3, 13). In Num. 27.14 and Deut. 32.51 the name Meribathkadesh makes explicit the association with Kadesh(-barnea) which is implied by the context in Numbers 20: the same name, without any allusion to the narratives, appears in Ezekiel’s description of the boundaries of the land of Canaan in the middle of the southern border (47.19 [with the pl. Meriboth in MT (cf. LXX)]; 48.28).9 ‘The waters of Meribah’ are also included as a place where Yahweh ‘tested’ Israel (Heb. bḥn, not nsh) in a brief summary of the Exodus story in the early north Israelite Ps. 81.7-8, without any geographical details and, with Massah, as the place where Yahweh ‘tested’ (Heb. nsh) the priestly tribe of Levi and ‘contended’ with them (Heb. rîb) in Moses’ blessing of the tribes (Deut. 33.8), an early poetic collection according to Cross and Freedman (Studies, p. 97; cf. Canaanite Myth, p. 197) and others. Finally Massah and Meribah are cited together as a place or places where Israel were rebellious and disobedient in the wilderness in Ps. 95.8-9, probably the words of a cultic prophet. Three features stand out immediately from this varied group of passages. First, the two names are found separately as well as together and probably referred originally to different places. Secondly, Meribah is in later texts associated with the southern boundary of Canaan and the adjacent part of the desert (‘the wilderness of Zin’), not with a place near to ‘the mountain of God’. Thirdly, in what are probably the oldest poetic sources it is Yahweh who does the testing and contending, not Israel; in one of them (Deut. 33.8) it is the tribe of Levi, not all Israel, that is involved; and in both Meribah is a place with ‘waters’, probably an abundant spring or springs. For further discussion of the complex tradition-history which must lie behind these texts and its implications for the composition of this passage see the introduction to this section. What seems most likely is that vv. 2 and 7 were added to an older story which told simply of the miraculous provision of water in the desert without naming a specific location (as in Deut. 8.15; Isa. 35.6b-7; 43.19; 44.3; Pss. 78.15-16; 105.41; 107.35; 114.8: cf. Wis. 11.4). Their motifs were probably drawn from a quite different context in Numbers 13 and these were reworked (in a similar spirit to Ps. 78) to make the story 9   It is also sometimes thought to be the original reading for MT’s ‘from ten thousands of holy ones’ (mēribebōt qōdeš) in Deut. 33.2 (cf. BHS).

504

EXODUS 1–18

into a paradigm case of Israel’s rebelliousness in the desert and their unworthiness to receive Yahweh’s gracious provision for their needs. The concluding question in v. 7 requires fuller comment here: ‘Is Yahweh among us, or not?’ (cf. W. Herrmann, ‘Ex 17bβ und die Frage nach der Gegenwart Jahwes in Israel’, in J. Hausmann and H.-J. Zobel [eds.], Alttestamentliche Glaube und Biblische Theologie [FS H.D. Preuss; Stuttgart, 1992], pp. 46-55 [51-55]). The words are quite different from those which the people speak in vv. 2-3, where they are concerned only with their lack of water: here they (are said by Moses to) raise a fundamental religious issue which is in fact a recurrent theme of subsequent narratives about the wilderness journey and one which reflects a central concern of Old Testament religion more generally: the presence of Yahweh among his people. The issue surfaces again in the non-Priestly narrative when the Israelites are about to leave Mount Sinai. When Yahweh says that he cannot be ‘among’ the people (the same expression as here, beqereb) because of the idolatry of the golden calf, these are described as ‘harsh words’ and the people ‘mourned’ (33.3-4, with a variant version in vv. 5-6). In response to Moses’ impassioned pleading, Yahweh relents and promises his continued presence with the people (33.12-17: cf. the variant in 34.9 and later Num. 11.20; 14.14: contrast 14.42-45). In Priestly texts the same idea takes the form of Yahweh’s ‘dwelling’ in the tabernacle ‘in the midst’ (betôk) of the people (Exod. 25.8; 29.45-46). This foreshadows, or rather reflects, the belief in Yahweh’s presence, like other deities, in his ‘house(s)’ or ‘temple(s)’, where he received the people’s worship and provided for their needs (see in general Clements, God and Temple; Terrien, The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology [New York, 1978]). The doubt attributed to the people here in a time of anxiety and distress is comparable to words uttered in some lament psalms, when they fear that their enemies will say ‘Where is your/their God?’ (Pss. 42.4, 11; 79.10; 115.2): the difference is that here it is regarded as showing lack of faith and so as reprehensible. Such anxieties, the reassurances offered to combat them and in turn the challenges to such reassurances by prophetic voices (Mic. 3.11; Ezek. 8–11) were evidently a recurring feature of Israel’s religious life (for further evidence see Herrmann, pp. 52-55).



17.1-7

505

Text and Versions ‫( ויסעו‬17.1) Vulg has a perf. part. to reduce the use of coordinated clauses in the Heb. Before this word 4QpalExl, 4QpalExm and probably 4QExc had an open or empty line, so anticipating the division in MT and SP mss. ‫( למסעיהם‬17.1) 4QExc (and apparently 4QpalExl), but not 4QpalExm, had this word before rather than after ‫ממדבר סין‬, probably as a secondary ‘improvement’ to associate it more closely with the verb and its subject (cf. Num. 10.12). Drew Longacre has pointed out that this agreement of the two mss is important evidence for a textual affiliation between them, which is likely on other grounds (‘A Contextualised Approach’, p. 223: see also on ‫ המקום‬in v. 7). Tgg and Sy render with words related to their equivalents for ‫( ויסעו‬with a waw in place of the lamed in TgN), but LXX κατὰ παρεμβολὰς αὐτῶν (cf. its use of σταθμοί in Num. 33.1-2) and Vulg per mansiones suas shift the focus from the journey-stages to the stopping-places. ‫( על־פי יהוה‬17.1) Most of the Vss naturally render ‫ פי‬as ‘word’ by metonymy: this will include ‫ מימרא‬in TgO,J and mlth/ʾ in ms. 5b1 of Sy. The other Sy mss have ʿl mlt pwmh dmryʾ, including the original expression as well as its explanation. TgN ‫ על פם גזירת מימרה דייי‬goes a stage further (as sometimes elsewhere) by adding a specific word for ‘decree’ and apparently shifting the sense of ‫ מימרא‬in a more theological direction (cf. Chester, Divine Revelation, pp. 304-305, 309-13). On LXX ῥήματος see Fritsch, p. 13: this and similar renderings are common where the sense is ‘command’, but elsewhere LXX is ready to speak of God’s στόμα (e.g. Deut. 8.3). ‫( ברפידים‬17.1) TgJ adds ‘a place where their hands ceased from the commandments of the law and the springs dried up’ (similarly at Num. 33.14). This explanation of the absence of water (as derivatively in TgJ on 15.22) will be based on an etymology of the name Rephidim which saw it as a combination of Heb. ‫ רפה‬and ‫יד‬. In other sources (e.g. MRI [Lauterbach 2, pp. 129, 135]) it is used to explain Amalek’s attack in v. 8: see AramB 2, p. 210 n. 1 for further refs. ‫( לשׁתת העם‬17.1) So also SP, 4QpalExl and TgO,J (Nmg): no other Qumran evidence survives at this point. LXX τῷ λαῷ πιεῖν may simply be a paraphrase, but it does agree with MT ‫ לעם לשׁתות‬at Num. 33.14 and might be due to assimilation. TgN and Sy paraphrase with relative clauses, Vulg with a gerund. There is no reason to depart from the reading of the three Heb. witnesses. ‫( וירב‬17.2) Tgg and Sy correctly indicate the meaning ‘quarrel, dispute’, whereas LXX ἐλοιδορεῖτο (cf. OL), as later in the verse and four times elsewhere in the Pentateuch for ‫ריב‬, means ‘reproached, abused’ (cf. Wevers, Notes, p. 263). Vulg iurgatus (again avoiding a sequence of coordinated verbs, as in v. 1) is ambiguous, as it can mean both ‘dispute’ and ‘blame’.

506

EXODUS 1–18

‫( העם עם‬17.2) TgJ prefixes ‘the wicked of’ as in 14.11 (cf. AramB 2, p. 200 n. 18). A Geniza ms. reads ‫ על‬for ‫( עם‬BHS), perhaps assimilating to the construction with ‫ לון‬in v. 3. ‫( ויאמרו‬17.2) Some SP mss have the sing. ‫ויאמר‬, unnecessarily conforming to the (collective) subject ‫( העם‬cf. Vulg ait). But this is the easier reading and the other Vss (including LXX λέγοντες) support the pl. Unfortunately 4QExc, the only Qumran ms. extant at this point, does not preserve the end of the word. Sy as often adds lh to complete the construction. ‫( תנו‬17.2) MT’s reading, which is followed by TgO, inappropriately introduces a pl. addressee, either by confusion with the ending of the next word or presuming that Aaron is involved (as he had been in ch. 16: cf. Houtman, p. 361; Albertz, p. 279 n. 1). SP, 4QpalExm, LXX δός and the other Vss provide strong support for the reading ‫תנה‬, which should be preferred.10 ‫( ונשׁתה‬17.2) Most early mss of Sy read just nšth, without waw, as a separate sentence, ‘Let us drink!’ (the expected d is added in other mss): for another example of the same tendency see the next note. SP and the other Vss agree with MT here. ‫( ויאמר‬17.2) Sy (except for 5b1) again omits the conjunction (as in 16.19, 23), but it is present in SP and apparently also in 4QpalExl and is represented in the other Vss. ‫( מה‬17.2)2o SP (except for Sadaqa), 4QpalExm and 4QExc read ‫( ומה‬cf. LXX καὶ τί, TgJ and Sy), whereas TgO,N and Vulg agree with MT. The reading with waw has extensive and early support and might therefore be original, but in favour of MT is the widespread tendency to add waw and the fact that ‘The abrupt, staccato style fits the narrative better’ (Sanderson, Exodus Scroll, p. 93). ‫( תנסון‬17.2) SP has the shorter form without nun paragogicum here, although it agrees with MT’s ‫ תריבון‬earlier in the verse. 4QExc also has the shorter form, but does not preserve the previous verb. Often (18 cases out of 36 in Exodus) MT and SP both have the longer form and each text has it several times where the other does not (in Exodus MT 10x and SP 8x: more generally see GSH §63b). There is no reason why SP would have omitted the nun here, whereas MT may have harmonised a text which it saw as inconsistent. The occurrence of the shorter reading in 4QExc, which is not a ‘proto-Samaritan’ ms. (cf. DJD XII, p. 103; Lange, Handbuch, pp. 154-55), gives further support to its originality. ‫( את־יהוה‬17.2) The Tgg as often avoid making God the object of human action by using ‫( קדם‬17.2), ‘before’; TgNmg prefixes ‘the glory of the Shekinah of’ to the divine name, as TgN itself does in v. 7: it is a characteristic expression of the Palestinian Targum (Chester, Divine Revelation, pp. 320-22). ‫( ויצמא‬17.3) This and both the other verbs in the verse of which the people are the subject are rendered in the pl. in TgN and Sy, conforming to the preceding pl. forms in v. 2.   According to BH3 21 Masoretic mss also have this reading.

10



17.1-7

507

‫( למים‬17.3) Vulg, rather ornately, renders pro penuria aquae (contrast OL aquam). ‫( העם‬17.3)2o Vulg has no equivalent, deeming the repetition unnecessary. ‫( ויאמר‬17.3) In addition to TgN and Sy (which also add ‘to him’), most SP mss, LXX (λεγοντες) and TgJ have a pl. form for this verb, perhaps to match the pl. in v. 2. None of the Qumran mss preserves it. ‫( זה‬17.3) The enclitic particle does not appear here in SP, although it does in other places where MT has ‫למה זה‬, nor is it represented in Vulg, Sy and some LXX mss. But it is present in 4QExc (the only Qumran ms. to preserve this part of the verse) as well as MT and it is presupposed in LXX* (τοῦτο) and Tgg. Very similar wording, without ‫זה‬, occurs in Num. 20.5; 21.5 and it is possible that this is the basis for the SP reading: such artificial uniformity is characteristic of SP. ‫( העליתנו‬17.3) TgO ‫ אסיקתונא‬is a second person pl. verb and presumes a different vocalisation of the Heb. It does not fit the immediate context, where Moses alone is addressed, and cannot be right; the translator will have had the (corrupt) pl. imperative in v. 2 in mind, which he uniquely reproduced. ‫( אתי…בני…מקני‬17.3) 4QpalExl preserves the first of these words with the unexpected sing. suffix of MT and SP (cf. TgO), on which see Note j on the translation. 4Q365 and the other Vss have the easier pl. forms (‘us…our’), but these will be secondary. The ‫ מקנה‬of some SP mss is probably due to a graphic error, he and yodh being quite similar in the Samaritan script. ‫( ויצעק‬17.4) Tgg and Sy interpret Moses’ cry as a prayer (‫)צלי‬, which is appropriate when it is addressed to Yahweh (cf. 15.25). ‫( אל־יהוה‬17.4) Tgg have ‘before the Lord’ (cf. v. 2) and here Sy joins them. ‫( לאמר‬17.4) Sy wʾmr, with a finite verb as e.g. in 14.1 (cf. also the wording of MT in vv. 2-3). ‫( עוד מעט וסקלני‬17.4) 4Q365 reads the verb ‫ויסוקלוני‬, confirming (like SP) MT’s vocalisation as a pl. by its plene spelling but also exhibiting a peculiar Qumran orthography in the first stem-syllable (cf. Qimron §311.13g; Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, pp. 211-21) and the post-biblical representation of the future by waw plus imperfect. Propp (p. 602) notes a divergent Masoretic reading ‫( יסקלוני‬with the initial waw replaced by yodh; cited in C.D. Ginsburg’s edition). The future sense of the Heb. is preserved in most of the Vss, but TgO (with a perfect verb and ‫ פום‬as in Gen. 26.10; 31.27; Exod. 9.15) and Sy (with a part. and hww) seem to have taken the phrase to refer to a danger that had already been narrowly escaped: ‘…they would have stoned me’.11

11   TgJ’s ‫ תוב קליל זעיר‬combines TgN’s ‫( קליל‬cf. Sy) and TgO’s ‫זעיר‬: the effect is to imply a very real danger for Moses; cf. TgNmg ‫סכינא‬, ‘in danger’, if that is the correct reading and the annotation does not belong to v. 5 (see below and AramB 2, p. 74 n. e).

508

EXODUS 1–18

SP (but not MT) has a division after v. 4, and 4QExc and 4QpalExm probably did too; in each case the opening of divine speech in v. 5 will have been the reason for interrupting the narrative sequence artificially. ‫( יהוה‬17.5) TgNmg again prefixes ‘the Memra of’. ‫( אל־משׁה‬17.5) 4QExc omits the expression, which is not strictly necessary, but it is present in all the other witnesses, which include here 4QpalExm and 4Q365, and is probably original. ‫( לפני העם‬17.5) TgN curiously (and uniquely) has the Heb. word ‫ לפני‬here instead of its usual ‫( קדם‬e.g. 16.33-34), another example of its occasional tendency to reproduce the actual Heb. wording (cf. 16.2). LXX adds τούτου, ‘this (people)’, an unnecessary and inappropriate reproduction of the wording of v. 4. The uncial mss AFM, as well as the O-text, omit it: the correction may be pre-hexaplaric (Wevers, Notes, p. 265). ‫( מזקני ישׂראל‬17.5) TgN has ‘the wise’ (‫ )חכימייא‬in place of ‘the elders’ as elsewhere: see Text and Versions on 3.16. TgNmg has an obscure word attached to v. 4 (see the fn.) which may be a correction of this rendering to agree with the Heb. (compare TgN and its mg at Num. 11.26). 4Q365 replaces ‫ישׂראל‬ with ‫העדה‬, introducing the term used in v. 1 and several times in ch. 16; LXX substitutes τοῦ λαοῦ from earlier in this verse.12 ‫( ומטך‬17.5) LXX, Vulg and TgN have no equivalent to the suffix (though the Three and LXXO add σου), but this could well be due to the translators’ economy with words and all the Heb. witnesses which survive at this point (4QpalExm, MT, SP) have the suffix. ‫( קח‬17.5) SP has the imperfect ‫( תקח‬cf. TgN ‫)תסיב‬, but the other Vss have imperatives like MT. None of the Qumran mss preserves this word but in 4QExc it would be in a short lacuna at the beginning of a line and Sanderson judges that ‘Spacing slightly favours the reading ‫( ’קח‬DJD XII, p. 121). Neither reading can be called ‘more difficult’ on stylistic or grammatical grounds, as either a further imperative or an imperfect can follow a sequence of imperatives (for an imperative even after a preceding object cf. Gen. 43.13 [where SP = MT]; Judg. 6.20; 14.3). But a probably decisive factor is that in the verse to which reference is made here (7.15) the imperfect ‫ תקח‬is used and assimilation to that would be so fully in accord with SP scribal practice that ‫ קח‬must be regarded as the more original reading. ‫( והלכת‬17.5) There is some support for a further imperative here (Sy, TgJ, Vulg) but no need to assume a Vorlage for these Vss different from MT, SP, 4QpalExl and 4QExc: LXX and TgO,N also agree with the common Heb. text. TgJ adds ‘because of their complaints’, an explanation which MRI (Lauterbach, pp. 131-32) attaches specifically to the taking of the staff.   R.S. Nam suggested that the change in 4Q365 was ideological, introducing an expression used for the Qumran community (‘How to Rewrite Torah: The Case for Proto-Sectarian Ideology in the Reworked Pentateuch (4QRP)’, RdQ 23 [2007], pp. 153-65 [155-56]). If so, it would be an exceptional such intervention in a (para)biblical ms. at Qumran. 12



17.1-7

509

‫( הנני‬17.6) Most mss of Sy read whʾ ʾnʾ (but 5b1 has just hʾ), avoiding the asyndeton of the Heb. LXX ὅδε ἐγώ (cf. Gen. 50.18; Exod. 8.25; Num. 14.40) aptly uses an old Greek idiom here (cf. LSJ, p. 1197; BDF §289). TgN ‫הא ממרי‬ is a notable instance of the theologically developed use of Memra to represent God’s presence in a similar way to ‫ יקרא‬and ‫( שׁכינתא‬cf. Chester, Divine Revelation, pp. 300-301, 310-11). ‫( עמד‬17.6) LXX ἕστηκα (again in v. 9), ‘(I) have taken my stand’ (NETS) or ‘(I) stand’ (Wevers, THGE, p. 264, an improvement on his rendering in Notes, p. 266), displaces the imminent future sense of the part. intended by the Heb. and probably expressed by the other Vss, in line with its forced interpretation of the following words (see below). TgN expands its translation, as it does below in v. 9, by adding a form of the verb ‫עתד‬, which combines the senses of ‘standing’ and ‘being ready’ (cf. CAL). ‫( לפניך שׁם‬17.6) 4QpalExm, SP and most of the Vss agree with MT (the other Qumran mss do not preserve this part of the verse), but LXX* probably had no equivalent to ‫( שׁם‬like the Sy ms. 5b1) and took ‫ לפניך‬in a temporal rather than a spatial sense, to avoid what apparently seemed a theologically inappropriate subordination of God to Moses (Wevers, THGE, p. 264; BAlex, p. 189).13 Most LXX witnesses, as well as the Three, reflect various kinds of assimilation to MT (cf. Wevers, Notes, p. 266; THGE, pp. 264-65). TgN has ‫ מתעתד‬where MT has ‫לפניך‬, to deal with the same ‘problem’: it may be just a double translation as below in v. 9, but ‫ עתד‬is used by TgN in 7.15; 8.16; 9.15 of Moses ‘standing ready’ before Pharaoh (i.e. waiting for him) and this may be where TgN found its ‘solution’. TgJ added ‘in the place where you shall see a footprint’, which is based on a derivation of ‫ הצור‬from ‫ צור‬II = ‘draw, mark’ (cf. MRI [Lauterbach, p. 133]; AramB 2, p. 210 n. 4). ‫( על־הצור בחרב‬17.6) Vulg super petram Horeb ignores the ‫ ב‬and presumably intends Horeb as a genitive, ‘upon the rock of Horeb’, a reasonable paraphrase. ‫( בצור‬17.6) LXX, Vulg and Sy (with l) treat ‫ צור‬as the direct object, ignoring the unusual ‫( ב‬cf. Note t on the translation), which is present in MT, SP (no Qumran evidence survives) and the Tgg and is surely original. TgJ ‘(on) it with the rock/stone of your staff’ gives a double interpretation, with ‘it’ referring back to ‫ הצור‬earlier and then an expanded translation alluding to the tradition that Moses’ staff was made of sapphire (cf. TgJ at 4.20 and Text and Versions there; MRI [Lauterbach, p. 133]).

  This is true whether one follows the text of Rahlfs (πρὸ τοῦ σέ with Vaticanus) or Wevers (πρὸ τοῦ σὲ ἐλθεῖν, with Alexandrinus). πρὸ τοῦ σέ is not ‘impossible Greek’ (Wevers, THGE, p. 264) – the ellipse of an infinitive of a preceding verb after πρὸ τοῦ is also attested in Lev. 18.30; Num. 13.22 (BAlex, p. 189; cf. Fritsch, p. 35) – and the easier reading with ἐλθεῖν may well be secondary. Houtman (p. 364) favours the old emendation of Z. Frankel, πρότερός σου, which is ingenious but unnecessary. 13

510

EXODUS 1–18

‫( ויצאו‬17.6) SP has the sing. ‫ויצא‬, which may be the original reading, even though none of the other witnesses gives it any support (in LXX and Vulg the sing. words for ‘water’ naturally take a sing. verb).14 It is the difficilior lectio, as ‫ מים‬generally has a pl. predicate, but it is not impossible, since in a few places ‫ מים‬takes a sing. (e.g. Gen. 9.15: see further BDB, p. 565), mainly where it follows the verb as here (cf. GK §145o). The variation does not seem to be a regular feature of SP and alternative explanations of it here based on the wording of 7.15; 8.16; Num. 33.14 are hardly persuasive. ‫( מים‬17.6) TgJ adds ‘to drink’, a clarification that is scarcely necessary but perhaps based on v. 1. ‫( העם‬17.6) LXXB and other mss read ὁ λαός μου (cf. mss 102 and 104 of OL), which must be a very early reading, as the whole clause was incorporated in this form in the LXX of Isa. 48.21 (though perhaps not in the original [second cent. B.C.] translation: cf. J. Ziegler [ed.], Isaias [Göttingen, 1967], pp. 25-26). Wevers (unlike Rahlfs) doubts if it is from the original translator here (Notes, pp. 266-67), but it may be: the omission of μου (like that of τούτου in v. 5) in LXXAFM could be a pre-hexaplaric correction towards MT. ‫( זקני ישׂראל‬17.6) This is the reading of most of the witnesses, including SP and 4QpalExm: only LXX, Sy and TgN diverge. TgN has its usual ‫חכימייא‬ for ‫זקני‬, as in v. 5 (q.v.). LXX τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ (BHS mistakenly implies that LXX also has an equivalent for ‫ זקני‬here) is presumably deduced from the fact that ‫ העם‬are to drink (for the wording cf. v. 7), but it is the elders whom Moses was to take with him when he struck the rock on this occasion (v. 5): it is only in the later episode in Num. 20.7-11 that the people witness this. Sy combines the readings of LXX and the Heb. in a way that gives priority to the latter (sbʾ dbny ʾyśrʾl; 5b1 omits bny): it is scarcely original as Propp thinks (p. 603). ‫( ויקרא‬17.7) Ms. 8b1 of Sy is the only text which specifically identifies Moses as the subject. The Catena group and some other LXX miniscules have ἐπωνόμασαν (cf. 16.31), with the intended subject presumably being the Israelites in v. 6 (LXX). ‫( המקום‬17.7) LXX, Vulg, TgJ and Sy have ‘(of) that place’, as in the Heb. of Gen. 28.19; 32.3; Num. 11.3, 34 etc. (cf. Gen. 21.31; Num. 13.24). The addition is unnecessary and not extant in any Heb. source here. In 4QExc ‫ המקום‬probably (to judge from the regular letter-count in col. VIII) stood at the end of a line and there is a puzzling lacuna of about three letters’ breadth at the beginning of the following line before the next word. DJD XII, p. 122, suggests that an indentation due to damage to the leather may be responsible for the latter; one might alternatively posit that ‫( הזה‬or less likely ‫ )ההוא‬stood there, added to provide a more specific reference as in the Vss noted above (LXX occasionally renders ‫ זה‬by ἐκεῖνος). Longacre thinks that in 4QpalExl 14   The word does not survive intact in any Qumran ms., but in 4QpalExl its final letter may have been waw as in MT rather than aleph (DJD IX, p. 39).



17.1-7

511

too the word following ‫ המקום‬might have begun with he rather than DJD’s tentative mem (‘A Contextualised Approach’, p. 285: cf. pp. 206-207), which could then be a further indication of a textual affiliation between this ms. and 4QExc (cf. above on 17.1). ‫( מסה ומריבה‬17.7) Most of the Vss as elsewhere render according to the sense of these names, using words related to their equivalents for the verbs in v. 2, rather than just transliterating them: only Sy follows the latter course, curiously with nsh for ‫מסה‬, perhaps to make the etymological connection with the explanation clearer. TgN adds a suffix, ‘his/its’ (presumably Israel’s), taking the final he of the names to represent this; its mg prefixes ‫בית‬, ‘the place of’. 4QExc writes the first name ‫ ;]מ[שה‬such variation between the sibilants is found elsewhere, and not only at Qumran (cf. Qimron, pp. 28-30; Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, pp. 68-70), but here the scribe might carelessly have repeated ‫ =( משה‬Moses) from the previous verse. Such spelling errors are rare in 4QExc, but another occurs in the next verse (‫עמלך‬: cf. also DJD XII, p. 103). Vulg has only Tentatio, ignoring ‫ומריבה‬. This appears to be deliberate: the same omission occurs in Jerome’s De situ et nom. loc. hebr. (Klostermann, 143.25; as in Eusebius’s original) and Ep. 78.13.2. It may be attributed to Vulg’s tendency to occasional abbreviation or, perhaps, to a desire to avoid confusion with the Meribah at Kadesh (Aquae contradictionis: Num. 20.13), as Wellhausen suggested (Composition, p. 79 n. 2). ‫( ועל נסתם‬17.7) LXX καὶ διὰ τὸ πειράζειν, understanding the subj. from τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ: the O-text adds αὐτούς to make it explicit. TgNmg ‘and because the Lord tested them’ must have taken the suffix to represent the object and assimilates to 15.25, 16.4 and the explanation of the name Massah in Deut. 33.8. ‫( את־יהוה‬17.7) Tgg (but not Sy) avoid making God the object by using ‫קדם‬. ‫( לאמר‬17.7) Sy wʾmrw: cf. v. 4. ‫( הישׁ‬17.7) TgJ,N amplify with ‫מן קושטא‬, ‘really’, and represent ‫ ישׁ‬with ‫שרי‬, ‘dwell, encamp’, a frequent verb with expressions for God’s presence (see the next note). ‫( יהוה‬17.7) TgO prefixes ‘the Shekinah of’ (cf. 15.27) and TgJ,N ‘the glory of the Shekinah of’ (cf. 16.7, 10), as they usually do when God’s presence is referred to. ‫( בקרבנו‬17.7) LXX ἐν ἡμῖν and Vulg in nobis gloss over the specific term used: Aq and Theod give the precise rendering. ‫( אם אין‬17.7) 4QExc reads ‫ואם אין‬: ‫ ואם‬is much less common than ‫ אם‬in alternative questions, especially in the Pentateuch, where it occurs only in Gen. 17.17 and 42.16 (cf. BDB, p. 50). Although it has no support in other witnesses, it is the difficilior lectio and as such could be more original; but there is a little evidence that at Qumran ‫ ואם‬was preferred elsewhere (4Q300 f8.6; 4Q511 f30.4; and especially 4Q365 f32.6-7, where MT and SP have ‫ אם‬in Num. 13.18-19), so that 4QExc may simply have been adapting to its linguistic context.

512

EXODUS 1–18

All three Qumran mss which preserve this part of ch. 17 had a division after v. 7 (like MT and SP): in 4QExc and 4QpalExl the verse ends in mid-line, with an empty line below in the latter case, while in 4QpalExm the verse would again have ended in mid-line and ‫( יבוא עמלק‬sic) at the beginning of the next line indicates that the usual enlarged waw of this ms. would have stood in the (not preserved) empty space.

C h ap t er 1 7 . 8 - 1 6 V i c tory ov er A m alek

The boundaries of the section are not in this case delimited by itinerary-notes – in fact ‘at Rephidim’ in v. 8 places this episode at the same place as v. 1 located the previous section (cf. also ‘from Rephidim’ in 19.2). But the change in topic is clear at both the beginning and the end and the recurring references to ‘Amalek’ give the section a strong internal coherence. Both the Masoretic and the Samaritan traditions have divisions before and after it; at Qumran the division before it is strongly attested (4QpalExl, 4QpalExm, 4QExc) and there is indirect evidence that a short division occurred after it in 4QpalExm and 4QExc (the end of ch. 17 and the beginning of ch. 18 do not survive in the other mss). In addition there is a division between vv. 13 and 14 in the Masoretic and Samaritan texts (4QExc marked this too, but 4QpalExm provides no clear evidence): this is probably due, as elsewhere, to the introduction of divine speech in v. 14, but modern interpreters have seen a thematic shift here too (see below). Verses 8-13 comprise the narrative of a battle with the Amalekites, which is (i) introduced in v. 8, perhaps with a proleptic summary; (ii) Moses explains his plan for action to Joshua, with Joshua leading a selected group of warriors against the enemy, while Moses stands on a nearby hill with ‘the staff of God’ in his hand (v. 9); (iii) the execution of the plan (vv. 10-13) is framed by the action on the battle-field (vv. 10a, 13); but (iv) the outcome is influenced decisively by what Moses does on the hill, assisted by Aaron and Hur (vv. 10b-12). The episode is rounded off in vv. 14-16 by what some have imprecisely called its ‘interpretation’ (Houtman, p. 376, adding ‘and actualisation’), probably because of the prominence of Yahweh in these verses as speaker and the one who fights on Israel’s behalf, as he had done earlier against the Egyptians (cf. 14.14; 15.1, 3, 21). (v) Yahweh instructs Moses to record and declare his ongoing hostility against Amalek (v. 14); (vi) Moses, in what could be seen as the original conclusion of the narrative,

514

EXODUS 1–18

builds an altar in honour of Yahweh (v. 15); and (vii) he(?) speaks of the ancient hostility between Yahweh and Amalek (v. 16). Whereas the main narrative moves smoothly (with one complication which is discussed in the Explanatory Note on vv. 10b-12) from start to finish, these concluding verses comprise at least two, and probably three, separate sub-units which recognise Yahweh’s role as Israel’s true leader and protector in quite different ways. As it stands the section has consequently been described as a ‘didactic theological narrative’ (theologische Lehrerzählung: H.-C. Schmitt, ‘Die Geschichte vom Sieg’; cf. Albertz’s title ‘lessons…’ [Lehren…] for vv. 14-16 [p. 293]). Yet its narrative section is striking for the absence from it of the earlier paradigm of Israel’s crises being laid before Moses and/or Yahweh, so that Yahweh’s instruction and/or action can play the decisive part in the resolution of the problem (cf. 14.10-14; 15.24-25a; 16.3-4; 17.2-4). Instead Moses appears as the leader who already knows what to do and who, almost like a magician, already has in ‘the staff of God’ the means to sway the battle in Israel’s favour. Not surprisingly the narrative has been seen as the most obvious example of a ‘heroic’ portrayal of Moses’ leadership, in which the involvement of Yahweh (more precisely ‘God’), such as it is, takes a very distinctive form (so Coats, ‘Moses versus Amalek: Aetiology and Legend in Exod. xvii 8-16’, in Congress Volume: Edinburgh [VTSup 28; Leiden, 1975], pp. 29-41; cf. Valentin, Aaron, pp. 168-73). These very different descriptions of the section highlight some tensions both within it and between it and other parts of the Exodus-wilderness narrative which call for an explanation. The explanation for them has not, however, even in the heyday of source criticism, been sought in the isolation of two parallel strands in the section. In particular, it has been agreed that the Priestly source or redaction is not present here and until the recent upheavals in Pentateuchal criticism most of the section, at least, was attributed to one of the older sources. Even today most scholars would recognise that the narrative has an early origin, prior to the redactional activity of exilic and later times (see below on Blum, Levin and Albertz). This is indeed a natural conclusion to draw, not only from some archaic features in the story but from the fact that the Amalekites disappear as a threat to Israel after the time of David. As for its more specific origin, it is easy to forget now that until the mid-twentieth century the section was mainly attributed to the Elohist source. This was



17.8-16

515

already the view of Knobel (Num.-Jos., p. 532: cf. Exod.-Lev., pp. 158-59) and Dillmann (pp. 178, 182), who identified ‘the staff of God’ (v. 9: cf. 4.20) and the mention of Hur (vv. 10, 12: cf. 24.14) as key indicators. Wellhausen hesitated between J and E, but apparently favoured E, as his observations about affinities with ch. 32 would suggest (Composition, p. 80: cf. pp. 88, 92). Carpenter/Harford-Battersby, Holzinger, Baentsch (p. 160: ‘unzweideu­ tige Beweise’), Driver (Introduction9, p. 30), Gressmann (Mose, p. 155 n. 1; Anfänge, pp. 107-108) and McNeile represent the general consensus of the time, which has continued to find minority support in more recent times (Hyatt, Propp, Baden). The first challenge came in 1912 from Smend, who allocated both 17.8-16 and the verses which had been associated with it to his new ‘early J’ source (J1). He cited the representation of Joshua as of like age to Moses rather than as a younger assistant and the use of ‘raised’ (Heb. hērîm) rather than ‘stretched out’ (Heb. nāṭāh) for Moses’ action with his hand as contrasting with E and agreeing, at least in the latter case, with J1 (cf. 7.20; Num. 20.11: Erzählung, pp. 145, 147-48). The mention of Rephidim in v. 8 served to attach the narrative to the once adjacent itinerary-note in 17.1, which in its original unexpanded form Smend had, like the rest of the main sequence of itinerarynotes in Exodus, attributed to J1, and also to 19.2. Although Smend’s ‘third early source’ always remained a minority view and he was followed closely here only by Eissfeldt, Beer and Fohrer, his arguments enabled Rudolph to dispose very quickly of the consensus view (Elohist, p. 37). Noth, as often in such matters, followed Rudolph’s attribution of most of the section to J (ÜGP, p. 33; in his commentary, p. 113, ET, p. 141, he was more cautious: ‘It may derive from J’) and a succession of commentators (e.g. Fritz, Childs, Coats) were to agree with him, though without producing strong reasons for doing so: even Fritz’s vocabulary argument (pp. 12-13) is hardly decisive and depends inevitably on his attributions of other passages. Closer study of the text led to part or all of some verses being identified as later additions. ‘In Rephidim’ (v. 8) was apparently first so regarded by B.W. Bacon in 1894 because of his (plausible) view that the narrative had once stood in Numbers; for others, such as Noth, dependence on the ‘Priestly’ itinerary-note in v. 1 was sufficient reason in itself.1 Baentsch (pp. 160, 162) introduced the idea that v. 14 was dependent upon Deut. 25.19 and so was itself Deuteronomistic: this has been widely accepted. For Noth v. 14 was an addition to the story, but it is not clear that he regarded it as later than Deuteronomy: the same applies to vv. 15-16 (p. 114, ET, p. 143). Fritz apparently thought that v. 14 was post-Deuteronomic, but that vv. 15-16 were already 1   As a counter-argument it has been suggested that the ‘support’ given to Moses’ arms in v. 12 was meant to explain the name (e.g. Blum, Studien, p. 152 n. 217), but this is over-subtle: in a real aetiology the connection is made much more obvious (cf. v. 7).

516

EXODUS 1–18

in J (Israel in der Wüste, pp. 12, 56-57). The mention of ‘the staff of God’ in v. 9 was deemed secondary by Beer, who also preferred the Samaritan reading ‘his hands’ in v. 11 (p. 92): the unstated reason in both cases will have been to remove the (apparent) inconsistency from the original story (cf. Noth, p. 113, ET, p. 142; Childs, p. 313). More recent study has seen, on the one hand, increased support for the substantial unity of the passage, aided no doubt by the priority now given to later literary layers by many scholars. Blum attributes it all to Kd, who added v. 14 to an older story; Van Seters sees it as a fabrication by J (dated in the exile) on the basis of Deut. 25.17-19 (Life, p. 207); Albertz distinguishes only between an old narrative taken up by KEx in the exile and the mention of the staff and v. 14, which were added by a later redactor (pp. 283-84). Houtman (pp. 375-76) and Levin (p. 358) see vv. 14-16 as containing two separate additions to the main narrative, which Levin (like Kratz, Komposition, pp. 246-47, 302-304) regards as a late supplement to the wilderness narrative. Dozeman treats the whole section as an undifferentiated part of the ‘non-Priestly History’ (pp. 392-93). The heirs of the older literary criticism, who still envisaged (and envisage!) the use by redactors of parallel Yahwist and Elohist sources, continued not to impose that pattern on this narrative. To begin with the tensions within the narrative were resolved, in two different ways, by more far-reaching analyses than before. Valentin had in 1978 presented an account of its literary growth which was very similar to Noth’s, with ‘in Rephidim’, the mention of the staff and the whole of v. 14 seen as later additions to the core. But in addition he had taken up Keel’s suggestion of an iconographical basis for Moses’ hand-gestures (see the Explanatory Note on vv. 10b-12), which he thought could explain the origin of this motif. Shortly afterwards Zenger identified a Grundschrift belonging to the seventh-century ‘JE’ revision of the Yahwist which spoke into the contemporary situation in the spirit of Isaiah through the combined motifs of ‘the staff of God’ and the altar of ‘the Lord my banner’ (vv. 8*, 9-10a, 11, 13a, 15, 16a): that is, the whole scenario of Moses’ raised hands and his need for support was relegated to a later (indeed very late) redactional addition, along with the mention of Rephidim and the specific sayings against Amalek (Israel am Sinai, pp. 78-86, 98-100). Others have more straightforwardly attributed all or most of the section to J or E. According to W.H. Schmidt it was most likely included in J, except for v. 14 (Exodus, Sinai und Mose, p. 105 n. 150), and Graupner’s strong if brief rejection of an attachment to E, since ‘the staff of God’ is to be regarded as a later addition, suggests that he may have agreed (Elohist, p. 93). The older view, that the passage is from E, has recently been championed (apparently without any additions) by Propp (p. 615) and Baden (Composition, p. 125, with the important new argument that this battle-narrative belongs closely with 13.18).



17.8-16

517

When virtually all possible alternatives for the literary transmission of this probably ancient tradition have found some support over the past century and a half, it might seem wisest to leave the matter unresolved. But it is noticeable that the earlier challenges to an attribution to E came either from those, like Smend, who were looking for material that might be assigned to an additional source (a hypothesis that has now lost the little support that it had) or from Rudolph, who in his ‘crusade’ against the existence of E was ready, where necessary, to grasp at a weak argument or to pass by indications to the contrary. It cannot be said that a strong positive case has been made for J and this may be why a number of writers hesitate to express a confident view. The passage, first of all, has no obvious connection with the J narrative that precedes it in vv. 3-6 (‘in Rephidim’ connects rather with the redactional itinerary-note in v. 1; and the terminology for Moses’ staff in vv. 5 and 9 is quite different), any more than it does with ch. 18 which follows, apart from (and this may be significant) the recurrence of the divine title ‘God’ (Heb. ʾelōhîm). Internally most of vv. 8-13 hold together well, but ‘in Rephidim’ (v. 8) and ‘and his people’ (v. 13) are probably later additions (see the Explanatory Notes). There is undoubtedly tension between the references to ‘the staff of God’ and Moses’ ‘hands’ in the dual, but its origin remains obscure and it could well go back to a no longer accessible pre-literary stage of the tradition’s development. The fact that a number of different suggestions have been made about how the tension can be eased is against regarding it as the basis for a division of the text at the literary level.2 In vv. 14-16 there are probably three separate ‘conclusions’ to the main narrative (see the Explanatory Notes). Verse 14 has since Baentsch been widely regarded as an addition based on Deut. 25.17-19. There is a complication in the fact that these verses occur at the very end of the specific laws in Deuteronomy and are quite unconnected with the preceding verses: they too look like an addition and the older view was that they were added on the basis of Exod. 17.14 with some modifications to fit Deuteronomic sensibilities (cf. Mayes, Deuteronomy, pp. 330-31; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, p. 275). However this (possibly complex) issue of literary dependence is resolved, v. 14 is probably an intrusive element which 2   The more so, since as will appear below, both motifs turn out to have associations with the same strand of the Exodus narrative.

518

EXODUS 1–18

separates the conclusion of the battle from its immediate celebration in v. 15. Verse 16 is often associated closely with v. 15, but only on the basis of an unjustified emendation (see Text and Versions on v. 16) or, in Houtman’s explanation, through the implausible claim that the ‘hill’ on which Moses had positioned himself was referred to as ‘the throne of Yah(weh)’. In fact the concluding words of v. 16, which should be translated ‘from many generations (ago)’, point rather to this whole verse having been moved from a quite different context. The narrative, therefore, in its oldest accessible form probably consisted of most of vv. 8-13 and v. 15. The fact that it is a story of a battle in which Israelites fight links it directly with 13.18. Within these verses there are also a number of other features, as the older critical commentators observed, which are characteristic of passages which were traditionally assigned to the E source. The choice of Joshua to lead the warriors, while probably related to the military role which he plays in the conquest narrative, also reflects the close partnership between Moses and Joshua which is represented by the designation of the latter as ‘Moses’ (young) assistant’ (Heb. mešārēt: cf. 24.13; 33.11 and elsewhere). Contrary to Smend’s assertion, there is nothing here to suggest that Joshua was of the same age or generation as Moses. Aaron and Hur, who accompany Moses to the top of the hill, are mentioned together elsewhere only in 24.14 and Hur nowhere else (there is no reason to identify him with Bezalel’s grandfather in 31.1 or any of the other figures with the same name). There are few places where Aaron participates in his own right in the older narratives: he is most prominent, this time as a leading opponent of Moses, in Exodus 32 (cf. Num. 12). There Joshua also appears and in Moses’ reply to his statement that ‘there is a noise of war in the camp’ (Exod. 32.17-18) the nouns for ‘victory’ and ‘defeat’ correspond precisely to the verbs used here in vv. 11 and 13: the words for ‘defeat’ are very rare, especially in this sense (see Note m on the translation).3   This contrasts with Fritz’s list of vocabulary items in the passage which are (supposedly) characteristic of J (see above), most of which are quite common expressions in BH generally. Several of the instances in the plague-narratives which he cited are, according to our analysis, not from J but from E. The use of Heb. hērîm in v. 11 (rather than nāṭāh), noted by Smend, may be due to the contextual contrast with ‘let…rest’ (Heb. hēnîaḥ). 3



17.8-16

519

Whereas Moses uses the divine name in v. 15, in v. 9 he refers to his staff as ‘the staff of God’, as the narrator does in 4.20 (for the alternation cf. 3.13-15). That verse, like 4.17, where God speaks to Moses about ‘this staff’, is taken by us to be from E. A staff, but described as ‘Moses’ staff’, also appears in a series of connected passages from J (4.1-5; 7.15 [cf. 9.23; 10.13]; 17.5 [and probably 14.16]). In E (4.17) God has told Moses to use ‘this staff’ to ‘perform the signs’ and this fits well with what he does here. In the main non-Priestly plague narrative, which we have attributed to E, Yahweh himself brings the plagues upon Egypt, and the narrator presumably left it to be assumed that Moses would wield ‘the staff of God’ at appropriate moments: his emphasis there is entirely on the divine initiative and the narrative passes over what might have been seen as quasi-magical acts on Moses’ part. Only when a plague is to cease does Moses intervene, by prayer (8.8, 26; 9.33; 10.18). A similar concern can perhaps be seen in the narrator’s construction of the short but complex story here: he mentions the miraculous powers of ‘the staff of God’ which Moses holds (vv. 9-11), but in vv. 12-13 it is a gesture most naturally seen as an accompaniment of prayer (see the Explanatory Note) that leads to the eventual victory. In the name he gives to the commemorative altar Moses also makes clear that it is Yahweh, not he, who has led the people to victory. The building of an altar by a leading figure is widespread in early narratives and appears in passages that have been traditionally ascribed to both J and E, as well as occasionally in Joshua, Judges and 1 Samuel (see the Explanatory Note on v. 15). Whether or not the actual offering of a sacrifice is mentioned does not seem to be a distinguishing mark of the two Pentateuchal sequences. But they do differ, so far as the evidence goes, in the way in which they are associated by the narrators with a deity. In J passages the altar is said to be built ‘for Yahweh’ (Gen. 8.20; 12.7; 13.18), or the builder is said to call upon the name of Yahweh (26.25), or both (12.8), whereas in E passages the altar is named after the deity (Gen. 33.20; 35.7). The present instance clearly follows the latter pattern: the only difference is that in the two Genesis passages the altar is given an El-name, whereas here it is given a Yahweh-name, but that is not surprising when the revelation of the divine name has intervened in E (Exod. 3.13-15).

520

EXODUS 1–18

There are therefore a number of features in this story which suggest that it, like 13.18, came from the strand of the older Pentateuchal narrative that was derived from the E source. Two further questions about the story remain to be examined: its original place in the wilderness narrative and its character. At the beginning of the twentieth century it was already a common view that the story really belonged to the closing stages of the wilderness narrative, where the Amalekites appear as a threat to the Israelites near the southern extremity of Canaan (Num. 14.25, 43, 45), as they do again in 1 Samuel 15, 27 and 30 (Carpenter/Harford-Battersby 2, p. 1107 [with reference to B.W. Bacon, whose Triple Tradition had appeared in 1894, and to Harford-Battersby himself, presumably for his articles on Exodus and Numbers in the HDB, which began to be published in 1898]; Holzinger, p. 55; Baentsch, pp. 160-61). This naturally led to Gressmann’s association of it with the cycle of Sagen which centred according to him on Kadesh (although he located Rephidim somewhat to the north of Kadesh: Anfänge, p. 107) and to E. Sellin’s view that the narrative records the victory which gave the Israelites control of Kadesh (Geschichte des israelitisch-jüdischen Volkes [Leipzig, 2nd ed., 1924, 1932] 1, p. 69; cited by Beer, p. 92, with apparent approval). This, like the Kadesh-theory more generally, was already viewed with suspicion by Noth and subsequent scholars have been even more dubious about it (Blenkinsopp, in The Pentateuch, pp. 137-38, 162-63 is an isolated exception in recent times; for an earlier more detailed study see M.L. Newman, The People of the Covenant [Nashville, 1962], pp. 68-101). But the weakness of the arguments used to link other stories in Exodus to Kadesh should not be allowed to obscure the very strong geographical connection of this narrative with the southern borderlands of Canaan. Possibly it originated in post-settlement struggles of Israelite groups with their Bedouin neighbours. Or it may contain memories of attempts, sometimes successful (cf. Num. 21.1-3), sometimes not (Num. 14.39-45), of Israel’s ancestors to force their way into Canaan from the south – a more logical approach for the bearers of the Exodus tradition than the long detour in the canonical narrative which brought all the immigrant groups in from the east across the river Jordan. As for the episode’s position in the extant text, a possible reason is suggested below (p. 531). More positively, one might see a clue in its association with other narratives (in ch. 18) about a foreigner’s much friendlier relations with early Israel:



17.8-16

521

was the non-Priestly account (or specifically the E source) using these episodes to commend a more peaceful relationship with Israel’s neighbours at a later period (on this see also pp. 553-54)? There remains the question of the character or genre of the story in its original or at least its earliest recoverable form. Its military aspect and the absence of overt divine intervention distinguish it from the stories of divine provision of food and water which precede it as well as the sea narrative in 14.1-31. It has more in common with the conquest-stories of Numbers and Joshua, and even more with the largely defensive battle-narratives which must underlie the more highly developed accounts in Judges and 1 Samuel 1–17. But it has little interest in the actual fighting or in the tactics of the engagement and the leader of the fighters is celebrated only for his name. The real focus of the story is on what Moses, not Joshua, does and his actions are anything but military in the usual sense. He has understandably been compared to a magician because of the effects which his actions are implied to have on the course of the battle (cf. Josh. 8.18-19, 26 perhaps). But the gestures with both his hands, which recall the accompaniment to prayers and other kinds of ritual, and the building and naming of an altar at the end give the story a more recognisably religious character, so that it appears as a somewhat primitive form of the biblical ‘Yahweh-war’ narratives in subsequent books.4 Moses’ initiative (and the lack of an explicit divine one, though note 4.17, 20) and dominance of the narrative lend some support to Coats’s suggestion that it is a Heldensage (see above, p. 514), but this can only be maintained if Moses is seen as a very unusual kind of Held, one who through divine preparation is equipped, not to engage directly in the fight (like Baal with his divinely made weapons in his mythical battles) but to invoke the support of the deity to whom at the end he gives the credit for the victory – a role which, for all its obvious differences, can be seen as an extension of the one which he occupies elsewhere as the representative of the people before Pharaoh and, in prayer, before God. The original story, which celebrated the repulse of a particular attack on the Israelites in their earliest history, has been supplemented in ways that made it into a divinely authorised basis for 4   Compare the suggestive references to the passage in Smend, Jahwekrieg, pp. 58-59, 74-75, 92-93 and n. 28 (ET pp. 79-81, 102-103, 128 with n. 28), although they are not assembled into a complete account of its origin and early history.

522

EXODUS 1–18

continued warfare against the descendants of those attackers. Both vv. 14 and 16 portray Yahweh as a warrior himself, a divine warrior (cf. 15.3) who will fight against and defeat (indeed ‘wipe out’) those who have taken up arms against his people. It is a vision which was often repeated, both in the Old Testament and among Israel’s neighbours. But this was a people whose prophets could also threaten that their own God might turn against them if they violated his expectations of them (Amos 5.18-20) and could hold out an ultimate vision of a world in which ‘nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more’ (Isa. 2.4). [Here and in ch. 18 the main component of the non-Priestly narrative again appears to be derived from E and the sections not enclosed in square brackets are those attributed to it.]

8 Amalek came and fought witha Israel [at Rephidim]. 9 So Moses said to Joshua, ‘Choose men for us, and go out, fightb against Amalek tomorrow,c while I station myself on the top of the hill,d with the staff of God in my hand’.e 10 Joshua did as Moses had said to him, fightingf against Amalek, and Moses, Aaron and Hurg went up to the top of the hill.h 11 Whenever Moses raisedi his hand(s), Israel would prevail,i but when he let his hand(s) rest,i Amalek would prevail.i 12 Moses’ hands became tired (lit. heavy),j so they took a rock and placed it under him and he sat upon it, while Aaron and Hurg supported his hands, one on one side and one on the other. Then his hands werek firml until the sun set. 13 Joshua defeatedm Amalek [and his people] with the edge of the sword.n 14 [Yahweh said to Moses, Write this as a reminder in a recordo and make Joshua hear itp: (that)q I will indeed wipe out the memory of Amalek from all the earth (lit. under heaven).r] 15 Moses built an altar and he called it ‘Yahweh is my banner’. 16 [He said, (that)s I swear (lit. hand upon throne)t, Yahweh is at war with Amalek from many generations (ago).u]

Notes on the Translation a. On the use of ‫ עם‬with ‫ לחם‬Niphal here (but not in vv. 9-10 [cf. 16]) see Valentin, Aaron, pp. 155-56. b. The asyndetic construction in the Heb. is frequent with two adjacent imperatives, especially when the first is a verb of movement (JM §177e: cf. 19.21).



17.8-16

523

c. On early debates about whether ‫ מחר‬belongs with what precedes it or what follows it see Text and Versions. Since the battle and Moses’ presence on the hill are simultaneous, it makes little difference, but the time should be specified for the first action mentioned (cf. Propp, p. 617: also Valentin, Aaron, p. 142 and n. 2): ‫ אנכי נצב‬can introduce a circumstantial clause (GK §156c), so there is no need to read ‫( ואנכי‬Holzinger) or ‫( והנה אנכי‬Beer, with LXX). d. Heb. ‫הגבעה‬: although no ‘hill’ has been previously referred to (the ‫צור‬ in v. 6 is probably too far away, as well as being different in meaning, to be meant here), the dialogue assumes that one is adjacent enough to the speakers to be obviously in mind (cf. Bekins, ‘Non-Prototypical Uses’; JM §137m-n gives some similar examples). This is distinct from the use of the article to determine a noun by ‘anticipation’ as in 3.2 and 16.13. e. A circumstantial nominal clause, attached by waw and with the subject first (JM §159d). f. Heb. ‫לחלחם‬: the inf. cons. ‘define(s) more exactly’ how Joshua obeys Moses’ instructions (GK §114o). g. The (composite) subject precedes the verb because it differs from the subject of the preceding clause and there is an element of contrast between the actions involved; perhaps also because they are simultaneous (JM §118e-f; 155nb). h. Heb. ‫ראשׁ הגבעה‬, without a preposition: a common idiom (GK §118d, f). i. All the verbs in this verse are iterative imperfects, indicating the ebb and flow of the battle. ‫ יניח‬is the standard Hiphil form (contrast Note kk on the translation of 16.1-36), so the meaning is ‘gave rest to’, not ‘put, placed’. j. Heb. ‫כבדים‬, ‘heavy’, then ‘burdensome’ (18.18 [leading to ‘exhaustion’]; Num. 11.14; Prov. 27.3). For the sense ‘tired, weary’ cf. Sy lʾy. Heb. ‫ יד‬is always fem. elsewhere: the masc. part. following it is most unusual but explained in GK §145u by analogy with the ‘dislike’ for the third person pl. fem. in the imperfect (cf. Jer. 44.19; Prov. 26.23). k. Heb. ‫ויהי‬: the plural form would be expected (cf. SP and Vss), but when the predicate precedes the subject, as here, it is sometimes in the ‘simple’ or uninflected sing. form (GK §145o; esp. with ‫היה‬, JM §150j-m). l. Heb. ‫אמונה‬, lit. ‘firmness’: for the noun serving in place of an adjective cf. GK §141c, which suggests that it gives greater emphasis to the attribute. m. Heb. ‫ויחלשׁ‬. The Vss give the sense as ‘put to flight, defeated’, which is what the context requires (see Text and Versions): cf. the addition of ‫ ויכם‬in SP and 4QpalExm. The noun ‫ חלושׁה‬in 32.18 probably has a related sense alongside ‫גבורה‬. But other occurrences of the root in BH have the sense ‘weakness, feebleness’ that is found in JAram and Syr. (Joel 4.10; Job 14.10 [of the dead]). In Isa. 14.12 ‫( חולשׁ‬of Babylon) has been interpreted in both ways, depending on whether the phrase in which it occurs (‫ )חולשׁ על־גוים‬is related to Babylon’s former greatness (then ‘conqueror’) or to its present humiliation (then ‘powerless’): the most recent study of J.B. Burns, ‘ḥôlēš ʿal in Isaiah

524

EXODUS 1–18

14.12: A New Proposal’, ZAH 2 (1989), pp. 199-204, follows the first alternative but prefers the sense ‘warrior’. Cognates for the sense ‘defeat’ have been suggested in related languages: Ar. ḫalasa (A. Guillaume, ‘The Use of ‫חלשׁ‬ in Exod. xvii.13, Isa. xiv.12 and Job xiv.10’, JTS N.S. 14 [1963], pp. 91-92; cf. I. Eitan, ‘Two Unknown Verbs: Etymological Studies’, JBL 42 [1923], pp. 22-28 [25-28]); Akk. ḫalāšu and Soqotri ḫlš (W. von Soden, ‘Kleine Beiträge zum Ugaritischen und Hebräischen’, in Hebräische Wortforschung [FS W. Baumgartner; VTSup 16; Leiden, 1967], pp. 291-300 [296-97]). On this basis recent lexica have envisaged two homonymous roots (HAL, p. 311; DCH 3, pp. 246-47; Ges18, p. 362). But the meanings of the Ar. and Akk. words (‘plunder, seize’ and ‘scrape off’ respectively) are not very close to ‘defeat’ and Soqotri (a modern South Arabian language) is not very likely to have alone preserved an ancient Hebrew meaning. It is still of course possible that there were two unconnected homonyms in BH, even if one of them is difficult (so far) to parallel in another language. But it may be preferable to view the two senses of ‫ חלשׁ‬as in some way related. Burns (as cited above) seems to regard the notion of ‘cutting down’ as the unifying element, but it is difficult to deduce this sense from any of the occurrences. The old view (cf. BDB, p. 325; Childs, p. 311; Houtman, pp. 384-85) that there was a semantic development in BH from ‘weak’ to ‘(make) prostrate, inert’ (cf. Job 14.10) and then to ‘defeat’ may be correct after all: it would match the parallel development in the case of ‫ גבר‬from ‘be strong’ to ‘prevail, be victorious’ (for which cf. 1 Sam. 2.9; 2 Sam. 11.23; Lam. 1.6; and v. 11 here), and it is perhaps then not surprising that ‫ גבר‬and ‫ חלשׁ‬occur together both where the meaning is ‘strong/weak’ (Joel 4.10) and where it is ‘victory/defeat’ (Exod. 32.8: compare also Tgg there). BDB retains the Qal pointing of MT here but is understandably tempted by the possibility of revocalising the verb as a Hiphil; a Piel would also be possible. A change to the consonants would be required to produce a corresponding form in Isa. 14.12 (and perhaps that is why BDB hesitated), but the meaning (and text) there remains uncertain and ‫ חולשׁ‬in the sense of (the adj.) ‘prostrate’ could yet be correct. n. Heb. ‫לפי חרב‬. The idiom is frequent (35x in BH, esp. in Josh. and Judg.) and ‫ פי‬probably refers metaphorically to the ‘blade’ or ‘edge’ of the sword (rather than meaning ‘as the sword devours, without quarter’, BDB, p. 805): the pl. forms ‫( פיות‬Judg. 3.16 [with ‫ ;]שׁני‬Prov. 5.4) and ‫( פיפיות‬Ps. 149.6; Isa. 41.15 is different) are used in this way, and there is a comparable usage of Gk. στόμα (LSJ, pp. 437, 1649; cf. δίστομος in LXX). o. Heb. ‫בספר‬. The def. art. is ‘anticipatory’: see Note o on the translation of 2.11-22. The common rendering ‘in a book’ gives a misleading impression, as books of the modern form did not exist in biblical times (cf. H.M. Orlinsky, Notes on the New Translation of the Torah [New York, 1969], p. 172). A ‫ספר‬ might be in the form of a scroll (Jer. 36.2, 4: cf. Isa. 29.11, 12; 34.4) or an inscribed piece of pottery (‘ostracon’: so especially for letters and lists in Heb., as archaeological discoveries like the Lachish letters have shown) or



17.8-16

525

even (at least in Phoen. and Aram.: cf. DNWSI, pp. 799, 800) an inscription on stone. See further in the Explanatory Note. Since the content as well as the form could be very varied, ‘document’ (NJPS) or ‘record’ is as close as we can get to the sense. p. Heb. ‫ושׂים באזני יהושׁע‬. The idiom is unique (more commonly x-‫ באזני‬is found with ‫[ דבר‬11.2] or ‫[ קרא‬24.7]) and it seems to convey a stronger sense than simply ‘say to’: compare the use of ‫ שׂים‬with ‫ על־פי‬and ‫ בפי‬for ‘to make someone remember/speak’. Perhaps ‘impress upon’ comes closest to what is intended (cf. Houtman, pp. 385-86). q. Heb. ‫כי‬. A causal rendering (‘For, because’) is excluded because there is nothing for the following words to explain: most likely this is simply the ‫ כי‬recitativum (‘that’) which is not needed with direct speech but appears by analogy with the introduction to indirect speech (BDB, pp. 471-72; JM §157c). In such cases (cf. 3.12; 4.25) it is also possible to see an ‘emphatic’ use of ‫‘( כי‬Surely, indeed’: so already BDB, p. 472 [‘e’]: cf. HAL, p. 448; Ges18, p. 539) but, especially since support for such an interpretation was claimed from Ugaritic, there have been counter-arguments seeking to limit or even exclude its application (Muraoka, Emphatic Words, pp. 158-64; A. Aejmaleus, ‘The Function and Interpretation of ‫ כי‬in Biblical Hebrew’, in On the Track, pp. 166-85 [esp. 180-81]). There is certainly no need for it here. r. Heb. ‫מתחת השׁמים‬. The implication of this expression seems to be ‘throughout the earth’; only in Gen. 1.9 is there any contrast with what is in or above the heavens. Similar expressions (sometimes with a different verb) occur in Deut. 7.24; 9.14; 25.19 (Amalek again); 29.19; 2 Kgs 14.27 (Dtr.); Lam. 3.66. In BH generally (and including cases with ‫ כל‬before ‫ )השׁמים‬this is the only occurrence of the phrase that could be pre-Deut. in origin (3x in Genesis [all P]; 6x in Deuteronomy; 1x in Kings; 3x in Job; 3x in Ecclesiastes; 1x in Lamenations; 1x in Daniel). s. Here Heb. ‫ כי‬might in theory have a causal sense, since what follows could be intended to explain the naming of the altar. But the connection is rather loose (it would be tighter if v. 16 immediately followed v. 14) and as above (cf. Note q) a ‫ כי‬recitativum is most likely intended. t. Heb. ּ‫יד על־ ֵכּס יָ ה‬. ‫ ֵכּס‬is a hapax legomenon, with the following ּ‫ יָ ה‬being a shortened form of the divine name (as in MT at 15.2, the cry ‫ הללו־יה‬and a few other places). ‫ ֵכּס‬has been explained as an abbreviated form of ‫ ִכּ ֵסּא‬, ‘throne’ (BDB, p. 490, though without any explanation for the shortening), but MT is probably corrupt and most commentators adopt a reading based on the other witnesses or a conjectural emendation (see Text and Versions). ‫( יד‬usually with a pron. suffix) is followed by ‫ על‬in a wide variety of idioms, but there seems to be no parallel with as abrupt a beginning as this. u. Heb. ‫מדר דר‬. If the meaning is ‘from generation to generation’ (so LXX, Vulg) one would expect ‫( מדר לדר‬Isa. 34.10) or ‫מדר אל־דר‬, but a noun without a preposition can be used adverbially to express movement from place to

526

EXODUS 1–18

place (GK §118f) and ‫ עולם‬is sometimes used without the usual ‫ ל‬to mean ‘for ever’ (Pss. 21.5; 61.8; 89.2), so ‫ דר‬might mean ‘to generation’. But there seem to be no parallels to this and when the same noun is immediately repeated it usually has the effect of expressing totality (GK §123c: cf. 3.15 and elsewhere ‫)יום יום‬, which suggests that the present phrase refers entirely to the past, to ‘war…from of old’ (so Gressmann, Anfänge, p. 107: Deut. 32.7; Isa. 51.9; 58.12; 61.4). There are variant readings of it (see Text and Versions), but they seem all to be secondary. Valentin has an excellent note on the grammar of MT (Aaron, p. 144 n. 5), but he emends ‫ דר‬to ‫ לדר‬to fit the context better as he understands it. See further in the Explanatory Note.

Explanatory Notes 8-10a. The arrival of the Amalekites and their attack on the Israelites introduces a new kind of threat to the latter, in this part of their wilderness journey at least. No doubt there were in biblical times, as there have been subsequently, desert tribes in parts of the Sinai peninsula who might have resented the need to share its sparse resources with outsiders. Biblical tradition gives a rare glimpse of such inhabitants in 1 Kgs 11.18 and the Midianites of Exod. 2.18-22 may have lived in the peninsula. Egyptian texts occasionally refer to such peoples (see the introduction to 2.11-22 on the story of Sinuhe); some of the references to Shasu (cf. ABD 5, pp. 1165-67) could have them in mind. ‘Amalek’, the name used here (and in vv. 11, 14 and 16) for the people and occasionally elsewhere for its hypothetical Edomite ancestor (Gen. 36.12, 16; 1 Chr. 1.36), also occurs frequently as an enemy of the Israelites in later stages of the wilderness journey (Num. 13.29; 14.25, 43, 45; 24.20; Deut. 1.44; 25.17) and in Judges, 1–2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles (cf. Ps. 83.7). Their strongest geographical association is with the south of Palestine and the steppe-land and mountains beyond it, in biblical terms the Negeb (Num. 13.29; 14.43, 45; 1 Sam. 27.8; 30.1) and Mount Seir (1 Chr. 4.43): their mention after Kadesh in Gen. 14.7 would also fit this locale (see further ABD 1, pp. 169-71, and the notes on later verses in this section). It is possible that ‘and fought with Israel’ is a general introductory statement, a summary of the fighting which is to be described in vv. 10-13 (Cassuto, pp. 204-205). Alternatively it may refer to an initial skirmish, which leads Moses to organise a response for the main battle on the following day (v. 9). The present text places



17.8-16

527

the battle at Rephidim, where the itinerary-note in v. 1 locates the previous episode (see the Explanatory Note there for discussion of its location). But that verse is probably an addition to the narrative in vv. 2-7 (see the notes there) and here many commentators have seen the words ‘at Rephidim’ as an even later insertion. In fact the story about Amalek may, in view of the geographical connections noted above, have originally belonged to a much later stage of the wilderness journey (see further the introduction to this section). On this occasion (contrast 14.10-14) Moses does not simply trust in God to repel the attack: as in many later narratives the Israelites will have their own warriors to fight for them, chosen and led by Joshua, who appears in the narrative here for the first time and yet without any special introduction (like that, for example, which he receives in 33.11). The narrator apparently assumes that Joshua is well known to his hearers/readers, presumably (given the nature of his task) as the hero of stories in the book which now bears his name, where he leads the Israelites’ conquering forces in Canaan. Elsewhere in the Pentateuch, where there is of course very little fighting to be done, Joshua appears in quite different roles, chiefly as Moses’ assistant in the non-Priestly narratives (24.13; 32.17-18; 33.11; Num. 11.28; Deut. 1.35) and then as his designated successor in Deuteronomy and P (Num. 27.18, 22; 32.12, 28; 34.17; Deut. 3.28; 31.3, 7-8, 14, 23; 32.44; 34.9: cf. Num. 13.8, 16; 14.6, 30, 38; 26.65). According to Albrecht Alt’s pioneering traditio-historical study, Joshua was originally an Ephraimite (Josh. 24.29-30; cf. 19.49-50), who appeared first as a charismatic war-leader (Josh. 10.1-15), judge (Josh. 17.14-18) and eventually the founder of the Yahwistic tribal league centred on the Shechem sanctuary (Josh. 24.19-28). Only later did he come to be included in the Benjaminite tribal legends preserved at Gilgal and the national conquest tradition as a whole, and as a result also as a minor figure in Pentateuchal tradition (‘Josua’, in P. Volz et al. [eds.], Werden und Wesen des Alten Testaments [BZAW 66; Berlin, 1936], pp. 14-58 [13-29]; see further K. Mohlenbrink, ‘Josua im Pentateuch’, ZAW 59 [1942/43], pp. 14-58; Noth, ÜGP, pp. 192-94, and in his commentary, pp. 113-14, ET, pp. 141-42). The Masoretic division of v. 9 makes ‘tomorrow’ the beginning of Moses’ declaration of his own intentions (so also most EVV., but not JB, NEB, REB). It was noticed in antiquity that the word could

528

EXODUS 1–18

just as well be joined to the first half of the verse, and this actually makes better sense (see Text and Versions and Note c on the translation). Moses’ taking of a ‘staff’ with him is at first reminiscent of the previous episode (vv. 5-6), but here it is described as ‘the staff of God’, an expression which only occurs elsewhere in the composite account of Moses’ commissioning (4.20), where it takes up God’s gift of the staff to Moses in v. 17. The distinctive designation (with ‘God’ [Heb. ʾelōhîm] as a divine title in place of ‘Yahweh’ for the first time since 13.17-19) has often been seen as an indication that this section was taken from the Elohist source. The staff is not mentioned in the following verses, which seem to move to a different mode of securing victory, and the passage may draw on two once separate traditions in this respect (see the next note and the introduction to this section). 10b-12. Moses is accompanied on his climb by two other figures, Aaron and Hur, whose function in this story only subsequently becomes clear (v. 12). They again appear together in 24.14, where they remain with the Israelites while Moses (with Joshua) ascends ‘the mountain of God’ (Heb. ʾelōhîm again) to receive the stone tablets on which the commandments are written: they appear to deputise for Moses in the judicial role of which more is to be said in 18.15-16, where once more the title ‘God’ (ʾelōhîm) occurs, as it does several times elsewhere in that chapter. As in the non-Priestly narrative generally, there is little or no sign that Aaron as yet has any priestly functions (see the Excursus in the introduction to 4.10-17). Hur is only mentioned here and in ch. 24 (unless he is to be identified with Bezalel’s grandfather in 31.2; 35.30; 38.20, who is presented as a Judahite): his name could be Egyptian, connected with that of the god Horus (Beer, p. 92; Propp, p. 617), but it is just as possible (and just as unprovable) that it is related to that of the Horites in the Edomite genealogy in Genesis 36 or an individual in that list (v. 22). If there were once more extensive traditions about him, they are (like much else) no longer recoverable. As v. 9 has already hinted, it is Moses’ actions on the hill-top – no more words are attributed to him at this point – which will be decisive for the outcome of the battle on the plain below. But there are problems with both the text and the interpretation of vv. 11-12. In v. 12 the manuscript evidence is uniform and indicates that both Moses’ hands became tired and needed support from his two companions to make them steady. On the other hand, v. 11, according



17.8-16

529

to both Qumran manuscripts which survive at this point and the Masoretic text, says that Moses raised and lowered his ‘hand’ in the singular. The Samaritan Hebrew text, all the ancient translations and an early Jewish commentary (the so-called Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael) have ‘his hands’, but this looks suspiciously like a harmonisation to fit the dual in v. 12 (see further the note in Text and Versions). It has been suggested that there need be no contradiction here: ‘his hand’ in v. 11 may refer to the alternating use of each hand over a long period which led to both hands (or arms) eventually becoming too tired to use any more (Baentsch; Houtman, p. 375: for earlier proponents see Propp, p. 618). But the wording in the second half of v. 12 strongly suggests that both hands were at that point being raised together. Most probably v. 11 should be understood in the light of v. 9 and passages like 9.22-23 and 10.12-13 where the stretching out of hand and staff is synonymous, and v. 12 incorporates a different narrative motif which did not involve a staff at all but provided an engaging way to extend and elaborate the story (see also the introduction to this section on another possible motive for the combination of the two scenarios). There remains the question of what interpretation is to be given to Moses’ gesture(s). Traditionally an expression of prayer to God has been seen here (as in the Targums: other explanations were also suggested) and some recent scholars have supported this view (cf. Houtman, p. 381; H.-C. Schmitt, ‘Die Geschichte vom Sieg’, pp. 340-41; Van Seters, Life, pp. 205-206). It can claim the support of some ancient iconographical evidence and of Hebrew usage (cf. ‘spread out my hands to Yahweh’ in 9.29 and elsewhere). Many, however, have rejected it (e.g. Childs, Dozeman, Albertz: see below). Given the presence, it seems, of two different gestures by which Moses’ influence on the battle is portrayed, it is surely necessary to consider them separately. The wielding of ‘the staff of God’ is familiar from earlier in the Exodus narrative (most recently, though without the specific designation, in 14.16 and 17.5-6), where it is preceded by a divine command and so does not have independent magical power. But here there is no such command and the precise correlation of Moses’ movements with the Israelites’ success or lack of it strongly suggests a magical intention. A comparison has often been made with Joshua’s wielding of the sickle-sword (kîdôn) in the battle for Ai (Josh. 8.18-19, 26), but in the biblical narrative this is preceded by a divine command and

530

EXODUS 1–18

might even be understood as a signal for the army.5 The raising of both hands that is implied in v. 12 was derived by Keel, whom Valentin followed closely, from the portrayal of such a gesture in Egyptian iconography.6 Keel acknowledged that this gesture could have a wide range of associations – ‘honour, praise, prayer, blessing, protection and defence’ (p. 95) – and found its origin and apparently its continuing significance in the practice of incantation.7 But for the understanding of Exodus 17 he attached particular importance to memorial reliefs and a scarab in which a smaller figure with raised hands is shown alongside Pharaoh killing an enemy. The problem for Keel is that, as he admits, the smaller figure is not seeking (divine?) support for Pharaoh but asking for Pharaoh’s blessing on himself, which is a quite different scenario from Exodus 17. As a result Keel and Valentin have to make the improbable assumption that the narrative in Exodus 17 was shaped by someone who had actually seen such a stele or scarab but misunderstood its meaning. Of course if he did, he may well not have picked up the ‘magical’ implications which Keel apparently sees in the Egyptian examples. In any case, this again seems a very roundabout way to find an explanation for the action attributed to Moses, when the raising of hands in prayer is such a well attested practice (so Keel himself in Die Welt, pp. 298-301, ET pp. 318-23). It is reflected in Hebrew and Akkadian idiom (TWAT 3, 424-25, 443-44 = TDOT 5, pp. 396, 416) and provides the most likely interpretation of the outstretched hands on a small stele from a Late Bronze Age temple at Hazor (Y. Yadin, Hazor [Schweich Lectures 1970; London, 1972], pl. XIVa, pp. 71-72); cf. S. Schroer, ‘Zur Deutung der Hand unter der Grabinschrift von Chirbet el Qôm’, UF 15 [1983], pp. 191-99 [196: 5   Zenger noted the iconographical parallels adduced by O. Keel, in which a god wields the sickle-sword behind Pharaoh as he fights his enemies (cf. Wirk­ mächtige Siegeszeichen im Alten Testament [OBO 5; Freiburg and Göttingen, 1974], pp. 13-82) and suggested that first Joshua and then Moses (with the staff) were substituted for the god in the Egyptian model (Israel am Sinai, pp. 90-93). Whatever one may think about the closer parallel in Josh. 8, it is scarcely necessary to invoke such a complex origin for Exod. 17.9-11, which operates with a common motif of the Exodus tradition. 6   Keel, ibid., pp. 91-109; Valentin, Aaron, pp. 182-88. 7   He found particular significance in a prehistoric rock-drawing that shows its use by a snake-charmer, which is reproduced in Die Welt, pp. 290-91, fig. 417, ET pp. 312-13.



17.8-16

531

‘plausibel’]). Against this background the fact that no words spoken by Moses are mentioned (noted e.g. by Childs, p. 314) need not be significant.8 13. Another battle between Israel and the Amalekites (joined on this occasion by Canaanites) is referred to in Num. 14.44-45, located in or near the southern hills of Canaan. On that occasion the Israelites are defeated, according to the narrative because they have attempted to defy Yahweh’s intention to lead them into Canaan by a different and longer route (Num. 14.25, 39-43). A similar outcome seems to lie behind the account of an Amalekite attack in the Exodus period in Deut. 25.17-18 and 1 Sam. 15.2. By contrast the narrative here speaks of a victory for the Israelites: if, as we have suggested above (see the Note on vv. 8-10a), the story told originally of an episode on the southern border of Canaan, it could have formed part (like Num. 21.1-3 perhaps) of a different account of the settlement process, according to which (some of?) Israel’s ancestors entered Canaan not from the east, across the Jordan, but from the south (directly from Kadesh?). Then its removal to its present (rather puzzling) position could be due to a standardisation in the tradition, which fixed the route of all the tribes’ entry into the land in a single movement from the east and required the suppression or displacement of alternative accounts. An objection to this suggestion might be based on the unusual verb translated ‘defeated’. Its etymology is debated (see Note m on the translation) but it may well be related to words meaning ‘weak’. Some have therefore suggested that its meaning here is really ‘weakened’, so that the victory described was not a decisive one: this does of course fit well with the fact that the Amalekites continued to be a troublesome enemy until at least the time of David. Against such an interpretation may be noted the strong expression ‘with the edge of the sword’ and the fact that the related noun, which is used in 32.18, does seem to mean ‘defeat’ in contrast to a victory.9 8   Albertz has recently argued that the Heb. phrase used in v. 11 (rûm Hiph. with yād) is against an interpretation of the action as an accompaniment of prayer, since it is never used in this way. This is less of a problem for a ‘mixed’ interpretation of the passage like that suggested here, but in any case Heb. nāśāʾ and yād are certainly used in connection with prayer and praise (Pss. 28.2; 63.5). 9   The words ‘and his people’ are unexpected because throughout the passage so far (and also in vv. 14 and 16) ‘Amalek’ is evidently the name of a people, not

532

EXODUS 1–18

14. So far Yahweh has given no assurances or instructions about the threat posed by the Amalekite attack, in contrast to the preceding episodes: the initiative has lain mainly with Moses. Only now, in what seems to be an afterthought when the battle is over, does Yahweh declare his intention to eliminate the Amalekite threat and ensure that it (or is it the narrative of this battle?) is remembered by future generations. The provision for remembrance is not made for the first time in Exodus: the name of Israel’s God is itself literally a ‘memorial’ (3.15: see Note g on the translation there), Passover and other rituals serve as a reminder of the Exodus (12.14, 27; 13.3, 14-16) and a jar of manna is to be preserved to show Yahweh’s care for his people in the wilderness (16.32-34): compare also 10.1-2. But the manner and method of the remembrance is different here. A written record is to be kept and Yahweh’s intention is to be made known specifically to Joshua, the military leader. Although the Heb. definite article is used with ‘record’ this need not mean that the writing was to be in an already existing document (see Note o on the translation), though some have thought that ‘the record’ might be ‘the Book of the Wars of the Lord’ (Num. 21.14) or something similar. In fact very similar words occur in Deut. 25.19, after the recollection of an Amalekite attack on the Israelites in the wilderness, and there can be no doubt that there is some connection between that passage and this. Similar language is found in other contexts in Deuteronomy and later writings (see Note r on the translation) and it is understandable that v. 14 is commonly seen as a Deuteronomistic addition to the story, which looked forward to the unusually specific ‘reminder’ in Deut. 25.19. Joshua is never said in the Old Testament to have fought against the Amalekites again, but the wording here does foreshadow his military exploits against the Canaanites in the book of Joshua, including the wholesale slaughter of peoples required in Deut. 7.1-6, 16-24. 15. The initiative returns to Moses, in what is a fitting and coherent conclusion to the battle-narrative in vv. 8-13. (By contrast, it has no connection at all with v. 14, which is another sign that an individual: so generally also elsewhere (e.g. Judg. 6.3), the individual sense being rare (see the Note above on vv. 8-10a). Perhaps a scribe who had the latter sense in mind added these words to make clear the full extent of Israel’s victory. Alternatively it would be possible to translate ‘namely [waw explicativum] his warriors [for this sense of Heb. ʿām cf. Num. 20.20]’ (so Valentin, Aaron, pp. 161-62; Houtman, pp. 384-85: see also Text and Versions).



17.8-16

533

the latter is an intrusive addition.) An ‘altar’ was etymologically a place of sacrifice (Heb. mizbēaḥ, cf. zābaḥ, ‘sacrificed’) and it is no doubt because sacrifice was a central ritual of Old Testament religion that there are numerous stories of the building of altars by national heroes in the biblical narratives, and not only in the primary accounts of the inauguration of Israelite worship. Often these stories include mention of the sacrifices offered on the altar (Gen. 8.20 [Noah]; 22.9-13 [Abraham]; Exod. 24.4-6 [Moses]; Josh. 8.30-31 [Joshua]; Judg. 6.26-27 [Gideon]). Sometimes, as here, they do not, but in many of these cases the narratives are brief and serve to associate a prominent figure of the past with an Israelite sanctuary of later times (Gen. 12.7 [Shechem]; 12.8 [Bethel]; 13.18 [Hebron]; 26.25 [Beersheba]; 33.20 [Shechem]; 35.3, 7 [Bethel]). That may also originally have been the intention here, though if it was the sanctuary can no longer be identified. The absence of a specific mention of sacrifice here is no reason to say, as Houtman does, that ‘the altar was not built for the offering of sacrifices’ (‘ “Yahweh is my Banner” ’ [for details see below on v. 16], p. 111). Houtman cites the story in Joshua 22 as a parallel case for an altar not being built for sacrifices, but that is a ‘theologische Lehrerzählung’ from a much later period, designed to maintain the monopoly of a central shrine required by Deuteronomy. Even from that story (cf. vv. 10-20) it is clear that the normal expectation was that altars were for sacrifice, and 1 Sam. 14.35 gives another example of such an altar being built as part of victory celebrations. Nevertheless that is not what the narrator wished to emphasise here: he tells rather of the name that the altar was given (cf. Gen. 33.20; 35.7). ‘Yahweh (is) my banner’ is a name with clear military connotations (Isa. 5.26; 13.2-3; 31.8-9; Jer. 4.21; 51.12, 27; Ps. 60.6): other uses of a ‘banner’ (Heb. nēs) are derived from this (including Num. 21.8, where nēs is used metonymically for a ‘pole’ on which a banner might be flown). The name is comparable to declarations of confidence like ‘Yahweh is my rock, my fortress, my deliverer…my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold’ (Ps. 18.3: cf. Albertz, p. 294), but it expresses more clearly Yahweh’s presence in the midst of his people’s army and the need to follow where he leads.10 Early interpreters did not see, 10   The alternative explanations recorded and added to (also for the next verse) in TWAT 5, 468-69, 471-72 = TDOT 9, pp. 438, 441 are unnecessarily complex and far-fetched.

534

EXODUS 1–18

or ignored, these military connotations (see Text and Versions), preferring more general affirmations of Yahweh’s presence to help, like the memorial stone Eben-ezer (lit. ‘stone of help’), which is not called an ‘altar’, in 1 Sam. 7.13. But the specific sense fits the preceding narrative well and probably reflects the contexts in which it was originally preserved. 16. The further words attributed to Moses revert, whatever the significance of the difficult opening words may be (see below), to the theme of v. 14 by placing the battle-narrative in the context of a long-lasting hostility to Amalek, which is again given a divine sanction. As such they too do not belong to the core narrative structure of the unit, and a precise understanding of the final phrase may be an additional indication that the verse originated in the account of a conflict much later in Israel’s history. The common translation ‘from generation to generation’ (found already in LXX) is probably incorrect (see Note u on the translation and the full discussion by Valentin, Aaron, p. 144 n. 5) and ‘from many generations (ago)’ should be preferred. This is scarcely appropriate as words spoken after the first account of a conflict with Amalek and would fit much better in (at the beginning of?) the narrative of a later battle with Amalek, such as that in 1 Samuel 15, where it would provide an alternative way of motivating the people to what now appears in 1 Sam. 15.2. ‘He said’ might then originally have referred to a later leader like Samuel. It is easy to see how such a statement might then have been appended, anachronistically, to the story of the ancient conflict itself, particularly if the exact implications of the final words were already misunderstood. The opening phrase of v. 16 has been explained in many different ways, which have increased since the possibility that the transmitted Heb. readings are all corrupt began to be considered in the seventeenth century (see Text and Versions). Houtman, who gives a valuable overview of earlier interpretations, has himself added a new one (see his commentary, pp. 388-91, and more fully, his article ‘ “Yahweh is my Banner” – “A ‘Hand’ on the ‘Throne’ of Yh”: Exodus xvii 15b, 16a and their Interpretation’, in A.S. van der Woude [ed.], New Avenues in the Study of the Old Testament [OTS 25; Leiden, 1989], pp. 110-20). To begin with explanations that start from the standard Heb. text (MT), it literally means ‘A hand is/has been on/against the throne(?) of Yah(weh)’ (see further Note t on



17.8-16

535

the translation). This was taken in the Targums to indicate that war with Amalek was confirmed by an oath made by God, presumably on the basis of the Heb. idioms in which an oath was signified by various actions with the hand (cf. 6.8; Deut. 32.40): this interpretation was followed by e.g. Rashi, Ibn Ezra, AV and RV. In modern times it has been suggested that the oath was (to be) sworn by Moses (Dillmann) or Israel (Beer). Others proposed that the hand was to be raised towards heaven as a gesture of prayer (e.g. Keil). LXX and Vulg saw the hand as a symbol of divine power and this metaphorical interpretation also lies behind the proposal that the ‘hand’ is Amalek’s, whose challenge to Yahweh becomes the basis for the latter’s declaration of war (so first Reimarus according to Houtman, art. cit., p. 115 n. 13; more recently Zenger, Israel am Sinai, p. 98). Houtman understands ‘hand’ in the sense of ‘memorial’ (cf. 1 Sam. 15.12; 2 Sam. 18.18; Isa. 56.5) and ‘throne’ as a reference to the ‘hill’ earlier in the story, which might be Horeb, the mountain of God (cf. 17.5; 18.5): the words add a further description of the altar in v. 15 (and have no original connection with the following clause). These suggestions all have some degree of plausibility but equally involve some imaginative elaboration of the text, which raises doubts about their correctness. A wish for a tighter connection with v. 15, which may of course be misplaced (see above), has led to the suggestion that the original text read not ‘throne’ (Heb. kēs) but ‘banner’ (nēs), a difference of only one letter.11 ‘(A) hand on the banner of Yah!’ has then generally been understood either as an oath-formula (Baentsch, Gressmann: cf. modern oaths ‘by the flag’) or as a rallying-cry when an army set out for battle (Noth, Childs). Less influential views are that the ‘hand’ is Amalek’s, with the same implications as above (H.-C. Schmitt, ‘Die Geschichte vom Sieg’, pp. 336-38) and that the reference is to a ‘votive hand’ portrayed on the banner as an assurance of divine help (R. Gradwohl, ‘Zum Verständnis von Ex xvii 15f’, VT 12 [1962], pp. 491-94). It can of course be objected that the reference to an actual ‘banner’ used in war which the emendation produces is itself not very close to the metaphorical use of the term in v. 15 and that the emendation has   For an extended argument in favour of this view, based on the structure of (other) aetiologies for the meanings of names conferred on persons or places (esp. Exod. 2.10), see Childs, pp. 311-12. 11

536

EXODUS 1–18

no support in any ancient witness to the text. Similar objections can be and have been made to other attempts to deal with the exegetical problem by such conjectures (see Text and Versions and Gradwohl, pp. 492-93; Zenger, Israel am Sinai, p. 96). No fully satisfactory explanation for this difficult expression has been found. As suggested in Text and Versions, even the standard form of the Heb. text (MT) is probably not the best starting-point for exegesis. It is arguable that here the Samaritan text, which reads simply ‘Hand upon throne’, is the original reading. Its brevity makes it even more obscure but perhaps supports the traditional view that the phrase was an idiomatic (and otherwise unknown: but note Matt. 23.22) way of introducing an oath. The ‘throne’ is unlikely to be anything other than the throne of God/a god, presumably in heaven (cf. Isa. 66.1 etc.): Houtman’s suggestion that ‘the hill’ in the story might be so described is the weakest part of his explanation. But in view of the uncertainty about both text and interpretation, the expression cannot contribute anything to the interpretation of the verse as a whole. Fortunately, if our earlier observations are correct, it is peripheral to this narrative. Text and Versions The three Qumran mss which preserve the beginning of this section all have a division before it, marked by an open line in 4QExc and4QpalExm (the latter has ‫ יבא‬at the beginning of a line and presumably placed its usual enlarged waw in the empty space) and by an open line and an empty line in 4QpalExl. ‫( ויבא עמלק‬17.8) 4QpalExm marked the ayin with scribal dots, which puzzled DJD (p. 94): perhaps it was an indication that the exemplar was faulty here. 4QExc spells the name ‫עמלך‬, which is evidently a simple mistake based on similarity of sound (cf. ‫ [מ]שה‬for ‫ מסה‬in the previous verse): later in the section its spelling is correct. TgG(AA),Nmg have ‘…those of the house of Amalek’, which in view of the ‘early’ date of ms. AA will be an older PalTg reading than TgN’s ‘chieftains’: the latter provides a subject that better fits its interpretation of the next clause. Ms. AA introduces the section with ‘Targum for Purim’ in Judaeo-Arabic, a reference to its use as a reading for that festival because of the connection seen between the Amalekite king Agag in 1 Samuel 15 (cf. Num. 24.7) and ‘Haman…the Agagite’ in Esth. 3.1 etc. TgJ has a longer expansion noting Amalek’s origin in ‘the land of the South’ (cf. Num. 13.29), the distance they covered and the traditional hostility between Esau (to which Amalek belonged: Gen. 36.16) and Jacob: much of this comes from MRI (ed. Lauterbach, pp. 136-37).



17.8-16

537

‫( וילחם‬17.8) Although this was perhaps intended originally as a ‘summary introduction’ (see the Explanatory Note), the Vss (other than TgO,J) found it problematic before the Israelites had selected their warriors and they adjusted their translations in various ways. Sy lmʿbd qrbʾ took ‫ וילחם‬to express the intention to fight (cf. OL ms. 104), TgG(AA),N more plausibly envisaged the drawing up of battle lines and LXX and Vulg used imperfect verbs to portray an ongoing conflict of which vv. 9-13 were presumably seen as the climax. ‫( עם־ישׂראל‬17.8) LXX had no explicit equivalent to ‫ עם‬since its verb (πολεμεῖν) could be used with a direct obj. in Hell. Gk. (LSJ, p. 1432). Symm reverted to the classical idiom by inserting πρός and so created a precise match to the Heb. (cf. Vulg contra and Sy). ‫( ברפידם‬17.8) MT’s spelling here is curious and inconsistent with the fuller forms in 17.1 and 19.2 which the best SP mss (contra von Gall) support. Of the Qumran mss 4QpalExl probably had a yodh between the daleth and mem, but the mss preserve no further evidence of the orthography. TgJ has a long addition indicating that Israelites were killed because of their disobedience, as in MRI (ed. Lauterbach, pp. 135-37, 139), but it specifically refers to the Danites, whose idolatry was notorious (see refs. in AramB 2, p. 210 n. 9), presumably on the basis of Judges 18. ‫( אל־יהושׁע‬17.9). ‫ אל‬is also the reading of 4QpalExl and a number of SP mss, but the majority of the latter (including Tal, all of Crown’s and Camb. 1846) have ‫ליהושׁע‬. LXX’s τῷ Ἰησοῦ might seem to support this reading, but the use of the dative for ‫ אל‬in 8.23 shows that it is inconclusive. SP also has ‫ ל‬where MT has ‫ אל‬in 18.6 and 35.30, but the reverse is true in 6.6 and 8.5. Here SP may have harmonised the construction with the following verses, where both traditions have ‫ל‬. ‫( לנו‬17.9) LXX, Sy and one ms. of TgO read ‘for you’, probably a secondary reading influenced by the ‘idiomatic’ reflexive dative construction found with imperatives (Wevers, Notes, p. 268). ‫( אנשׁים‬17.9) LXX and TgN,G added ‘mighty’, using language similar to the Heb. of 18.21, 25 (cf. MRI [ed. Lauterbach, p. 141]); TgJ has a much more expansive addition. ‫( וצא‬17.9) TgJ adds ‘from under the clouds of majesty’, i.e. Yahweh’s protective presence (cf. MRI ibid.). ‫( הלחם‬17.9) LXX and TgJ,N,F render imprecisely ‘draw up in battle-order’, the fighting itself being still to come (cf. above on ‫ וילחם‬in v. 8). Sy nʿbd (qrbʾ) is curious: it presumably means ‘we will make war’, but also serves to delay the actual fighting. ‫( בעמלק‬17.9) TgJ ‘opposite the camp of Amalek’ and TgN,G ‘with those of the house of Amalek’ (cf. on v. 8) avoid any suggestion that an individual opponent was involved. ‫( מחר‬17.9) Whether this word belonged with the following or the preceding clause was one of five expressions in the Pentateuch which were said to have been listed by Issi ben Judah as being of uncertain interpretation

538

EXODUS 1–18

in this regard (MRI [ed. Lauterbach, p. 142]; cf. B.Yoma 52b). He seems to have regarded the connection with what follows as the normal view, and this is what the MT accents imply. But LXX, by its insertion of καὶ ἰδού after αὔριον (cf. Sy mḥr wʾnʾ hʾ; but 5b1 has wmḥr ʾnʾ) clearly took the opposite view and so, to judge from the punctuation marks, did most Samaritan scribes. TgN,G also add ‘behold’ (hʾ) after mḥr, but without an ‘and’, so they like TgO,J and Vulg preserve the ambiguity of the original. ‫( אנכי נצב‬17.9) LXX ἐγὼ ἕστηκα, since the perf. of ἵστημι has an intransitive present tense meaning, fits the translator’s more common practice in rendering the Heb. part., even where as here the context indicates a future sense (cf. 7.17, 27; 19.9; 23.20: in 3.13; 4.23; 8.25 a Gk. fut. is used): for such a ‘futuristic use of the present’ cf. BDF §322. Tgg and Sy use Aram. parti�ciples, which can have a future sense (Stevenson, pp. 56-57; Brockelmann §211-12); and Vulg ego stabo clearly expresses it. TgN,G render ‫ נצב‬as TgN rendered ‫ עמד‬in v. 6 (see Text and Versions there) to give the sense ‘standing ready’ and TgJ attaches to this a mention of fasting and an allegorical interpretation of ‘the top’ and ‘the hill’ as references to the merits of the patriarchs and matriarchs respectively, which were both found already in MRI (ed. Lauterbach, p. 142-43, 145-46); cf. (without the allegory) TgN on v. 12. ‫( ומטה האלהים‬17.9) Tgg have the same periphrasis as in 4.20 (see Text and Versions there; also MRI [ed. Lauterbach, p. 142]), but LXX renders straightforwardly this time. ‫( בידי‬17.9) Some later mss of Sy (12a1fam) mark this as a pl. form; compare the note on ‫ ידו‬in v. 11. ‫( משׁה‬17.10)1o TgN adds ‫רביה‬, ‘his master/teacher’, in line with the frequent designation (e.g. 24.13) of Joshua as Moses’ ‫( משׁרת‬cf. MRI [ed. Lauterbach, pp. 140-41] on v. 9). ‫( להלחם‬17.10) LXX and Vulg smoothed the connection by rendering with a finite verb; similarly Sy (though not 5b1), by prefixing wʾzl. LXX and TgN,G continued even here with ‘drew up battle lines’, but TgJ switched its loyalties from the PalTg here and followed TgO’s literal rendering. ‫( בעמלק‬17.10) As in v. 9 TgN,G have ‘with those of the house of Amalek’. ‫( אהרן‬17.10) SP prefixes a waw (cf. its variant readings in 1.2-4), and the Vss other than TgO also add a connective here. No Qumran ms. preserves this word, but the shorter reading of MT is to be preferred. ‫( ראשׁ הגבעה‬17.10) SP prefixes ‫ על( אל‬according to Sadaqa, probably from v. 9) to clarify the connection: all the Vss except TgG add a preposition too, but even more clearly here this was probably dictated by the requirements of the target languages. MT’s reading is idiomatic (see Note h on the translation) and superior: again there is no evidence from Qumran. ‫( והיה‬17.11) All the Heb. verbs in the verse represent repeated actions, including this one (cf. Note i on the translation), and the Tgg convey this well by the use of Aram. participles. In this case, as often with such introductory formulae, Sy and Vulg have no equivalent. Rahlfs and Wevers disagree about the reading of LXX here, the former preferring the imperfect ἐγίνετο of mss



17.8-16

539

ABF and the latter the less well attested aorist ἐγένετο, to which there is a close parallel in the similar 33.7 (cf. Notes, p. 269 and [better] THGE, p. 226). LXX’s handling of the tenses later in the verse (see below) is inconsistent, but this may be due to a growing tendency to favour the Greek aorist over the imperfect in Koine and in LXX (see Evans, Verbal Syntax, pp. 120-21, 138-40, 198-219). ‫( ירים‬17.11) LXX has the aorist ἐπῆρεν for the Heb. imperfect, Vulg more precisely the Latin imperfect subjunctive. TgG(AA) ‫ תקף‬is a scribal error for the ‫ זקיף‬of the other PalTg texts (Klein 1, p. 67). ֹ‫( יָ דו‬17.11) SP has the dual form ‫ ידיו‬both times in this verse, as the following context seems to require (cf. v. 12), and the Vss and MRI (ed. Lauterbach, pp. 143-44) all agree. 4QExc preserves the first occurrence and 4QpalExm the second, both reading ‫ידו‬. At Qumran ‫ו‬- sometimes represents the suffix of a pl. or dual noun (Qimron §322.14; Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, pp. 144-47, 159), as indeed it can in BH (like early Heb. inscriptions: cf. JM §94d n. 2): so in 4QpalExm at 21.6 (cf. Sanderson, Exodus Scroll, pp. 57-58; DJD IX, p. 103). The sing. vocalisation of MT thus appears isolated and questionable (cf. Propp, p. 614). One might explain its origin, or its preservation, from the use of the sing. in v. 9, which recalls passages earlier in Exodus where Moses holds a staff in his hand (e.g. 4.17, 20; 7.15; 14.16; 17.5). But it could be ancient, as a prima facie understanding of the consonants in both MT and the Qumran mss would suggest: and the conflict with v. 12 makes it the more difficult and so the more likely reading to be original. In any case the tension between sing. and dual in the passage as a whole is likely to have been created by the merging of two different traditions about Moses’ action in this story (see further the introduction to the section). A reflection of this duality can still be seen in the Jewish interpretations: in TgJ,N,G(AA),F additions of varying length see it as a gesture of prayer (which ends when Moses lowers his hands), while in MRI (ibid.) the anxiety to avoid a magical motive leads to a focus either on the people’s faith when they see it or on their obedience. Among modern vernacular versions Luther, Tyndale, AV, RV, RSV, JPS, EÜ, NRSV and ESV have the sing. of MT, and Douai/Rheims, JB, NEB, NIV and REB the pl. ‫( וגבר‬17.11)1o LXX and Vulg both use the classical imperfect tenses here to indicate the continuing alternation of supremacy between Israel and Amalek. TgN,G(AA),F add ‘and were victorious’ to contrast with their portrayal of the Amalekites later in the verse. TgF(P) also adds ‘in the battle lines’ here, as TgF(VN) does at the end of the verse, and the puzzling [?‫ בחר]בא‬in TgNmg is most likely to have been meant as an addition here to parallel (by contrast) the use of the same expression at the end of the verse. ‫( ישׂראל‬17.11) Here, as with ‫ עמלק‬later in the verse, TgO prefixes ‘those of the house of’, as in other Tgg in vv. 9-10 and here (‘all those…’ in TgG(AA)). ‫( וכאשׁר יניח ידו‬17.11) On ‫ ידו‬see the note above on its first occurrence in the verse. LXX καθῆκεν again uses the aorist and Vulg remisisset (with paululum added on the assumption that Moses would quickly regain his

540

EXODUS 1–18

strength) the pluperfect subjunctive (as in Augustan and later Latin for repeated action: e.g. Livy 1.31.4; 1.32.13). ‫( וגבר עמלק‬17.11) TgN,G,F add ‫ונפלין בחרבא‬, ‘but they would fall by the sword’, so that although the Amalekites were on top they suffered casualties; TgG(AA) makes their situation worse by rendering ‫ וגבר‬not by ‫מתגברין‬, ‘would prevail’, but (with the probably deliberate omission of one letter) by ‫מתברין‬ ‘would be broken, defeated’. On this ‘converse translation’ to remove a possibly ill-omened statement see Michael Klein on the Targums, pp. 194-95, and Text and Versions on 12.33. ‫( וידי משׁה כבדים‬17.12) TgO,J, LXX and Vulg render literally ‘heavy’, presumably with the sense ‘tired, weary’ (Sy) in mind. TgJ has a long addition, attributing Moses’ problem to his delay in initiating the battle (cf. v. 9 and MRI [ed. Lauterbach, p. 145]) and the subsequent provision of support to his need to fast (for which see again below and the note above on v. 9). This contrasts with TgN,F,G(AA,FF), i.e. the main PalTg witnesses, which replace ‘heavy’ with ‘were lifted up (in prayer)’. TgG(FF) in fact has ‘were spread out in prayer’, like TgO at the end of the verse, and this whole group seem to have reconstructed the beginning of the verse on the basis of what they have at its end and so avoided any reference to Moses’ weakness. ‫( תמכו‬17.12) Both LXX by its apt imperfect (cf. Wevers, Notes, p. 270) and TgO by its participle indicate that the support continued for some time. ‫( בידיו‬17.12) TgG(FF) and TgNmg specify that both Moses’ hands were supported. The early SP ms. Camb. 1846 and two later mss in von Gall read ‫בידו‬, an easy error in view of the Samaritan pronunciation of ‫יו‬- as o (GSH §45aβ). ‫( ויהי‬17.12) The sing. form of MT, although defensible and probably original (cf. Note k on the translation), was naturally rendered in the pl. in most of the Vss and the Heb. pl. was also preferred in 4QExc, 4QpalExm and SP (4QpalExl does not survive for this verse) as the more ‘regular’ form. Only Vulg presents the sing., as a correction of OL, but in an artificial periphrastic form: et factum est ut (manus ipsius non lassarentur). ‫( ידיו‬17.12) LXX mirrors, unnecessarily, the fuller expression αἱ χεῖρες Μωυσῆ at the beginning of the verse. ‫( אמונה‬17.12) LXX (ἐστηριγμέναι), Vulg (see the note on ‫ )ויהי‬and Sy (bhymnwtʾ) found different ways to render the unfamiliar Heb. idiom (on which see Note l on the translation). The Tgg saw here a further allusion to Moses’ prayer, ranging from TgO’s simple ‘(were) spread out in prayer (cf. TgNmg), through TgJ’s addition to this of Moses’ ‘faithfulness’ and ‘fasting’ and TgG(AA)’s brief mention of the ‘faithfulness’ of the patriarchs, to the very elaborate development of this latter theme (including the matriarchs as well) in TgN,F(P) (cf. TgJ on v. 9 and MRI both there and here). ‫( ויחלשׁ‬17.13) The rare word is preserved in 4QExc and SP (but not 4QpalExm, which is fragmentary here) and the Vss all render, as the context requires, with words for ‘put to flight’ (LXX ἐτρέψατο, Vulg fugavit) or ‘defeat’ (TgO,J, Sy tbr; TgN,G ‫)שיצא‬: cf. their renderings (except for Sy ḥlšʾ =



17.8-16

541

‘weak ones’) of ‫ חלושׁה‬in 32.18 and TgJ ‫ קטיל‬and Vulg qui vulnerabas in Isa. 14.12.12 In Joel 4.10 and Job 14.10 the equivalents are related to the alternative sense ‘be weak’, while at 32.18 TgO,J ‫ חלשׁין דמתברין‬combines the two senses. ‫( ואת־עמו‬17.13) By what can only be a coincidence these words were initially omitted by two representatives of the ‘Samaritan’ textual tradition and then restored, in the SP ms. Camb. 1846 immediately by the original scribe and in 4QpalExm above the line by a different scribe. In fact the phrase may be an ignorant addition by an early scribe – it was known to LXX (see below) and 4QExc – who thought that ‫ עמלק‬was an individual (only elsewhere in Gen. 36.12 [and 16?]; 1 Chr. 1.36): so Valentin, Aaron, pp. 161-62. Afterwards 4QpalExm has the addition ‫ויכם‬, which subsequently appeared in all SP mss and forms a more familiar combination with ‫( לפי־חרב‬cf. Num. 21.24; Deut. 13.16; 20.13; Josh. 10.28). The shorter and unusual text of MT and the other witnesses (including 4QExc) must, however, be more original. LXX καὶ πάντα τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ makes a typical modification (14.6 is especially similar); TgJ ‘for he cut off the heads of the warriors of his people’, follows MRI (ed. Lauterbach, p. 146), which was grappling with the sudden distinction between Amalek and ‘his people’ (cf. isolated mss of Sy and OL; also NJPS). ‫( לפי־חרב‬17.13) The text is not in doubt (cf. SP, 4QpalExm, 4QExc, Sy, Vulg), but a variety of interpretations are preserved in the Vss. LXX ἐν φόνῳ μαχαίρας (only elsewhere in Num. 21.24; Deut. 13.16; 20.13) probably thought that ‘slaughter’ was appropriate to the arch-enemy Amalek. Tgg took ‫ פי‬as a metonym for ‘word’, as it clearly is in v. 1 and elsewhere: ‘the word (‫ )פתגם‬of the sword’ (TgO,N,G) might mean ‘the law of war’ (Jastrow, p. 1250). But TgJ, following MRI again (p. 147), broke up the phrase to introduce a reference to Yahweh’s word (TgNmg is similar): ‘according to the mouth of the Memra of the Lord by killing with the sword’. 4QExc divides the text with an open line before the divine speech in v. 14 (cf. MT, SP), but 4QpalExm could only have had a short break here, if that (cf. DJD IX, p. 94). ‫( יהוה‬17.14) TgG,Nmg prefix ‘the Memra of’. ‫( זאת זכרון‬17.14) LXX (εἰς) and Vulg (ob, here indicating purpose) insert a preposition to indicate that ‫ זאת‬is a pronoun. TgO ‫ דא דוכרנא‬will intend the same (Stevenson §5.10) and the other Tgg may do so. Sy (except 5b1 and one other ms.) dwkrnʾ hnʾ, however, took ‫ זאת‬to be an attributive adjective, ‘this reminder’. TgN,G add ‫טב‬: see Text and Versions on 12.14 and AramB 2, p. 48 n. 12 and p. 75 n. 13.   According to R. Eliezer (as cited in MRI [Lauterbach, p. 147]) the word’s root letters pointed to the senses ‘made sick’ (‫)ויחל‬. ‘made to tremble’ (‫ויזע‬: perhaps a contextual interpretation of ‫ )ויחל‬and ‘crushed’ (‫)וישׁבר‬: the latter being the Heb. equivalent of Aram. ‫ תבר‬and perhaps an indirect testimony to the reading of TgO,J and Sy. 12

542

EXODUS 1–18

‫( בספר‬17.14) LXX ἐν βιβλίῳ and TgG ‫ בגו ספר‬clearly identify the indefinite meaning: the other Vss are ambiguous. ‫( ושׂים באזני יהושׁע‬17.14) On LXX δός for ‫ שׂים‬cf. Wevers, Notes, p. 271: no difference in Vorlage is involved. For ‫ באזני‬TgO and Sy have ‫קדם‬, which might seem to mean that the written text was to be placed ‘before’ Joshua. But both Vss use ‫ קדם‬for ‫ באזני‬with verbs of saying even with human hearers (cf. Gen. 23.16; 50.4; Exod. 11.2), so no difference in meaning from the Heb. need be intended. TgN,G,J follow the Heb. expression more closely. Sy adds ‘the son of Nun’ here (but not in vv. 9-10, 13). ‫( כי‬17.14) Vulg and Sy took ‫ כי‬in a causal sense; but the other Vss at least can be taken to mean ‘that’ (so Wevers, Notes, p. 271 for LXX ὁτι and AramB ad loc. for Tgg ‫ארום‬/‫)ארי‬. ‫( מחה אמחה‬17.14) TgN,G use the general word ‫שׁיצי‬, ‘destroy’, which they already used for ‫ חלשׁ‬in v. 13, in line with its wider use in PalTg compared with TgO,J. In TgNmg a second person pl. form appears: the wording is identical to TgN at Deut. 25.19 and may be more of a cross-reference than a textual variant. As often elsewhere Vulg has no separate equivalent to the inf. abs. (cf. 13.19; 15.26). ‫( מתחת השׁמים‬17.14) LXX ἐκ τῆς ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν understands γῆς and points to the intended sense of the idiom (Wevers, Notes, p. 272). ‫( מזבח‬17.15) LXX added κυρίῳ, but there is no support elsewhere for this accommodation to the pattern in Gen. 8.20; 12.7-8; 13.18, and Gen. 26.25 provides a parallel to the shorter expression of the Heb. here. ‫( ויקרא שׁמו‬17.15) LXX, Vulg, Sy and TgJ translate straightforwardly, and the same understanding is presupposed in both interpretations in MRI (ed. Lauterbach, pp. 159-60). But TgO,N,G(AA,J) render the text (with minor variations) as if it read (‫ויקרא בשׁם )יהוה‬, as in Gen. 12.8b, apparently as a way to avoid too close an association of ‫ יהוה‬with ‫( נסי‬which might also be what is intended by the paseq in MT): see the next note for a different approach to achieving the same end. ‫( יהוה נסי‬17.15) The original reading of 4QpalExm was simply ‫יהוה( נסי‬ was added by a later scribe). There is no obvious reason for accidental omission of ‫יהוה‬, but 4QpalExm probably made a similar slip (also corrected) in v. 13, which weakens the case for regarding ‫נסי‬, without ‫יהוה‬, as the most ancient reading. In such namings it is normal for a divine name or title to be included (cf. Gen. 22.14; 28.19; 33.20). None of the Vss exhibits the derivation of ‫ נסי‬from ‫נֵ ס‬, ‘banner, ensign’, which is generally accepted today as being the obvious sense offered by the BH lexicon.13 Perhaps it was ruled out as being impossible, even idolatrous, as a designation of God: Rashbam seems   On the readings of the Vss here and in v. 16 see also Houtman, ‘ “Yahweh is my Banner’”, pp. 111-14. An exception might be SamTgJ ‫נצועה‬, i.e. ‫= נצוחה‬ ‘victory’. But the related verb is used for ‫ חלשׁ‬in v. 13 and the translation may be based on that. 13



17.8-16

543

to have been the first to propose it. LXX μου καταφυγή (for the inverted word-order cf. 15.2) related ‫ נסי‬to ‫נוס‬, ‘flee’, instead (cf. Fritsch, p. 37, and the use of καταφυγή for ‫ מנוס‬in 2 Sam. 22.3; Jer. 16.19; Ps. 59.16), Vulg exaltatio mea probably to √‫נשׂא‬, ‘lift up’. The Aram. Vss all saw here the MH/Aram. meaning ‘sign, miracle’ (cf. MRI) and this was still taken for granted by Rashi and Ibn Ezra. Tgg other than TgJ, having taken ‫ יהוה‬as explicating the suffix of ‫שׁמו‬, read ‫ נסי‬as an attribute (a part.?) meaning ‘who did miracles for him [sc. Moses]’. TgJ (cf. Sy) was not so encumbered and continued to be guided by MRI, most likely to the sense ‘The Memra of the Lord is my miracle’, which it then explained with ‘because the miracle which the Place (cf. ‫ המקום‬in MRI here) performed was for my sake’ (AramB 2, p. 211 and nn. 23-24: it is less likely that TgJ followed the view [attributed to R. Eleazar of Modiʿim] that God was taken as the subject of ‫ ויקרא‬and said ‘my miracle’ with reference to himself). ‫( ויאמר‬17.16) LXX has no equivalent, and so links its distinctive rendering of the verse directly to v. 15 by ὅτι (= ‫)כי‬, ‘because’. The word is present in 4QpalExm and SP as well as MT and is assumed in all the other Vss: LXX probably omitted it as being unnecessary, since Moses continues to speak. ‫( כי‬17.16) So also SP and 4QpalExm. Vulg quia like LXX took ‫ כי‬to be causal, and this may also be the intention of TgJ’s ‫ארום‬. TgO,N,G,F have no equivalent, implying a recitative understanding of ‫כי‬. Sy hʾ, ‘behold’, like SamTgJ ‫הלא‬, envisages an ‘emphatic’ use. Finally R. Joshua in MRI (Lauterbach, p. 160) has )‫לכש(ישב‬, ‘when’ (cf. Segal §513). ‫( יד על כס יה‬17.16) At Qumran 4QpalExm has ‫ יד‬after ‫ כי‬and then a lacuna, while 4QExc preserves only the ‫ ל‬of ‫על‬, but with too little space between it and ‫ מלחמה‬for MT’s reading: it may, like SP, have read ‫( יד על כסא‬DJD XII, p. 122), which Sy ʾydʾ ʿl kwrsyʾ also presupposes.14 LXX ἐν χειρὶ κρυφαίᾳ implies a Vorlage with ‫ יד‬followed by ‫ כסיה‬as a single word, which was probably read as the pass. part. of ‫( כסה‬cf. GK §75c): ‫ על‬was either absent, ignored or possibly transposed (Propp, p. 615: cf. ἐν). The Three, Syh and other witnesses to the O-text add κυρίου to represent the separate word ‫ יה‬of MT. Vulg manus solii domini took the correction towards MT further, but still ignored ‫על‬. The phrase was taken, with et added after it, as a parallel subject to ‫ מלחמה‬of the ‘will be’ which is understood. Early Jewish interpretation (Tgg and MRI [Lauterbach, pp. 160-61]) mainly saw the phrase as defining the following words as an oath spoken (in TgJ by his Memra) from the throne of God, with MT’s reading being presupposed and ‫ יד‬taken as a cipher for an oath because of its association with swearing in BH (see the Explanatory Note).15 In modern 14   Ephrem’s text read dyh after ʾydʾ, which Weitzman (Syriac Version, p. 289) thought was the original Sy reading, based on a Vorlage like MT. 15   Two possibly related exceptions are ἡ δύναμις ἐπὶ θρόνον ἄχραντον (LXXFb), where δύναμις is used for ‫ יד‬in the sense of ‘power’ and ἄχραντον, ‘undefiled’ is (also) a substitute for God’s name (like ‫ יד‬in TgO,J); and R. Joshua’s

544

EXODUS 1–18

times AV and RV adopted the ‘oath’ interpretation, but the emendation of ‫ֵכּס‬ to ‫נֵ ס‬, first suggested by J. Clericus in his Pentateuchus sive Mosis prophetae libri quinque. 2. Exodus-Deuteronomium (Amsterdam, 1696), p. 77, makes the words into a battle-cry and has had widespread support (so still e.g. Childs, pp. 311-12; HAL, p. 465; Propp, p. 620).16 Other suggestions are to replace the unparalleled ‫ ֵכּס‬with the regular form )‫( ִכּ ֵסּ(א‬Dillmann, Beer) or to read *‫ֶכּ ֶסא‬ = ‘buttock’ (cf. Ar. kusʾun = ‘back part’) as part of an oath formula comparable to Gen. 24.2, 9 (NEB, REB; Brockington, HTOT, p. 11; D.W. Thomas, cited in DCH 4, p. 603). But each proposal has its weakness: to read ‫ נֵ ס‬is not only an unsupported conjecture but one which confuses Moses’ (or Israel’s) ‫נֵ ס‬, which is Yahweh, with Yahweh’s own ‫ ;נֵ ס‬to ‘restore’ the regular form disregards the readings of LXX, Sy and SP which know nothing of the ‫ יה‬of MT; while Ar. kusʾun is not attested in the specific sense of ‘buttock’, which was probably a product of G.R. Driver’s fertile imagination. The reading which apparently underlies MT, LXX, Sy and SP (and perhaps 4QExc) is the variant spelling of ‫ כסא‬as ‫( כסה‬1 Kgs 10.19 [2x]; Job 26.9 [here most likely a misreading of an original ‫‘ = ֶכּ ֶסא‬full moon’]), which when written plene as ‫ כסיה‬could give rise to the interpretations of LXX and MT (the latter with division into two words).17 SP (cf. Sy) simply regularised the spelling by replacing he with aleph. On the meaning see the Explanatory Note. ‫( מלחמה ליהוה‬17.16) There is no serious doubt about the original text, on which MT, SP, 4QExc and 4QpalExm agree, with close support from Sy and Vulg. The rephrasing of LXX (πολεμεῖ κύριος) and the more elaborate paraphrases and expansions of Tgg can readily be seen to be based on the same Heb. wording. TgO adds little to MT but characteristically avoids direct intervention of God in human affairs: ‘(that) it is determined that war shall be waged before the Lord…’ TgJ simply makes God’s Memra the agent for his making war. The PalTg, whose versions closely agree, go on, without denying God’s own involvement, to introduce the exploits of some human intermediaries, first Saul (1 Sam. 15) and then Mordecai and Esther (Esth. 7–9: because Haman ‘the Agagite’ [3.1, 10; 8.3, 5; 9.24] was regarded as an Amalekite).18 ‘When the Holy One, blessed be He, will sit upon the throne of his kingdom and his reign will prevail…’ (MRI, ibid.): cf. SamTgJ’s non-eschatological variant ‫הלא אתר על כרסי‬, where ‫( אתר‬cf. Heb. ‫ )המקום‬stands for ‫ יד‬and must be another periphrasis for ‘God’. 16   To harmonise the other way by reading ‫ ִכּ ְס ִאי‬for ‫ נִ ִסּי‬in v. 15 (so Van Seters, Life, p. 206) is much rarer and was rightly rejected by Noth (p. 115, ET, pp. 14344). 17   So it is not the case that ‘‫ יה‬is removed…in the Greek translation’ to avoid an anthropomorphism (Fritsch, pp. 25-26). According to C.D. Ginsburg (Introduction to the Hebrew Bible [London, 1897], pp. 382-83) medieval Palestinian scribes read ‫ כסיה‬as a single word. 18   R. Eliezer (MRI, ibid.) has the war extending from Moses to David (2 Sam. 1.13); see also the note below on ‫מדר דר‬.



17.8-16

545

‫( בעמלק‬17.16) Again there is no doubt about the text: but Tgg amplify to ‘with (those of) the house of Amalek’. ‫( מדר דר‬17.16) There is considerable variation in detail among the witnesses, but it is probably all due to dissatisfaction with the expression or the apparent meaning of MT’s reading rather than to an older variant reading. For this very reason MT is most likely to be original (on its meaning see Note u on the translation). SP ‫ מדר ודר‬introduces a waw, as was becoming the preferred idiom already in LBH (cf. GK §123c) and Sy mn dr dryn follows an Aram. idiom for totality. 4QpalExm just replaces )‫ מ(ן‬with ‫ עד‬to make the meaning explicitly future (cf. TgN etc. with ‫)לדר דרין‬. LXX ἀπὸ γενεῶν εἰς γενεάς and, closer to the Heb., Vulg a generatione in generationem are content to attribute a future sense only to the second ‫דר‬. In TgO,J the problematic ‫ מן‬is understood not temporally but of separation and a form of the verb ‫שׁיצי‬, ‘destroy’, is prefixed to indicate this (cf. the specific interpretations of the phrase in MRI, ibid., which TgJ combines into a pastiche with a threefold destruction). Both 4QpalExm (mid-line) and 4QExc (end of line) seem to have had a short division before 18.1 (DJD IX, p. 96; XII, p. 122).

C h ap t er 1 8 . 1 - 1 2 Th e C om i n g of J et h r o an d Fu rth e r C eleb r at i on of t he Exodus

The new section is marked at the beginning by divisions in MT, SP, 4QpalExm and 4QExc, which correspond to the major change in subject-matter and the (re-)introduction of Jethro as a leading participant in the narrative. In MT there is no break after v. 12, presumably because Jethro continues to play a central role in the following section. But SP and probably 4QpalExm (see Text and Versions) did have a division here to mark the fresh topic that is introduced in v. 13 and the time-lapse before it. Within vv. 1-12 too SP (after v. 7) and 4QpalExm (after vv. 2 and 11) make sub-divisions in the narrative, while MT treats it as a single whole. So does 4QExc apparently, but its preserved text ends within v. 12 and it is impossible to be sure whether it had a break before v. 13 or not. The section presents a continuous narrative in eight stages, but it also contains numerous ‘flashbacks’, both to Moses’ family history (which is also kept in view by the frequent designation of Jethro as Moses’ father-in-law: see the Explanatory Note on v. 1) and to the Exodus story itself. (i) Jethro, who is here also called ‘the priest of Midian’, hears the news of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt (v. 1); (ii) he sets out with Moses’ wife and children, of whom further details are given, some recapitulated from ch. 2 and others introduced here for the first time (vv. 2-4); (iii) on arrival at ‘the mountain of God’, where Moses now is, Jethro informs him of his family’s presence (vv. 5-6); (iv) Moses comes out, greets him in the traditional way and takes him into his tent (v. 7); (v) Moses recounts the story of the Exodus and subsequent events to Jethro (v. 8); (vi) Jethro rejoices at Yahweh’s goodness to Israel in delivering them from Egyptian rule (v. 9); (vii) still speaking to Moses (cf. ‘you’) he praises Yahweh and acknowledges his superiority over all other gods (vv. 10-11); (viii) Jethro brings offerings to God and is the focal point of the sacrificial meal that follows, in which Aaron and the elders of Israel also participate (v. 12). It is remarkable that after Jethro has brought Moses’ family to him, the



18.1-12

547

narrative says no more of them but turns to focus on Jethro himself, the celebration of the Exodus and the worship of Yahweh. But it is not a total surprise, for already in v. 1 it is the knowledge (presumably without all the details) of the Exodus that has prompted Jethro to set out on his journey and the deliverance has been presented as deriving from the intervention of Yahweh. The fact that Yahweh is sometimes (vv. 1, 3, 12) referred to here as ‘God’ (Heb. ʾelōhîm), as he is throughout vv. 13-27, has traditionally been attributed to the fact that Jethro is a non-Israelite, but in vv. 1-12 at least the occurrences are all in the narrator’s words and should be related to his standpoint rather than Jethro’s. In modern critical study of Exodus this use of ‘God’ by the narrator was, as elsewhere, from early on seen as a clue to the older source used by the compiler at this point. Since the passage contains no distinctive marks of P (the mention of sacrifices as such not being exclusive to P) and P has in any case already ceased to use ‘God’ as a title for Yahweh, it was attributed by Knobel (Num.-Jos., pp. 532-33) to his Rechtsbuch (the E of later scholars), except for v. 2b, a parenthetical gloss to harmonise this passage with the alternative account in 4.20, 24-26, which stated that Moses had taken his family with him when he returned to Egypt from Midian. The presence of an extract from E in this passage was soon taken up by Wellhausen (Composition, pp. 80-81) and Dillmann (pp. 184-85) and was practically unchallenged until the upheavals in Pentateuchal scholarship in the 1970s: a distinction from the alternative account (of J) was also seen in the name given to Moses’ fatherin-law (not Reuel, as in 2.18 and Num. 10.29) and in the number of Moses’ children (two, not one as in 2.22 and 4.24-26). But only a few scholars (e.g. Beer, Hyatt and more recently Propp) attributed the whole section to E. The occurrences of the name Yahweh alongside ‘God’, often in repetitious verses (vv. 1, 8, 9, 10), and for some scholars vocabulary arguments as well were taken to indicate the work of a second author. The more popular of two explanations for a time was that a J version had been drawn on by the compiler too (Dillmann, Carpenter/Harford-Battersby, Holzinger, Smend (J2), Gressmann, McNeile, Eissfeldt, Fohrer [Einleitung11, p. 167]). For example, Gressmann attributed vv. 1b, 6, 7, 8bβ, 9a, 10a and 11 to J and most of the rest to E (Anfänge, pp. 86-90). But agreement about the analysis proved very difficult to reach and according to some scholars several verses were the work of a redactor, so that even less remained of each of the original versions of the story. As a result opinion shifted to the view that a single account (attributed to E) had been modified by the addition of ‘Yahwistic’ sections (so already Wellhausen, who was followed by Baentsch [pp. 162-65] and then much later by Noth [pp. 117-18, ET, pp. 146-47; ÜGP, p. 39], Fritz, Childs, Jenks [pp. 44-45], Schmidt [EdF, pp. 115-16], Houtman [p. 397] and Baden

548

EXODUS 1–18

[Composition, p. 121 with n. 92]). The number and extent of these additions varied from scholar to scholar: Graupner’s analysis (Elohist, pp. 95-100: cf. C. Frevel, ‘ “Jetzt habe ich erkannt, dass YHWH grosser ist als alle Götter”. Exodus 18 und seine kompositionsgeschichtliche Stellung im Pentateuch’, BZ 47 [2003], pp. 3-22) is perhaps the most thoroughgoing and it leaves only vv. 1a, 2a, 3abα, 4a, 5-7, 8aαbα, 12 (minus the burnt offering and Aaron) for the original account. Rudolph in 1938 had already challenged the fine distinctions which underlay both these kinds of analysis and argued for the essential unity of the passage: only vv. 3b-4 were intrusive, having originally appeared in toto in 2.22 (Elohist, pp. 37-39). Since he had already satisfied himself that there were no divergent traditions in chs. 2–4 and he found (or made) reasons for thinking that all the occurrences of ‘God’ here had been substituted for ‘Yahweh’ (he did not explain why), he had no problem in attributing the whole section to J (compare his similar tour de force on vv. 13-27). Van Seters came to the same conclusion (Life, pp. 205-12), with the exception of vv. 2b and 3b-4 (p. 210). The idea that the section is essentially a unity has been taken up by Blum (see his argument in Studien, p. 158 n. 253), his student V. Haarmann (YHWHVerehrer, pp. 72-75) and Albertz (pp. 299-301). Blum initially thought that, while the passage was inserted where it is at a very late stage of the composition of the Pentateuch, it came from an old biography of Moses which had also been used by Kd in chs. 3–4 (pp. 155-56). But he now attributes the composition too of 18.1-12 to a post-Priestly redactional layer (cf. his ‘Literarische Verbindung’, pp. 127-30, 136-37), a conclusion which Haarmann and Albertz have followed. It was also the view of K. Schmid (Erzväter, pp. 235, 252 n. 261) and Kratz (Komposition, pp. 153, 247, 300-301). On the other hand Levin has found a place for the passage (but only a core consisting of vv. 5*, 7-8a, 10aαb, 11a, 27: the rest being later additions of an indeterminate origin) in the narrative of his exilic Yahwist (Der Jahwist, pp. 359-61), where it offered a positive testimony from an outsider to Yahweh’s deliverance of Israel, comparable to those of Abimelech, Laban and others (ibid., pp. 201-202). This implies a similar historical setting to that envisaged for the story in Van Seters’s Yahwist, Johnstone’s D-work (Chronicles and Exodus, pp. 257-58) and in Dozeman’s Non-P History (pp. 361-62, 400), but they treat it as a unity and do not analyse its origins in detail (see below on Johnstone’s advocacy of the ‘transposition’ theory; Dozeman allows for a basis in ‘a independent tradition of worship at the mountain of God’). Alongside these literary analyses, indirect support for a pre-exilic date for the passage has come from a number of studies of vv. 13-26 in the context of Israelite legal history and particularly the history of judicial institutions (cf. Knierim, ‘Exodus 18’ [see also ZAW 77 (1965), pp. 29-30]; Crüsemann, Die Tora, pp. 96-121, ET, pp. 76-98; Jackson, Wisdom-Laws, pp. 422-30; see further his ‘Law in the Ninth Century’). Although the conclusions proposed apply in the first place to the second half of Exodus 18 (and they will be more fully dealt with in the next section of the commentary), the close connections



18.1-12

549

between its two parts both at the ‘join’ in v. 13 (and also v. 27) and in numerous shared features, including the use of the title ‘God’ (Heb. ʾelōhîm), make it highly probable that at least the nucleus of each part comes from the same literary and historical setting. In particular vv. 13-26 would ‘hang in the air’ without an introduction that brought Jethro (who is not even named in vv. 13-26) back into the narrative after his long absence from it, so that vv. 1-12 can be presumed to go back to a time which is at least as early as that which is presupposed in vv. 13-26. The studies referred to have all argued that the latter passage reflects changes which took place in the monarchy period, when older means of settling legal disputes were replaced by a two-level system of courts.

It is evident that an older debate about the unity and composition of this section of narrative has been largely, but not completely, superseded by one about its date of origin. The implications of its connections with passages earlier in Exodus have continued to play an important part in scholarly discussion, though sometimes with very different results. We turn now to an evaluation of the main arguments that have been put forward about these issues. The overall coherence of the narrative is a strong argument in favour of its unity. The disappearance of Moses’ wife and children after v. 6 and the worship of Yahweh by Jethro at the end are certainly surprising, but not sufficient to constitute arguments against this. The variation between ‘God’ and ‘Yahweh’ is unusual, but it is notable that ‘Yahweh’ always occurs when the Exodus is being referred to and that the statement about his superiority to other gods in v. 11 could not have been made without using his name. It is only because ‘Yahweh’ sometimes appears in verses which seem repetitive that the possibility of ‘Yahwistic additions’ gained any plausibility. However, ‘God’ and ‘Yahweh’ appear together only in v. 1 and in v. 8 ‘Yahweh’ appears in both halves of the verse. While some amplification of the wording might have occurred (especially in v. 10), it is shown in the Explanatory Notes on vv. 1, 6-8 and 9-11 that grammatical and stylistic factors may be responsible for much of the character of the present text (see also Haarmann, YHWH-Verehrer, pp. 72-75). A different kind of question is raised by vv. 2-4 and their relationship to the earlier references to Moses’ marriage and family in chs. 2–4. Much recent writing on these chapters has been influenced by newer work on them by Blum and K. Schmid (on which see the introductions to 3.1-12, 3.13-15, 3.16-22, 4.1-9, 4.10-17 and 4.18-31). Blum initially saw 3.1–4.18 as a largely unified account of Moses’ commission which was inserted by the author of Kd into an

550

EXODUS 1–18

older narrative which originally proceeded directly from 2.23aα to 4.19 (Studien, pp. 20-28). Subsequently, following the proposal of Schmid and others that both 3.1–4.18 and 4.27-31 were post-Priestly in origin, Blum maintained his earlier view for 3.1-22 but accepted that the whole of 4.1-17 and 4.27-31 was post-Priestly in origin (cf. ‘Literarische Verbindung’, pp. 123-34). Some similarities between 4.27-28 and Jethro’s meeting with Moses in Exod. 18.1-12 have led Blum (ibid., pp. 136-37) and more recently Haarmann (YHWHVerehrer, pp. 75-77) to speak of them as Parallelszenen and to deduce a similarly late date for 18.1-12. These theses about Exodus 3–4 have been discussed earlier in the commentary and found to be unpersuasive. The older view that the main narrative portions in those chapters (as well as in ch. 2) derive from two parallel accounts of the episodes concerned remains compelling and will form the basis of our treatment of 18.1-12. The naming of Moses’ father-in-law as Jethro in 18.1ff. attaches this narrative to the strand of Exodus 3–4 to which 3.1 (where ‘the mountain of God’ is also mentioned) and 4.18 belong, while distinguishing it from 2.15b-22 (and also from Num. 10.29-32), where Zipporah’s father is called Reuel (v. 18). These are respectively the E and J strands of the narrative. An ascription of 18.1-12 to E fits well with its use (even if alongside the divine name) of ‘God’ (Heb. ʾelōhîm), while its attribution of two sons to Moses rather than one is a further difference from J (2.22; 4.25-26). The Parallelszene in 4.27-28 has already been assigned to E: it also shares with 18.1-12 the presumption that geographically ‘the mountain of God’ is somewhere between Midian and Egypt (whatever exact location for the mountain, if any, is presupposed). It is also noteworthy that Aaron is prominent in both episodes (cf. 18.12), whatever the significance of that may be. In its present form 18.2 implies that Moses had initially taken Zipporah and the boys back with him to Egypt but had then sent her back to Midian (unless [though it is unlikely] the final words of the verse mean ‘after she had been left behind’ in Midian).1 It is in fact J which speaks of Moses taking Zipporah and his (one) son back with him (4.20a, 24-26) and nothing is ever said afterwards about their being sent back 1   This was Eissfeldt’s view (pp. 144*, 272*: Verlassung) and it is mentioned as a possibility by Propp, p. 629, although he interprets the words in yet another way (see Note c on the translation).



18.1-12

551

to Midian until here: in E Moses seems to return to Egypt alone (4.18, 20b). The words ‘after she had been sent back’ are placed awkwardly in the middle of the list of those whom Jethro brings with him and look like a secondary addition made to reconcile the different scenarios in the two sources when they were combined (RJE).2 If so, then here too there would be nothing in the original account to suggest that Moses took his family back with him to Egypt: they remained in Midian.3 As for the date of the narrative, a final decision will have to await consideration of vv. 13-26. But it has no Deuteronomic or Priestly features, nor any other characteristics that would require a late date. Haarmann cites three features of it as confirming the post-Priestly setting that he has deduced from his (and others’) assessment of the parallels with 4.27-31 – an argument which we have already rejected – but none of them is at all conclusive. The fact that Moses is credited with two sons rather than one may perhaps indicate a later development in the tradition than 2.22 and 4.25-26, but nothing more: the inclusion of both names in 1 Chr. 23.15 (also in v. 17 and 26.25) at most shows that the Chronicler knew the Pentateuch in something like its present form. Similarly the occurrence of the verb ‘acted arrogantly’ (zîd: v. 11) in Neh. 9.10, which is not its earliest attestation, is probably due to the author’s familiarity with an older text, as often elsewhere in this prayer (cf. M.J. Boda, Praying the Tradition: The Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9 [BZAW 277; Berlin and New York, 1999], p. 119). Finally, the ‘awkwardness’ of the present position of Exodus 18 proves nothing about its origin, whether it has been moved from an original location elsewhere in the Pentateuch (as many have thought) or always formed a prelude to the main Sinai narrative (for further discussion of this issue see below). One other parallel, mentioned by Childs (p. 323: though not as an argument for a late date), is between Jethro’s confession and the post-exilic Ps. 135.5: but again there is no need to envisage dependence on this late text, as the idea is found earlier elsewhere (see the Explanatory Note).   So also Blum (Studien, p. 158 n. 253) and Haarmann (p. 71), even though they do not accept the explanation in terms of J and E. 3   Proposals for other secondary elements in the section, such as the elimination of some designations of Jethro by Noth (pp. 116-18, ET, p. 144-46) and the excision of ‘a burnt offering’ and ‘Aaron’ in v. 12 (Valentin, Aaron, pp. 385, 38991; Graupner, p. 99) are unsupported by convincing arguments. 2

552

EXODUS 1–18

The placement of this section (and even more so vv. 13-27) before the main Sinai narrative begins in 19.1 has long been a subject of discussion. Already in MRI some comments on the passage place Jethro’s arrival after the revelation of the law (Lauterbach, pp. 162, 164) and this view was taken by several of the medieval rabbis: Ibn Ezra was the most insistent (cf. Rottzoll 2, pp. 483-87). He cited (1) the offering of sacrifices without any prior mention of the building of an altar (v. 12); (2) the proclamation of statutes and laws as having already begun (v. 16: this like [4] can more conveniently be discussed in the introduction to the next section); (3) Jethro’s arrival when the people were already encamped at ‘the mountain of God’ (v. 5: ‫העד הנאמן‬, ‘the surest proof’); and (4) the clear implication of Num. 10.29 (Jethro being identified with Hobab by Ibn Ezra) and Deut. 1.9-18 that Jethro was (still?) with the Israelites shortly before the departure from Sinai/Horeb and that this was when the changes made according to vv. 17-26 here were put into practice. Much the same issues led most of the critics of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to a similar conclusion, even though the development of source criticism caused it to be expressed in a different way (and occasionally to be rejected altogether: cf. Smend, Erzählung, pp. 152, 155; Eissfeldt, p. 60): it was thought to be in the E source, with its mention of ‘the mountain of God’ in v. 5, that the episode(s) had once appeared later in the narrative. Growing interest in the preliterary stages of the tradition even led to its original location being found not at ‘the mountain of God’ at all, but at Kadesh (Gressmann, Anfänge, pp. 89-94: so already Wellhausen, Prolegomena4, pp. 348-49, ET, pp. 342-43). But later, with Noth (ÜGP, pp. 150-55) and those who followed him, it was the sharp differences in character and content between the Jethrotraditions and the main Sinai-tradition that attracted most attention, rather than speculation about where they might once have stood in a written account (so e.g. in Schmidt, Exodus, Sinai und Mose, pp. 115-18: and see the next section of this introduction).4 Only in the studies of Van Seters (Life, pp. 208-12) and Johnstone (Chronicles and Exodus, pp. 257-59), with their renewed focus on the written stages of composition and the Priestly author as giving fresh 4   For Blum, who already in Studien, pp. 152-63, saw the chapter as an isolated and late post-Priestly addition to the Pentateuch, this is even more naturally the case.



18.1-12

553

shape to the earlier narratives, and the commentary of N. Sarna (1991, pp. 97-98) did the hypothesis of an original placement later in the Sinai-narrative reappear. Other recent commentators such as Houtman (pp. 400-401) and Propp (pp. 627-28) have strongly opposed such an idea. Looked at in the light of the scholarship of the past century, the old arguments may seem no longer quite as compelling as they once did. The itinerary notes in 19.1-2a are attributed by many to a Priestly or Deuteronomistic hand (most likely v. 1 is from P and v. 2a from Dtr), and the older story seems to have arranged narratives about the wilderness in a sequence that did not associate them with a series of places along a route. True, 19.2b probably belongs to neither of the later compositions, but if the older narrative was composed from two or more earlier sources, the ‘premature’ mention of Israel at ‘the mountain of God’ in 18.5 could be due to the difficulties of reconciling their different presentations of events. This might also explain the appearance of Hobab (most likely the son of Moses’ father-in-law in view of 2.18) at the end of the Sinai-narrative in Num. 10.29: the J and E versions may have had different settings as well as different names and different roles for Moses’ Midianite in-laws in their narratives. The same might apply, to anticipate a later discussion, to Deuteronomy’s placement of the appointment of judges when the Israelites were about to leave Mount Horeb/Sinai, especially as it avoids all mention of Jethro’s role (as of Moses’ Midianite connections in general). Moreover, the present placing of Jethro’s reappearance is from various points of view explicable and even appropriate. As Ibn Ezra already saw, it provides a welcome antidote to the xenophobic attitude to Israel’s neighbours in 17.8-16. It is natural too that Jethro should restore Moses’ wife and family to him as early as possible. And where it is, as Sarna and especially Dozeman (pp. 361-63, 400-401) and Albertz (p. 298) have emphasised, the story plays an important transitional role by, on the one hand, presenting a further celebration of the Exodus deliverance and, on the other (in vv. 13-26), introducing more strongly than hitherto (cf. 15.25; 16.4, 28) the themes of worship and law that are to be so central in the non-Priestly Sinai narrative.5 5   The fullest explanation of this aspect of the whole chapter, from a mainly literary perspective, is provided by E. Carpenter, ‘Exodus 18: Its Structure, Style,

554

EXODUS 1–18

The contribution of the story to the history of religion has been assessed in two very different ways. Traditionally it was seen as an exemplary account of the conversion of a foreigner to Judaism (as in the Targumim and MRI: see Text and Versions passim), even though Jethro does not adopt any distinctively Jewish practices, such as circumcision (contrast 12.44, 48). Recently this approach has been taken up, in the context of a post-exilic origin which he envisages for the passage, by Haarmann, but in a modified form which sees Jethro as analogous to the ‘righteous Gentile’ of later rabbinic law: he does not become a member of the people of God but he worships the God of Israel (YHWH-Verehrer, pp. 33-42, 91-94). In this his portrayal is comparable to those of Rahab, Naaman and the sailors in Jonah 1 and to the foreign worshippers who are envisaged in 1 Kgs 8.41-43 and Isa. 56.1-8. Comparable perhaps, but also distinct, both in the likelihood that Jethro’s story (like Naaman’s?) comes from an earlier period and in the special relationship to Moses in which he is allowed to stand. Both these characteristics have encouraged another understanding of the Jethro traditions which has been much more widespread, though by no means uncontroversial, in modern scholarship. The narratives of chs. 2–4 and the setting of Moses’ call by Yahweh to lead his people out of Egypt in the midst of them have already drawn attention to the traditional, and perhaps historical and religious, connection between Moses, Israel and the Midianites (see briefly in the introduction to 2.11-22). Since the mid-nineteenth century this has, with other converging evidence, been taken to point to Midianite (or Kenite: see below) religious beliefs and practices as the seed out of which Israel’s very different worship of Yahweh grew (on the origins of the hypothesis see J. Blenkinsopp, ‘The Midianite–Kenite Hypothesis Revisited and the Origins of Judah’, JSOT 33 [2008], pp. 131-53 [132-33]). Classic expositions of this view were given by K. Budde, Religion of Israel to the Exile (New York, 1899), pp. 17-25, and H.H. Rowley, From Joseph to Joshua (London, 1948), pp. 148-60, and more recently it has received the support of scholars such as R. Smend (Jahwekrieg, pp. 95-96, ET, pp. 131-34), Schmidt, (Exodus, Sinai und Mose, pp. 110-30) and J. Blenkinsopp (art. cit.: for criticism of the theory see below). Motifs and Function in the Book of Exodus’, in id. (ed.), A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content. Essays in Honor of George W. Coats (JSOTSup 240; Sheffield, 1997), pp. 91-108.



18.1-12

555

The status of Jethro (or Reuel as the name of Moses’ father-inlaw is given in the alternative tradition in Exod. 2.18 and Num. 10.29) as a Midianite priest and his apparently leading role in the sacrifice to Yahweh in Exod. 18.12 have been the central pillars of the theory. But support for it has also been claimed from Yahweh’s close association with Sinai, Horeb and ‘the mountain of God’ (whether these are different names for the same mountain or, as some have held, different places) in the region to the south of Palestine, and especially his designation as ‘the one of Sinai’ (Heb. zeh sînāy) in Judg. 5.5 and Ps. 68.9; from Egyptian texts referring to the šśw yhw3 in the same region (on whom see Albertz, Religionsgeschichte, p. 83, ET, p. 51, and the references in n. 51); and (in relation to the Kenite version of the theory) from the ethnographic element in the story of Cain as a worshipper of Yahweh in Gen. 4.1-16 and the associations of descendants of Hobab the Kenite, who is also described as the father-in-law of Moses (a change from Num. 10.29), with tribal traditions of early Israel (Judg. 4.11; cf. 1.16). In addition Schmidt has argued that Moses’ Midianite connections provide the necessary traditio-historical bridge between Yahweh the God of Sinai/Horeb, who was previously unknown to Israel, and the understanding of Yahweh as the God of the Exodus and the God of Israel (Exodus, Sinai und Mose, pp. 124-30). Such connections become the more plausible in the context of the broader arguments of M. Leuenberger, ‘Jhwhs Herkunft aus dem Süden. Archäologische Befunde – biblische Überlieferungen – historische Korrelationen’, ZAW 122 (2010), pp. 1-19. The theory has, on the other hand, often been questioned. Already Rowley had to answer criticisms from scholars such as T.J. Meek and M. Buber and more recently it has been challenged by C.H.W. Brekelmans (‘Exodus XVIII and the Origins of Yahwism in Israel’, OTS 10 [1954], pp. 215-24), R. de Vaux (Histoire ancienne 1, pp. 313-21, ET, pp. 330-38), Childs (pp. 322-24) and Haarmann (pp. 77-81, though only with reference to Exod. 18.112). Others (e.g. Van Seters, Life, pp. 208, 211) pass it by in favour of a much more speculative political interpretation. Nevertheless, while it cannot be more than a hypothesis, it does provide a plausible response to the otherwise unanswered question about the pre-Mosaic worship of Yahweh and a satisfying understanding of Exodus 18.1-12 as reflecting, in the person of Jethro and the words and actions attributed to him, Israel’s take-over of an existing cult

556

EXODUS 1–18

and its transformation into the historical and covenantal religion of the Pentateuchal tradition.6 In one sense, and it is an important one, 18.1-12 provides a second celebration of the Exodus as Yahweh’s deliverance of Israel (vv. 8-12 with v. 1 as preparatory). Indeed it can be seen as the first comprehensive celebration of the Exodus story as a whole, since the hymns of Exodus 15 confine their theme to the specific, and final, overthrow of Egyptian power at the sea, which is only one aspect (if our reading of v. 11 is correct) of Yahweh’s mighty acts here. But there is much more to the story than even this, for it is not by chance that the celebrant is a Midianite, indeed a Midianite priest. He cannot, like Rahab or Naaman, be merely an example of the ‘righteous Gentile’ of rabbinic thought. In him, somewhat veiled it is true, and in his words ‘Now I know that Yahweh is greater than all the gods’, now (that is) that he has heard the Exodus story, there is also preserved the memory that Israel itself, who continued to tell that story, was indebted to a foreign people for the name of its God and the knowledge of his original dwelling-place on earth. 1 Jethro the priest of Midian, Moses’ father-in-law, heard ofa all that God had done for Moses and Israel his people, (namely) thatb Yahweh had brought Israel out from Egypt. 2 So Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took Zipporah the wife of Moses [after she had been sent awayc] 3 and her two sons, of whom the name of one was Gershom, for he (sc. Moses) had said, ‘I have been a displaced persond in a foreign land’. 4 The name of the othere was Eliezer, for (he had said), ‘The God of my father is my helpf and he delivered me from Pharaoh’s sword’. 5 Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, and his sons and his wife cameg to Moses, to the desert where he was camping at the mountain of Godh. 6 He said to Moses, ‘I, your father-in-law Jethro, am comingi to you, and your wifej and her two sons with her’. 7 So Moses came out to   By contrast, the short-lived explanation of the sacrificial meal in v. 12 as a ‘covenant meal’ cementing an alliance between Midian and Israel (cf. Brekelmans, art. cit.; F.C. Fensham, ‘Did a Treaty between the Israelites and the Kenites Exist?’, BASOR 175 [1964], pp. 51-54; A. Cody, ‘Exodus 18.12: Jethro Accepts a Covenant with the Israelites’, Bib 49 [1968], pp. 153-66) and the specific proposal to connect the episode with Israel’s sojourn at Kadesh, recently revived by Blenkinsopp (art. cit., pp. 144-48), are quite unfounded. 6



18.1-12

557

meet his father-in-law. He bowed downk and kissed him, they asked each other about their welfarel and they went into the tent. 8 Moses recounted to his father-in-law all that Yahweh had done to Pharaoh and Egypt for the sake ofm Israel, all the hardshipn which had come upon them on their journey, from which Yahweh had delivered them. 9 Jethro rejoicedo at all the good which Yahweh had done for Israel, in thatp he had delivered them from the powerq of the Egyptians. 10 Jethro said, ‘Blessed be Yahweh, who has delivered you [pl.] from the power of the Egyptians and from the power of Pharaoh, who delivered the people from under the power of the Egyptians!r 11 Now I know that Yahweh is greater than all the gods, sfor through what they had used arrogantly over thems.’ 12 Then Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, broughtt a burnt-offering and sacrifices for God, and Aaron and all the elders of Israel came to eat a mealu with Moses’ father-in-law before God.

Notes on the Translation a. Heb. ‫וישׁמע‬. Here ‫ שׁמע‬has the rarer, extended sense ‘hear of’, as e.g. in 1 Sam. 3.11; 1 Kgs 19.11. b. The ‫כי‬-clause is here explicative of what had been said in general terms before; compare the similar amplification with ‫ אשׁר‬in v. 9. c. Heb. ‫אחר שׁלוחיה‬. The noun ‫ שׁלוחים‬occurs only three times in BH, always in the pl.: in 1 Kgs 9.16 and Mic. 1.14 the association with ‫נתן‬, ‘give’, indicates the sense ‘parting gift’, specifically ‘dowry’: the context of judgment in Mic. 1.14 has suggested the rendering ‘divorce’ to some (Ges18, p. 1358: cf. below on the use of the verb ‫)שׁלח‬, but the expression is in any case metaphorical and an ironic ‘dowry’ is at least as plausible. The word occurs as both sing. and pl. in MH for ‘sending away’ and also ‘allowing to go, release’ (Jastrow, p. 1563), but never ‘divorce’. In Ug. the unique ṯlḫh in KTU 1.24.47 (a broken context) has been taken to mean ‘(her) dowry’ in view of the setting of a wedding (e.g. Gibson, CML2, pp. 129, 160), but the verb for ‘send etc.’ is always spelt šlḥ in Ug. and ṯlḫh is probably not connected with it: it may be the name of a deity (DULAT, p. 906). Here the use with ‫ אחר‬implies that an event or action is meant (see GK §124f for other such plurals, even if the explanation given is not always appropriate), the nature of which could correspond to any of the many senses of ‫ שׁלח‬Piel (note ‫ וישׁלח‬in v. 27): there is no particular reason to suggest that a formal divorce is intended (as with the verb in Deut. 22.19, 29; 24.1, 3; Jer. 3.1, 8; Mal. 2.16), and the references to Zipporah as still Moses’ wife (vv. 2, 5 and 6) are against it: cf. Houtman, p. 404. On the precise meaning and circumstances see further in the Explanatory Note. In view of the difficulties with the normal understanding of the phrase,

558

EXODUS 1–18

G. Del Olmo Lete suggested that ‫ שׁלוחים‬might have the sense ‘dowry’ here too (perhaps derived from the sense ‘give, bestow’ for ‫שׁלח‬, as sometimes in Ug.: so A.S. van der Woude, ‘I Reg 20 34’, ZAW 76 [1964], pp. 188-91 [190]; cf. DULAT, p. 816) and that ‫ אחר‬here means ‘with’ as occasionally in Ug. and elsewhere in BH (‘ “ʾaḥar šillûḥèhā” (Ex 18,2)’, Bib 51 [1970], pp. 414-16). The latter suggestion was made for a number of Heb. instances without reference to Ug. by R.B.Y. Scott in ‘Secondary Meanings of ‫אחר‬, after, behind’, JTS 50 (1949), pp. 178-79 (cf. HAL, p. 34), and was subsequently taken up in the light of Ug. usage by M. Dahood (e.g. Psalms III [AB 17A; Garden City, 1970], p. 390: cf. DULAT, pp. 39-40) and more fully by Del Olmo Lete in ‘La preposición ʾaḥar/ʾaḥarê (cum) en ugaritíco y hebreo’, Claretianum 10 (1970), pp. 339-60. But the Ug. passages cited (KTU 1.24.32 and 1.14.4.46 par.) do not in fact require this sense and serious doubts were raised by E. Jenni about its presence in Heb. (THAT 1, 112 = TLOT 1, p. 84): it has not been included in Ges18 or DCH. Attractive therefore as Del Olmo Lete’s translation ‘with her dowry’ might be, it rests on uncertain linguistic foundations. Propp (p. 629) adopts the ‘dowry’ interpretation (like some older Jewish interpreters) but renders ‫ אחר‬in the usual way: this will hardly do, as it leaves the text stating the obvious. d. Heb. ‫גר‬. On the meaning see Note dd on the translation of 2.11-22. e. Heb. ‫האחד‬. When the expression is repeated, as also in 2 Sam. 14.6 and 1 Kgs 12.29, the meaning is ‘the one…the other’; in Exod. 26.19, 21, 25 the idiom is related but different. f. Heb. ‫ בעזרי‬is a further case of beth essentiae, as in 6.3 (see Note d on the translation of 6.1-9) but with what BDB, p. 88, calls the ‘primary predicate’, which expresses the nature of the subject rather than an attribute: this is found especially often with expressions of help and support (cf. Pss. 54.6; 118.7; 146.5; prob. Hos. 13.9). g. Heb. ‫ויבא‬, with the sing. verb agreeing with the first element of a composite subject that follows (GK §146f). h. Heb. ‫הר האלהים‬, with the location expressed by an ‘accusative of local determination’ (JM §126h), perhaps uniquely with ‫( הר‬contrast 4.27). The preceding ‫ שׁם‬may have made the omission of ‫ ב‬easier here. i. Heb. ‫בא‬: the part., as most often, has a present durative sense, implying that Jethro here sends a message ahead of him. j. Heb. ‫ואשׁתך‬. For the waw concomitantiae cf. GK §154a note (b) and more fully Driver, Samuel2, p. 55 (also BDB, p. 253). This is a stylistic feature and need not mark a secondary addition. k. Heb. ‫וישׁתחו‬. On the discussion over whether the root is ‫ שׁחה‬or ‫ חוה‬see Note cc on the translation of 4.18-31. The form here is the apocopated third person sing. masc. of the waw consecutive imperfect. As is pointed out in GK §75kk, the vocalisation at the end developed in the same way as in the noun ‫( שׁחו‬and possibly also the short form ‫[יהו‬-] of the divine name Yahweh).



18.1-12

559

Although the verb is widely used of the worship of a god (as in 4.31 and probably 12.27; cf. 20.5 etc.), it also represented a gesture of respect towards a fellow human being (11.8). l. For ‫ שׁלום‬in the sense of ‘well-being, welfare’ cf. 4.18: the sense ‘peace’ may be a secondary development (see TWAT 8, 12-46 [18] = TDOT 15, pp. 13-49 [19]). To ask after someone’s ‫ שׁלום‬is a common idiom in BH (e.g. Gen. 43.27; Judg. 18.15; 2 Sam. 11.7) and it is also attested in epigraphic Hebrew (AHI 2.18.3), where ‫ שׁלום‬appears in a variety of epistolary formulae of greeting (see AHI, p. 495; 2, p. 218). m. Heb. ‫על אודת‬, a compound preposition incorporating a noun ‫ א(ו)דה‬which does not occur separately in BH. The plene spelling in the first syllable is found only here and in the textually corrupt 2 Sam. 13.16. Ar. ʾaddā, ‘cause’, provides the most likely clue to its etymology. The meaning is occasionally ‘about’ (with ‫ הגיד‬and ‫ )דבר‬but most often ‘because of’ with reference to a prior cause (for complaint, punishment or the giving of a name) or to personal concern, as here and in Gen. 21.11, where ‘for the sake of’ is the closest Eng. equivalent. It does not express purpose as ‫ בעבור‬can and is closest in meaning as well as form and syntax to the compounds of ‫ על‬with ‫ ָדּ ָבר‬and ‫( ִדּ ְב ָרה‬BDB, p. 184). Half the ten secure occurrences in BH are in passages which have traditionally been ascribed to E (Gen. 21.11, 25; Exod. 18.8; Num. 12.1; 13.24); most of the rest are in Deuteronomistic contexts. n. Heb. ‫את כל־התלאה‬. ‫תלאה‬, from √‫לאה‬, ‘(be) weary’, is used again of Israel’s trials in the wilderness in Num. 20.14 and in a similar phrase of Israel’s sufferings at the hands of powerful enemies in Neh. 9.32 (cf. Lam. 3.5). The absence of a preceding waw (which some witnesses supply: see Text and Versions) implies that the expression is in apposition to the previous object of ‫ויספר‬, but ‫ בדרך‬might reasonably be taken to include the Israelites’ journey after leaving Egypt as well, thus extending the scope of Moses’ report. o. Heb. ‫ויחד‬, from ‫ חדה‬II (the even rarer ‫ חדה‬I is a by-form of ‫חדד‬, ‘be sharp’): on the spelling of the apocopated form cf. Job 3.6 and GK §21f, 28e, 75r. The verb is rare in BH, being elsewhere confined to poetry (Ps. 21.7; Job 3.6) and the related noun ‫ חדוה‬occurs only in LBH prose (Neh. 8.10; 1 Chr. 16.27): both are more characteristic of Aram. The narrator’s choice of this verb (rather than ‫ שׂמח‬or ‫ )גיל‬might have been intended to stress the emotion of the occasion or to reflect Jethro’s foreign origin. See further Note t on the translation of 18.13-27. p. Heb. ‫ אשׁר‬here introduces a clause (like the second half of v. 1) which is not so much causal as explicative of what ‫ הטובה‬refers to (‘in that…’, ‘namely that…’): cf. Gen. 42.21; 2 Kgs 17.4. q. Heb. ‫מיד‬, lit. ‘from the hand of…’; so again three times in v. 10 and often with this metaphorical sense. r. The two relative clauses in this verse are unusually repetitive, despite small variations, and the Heb. texts may preserve two alternative versions

560

EXODUS 1–18

of the wording. Another possibility is that the narrator has deliberately introduced into Jethro’s hymn of praise what might be called ‘prose parallelism’ (cf. vv. 1 and 9: also Houtman, p. 408), in imitation of the widespread poetic variety: for further discussion of this phenomenon see J.L Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and its History (New Haven, 1981), pp. 59-87. For a yet further (but less likely) explanation of the duplication see Text and Versions on the end of v. 11. s. Heb. ‫כי בדבר אשׁר זדו עליהם‬, lit. ‘…for by the word/thing (by) which they acted proudly against them’. The incompleteness of the sentence is intolerable and a well-known crux. The problem cannot be solved by treating ‫ כי‬as emphatic (RV: presumably ‘precisely [because]’, cf. Keil) rather than subordinating, since there are no parallels to such a placement of the particle: for a careful study of the circumstances in which the emphatic use may be present see Muraoka, Emphatic Words, pp. 158-64. Nor can Durham’s translation ‘for in this thing they have acted rebelliously against them’ be derived from the text as we have it, as he partly acknowledges (pp. 239-40). Some text has evidently been lost or displaced from the end of the verse, as Driver saw: see Text and Versions for a discussion of various proposals to fill the gap. Our translation is based on a new suggestion (which follows broadly the treatment in TgO) that between ‫ זדו‬and ‫ עליהם‬there originally stood the words על־ישׂראל הוא גבר‬or something similar, which was omitted when an early scribe’s eye jumped from the first ‫ על‬to the second one. t. Heb. ‫ויקח‬. The standard translation ‘took’ of older EVV., even with ‘for God’ following, leaves an awkward gap in the proceedings before the eating of the sacrificial meal: when ‫ לקח‬is used of a sacrifice it normally represents a preliminary to the act of offering itself (e.g. Gen. 8.20). Some of the Vss have ‘offered’ instead (see Text and Versions: cf. RSV), but no emendation is needed: in a ‘pregnant’ construction before a preposition (GK §119ee, gg) ‫לקח‬ sometimes includes the action which follows the taking and can be translated ‘bring, brought’ (NIV, NRSV: cf. 1 Kgs 17.10-11 and other exx. in BDB, p. 543). It is even used of a sacrifice in parallel to ‫ הביא‬in Lev. 12.6-8, but there the actual offering is mentioned separately.7 u. Heb. ‫לאכל לחם‬. ‫ לחם‬alone can mean not only ‘bread’ but ‘food’ more generally (see Note x on the translation of 16.1-36) and the combination ‫אכל‬ ‫ לחם‬could be used of a meal that included meat as well (Gen. 31.54). Here the ‫ זבחים‬most likely were (or included) animal sacrifices, which were mainly eaten by the worshippers (see the Explanatory Note on 10.25-26). 7   A. Cody, ‘Exodus 18.12’ (see n. 6), argued that ‫ ויקח‬referred to Jethro’s ‘acceptance’ of sacrifices presented by the Israelites, but this would only make sense in a narrative which mentioned their presentation and, as Valentin pointed out (Aaron, pp. 387-88), neither Gen. 21.27-31 nor Josh. 9.14 provides any support for Cody’s view.



18.1-12

561

Explanatory Notes 1. The new chapter begins unexpectedly with a change of scene and the reintroduction of a group of people who have not featured in the narrative since the early chapters of Exodus. The group is led by Jethro, who is first called ‘the priest of Midian’, as he had been in 3.1 (in 2.18 ‘the priest of Midian’, at first anonymous in v. 16, is given the name Reuel, which appears again, with that of Hobab his son, in Num. 10.29), and is then designated as ‘Moses’ fatherin-law’, as in 3.1 and 4.18: it is this designation which continues to be used in the rest of the section (vv. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12) and also in the second half of the chapter (here without his name: vv. 14, 15, 17, 24, 27). The reason given for his reappearance in the narrative is that he has ‘heard’, presumably in his homeland of Midian, about what has happened to his son-in-law and to the Israelites since he bade Moses farewell in 4.18. How he has heard the narrator does not say, but from the fact that he knows where to find Moses (v. 5) and that he brings Moses’ wife and children with him (vv. 2-4) one might well infer that Moses had sent him a message. What he has heard is at first stated in general terms, as befits the resumption of an association that has been broken off, and then specifically as Israel’s departure from Egypt through Yahweh’s mighty intervention on their behalf, which has been the main theme of the intervening narrative (on the rendering ‘namely that’ see Note b on the translation). It is this ‘deliverance’ from Egypt which continues to be the central topic later in the section (vv. 8-10): v. 4 also hints at it, even though the reference there must be to something else). Only in v. 8 is there any allusion to events subsequent to the deliverance: ‘all the hardship…on the way’. Although the divine name continues to be used throughout the section in connection with the Exodus events, whether Moses or Jethro is the speaker, the title ‘God’ (Heb. ʾelōhîm) is also used both here and later in the actual narrative (vv. 5, 12): similarly throughout the second half of the chapter, even in the dialogue. This avoidance of the divine name where there is no doubt that Yahweh is meant, which has also occurred earlier in Exodus (e.g. in 1.15-22; 3.1-6, 13-15; 13.17-19), has not found a convincing overall contextual explanation and can only be described as a choice to use the divine title ‘God’ instead by the author of some parts of the Exodus narrative.

562

EXODUS 1–18

2. The brief account of Jethro’s journey to see Moses (v. 5) is delayed because of the need to enumerate those whom he ‘took’ with him, which was clearly felt to be an important opening to the episode: after all, it provides an additional reason for Jethro to make the journey.8 According to the narrative here Moses’ wife Zipporah (first mentioned in 2.21) and their children were still in Midian, and taken alone 4.18, which mentions only Moses as returning to Egypt, is compatible with their never having left there. But the final phrase of the verse, ‘after she had been sent away’ (its most probable interpretation: see Note c on the translation), assumes that Zipporah had initially accompanied Moses on his journey back to Egypt (cf. 4.20, 24-26) and then been sent home by him, presumably to protect her (and the children) from the dangerous situation in Egypt. Nothing is said of this in the Exodus narrative; Rabbinic tradition associated it with Moses’ meeting with Aaron in 4.27 (cf. MRI, pp. 167-68: see further Text and Versions). Because of other inconsistencies with (and in) the early chapters of Exodus these words (which also seem like an afterthought) are commonly seen as a harmonising addition to reconcile the differing accounts in the sources used in the composition of the book (see further the introduction to this section). 3-4. One of these inconsistencies concerns the number of children that Moses and Zipporah have: here there are two, but only Gershom is mentioned earlier – with his name and its explanation in 2.22 (see the note there) and again, referred to simply as ‘her son’, in 4.25. Eliezer and the explanation of his name appear for the first time here, at least in the extant Heb. texts: in the Peshiṭta and many manuscripts of the LXX and Vulg these details are added after 2.22 to reconcile the two versions of the story (see Text and Versions there). The plural ‘his sons’ in 4.20 may be due to the same concern at an earlier stage of the textual tradition. 8   There is nothing in the Heb. to suggest or even allow the translation ‘Jethro had taken…’, as if some earlier action were referred to (so RSV, NEB, REB, ESV; NIV ‘received’ implies the same interpretation). Childs attributes this to ‘an old exegetical tradition’ which sought ‘to avoid the difficulty in the chronology of the narrative’ (p. 320) and the rabbinic commentary of Bekor Shor (twelfth cent.) seems to be meant: it is associated there with an unusual understanding of the final words of the verse, and the EVV. in question may also have been seeking a smoother connection with these words. Childs rightly rejects the idea, for the reason given above, and it is not adopted in NAB (according to him), NJPS, JB or NRSV, nor in any modern scholarly commentary known to me.



18.1-12

563

Eliezer’s name means ‘(My) God is a help(er)’ or possibly, if ‘El’ is taken as the name of a god, ‘El is a help(er)’. Abraham’s servant bears the same name in Gen. 15.2 and it occurs several more times in genealogies and lists in Chronicles and Ezra. The name ‘Eleazar’ has essentially the same meaning and is attested in earlier as well as later texts, most notably as the name of Aaron’s third son and successor as chief priest (Num. 20.25-26, 28): it also appears occasionally in Heb. inscriptions (AHI, p. 283; AHI 2, p. 133). In 1 Chr. 26.25-28 (cf. 23.15-17) Moses’ son Eliezer is given a list of descendants which ends with a Levite who is represented as the keeper of the war booty of King David and others: it is probably a late invention. The explanation of the name that is provided in v. 4 goes beyond its etymological basis in two ways, both with some specific correspondence to the traditions about Moses. The expression ‘the God of my father’ in words that are presumably attributed to Moses takes up or, given the implied chronology, anticipates the parallel to ‘my God’ (ʾēlî) in 15.2, and is also related to the divine address to Moses in 3.6, ‘I am the God of your father’: on its associations with familybased religion in early Israel see the Explanatory Note on 3.6. The reference to deliverance ‘from the sword of Pharaoh’ may allude to the circumstances which brought Moses to Midian (cf. 2.15; 4.19) or to his escape as a baby from Pharaoh’s attempt to have male Israelite children drowned (cf. 1.15-21; 2.1-10): ‘the sword’ could easily be a metaphor for any kind of killing. The time of Moses’ confrontation with Pharaoh immediately prior to the Exodus can hardly be meant, since Eliezer would have been born long before that; but ‘delivered’ (Heb. nāṣal Hiphil) is the same verb that is used of the Exodus in vv. 8-10 and the echo may be deliberate (for other occurrences in Exodus see 2.19; 3.8; 5.23; 6.6; 12.27). 5. The main narrative of the section is resumed with the arrival of Jethro and Moses’ family at their destination. This time the children are mentioned first, probably just to make a smoother connection with the previous verses, and here they are called Moses’ children rather than Zipporah’s as in vv. 3 and 6: this was unavoidable when mention of her was delayed. They arrive ‘in the desert’ – Midian itself seems to be thought of as outside the desert (cf. 3.1) – at ‘the mountain of God’, where Moses had come with Jethro’s flock in 3.1 before his commission by Yahweh to lead the Exodus. There it was identified with Horeb (as again in 1 Kgs 19.8), and Horeb is named again in 17.6 as the place where Israel’s need for water

564

EXODUS 1–18

has recently been met: nothing has been said of any movement by the people since then (on the terminology used and its significance see the Explanatory Note on 3.1). But the words ‘in Horeb’ in 17.6 are probably a secondary addition (see the Explanatory Note on 17.5-6), so that originally no earlier indication will have been given of the Israelites’ arrival at the mountain. In fact their encampment there is only recounted (at some length) in 19.1-2, where the main Sinai narrative begins. So 18.1-12 appears to be either premature in its present position (and it has long been suspected that it and, with even greater reason, vv. 13-27 really belong to a later stage of the story) or an extract from a parallel account of the wilderness journey where it was preceded by a note of Israel’s arrival at the holy mountain. The issues involved are complex: for a fuller discussion see the introduction to this section. 6-8. Moses has been increasingly in view in the preceding verses (in v. 5 he is named twice and referred to by pronouns three times) and now he becomes directly involved in the narrative, occupying the leading role in vv. 7-8 before it reverts to Jethro in v. 9. First Jethro announces his approach, apparently through a messenger since he and Moses are not yet face-to-face in v. 6 (see Text and Versions). The presence of other members of the family may be assumed here without anyone being named (cf. Hobab in Num. 10.29). The wording of messages, both oral and written, naturally retained the first-person reference to the sender of the message (cf. Gen. 32.3-5; 2 Kgs 10.6: similarly in the letters that have been preserved in epigraphic Hebrew and in documents from the neighbouring cultures [see, e.g., D. Pardee et al., Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Letters (Chico CA, 1982), passim]).9 The description of the meeting between Moses and Jethro – Zipporah and the children are no longer of any concern to the narrator – is unusually fulsome (cf. L. Köhler, Der hebräische Mensch: eine Skizze [Tübingen, 1953], pp. 64-66, ET pp. 77-78): for the kiss compare Gen. 33.4; Exod. 4.26; for the enquiry after the other’s welfare 1 Sam. 25.5; 2 Sam. 11.7; also 2 Sam. 20.9; 2 Kgs 4.26, where the question ‘Is it well (with you)?’ is cited (see further I. Lande, Formelhafte Wendungen der Umgangssprache im Alten Testament [Leiden, 1949], pp. 5-8); 9   In some later versions of the biblical text this formulaic pattern was found difficult and ‘I…(am)’ was replaced by ‘Behold…(is)’ (Heb. hinnēh: see Text and Versions).



18.1-12

565

for the invitation inside Gen. 24.31. The bowing down is an additional act of respect or homage (cf. Gen. 27.29; Exod. 11.8). Within Moses’ tent food might be prepared and served (Gen. 18.6; Judg. 4.19), shade found (Gen. 18.1) and a comfortable place to rest provided (Judg. 4.18). But all the narrator is interested in here (v. 8) is what Moses has to tell Jethro, presumably amplifying what he knows already (v. 1). The topics are packed closely together in this short summary of what must have been a long and complex story. The emphasis falls initially on Yahweh’s treatment of the Egyptians, but this overlaps with Israel’s own sufferings on their journey (see Note n on the translation for the sentence structure) and so probably embraces both the plague-narrative and the Israelites’ narrow escape at the sea. The final summary, ‘and Yahweh delivered them’, introduces the keynote which, thrice repeated, provides the new focus for Jethro’s celebration of the Exodus itself. 9-11. Jethro’s response is first sheer exhilaration at Yahweh’s beneficent treatment of the Israelites in Egypt, a ‘deliverance’ which was necessary because of the powerful grasp (lit. ‘hand’) of the Egyptians from which Israel has now been released. This theme remains central and, with only slight variation, is twice repeated in Jethro’s thanksgiving to Yahweh (v. 10). In the Psalms rejoicing and praise regularly go together (e.g. Pss. 40.17; 66.6-8; 70.5; 97.12), and the opening formula ‘Blessed be Yahweh’ is often used in hymns and thanksgivings (e.g. Pss. 28.6; 68.20). It became increasingly popular in late and post-biblical texts (cf. Gunkel, Einleitung, p. 40; W.S. Towner, ‘ “Blessed be YHWH” and “Blessed art thou, YHWH”: The Modulation of a Biblical Formula’, CBQ 30 [1968], pp. 386-99). ‘Blessed’ (Heb. bārûk) in such phrases is the equivalent of ‘to be praised’, just as the active verb ‘bless’ (Heb. bērēk) is frequently a word for praise and thanks addressed to God (e.g. Pss. 26.12; 68.27; 103.1: cf. THAT 1, 373-76 = TLOT 1, pp. 281-82). Such formulae also, it is true, appear in narratives of everyday life (e.g. Gen. 24.27; 1 Sam. 25.32, 39; Ruth 4.14: Albertz, p. 306), but in this case the sequel (esp. v. 12) and the national perspective evoke a cultic setting. As Houtman has pointed out (p. 404), the repetitive parallelism of this verse recalls the style of much Hebrew poetry:10 10   Cf. Knierim, ‘Exodus 18’, pp. 148-49 (cited approvingly by Blum, Studien, p. 158 n. 253), who attributes the ‘redundant’ formulation to an ‘elevated’ literary style.

566

EXODUS 1–18

the variation between ‘you’ (though it is plural in the Heb.) and ‘the people’ could pick up ‘Moses and Israel his people’ in v. 1. The overcoming of Egypt’s power is given a fresh twist in Jethro’s justification of his new conviction that Yahweh is the most powerful of all the gods (v. 11). Here, if our restoration of the damaged text is even approximately correct (see further in Text and Versions), Yahweh shows not only his power but his justice and his superior manipulation of nature by using the very means by which the Egyptians had tried to destroy Israel to bring about their own downfall. Most likely the waters in and around Egypt are meant, first those of the Nile in which Israelite babies were to be drowned and then those of Yam Suf, in which Pharaoh’s elite troops had perished.11 The formula ‘(Now) I know’ again, naturally enough, echoes similar expressions in responses to evidence of God’s power to act (Dozeman, pp. 403-405), whether in a royal psalm (Ps. 20.6), a prophetic narrative (1 Kgs 17.18) or (cf. Childs, p. 323) a psalm of praise (Ps. 135.5). In Exodus it recalls 5.2 (by contrast) and 8.6. The content of Jethro’s exclamation also resembles some psalmic language (e.g. Pss. 97.9; 135.5) – as well as the hymns of praise in Exodus 15 – so that, while it falls short of the purest monotheistic language in the Old Testament (like Isa. 44.8), it attributes to him a religious outlook common to many Israelites. It is entirely appropriate that in vv. 9-11, and also in v. 8, the name of Yahweh should be so prominent, even in the work of a narrator who continues to use the title ‘God’ in his own words (see the note on v. 1). At first sight it suggests that ‘the priest of Midian’ had previously been a worshipper of ‘other gods’ and now had come to recognise (and worship: v. 12) Yahweh. But this is no longer the only possible explanation. Traditionally Jethro has been regarded as the archetypal Gentile convert or proselyte (see e.g. Text and Versions on vv. 6-7) and, taken alone, the narrative is easily understood in this way. But since the later nineteenth century a variety of evidence has led to the widespread view (though it is contested by some) that Yahweh was originally the god of the Midianites (or Kenites) and that it was through Moses’ acquaintance with ‘the priest of Midian’ that he, and subsequently Israel as a whole, came to worship Yahweh   Or is it the latter in both cases (Baentsch, p. 165)? ‘Arrogance’ would fit the headlong pursuit into the sea very well. 11



18.1-12

567

(see Blenkinsopp, ‘The Midianite–Kenite Hypothesis Revisited’, and our fuller discussion [with further bibliography] in the introduction to this section). On this view the present narrative would be showing how Jethro, already a worshipper of Yahweh according to his own (probably very different) tribal tradition, came to a much higher understanding of Yahweh’s nature and power. 12. Jethro’s rejoicing and praise, as was customary in Israel and other peoples of the ancient world, leads into sacrificial worship (cf. H. Ringgren, Israelitische Religion (Stuttgart, 1963), pp. 151-83, ET pp. 166-200). This connection may first have been made in relation to the celebration of harvest, but here it is given a specifically historical foundation as a response to the Exodus deliverance. ‘Brought’ is a possible translation of the Heb. wayyiqqaḥ (from lāqaḥ, more commonly used for ‘took, received’ [see Note t on the translation]) and will mean ‘offered’ (which is the meaning given by TgO, Sy and Vulg). The less specific word may have been used (perhaps by a late scribe rather than the original writer) to avoid implying the participation of Aaron and the elders in a ritual presided over by a foreign priest. The offerings comprise, as often elsewhere (cf. 10.25; 20.24; 24.5; 32.6), both a burnt-offering (Heb. ʿōlāh) and the ‘sacrifices’ (zebāḥîm; sometimes called šelāmîm, ‘offerings of well-being’: see the Explanatory Note on 10.25) from which only portions were burnt as offerings to God, the remainder being, as here, cooked and eaten by the worshippers. It is a little curious that Moses is not mentioned among the participants in the meal and this has occasionally been taken as a sign that Aaron, not Moses, was once Israel’s leading representative in this tradition. But he did not need to ‘come’ and his presence is probably simply assumed from the earlier part of the narrative. It has been suggested (e.g., though he was not the first, by Brekelmans, ‘Exodus xviii’, pp. 218-20; cf. Cody, ‘Exodus 18.12’) that the meal was a covenant-meal, in this case to seal a treaty between Israel and Midian: but there is nothing specific to covenant-making here (e.g. the swearing of oaths) nor any sign elsewhere of a treaty relationship between Israel and Midian, and the idea has rightly been abandoned (cf. Houtman, p. 411). ‘Before God’ may be intended to imply the existence of some kind of (Midianite?) cultic site or enclosure at ‘the mountain of God’, at least an altar comparable to those which are built in 24.4 and 32.5. But at this holy place (cf. 3.5) the presence of God would be

568

EXODUS 1–18

sufficiently recognised even without a built structure. This ‘worship at the mountain’ could be meant to be understood as that which was promised in 3.12 (so Childs, p. 327; Propp, pp. 633-34), but if so the prominence of Jethro in it would be a highly unexpected element and it is probably better seen as at most a prelude to the main act of worship in (part of) 24.1-11 (similarly Graupner, p. 102 n. 358). Text and Versions 18.1 was evidently preceded by a small mid-line division in 4QpalExm and by an open line in 4QExc. ‫( כהן מדין‬18.1) On the renderings of Tgg, which avoid words for ‘priest’, see Text and Versions on 2.16 and one opinion in MRI (2, p. 166). ‫( חתן משׁה‬18.1) For ‫ חתן‬LXX, Theod and Vulg have, as in 3.1 and elsewhere, the more general equivalents γαμβρός and cognatus. Many LXX mss adopted Symm’s more precise πενθερός (cf. Tgg, Sy). Aq’s νυμφευτής seems to be an innovative attempt to preserve in Gk. the etymological relationship between ‫ ח ֵֹתן‬and ‫( ָח ָתן‬for which Aq, like Symm and Theod, had νυμφίος in 4.25-26; cf. his use of νυμφεύω, which can mean ‘give in marriage’, for ‫ חתן‬Hithpael in 1 Sam. 18.21), since it seems never to be used for ‘father-in-law’ elsewhere. ‫( אלהים‬18.1) The reading of MT is supported by SP, 4QpalExm (4QExc does not survive for the middle of the verse), Vulg and Sy. Tgg substitute the divine name, as they do from Gen. 1.1 onwards, while LXX’s κύριος and ‫יהוה‬ in a Geniza ms. (BHS) are probably assimilations to the close context. ‫( למשׁה‬18.1) LXX* had no equivalent, but the word is present in 4QpalExm, SP and the other Vss (as well as the O-text of LXX). The omission in LXX could well be due to the exclusive concern with Israel as a whole later in the verse. ‫( כי‬18.1) LXX γάρ and probably Vulg eo quod (though it can mean ‘in that’: OLD, p. 1565) took ‫ כי‬to be causal here.12 Tgg are ambiguous, because ‫ארום‬/‫ ארי‬can like ‫ כי‬mean both ‘because’ and ‘that’ (but AramB’s renderings prefer variants on the latter); Sy d points more clearly to ‘that’ (cf. ὡς in LXX mss). ‫( יהוה‬18.1) TgNmg prefixes ‘the Memra of’. ‫( את־ישׂראל‬18.1) TgN adds ‫ פריקין‬as it tends to do where the verb is ‫הוציא‬ (cf. Text and Versions on 3.10). Sy as often has the fuller expression bny ʾysryl here. 12   Wevers’ suggestion (Notes, p. 274) that the γάρ-clause and also the ‫כי‬-clause in the Heb. were intended to be the introduction to v. 2 cannot be right as it stands: Yahweh’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt could hardly be the reason why Jethro ‘had taken Zipporah etc.’ from there.



18.1-12

569

Before 18.2 4QpalExm has a small mid-line division which is not present in MT, SP or 4QExc (compare the similarly ‘odd’ division before 16.33 and others listed in DJD XII, pp. 60-61). ‫( יתרו חתן משׁה‬18.2) Vulg, having attached v. 1 closely as a subordinate clause to v. 2, does not repeat the subject with the verb. ‫( אחר שׁלוחיה‬18.2) 4QpalExm apparently read ‫ אחרי‬for the ‫ אחר‬of the other Heb. texts (but only the final letter [partly] survives), perhaps to make its prepositional character clearer. ‫ שׁלוחיה‬was generally recognised by the Vss to have a different sense from the other two occurrences of ‫ שׁלוחים‬in BH: only the corrector of LXXF with προῖκα(ς) preserves the rendering ‘dowry’ here. There was a rabbinic debate over whether a divorce was meant (MRI, pp. 167-68): LXX τὴν ἄφεσιν αὐτῆς and Vulg’s paraphrase quam remiserat (sc. Moses) seem not to imply this but simple ‘sending away’, likewise TgO,J. Support for ‘divorce’ is stronger in TgN and Sy, since their ‫ שׁבק‬was used specifically in this sense. One might deduce the same for the (τὰς) ἐξαποστολὰς (αὐτῆς) of Aq and Theod, since the corresponding verb is used in Deut. 24.4; but their motive for altering ἄφεσιν could have been purely linguistic (cf. 1 Kgs 9.16 in LXXA [KR?] and Mic. 1.14LXX). The occasion for Zipporah’s departure is specified by TgJ and MRI (ibid. R. Eleazar) as being on Moses’ journey back to Egypt; LXX may have thought the same, if Wevers was correct to suppose that Zipporah was the intended subject of ἀπῆλθεν in 4.26 (Notes, pp. 55-56). Josephus (AJ 3.63) seems not to reckon with any separation at all: probably δεχόμενος is his rendering of ‫ויקח‬, but he provides no equivalent for ‫אחר שׁלוחיה‬. ‫( בניה‬18.3) LXX and TgN have ‘his (sc. Moses’) sons’ and Vulg’s eius is ambiguous, but the Heb. texts and the other Vss all agree on ‘her sons’. The change to ‘his’ will be for contextual reasons (Wevers, Notes, p. 275). ‫( האחד‬18.3) LXX and TgN again agree in adding ‘of them’ to bring out the connection to ‫ בניה‬made by the relative ‫( אשׁר‬cf. Vulg quorum). ‫( גרשׁם‬18.3) LXX and Vulg represent the name as Gersam/n (cf. 2.22), which the consonantal Heb. text would allow, but the -ō- of MT is supported by Syh, TgO,J and Sy. ‫( כי אמר‬18.3) LXX freely (and without any concern for the syntax) renders with λέγων, a common equivalent for ‫ ;לאמר‬Vulg dicente patre improves both the grammar and the reference. ‫( גר‬18.3) The Vss mostly render as in 2.22, with TgN again adding ‫ותושׁב‬ (see Text and Versions there); but here it uses ‫ גיור‬for ‫גר‬. This can just mean ‘stranger’, but the other Tgg generally keep it for non-Israelites. ‫( נכריה‬18.3) TgJ again adds ‘which was not my own’, as in 2.22 (read ‫דידי‬ with the CAL text). ‫( ושׁם האחד‬18.4) The Heb. idiom, to repeat ‫ אחד‬with the second of a pair, is naturally rendered by words for ‘the other’ in TgN, Sy and Vulg. LXX curiously has the more distant τοῦ δευτέρου, which is perhaps modelled on 1.15 (where Heb. has ‫)השׁנית‬, as its usual practice in such cases is to repeat ‘one’ like the Heb. (cf. TgO,J).

570

EXODUS 1–18

‫( כי‬18.4) TgN and Vulg both add ‘he said’ to introduce the explanatory direct speech. ‫( אלהי אבי‬18.4) TgN prefixes ‘the Memra of’. For ‫ אבי‬Tgg have the regular Aram. equivalent ‫אבא‬/‫ אבה‬but Sy, which reserves this form for the vocative (Gen. 22.7) and generally uses a suffixed form (cf. 15.2), here has ʾbhy, ‘my fathers’. ‫( בעזרי‬18.4) LXX βοηθός μου and Vulg adiutor meus appropriately use a personal equivalent for the abstract noun, while the Aram. versions retain the idiom with ‫ב‬. ‫( מחרב פרעה‬18.4) The unusual expression of MT is supported by all the available witnesses (including 4QpalExm) except for LXX, which has ἐκ χειρὸς Φαραώ as in v. 10 (and also vv. 8-9 in LXX). The translator evidently preferred the milder expression (BAlex, p. 193). ‫( ויבא‬18.5) Wevers prefers the majority reading καὶ ἦλθεν to LXXB’s καὶ ἐξῆλθεν (see Notes, p. 276). Vulg (venit) ergo… indicates the resumption of the main narrative after the digression about the boys’ names, following (or at least agreeing with) Symm’s stylish ἦλθεν οὖν (Wevers, Notes, p. 276 n. 8). ‫( ובניו ואשׁתו‬18.5) LXX does not represent the suffixes, which are no longer necessary and might even give the mistaken impression that Jethro was bringing his own wife and sons (Wevers, Notes, p. 277). The Three and the O-text restored them, Vulg only the first in accordance with good Latin style. TgJ ‘Moses’ sons and his wife’ was perhaps reinforcing the precedence given to the children by their prior position, as well as the fact that Moses was their father (MRI, p. 172). ‫( הר האלהים‬18.5) Most of the Vss insert prepositions meaning ‘at’ or ‘near’, but TgO and Sy ‫( לטורא‬as in 3.1) perhaps see the mountain as Jethro’s destination rather than Moses’ location. As in 3.1 Tgg replace the designation of the mountain (and in TgN even the mention of it) with references to the appearance of God’s glory there (which TgJ emphasises was ‘to Moses at the beginning’) or (in TgN) to its ‘dwelling’ there: the latter, as Chester points out (Divine Revelation, pp. 159-65), indicates (like TgN on 4.27 and Num. 10.33) a desire to foreground the similarity of the desert mountain to the temple on Mount Zion. ‫( ויאמר‬18.6) MT’s vowels indicate an active verb, of which the subject can only be Jethro (as in v. 5): the words that he says, ‘I (am) your fatherin-law Jethro’, leave no alternative. Since he only meets Moses in v. 7, this appears premature. The other witnesses present two different solutions to the problem. Vulg’s unusual rendering mandavit cannot have its regular sense ‘commanded’; it must mean ‘sent a message’ (cf. LS, p. 1107; OLD, p. 1071), which corresponds to, and is probably derived from, the explanation given in MRI (Lauterbach, p. 172) that Rashi, Ibn Ezra and Rashbam were to follow. LXX, Sy and SamTg read the verb as a passive (‫ )וַ יֵּ ָא ֶמר‬with an associated variation in the words spoken (see below on ‫)אני‬. LXXO ἀνήγγειλαν δέ, ‘and they reported’, is a partial correction towards MT’s reading.



18.1-12

571

‫( אל־משׁה‬18.6) Most SP mss read ‫( למשׁה‬compare its variant reading in 17.9), but both 4QpalExm and 4QExc agree with MT. LXX’s dative Μωυσῇ could be based on either reading (see Text and Versions on 17.9). The presence of ‫ אל‬in the ‘proto-Samaritan’ ms. 4QpalExm suggests that the ‫ ל‬of the medieval SP mss is secondary, perhaps due to the influence of Aram., in which ‫ אל‬was not used. LXX λέγοντες (cf. 12.43; 15.21) and Vulg dicens (cf. ait in v. 4) add an introduction to the direct speech which follows. ‫( אני‬18.6) LXX ἰδού, Sy hʾ and SamTg ʾh have words meaning ‘behold’ instead of the self-referential pron., and evidence of the Heb. Vorlage of this variant (‫ )הנה‬exists not only in SP but in 4QpalExm. Together with the reading of ‫ ויאמר‬as a passive this produces a straightforward text, and some earlier commentators (e.g. Beer, Hyatt) and translations (RSV, JB, NEB, REB) adopted it. But as the more difficult reading MT’s ‫אני‬, which appears already in 4QExc (as well as Tgg and Vulg), must be original (with the active pronunciation of ‫)ויאמר‬. ‫( חתנך יתרו‬18.6) 4QExc and LXX (also ms. 5b1 of Sy) agree in inverting the order of these words, to conform to the priority of the PN in vv. 1, 2 and 5. The variation here in MT and the other witnesses is an argument for its originality: the prefixing of the relational word is also natural as a way of self-introduction. ‫( בא אליך‬18.6) TgJ adds ‫לאתגיירא‬, which can mean just ‘to stay as a guest’ (CAL: cf. TgO on 12.48), but in view of the use of the corresponding active form by TgJ in v. 27 (and Jethro’s attitude throughout the chapter) must here refer to conversion to Judaism. Both this and Jethro’s self-effacing dependence on the claims of Moses’ wife and children which follows once again take up themes from the commentary in MRI (Lauterbach, pp. 172-73), where they are reinforced by a divine word of encouragement for Jews to welcome converts. ‫( ואשׁתך‬18.6) LXX* ignored the suffix as in v. 5, but it was represented in most of the mss and in the other Vss. ‫( ושׁני־בניה‬18.6) LXX οἱ δύο υἱοί σου, with which Sy and Vulg agree, follows the lead of v. 5 in emphasising that the boys are Moses’ children (too). ‫( עמה‬18.6) LXX and Sy (according to the vocalised text) render ‘with him’, which in their version of the words spoken (see above on ‫ )אני‬will refer to Jethro. This would not have required a different Vorlage, only reading the form with the old third person m.s. suffix, as in pre-exilic inscriptions and occasionally in MT, e.g. Exod. 22.26 (cf. GK §91e, JM §94h). ‫( ויצא משׁה‬18.7) TgJ adds ‘from under the clouds of majesty’, i.e. outside the camp, as in 17.9 where MRI had prompted the addition. ‫( וישׁתחו‬18.7) SP as elsewhere (e.g. 34.8) has a fuller spelling ‫ וישׁתחוי‬for this form (cf. GSH §64c, 98fβ: the pl. form in the apparatus of BHS is an error). It also adds ‫למשׁה‬, making Jethro the subject of this verb (and presumably the next one) and removing the idea that Moses paid homage to a foreign priest. The addition appears nowhere else, but it could have been present in

572

EXODUS 1–18

a lacuna in 4QExc (DJD XII, p. 122): this seems less likely in 4QpalExm. MRI (Lauterbach, pp. 173-74) was aware of the potential ambiguity of MT, but concluded that Moses continued to be the subject (which would in any case be the natural supposition) because ‫ אישׁ‬was used of him in Num. 12.3. TgN, as earlier in 11.8, found the practice of bowing down before another human inappropriate and again substituted ‘asked about (his welfare)’, despite the repetition that this produced. LXX and Sy added ‘to him’, presumably meaning Jethro and acknowledging that such respect was not reprehensible (cf. MRI, p. 174). ‫( וישׁק לו‬18.7) After the initial gestures of welcome, TgJ added ‫וגייריה‬, ‘and he made him a proselyte’, fulfilling the desire that TgJ had attributed to Jethro in v. 6 (see the note on ‫)בא אליך‬. ‫( וישׁאלו…לשׁלום‬18.7) LXX ἠσπάσαντο ἀλλήλους here, as in the A-text of Judg. 18.15, chooses to emphasise the function of the words spoken; likewise Vulg, though as elsewhere it lets the warmth of the greeting show by adding verbis pacificis. Aq and the O-text added εἰς εἰρήνην, but perhaps more for textual accuracy. ‫( ויבאו‬18.7) There is a well attested variant ‫ויביאהו‬, ‘and he (sc. Moses) brought him (sc. Jethro) in’ (4QExc, SP, LXX: in 4QpalExm only the first three letters of the word survive, leaving its reading uncertain). This makes good sense too and reinforces the portrayal of Moses’ welcome of his father-in-law. But it is perhaps more likely to be an ingenious ‘improvement’ of the MT reading than vice versa: in an unvocalised text ‫ ויבאו‬could have been misread as a Hiphil form and the final ‫ו‬- as a form of the object suffix (cf. Jer. 23.6). Vulg cumque intrasset need not be evidence for a reading ‫וַ יָּ בֹא‬: the sing. may simply be due to the combination of the clause with v. 8. ‫( האהלה‬18.7) TgJ adds that it was ‘a place for teaching’, as is found already in MRI (Lauterbach, pp. 174): the gloss was probably inspired by what Moses does in v. 8. After v. 7 SP has a division which is not present in MT and probably did not appear in 4QpalExm or 4QExc (cf. DJD XII, p. 122). ‫( לחתנו‬18.8) LXX ignored the suffix, as Greek grammar allows, but the Three and the O-text added αὐτοῦ. ‫יהוה‬1o (18.8) TgNmg prefixes ‘the Memra of’, as again at the end of the verse. ‫( ישׂראל‬18.8) Sy as often prefixes bny (cf. 17.6; 18.1). ‫( את כל־התלאה‬18.8) This is also the reading of SP, 4QExc (the phrase is not extant in 4QpalExm), Tgg and Vulg, but LXX and Sy prefix ‘and’, as do a Geniza ms. and some other Heb. mss Tolerable sense can be made of the verse without this (see Note n on the translation) and it is probably secondary. TgN renders ‫ התלאה‬in the pl., but it is always sing. in BH. ‫( אשׁר מצאתם‬18.8) Sy dlʾyw offers a free rendering which makes a neat etymological link with ‫התלאה‬.



18.1-12

573

‫( בדרך‬18.8) TgJ spells out the episodes involved, from the Red Sea to the battle with Amalek, developing the interpretation already given in MRI (Lauterbach, p. 174). ‫( ויצלם‬18.8) LXX inserts ὁτι for stylistic reasons. ‫( יהוה‬18.8) LXX adds ‘from the hand of Pharaoh and from the hand of the Egyptians’, anticipating Jethro’s response in v. 10. ‫( ויחד‬18.9) LXX ἐξέστη is a general word for mental disorientation, perhaps chosen because the translator was puzzled by the rare Heb. verb and its form here: there is no need to posit a different Vorlage. MT’s reading is confirmed by SP, 4QpalExm and 4QExc and the other Vss render it correctly. ‫( על־כל הטובה‬18.9) LXX, Sy and Vulg render in the pl., a reasonable interpretation of the sing. form (which is attested in 4QExc as well as MT and SP). ‫( יהוה לישׂראל‬18.9) LXX αὐτοῖς κύριος, with a change of word-order in accordance with Greek style and the substitution of a pronoun for the proper name of the original. TgNmg prefixes ‘the Memra of’ as usual. ‫( אשׁר הצילו‬18.9) LXX (ὅτι) and Vulg (eo quod) both render ‫ אשׁר‬as a conjunction, ‘because, (in) that’. The Leiden text of Sy reads wpṣy with most of the mss, but this probably originated in a scribal error due to the similar phrase in the previous verse: dpṣy, the reading of 7a1 and 8b1, is more likely to be original. (on this pair see Koster, Peshiṭta, pp. 148-49, 169-70). ‫( יתרו‬18.10) Vulg does not repeat the subject, which is the same as in v. 9. ‫( יהוה‬18.10) TgJ prefixes ‘the name of’, reflecting Jewish liturgical formulae which have their roots in the Bible (Ps. 113.2; Job 1.21: cf. Chester, Divine Revelation, pp. 343-47). ‫אשׁר‬1o (18.10) LXX ὁτι, ‘because’, as in v. 9, might reflect the frequency of ‫ כי‬near the beginning of hymns of praise in the Psalter. The rarer ‫אשׁר‬, which all the other witnesses have or presuppose, is undoubtedly original. ‫( אתכם‬18.10) LXX τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ is taken from the second half of the verse (which LXX omits: see below), with the addition of the possessive ‘his’, as in Vulg and Sy there (from v. 1?), for greater specificity. A few mss replace it with αὐτούς or ὑμᾶς. ‫( מיד‬18.10) For both occurrences TgN has the dual form of ‫יד‬, which (like J Tg ) it uses after ‫ מן‬much more frequently than BH (cf. OL). ‫אשׁר…מצרים‬2o (18.10) LXX has no equivalent to the second relative clause, but it shows that the translator knew it by the introduction of τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ earlier in the verse. So this is not a case of parablepsis but of deliberate omission to avoid what was judged an unnecessary repetition (likewise Wevers, Notes, p. 279). The O-text added a rendering of the omitted words to agree with MT and the other Heb. witnesses (most of the words are present in 4QpalExm and there is plenty of room for them in a lacuna in 4QExc).

574

EXODUS 1–18

‫( יד‬18.10) TgO,J recognise the figurative sense here by using ‫מרותא‬, ‘dominion’, while TgN is even more specific with ‘the yoke of servitude’ (cf. MRI [Lauterbach, p. 176]), which it also has in 6.6-7, where ‫ מתחת‬again occurs in the Heb. ‫( ידעתי‬18.11) TgO ‫ידענא‬, like the other Vss, renders the Heb. precisely: it is the first person sing. of the ‘participial tense’ (cf. Stevenson §21.7). TgN added ‫וגלי הוא לי‬, which could be no more than a rephrasing of the Heb. (cf. Chester, Divine Revelation, p. 20); but in the context of TgN’s wider use of the verb (ibid., pp. 246-49) the addition of the expression to the straightforward rendering that precedes may suggest that Jethro is made to acknowledge a revelatory basis for his knowledge. ‫( גדול יהוה מכל־האלהים‬18.11) TgO ‘is great and there is no god except him’ makes Jethro into a monotheist; on the other hand MRI (Lauterbach, p. 176) takes the text at its face value and observes his inferiority to Naaman in 2 Kgs 5.15. An even greater disdain for Jethro’s conversion is shown by Philo (De Ebr. 36-45). It is not so clear what the close renderings of the Heb. in the other Vss imply, but Chester is probably right to say that the strong repudiation of polytheism elsewhere in TgN and TgJ makes it most improbable that their wording here intends anything different (Divine Revelation, pp. 332-34).13 ‫( כי בדבר אשׁר זדו עליהם‬18.11) Apart from Tgg the Vss attempt a literal rendering of the difficult Heb. (which SP and 4QpalExm [with a lacuna in the middle] also attest – 4QExc preserves only [most of] the final word) and show that it must be the starting-point for any solution to the text-critical problem. LXX ἕνεκεν τούτου ὅτι and Vulg eo quod make the first three words a way of saying ‘because’ (cf. Symm, Theod, if the citations from them are complete), while Sy mṭl trʿytʾ d and especially Aq ὅτι ἐν τῷ ῥήματι ᾧ preserve more of the original wording. For ‫ זדו‬LXX has ἐπέθεντο, ‘attacked’, which is clearly based on the use of ‫ זיד‬in 21.14, where LXX uses the same Gk. equivalent. But its other occurrences show that ‘arrogance’ is an essential component of its meaning and this was recognised by the Three and Vulg (superbe egerint). Sy’s ʾtrʿyw (which gave rise to its equivalent for ‫)דבר‬, here ‘think, desire, plan’, normally lacks a specifically negative overtone but seems to be related to TgO,N ‫חשׁיבו‬, which introduces a fuller description of the Egyptians’ evil plan: perhaps that was thought to be sufficiently conveyed in Sy by the hostility implied in ʿlyhwn, ‘against them’ (sc. Israel). The Tgg are all much more explicit about what they understood this to mean, even TgO: ‫ארי בפתגמא דחשׁיבו מצראי למדן ית ישׂראל ביה דנינון‬, ‘for by the means which the Egyptians planned to use to punish Israel, by that he punished them’ (cf. MRI [Lauterbach, pp. 176-77], where ‫ חשׁב‬is also used). TgJ specifies water as the means (and makes a characteristic reference to the ‘wickedness’ of the

13   Josephus’s treatment of the chapter (AJ 3.63-74) practically ignores Jethro’s religious belief.



18.1-12

575

Egyptians’ action) and TgN identifies the events in question as the drowning of the Israelites’ children and (through a decree of God’s Memra) the catastrophe for the Egyptian chariots at the Red Sea. All these renderings assume that there is an unspoken declaration of God’s judgement at the end of the verse.14 To summarise, while LXX, Vulg and Sy create the appearance of a complete sentence by effectively ignoring either ‫ כי‬or ‫בדבר אשׁר‬, the Tgg (and OL) do so (more successfully, it must be said) by adding a whole clause about God’s intervention (see also the next note on 4QpalExm). In modern times C.F. Keil sought to justify the former approach by taking ‫ כי‬as an emphatic repetition (see Note s on the translation), but he had in effect to supply a verb to complete the sense and this is a solution born of desperation. An alternative might be to regard ‫ כי‬as a gloss on the unique expression ‫בדבר אשׁר‬, which could have been intended (like ‫ על דבר אשׁר‬in Deut. 22.24; 23.5; 2 Sam. 13.22) as an expression for ‘because’. But both of these interpretations leave Jethro with a statement that makes no real sense: he believes that Yahweh is the most powerful of the gods because the Egyptians acted arrogantly towards his people. Something more is surely needed to justify his exaltation of Yahweh.15 Some scholars have found the ‘missing link’ nearby in the biblical text, in v. 10b, which is not needed there and appears at first sight not to have been in LXX’s Vorlage. Dillmann (p. 186) suggested that v. 10b was originally (presumably without ‫ )אשׁר‬the conclusion of v. 11, was accidentally omitted and was then reinserted in the wrong place (i.e. where it is in the standard Heb. text: cf. BH3, Beer, Childs, RSV, NRSV). This is an ingenious theory, but it is not easy to see any reason why the original omission at the end of v. 11 would have taken place and the fact that (as we have shown above) the LXX translator very probably had the whole of v. 10 in his Vorlage removes a vital piece of supporting ‘evidence’. As a result other scholars have concluded that what is missing can no longer be restored (so Baentsch, Holzinger, Noth: cf. BHS). But perhaps some progress towards a solution can still be made. An omission of text can often be traced to the recurrence of the same word or group of letters in the original, and the readings of the Targumim, with their theory of a correspondence between wrongdoing and its punishment, which is grounded in the most obvious reading of ‫בדבר אשׁר‬, imply just such a recurrence. It is unlikely that any of them is a translation of the original Heb. text, because none of them provides a plausible rendering of   For completeness we may note that OL uses a different expedient to complete the sense, by substituting qui liberαvit famulos suos de manu eorum for ‫כי בדבר‬. On the verse as a whole see J.R. Baskin, Pharaoh’s Counsellors: Job, Jethro and Balaam in Rabbinic and Patristic Tradition (Chico CA, 1983), pp. 54-55, 61-66. 15   For some less likely solutions than those discussed here see Houtman, p. 409, to which should be added Weimar, Berufung, p. 28 n. 25, and Blum, Studien, p. 158 n. 253. 14

576

EXODUS 1–18

‫זדו‬. It is notable that proper names are absent in the sentence as it stands, so the omitted text probably stood before ‫ עליהם‬and not after it (this is a further objection to Dillmann’s view), and included at least one proper name. It is also likely that it began with ‫על‬, because that would explain how it came to be omitted (by homoeoarkton). על ישׂראל‬, ‘they (sc. the Egyptians in v. 10) acted arrogantly against Israel’, has a good parallel in Jer. 50.29: ‫אל‬ ‫( יהוה זדה‬sc. Babylon).16 ‫עליהם‬, in the corresponding act of punishment, must now refer to the Egyptians and before it there must have been an expression for Yahweh’s intervention against them which could be followed by ‫על‬. It is unlikely that this included the verb ‫זיד‬, as it could scarcely be applied to Yahweh. But there are at least two other possibilities. One is an expression incorporating the verb ‫פקד‬, which is commonly followed by an accusative of the sin punished and ‫ על‬before the perpetrator of it (e.g. Hos. 1.4; 2.15; Amos 3.2, 14). There are many possible alternatives for the word for the Egyptians’ sin, but of course ‫ זדון‬would have particular point: so perhaps the text read: ‫אשׁר זדו >על ישׂראל הוא פקד את־זדונם< עליהם‬. Alternatively, and more briefly, one might supply the verb ‫גבר‬, ‘prevailed’: then ‫אשׁר זדו >על ישׂראל הוא גבר< עליהם‬. For ‫ גבר‬with ‫ על‬of enemies cf. 2 Sam. 11.23 or, in the Hithpael with a divine subject, Isa. 42.13. An advantage of this, perhaps, is that Neh. 9.10b could be seen as a paraphrase of it (cf. n. 16). Between vv. 11 and 12 4QpalExm had a short mid-line division. There is no obvious reason for this, but it is where Tgg detected a gap in the Heb. text which they filled in various ways (see the previous note) and possibly the scribe of 4QpalExm was showing his awareness of it in this way. ‫( ויקח‬18.12) While SP, 4QExc, LXX and TgJ,N agree with MT, in TgO, Sy17 and Vulg words meaning ‘offered’ appear and some modern commentators have emended to ‫ וַ יַּ ְק ֵרב‬on this basis (cf. BH3; RSV). The change is unnecessary, as ‫ ויקח‬in effect has the sense ‘brought’ here (see Note t on the translation) and the Vss cited in support of it may simply have been recognising this. ‫( חתן משׁה‬18.12) The first word of the verse that is preserved in 4QpalExm is ‫ [עלה‬and there is probably insufficient room in the lacuna for all of the standard Heb. text. The scribe probably omitted ‫ חתן משׁה‬on this occasion, as all the witnesses had done in vv. 9-10. On this occasion the shorter reading is probably secondary.

16   ‫ כי הזידו עליהם‬in Neh. 9.10 (with the Egyptians as the subject) is even closer and could well be dependent upon Exod. 18.11 (Boda, Praying the Tradition, p. 119). But the relationship of the two texts would be just as easy to envisage if Exod. 18.11 were still in its original complete form as that is reconstructed here. 17   This is the reading of the mss. But Weitzman has pointed out that Ephrem’s commentary cites the reading wnsb (as in TgJ,N), which ‘agrees with MT and seems original’, while Ephrem’s comment suggests the interpretation qrb (Syriac Version, pp. 289-90).



18.1-12

577

‫( עלה‬18.12) All the Vss render in the pl. (Sy yqdʾ šlmʾ is evidently a calque from Gk. ὁλοκαυτώματα), giving ‫ עלה‬a collective sense (which it probably has in 2 Chr. 7.1). This is possible, and narrative texts generally have the pl. form (cf. 10.25); but a single animal could well have sufficed on this occasion. ‫( וזבחים‬18.12) On the rendering ‫ נכסת קודשׁין‬which all the Tgg (inc. TgN) have here see Text and Versions on 10.25. ‫( לאלהים‬18.12) TgO,J,Nmg use ‫ קדם‬in place of ‫ ל‬and TgN inserts ‫ שמיה ד‬to avoid the idea that God receives offerings directly. Sy substitutes the divine name (i.e. mryʾ) for ‫ אלהים‬here (likewise Tgg, as usual, as they do again at the end of the verse). ‫( ויבא‬18.12) Vulg veneruntque was required by the composite subject by the strictness of Latin grammar and need not reflect a different Vorlage. ‫( וכל זקני ישׂראל‬18.12) SP ‫ומזקני ישׂראל‬, ‘and some of the elders of Israel’, is a puzzling variant. All the witnesses at 17.5 refer to only ‘some’ of the elders accompanying Moses when he struck the rock at Rephidim (cf. 24.1, 9; Num. 11.16, 24), and SP seems to have presumed that the same would be the case for this celebration with Jethro. Whether this has also something to do with the section on ‘The Status of the Elders’ in Memar Marqah 3.3, where the twelve tribes are divided into two groups, blessed and cursed, must remain uncertain, as there appears to be no reference to the story of Jethro in that work. The phrase is not preserved in 4QpalExm or 4QExc and the variation is too short for inferences based on the space available to be valid (contra DJD XII, p. 122), but all the Vss presuppose ‫וכל‬. TgN as usual renders ‫ זקני‬by ‫( חכימיא‬cf. 17.5-6); Sy as often inserts bny afterwards. ‫( עם־חתן משׁה‬18.12) Vulg cum eo, evidently regarding a repetition of Jethro’s status as unnecessary. ‫( לפני האלהים‬18.12) TgJ adds ‘and Moses was standing and ministering (‫ )משמש‬before them’ in wording modelled on Gen. 18.8 and MRI (Lauterbach, pp. 177-78), to account for the fact that Moses is not named among those who ate. After v. 12 SP has a division before the second episode involving Jethro and it is likely that 4QpalExm did too, although DJD IX does not comment: in the lacuna at the end of col. XVIII 19 there is room for about ten characters and only the word ‫ ויהי‬is needed there before ‫ ממחרת‬at the beginning of the next line. In 4QExc there was at most space for a ‘very short’ interval at this point (DJD XII, p. 121), but the fragmentary state of the ms. here (after which continuous text is no longer preserved) makes even this uncertain.

C h ap t er 1 8 . 1 3 - 2 7 J et hr o ’ s A d vi ce a bou t a J u d i c i a l S yst e m for I s r a el an d H i s D epart u r e

The boundaries of this section are unusually clear. The second episode of Moses’ renewed encounter with Jethro is marked off by a change of time, which nevertheless by its very character (‘On the next day’) makes it the direct sequel of the first. A new topic, the judging of the people’s disputes, is also introduced. The section is rounded off with the adoption of a new judicial system (vv. 24-26) and Jethro’s departure for his homeland (v. 27). In 19.1-2 the repetitive itinerary-note marks a fresh beginning on the literary level, even though geographically arrival at ‘the mountain’ (19.2) seems to overlook the fact that Israel is already encamped ‘at the mountain of God’ (18.5). In the Masoretic text the whole of ch. 18 is treated as a single unit and there is no further division marked until after v. 27. The Samaritan Pentateuch does have a division before v. 13 as well as after v. 27 and it also subdivides the section internally after v. 16, where Jethro’s advice to Moses begins, and after v. 24, which states Moses’ acceptance of it. 4QpalExm may well also have had a division before v. 13 and there is strong indirect evidence that it did after v. 27 (DJD IX, p. 99: see Text and Versions). The other Qumran mss offer no clear evidence about their division of the text. The overall structure of the narrative in most of the textual witnesses is straightforward and clear. On the day following Jethro’s arrival (i) Moses is occupied with judging the people’s disputes (v. 13), which sets the scene for what follows; then (ii) Jethro questions Moses about his current practice, in a manner that already expresses an element of criticism (cf. ‘Why?’: v. 14), and (iii) Moses explains his role as a mediator of God’s responses to the people’s disputes (vv. 15-16: on the nature of these responses see the Explanatory Note on vv. 13-16); Jethro then (iv) highlights the practical disadvantages of the present arrangements (vv. 17-18), and (v) urges Moses to take his advice and introduce a new two-tier system of adjudication, in which judges chosen by Moses and of suitable character and ability will deal with the more straightforward cases



18.13-27

579

and only the most serious will be referred to Moses for resolution (vv. 19-23); Moses (vi) accepts this advice (v. 24) and (vii) proceeds to put the new system into operation (vv. 25-26); this done (viii) he sends Jethro on his way to his homeland (v. 27). In 4QpalExm, however, the first part of (vii), v. 25, is replaced by a much longer account in which Moses first presents the new system to the people for their approval and then speaks directly to the judges about their responsibilities. This version of the appointment of the judges is in essence identical to that which appears in Deut. 1.9-18 (without any mention of Jethro at all) and the same expansion of the Exodus story was taken up in the Samaritan tradition, where it is attested not only in the Hebrew Pentateuch text but in Greek and Aramaic translations (for the details see Text and Versions on v. 25). There is no doubt that this longer version of the text (which is comparable in character to the similar expansions of the plague-story in chs. 7–11 in these textual witnesses) is a secondary development designed to reconcile (in some measure at least) the Exodus story with what happens in Deuteronomy. The further question of whether the Exodus version (with Jethro as the initiator of the new system) or that in Deuteronomy (where Moses presents it as his own idea) is the older will be discussed later in this introduction. When it has been examined in its own right, Exod. 18.13-27 has been found to be a generally coherent narrative which forms a plausible sequel to vv. 1-12. Here too the narrator (and in this case the human speakers too) uses ʾelōhîm, ‘God’, consistently in place of the divine name Yahweh. Jethro is referred to throughout as Moses’ father-in-law (cf. v. 14 etc. with v. 1), but not by name as he had been several times in vv. 1-12. Critical study of the section has, however, raised some problems about the unity of vv. 13-27 and their relationship to vv. 1-12, which of course deal with a different topic. For Knobel (Num.-Jos., pp. 532-33) and very many scholars after him the passage’s repeated and exclusive use of ʾelōhîm, in the context of the Pentateuch’s wider practice, was in itself a clear indicator that, as in at least the majority of vv. 1-12, they again had before them an extract from the E source. Many maintained this without qualification (‘ein im Ganzen heiles Stück aus E’: Wellhausen, Composition, p. 80; cf. Noth, p. 117, ET, p. 146), but gradually some commentators identified certain verses which they considered to be secondary additions: v. 20 (Holzinger), vv. 21b, 25-26 (Baentsch), vv. 21b,

580

EXODUS 1–18

25b (Knierim, ‘Exodus 18’, pp. 167-71: similarly Hyatt, Fritz [Israel in der Wüste, p. 14 – ‘26b’ is a misprint] and see further below). This kind of analysis was taken further by M. Rose (Deuteronomist und Jahwist: Untersuchungen zu den Berührungspunkten beider Literarwerke [ATANT 67; Zurich, 1981), pp. 229-31: vv. 16b, 20, 21b, 25b) and C. Schäfer-Lichtenberger (‘Exodus 18 – Zur Begründung der königlichen Gerichtsbarkeit in Israel-Juda’, DBAT 21 [1985], pp. 61-85: also v. 15b), and especially by Graupner, who included vv. 19b, 25a and 26 in the secondary layer(s) (Elohist, pp. 107-109: cf. his ‘Exodus 18,13-27 – Ätiologie einer Justizreform in Israel?’, in S. Beyerle et al. [eds.], Recht und Ethos im Alten Testament. Gestalt und Wirkung [FS H. Seebass; Neukirchen, 1999], pp. 11-26). A different approach to such supposed unevenness in the text was taken by Smend (Erzählung, pp. 154-55, followed by Eissfeldt and Fohrer, but not in this case by Beer) and Gressmann (Mose, p. 168 n. 2; Anfänge, pp. 87-88), who in somewhat different ways unravelled both a J and an E version of the episode: their arguments were convincingly rebutted by Rudolph (Elohist, p. 39). Rudolph himself remarkably attributed the passage (except for v. 20, which was too ‘sittlich’ for this!) to J, claiming that the recurrent use of ʾelōhîm was simply due to the fact that Jethro was a foreigner (p. 40), despite acknowledging that vv. 10-11 had shown Jethro as (now) having no difficulty with the use of the divine name. A similar view was later taken by Van Seters (Life, p. 209). Since the late 1980s scholarly assessment of this section has become more fragmented, due to the influence of wider currents in recent Pentateuchal scholarship, which do not always push in the same direction. An example is the way in which comparisons with Deuteronomy have been handled. A forerunner of this recent preoccupation was the monograph of E. Junge, Die Wiederaufbau des Heerwesens des Reiches Juda unter Josia (BWANT 75; Stuttgart, 1937), which observed the correspondence between the apparently military titles given to the new judges in vv. 21b and 25b and what he took to be a revival of the old tribal conscript army in the time of Josiah. He saw this as indicating that the passage could at least not have reached its completed form until then (pp. 56-59). Dozeman, who assigns it to his older ‘Non-P History’ but emphasises the close associations of that work with Deuteronomy (pp. 15-16, 362), seems to incline to a similar view. But others have not hesitated to place it much later, reversing the older view that Deut. 1.9-18 was dependent upon Exodus 18: so Van Seters (Life, pp. 215-17: postDeuteronomistic Yahwist) and Albertz (‘Hexateuch redactor’, contemporary with Nehemiah: p. 314). Johnstone also holds that Exodus 18 was based on Deut. 1.9-18 (or perhaps its narrative reflex which once stood in Numbers?), but that it owes its present form and position to the P-writer/redactor whose hand Johnstone believes he can trace in some features of it (Chronicles and Exodus, pp. 258-59). Blum’s present position is ambivalent, in more than one way, but he certainly concluded earlier and apparently still holds that the passage (like vv. 1-12) formed no part of either Kd or Kp: its isolation from



18.13-27

581

the surrounding narratives and its contradiction of their geographical sequence show that it was inserted into the Pentateuch at a very late stage (Studien, pp. 153-63). In his original study he did not presume that it had only been created then: he saw it, with parts of Exodus 3–4 (and vv. 1-12) to which it is closely linked, as originating in ‘a separate connected Moses-tradition’, which had been drawn upon by Kd and so was presumably a survival from pre-exilic times. In a more recent study and in the work of his pupil V. Haarmann this proposal seems to have been abandoned for vv. 1-12 (see the introduction to that section), but it is not clear whether he still holds to it for vv. 13-27. In stark contrast to the contemporary scholars who envisage an exilic or later date for the creation of 18.13-271 stand not only those who have continued to uphold the existence of E as a source-document in the traditional sense (such as Propp, Graupner and Baden) but another group who have concluded that the passage or most of it has its origin in the monarchy period for quite different reasons, not literary but legal-historical. They take their lead from Knierim’s 1961 study (and those of some followers such as H. Reviv [‘The Tradition concerning the Inception of the Legal System in Israel: Significance and Dating’, ZAW 94 (1982), pp. 566-75] and C. SchäferLichtenberger), which placed the episode in the context of what can be known about the development of courts and legal practice in early Israel and under the monarchy. It is important to emphasise that Knierim’s argument was based on much more than a simplistic trust in and use of the Chronicler’s account of Jehoshaphat’s legal reforms in 2 Chronicles 19 (contrary to the brief summary by Van Seters in Life, p. 218 n. 31).2 In seeking to identify the Bild which Exodus 18 presents, he noted the strong cultic context which vv. 1-12 give to Moses’ judging and that the process of decentralisation is initiated ‘from above’ (by Moses advised by Jethro). Since there is no (other) explicit evidence of local courts in the Judges period (p. 157), whereas by the time of the eighth-century prophets and Deuteronomy they are well established (pp. 158-60), the central authority which represents (one might better say, is represented by) Moses’ role in establishing them on an official basis must be that of the king. The evidence of Isaiah and Micah shows that the ‘reform’ occurred before their time and it is only in trying to specify its occasion more precisely that Knierim introduced into the discussion 2 Chronicles’ account of Jehoshaphat’s action (esp. in 19.5-11), which he held (like Rudolph, but against the view of many other scholars) to contain historical information from an older source. Finally there is the question of the description of the judges as ‘officers for thousands etc.’, expressions which have generally been taken to 1   To those mentioned already may be added Levin (Jahwist, pp. 359-61) and Kratz (Komposition, pp. 246-47). 2   Blum in his earlier work referred very positively to the work of such scholars as confirming that the tradition in Exod. 18.13ff. underlies that of Deut. 1.9-18 and is an independent, older narrative (Studien, p. 157 n. 247).

582

EXODUS 1–18

indicate a military background (cf. 1 Sam. 8.12; 22.7 etc.). Knierim discusses this several times (pp. 149-51, 154-55, 167-72) and eventually concludes, for both literary and historical reasons, that vv. 21b and 25b are later additions to the text, which reflect the combination of military and judicial roles by royal officials (śārîm) from at least the eighth century onwards.3 More recently three scholars working more broadly on Israelite legal history have reached similar conclusions to Knierim. One, Crüsemann, develops the argument that prior to the monarchy there were, contrary to almost all previous opinion, no local courts at all: the evidence is that disputes were resolved by other means (Die Tora, pp. 80-95, ET, pp. 63-76). It was only under the monarchy that they were established, by royal authority: before the fortification of cities there could be no ‘justice in the gate’, because there were no gates. 1 Kings 21 shows that this had already taken place by the mid-ninth century in the northern kingdom (pp. 99-100, ET pp. 78-79): Exodus 18 provides the legitimation for this change and comes from the monarchic period, unlike the related but different passages in Deut. 1.9-18 and Num. 11.11-12, 14-17, 24-25, which are later (pp. 104-13, ET pp. 83-90). Crüsemann, like Knierim, also finds historical material in 2 Chronicles 19 and regards Exod. 18.21b and 25b as later additions. Bernard Levinson, by contrast, in a paper given in 2001 and first published in 2005, finds no old source behind 2 Chronicles 19 and apparently regards vv. 21b and 25b as integral parts of Exodus 18 (see “The Right Chorale”, pp. 62-68, esp. p. 62 n. 29 and pp. 65-66). But he emphasises the debt of Israel’s bipartite judicial system to ancient Near Eastern culture that emerges from Exodus 18 and that it was heavily revised and ‘corrected’ in the ‘much later’ account in Deut. 1.9-18. Thirdly B.S. Jackson agrees, with his own reasons, that there were no local courts until the monarchy period: the dual system was established then, probably by Jehoshaphat (Wisdom-Laws, pp. 411-30; for the basis of 2 Chr. 19 in older tradition see p. 412 n. 128).4 Deuteronomy provides further evidence of its (intended) operation. Jackson notes that the Exodus 18 account preserves the memory of an earlier, purely oracular, mode of arbitration and that its recommendations for the future conduct of both ‘central’ and ‘local’ practice differ somewhat from those in Deuteronomy and 2 Chronicles. He does not discuss the date of Exodus 18 in detail, but he appears to hold that it reflects an earlier stage of development than Deuteronomy, which ‘suppresses the role of Jethro’ (p. 423), as would fit these differences. He also sees that Moses’ acceptance of the advice of a foreigner was based on practical grounds and would have served to support such openness in later times (pp. 422, 423 n. 181).   By contrast Knierim regarded it as possible that vv. 16b and 20, which added complications to the older tradition, might have been introduced by the author of E himself (pp. 154-55). 4   Jackson amplifies his argument in ‘Law in the Ninth Century’. 3



18.13-27

583

Cook (‘The Tradition of Mosaic Judges’) wrote before Levinson’s and Jackson’s studies were published and he appears not to have known Crüsemann’s book. But he too follows the general line of Knierim’s approach, although with two important modifications. First, he places Exodus 18 within an ‘E-stream’ of texts and traditions, in which Num. 11.11-12, 14-17, 24-25 occupies an even earlier position; and secondly he makes the important point that Exodus 18 is not simply providing validation for the monarchic changes in judicial arrangements (in which vv. 21b and 25b reflect a later stage of development than the rest of the passage): as with other features of the E source it also seeks to ‘temper’ and ‘control’ the decentralisation of power by making ethical demands of the judges (cf. v. 21). To him this suggests, as H.W. Wolff proposed for the prophet Micah (cf. 3.1-4, 9-12), an origin for the author among conservative village elders.

Our assessment of this review of earlier scholarship can appropriately begin with a consideration of the arguments for a late dating of the passage as a whole in the exilic or post-exilic period, since this has recently become a widely held view (though as we have just shown it is by no means universally held at the present time). The first scholar to isolate Exodus 18 from the main components of the Pentateuch was Erhard Blum.5 In 1990 he presented some arguments for its late incorporation into the Pentateuchal narrative. At that time they were not intended to be arguments for the late origin of the material concerned, which Blum then believed to be part of an older Moses-tradition also used by Kd in Exodus 3–4. As noted above, he has subsequently abandoned that earlier dating for vv. 1-12 but he has not made clear what he now thinks about vv. 13-27. However, it is hard to see how he could maintain an early origin for these verses when they depend upon the preceding section which he holds to be post-exilic, especially as he has already conceded that they are an isolated late addition to the Exodus story. His reasons for this latter conclusion therefore need some examination here. He makes two points: (i) 18.13-27 (like vv. 1-12), at least in their present position, stand outside both of the main compositional layers which he has detected in Exodus, Kd and Kp (Studien, pp. 153-55); (ii) these verses include some expressions which are ‘late’ (p. 158).

5   Rose had questioned the arguments for an E origin (pp. 224-26) in 1981, but he saw the passage as mainly ‘ancient’ (p. 225).

584

EXODUS 1–18

In the former case, the lack of any connection with Kp may readily be granted6: this is of course just as true of much of the older material which Blum assigns to Kd, both earlier in Exodus and in the Sinai-pericope. The situation with Kd is more complex, as Blum himself has to recognise. There are in fact narrative connections with Kd in Exodus 3(–4), in the figure (and name) of Moses’ non-Israelite father-in-law; and the similar episode that is recapitulated in Deut. 1.9-18 (similar even in some details of wording) must point to some kind of literary connection between that passage and this, even if the nature of the connection has for the moment to remain uncertain (but see below). The older medieval and sourcecritical concern about the location of this episode before the Sinai legislation, to which Blum also refers, was based on what is probably a misunderstanding of vv. 16 and 20, as if they presupposed an already existing body of law: if these verses refer either to a simple delivery of verdicts or to a ‘cumulative’ judicial tradition based on precedents (see Note l on the translation and the Explanatory Notes), one might actually expect them to precede rather than follow any ‘code’ of law, especially as they deal with legal matters from a very different point of view from what follows in chs. 19–24. The supposed linguistic signs of lateness do not count for much. The words for ‘commandments’ in vv. 16 and 20 (if that is what they mean: see above) do not recur as a pair in either of the verses that Blum cites (15.26; 16.28) and both of them appear elsewhere in pre-exilic texts. The verb ‘teach’ in v. 20 does indeed also occur in 2 Chr. 19.10 in a similar context (though not certainly in the same sense), which Blum finds ‘noteworthy’ (p. 158); but there is nothing to suggest that the Exodus author took it from there rather than vice versa. An argument for a late date that Blum did not use (because he believed that in essentials the reverse was the case: likewise Rose, pp. 224-26, 263) was that the Exodus version is dependent upon Deut. 1.9-18. But this argument was soon to be deployed by Van Seters and Johnstone, and it has been revived by Albertz. Since Deuteronomy 1–3 is generally attributed to a late supplement to the Deuteronomic law-code, this argument would if accepted indeed imply a post-exilic origin for Exod. 18.13-27. But, as Levinson has 6   The ‘problems’ with the gap in the itinerary between 17.1 and 19.1-2 (p. 154) probably have more to do with the itinerary-material itself than with the narrative texts which it frames.



18.13-27

585

well remarked at the end of a detailed discussion (“Right Chorale”, p. 66 with n. 36): ‘The highly selective, point for point adjustment both of the chronology and the aetiology of the judicial administration can only be explained in terms of the authors of Deut. 1 consciously seeking to revise and correct the narrative of Exod. 18’. In a footnote he adds: ‘It is all but inconceivable that this argument could be reversed, making Exod. 18 the later text that revises and corrects Deut. 1. The move from a problem-free to a problematic text is most unlikely.’ This is surely correct: when Deuteronomy has presented an aetiology of the two-tier judicial system, which it commends in 16.18-20; 17.2-12, in terms of Moses’ initiative and in the ‘logical’ place after the covenant at Horeb, who is going to manufacture a narrative which makes this the idea of his foreign father-in-law and then insert it at such a puzzling point in the narrative? It is not surprising that a succession of commentators on Deuteronomy have taken the same view as Levinson (e.g. S.R. Driver, Deuteronomy [ICC; Edinburgh, 3rd ed., 1902], pp. xiv-xix, 9-10; Mayes, Deuteronomy, pp. 118-25; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, pp. 139-40; E. Nielsen, Deuteronomium [HAT; Tübingen, 1995], p. 26).7 A further factor which they mention adds weight to this conclusion: it is not difficult to detect the use of another non-Priestly section alongside Exod. 18.13-27 in Deut. 1.9-18, namely Num. 11.11-12, 14-17, 24-25. It is the use of these two passages in combination which causes the Deuteronomist to compose his narrative in two parts, vv. 9-14 (based on Num. 11) and vv. 15-18 (based on Exod. 18). The ordering of the two sub-sections is deliberate, for it ensures that the judges will be tribal leaders, chosen by the tribes, and not (royal) officials imposed from above. So determined were the authors to achieve this, that the reference to ‘judges’ in v. 16 comes without any preparation, a clear sign that the two traditions have been secondarily tacked together.8

  The puzzlement of von Rad on this point (Deuteronomium [ATD; Göttingen, 1964], pp. 28-29, ET, pp. 39-40) has prompted hesitation by some others, but it arises only from what he recognises to be the freedom with which the Deuteronomist has handled the older tradition and would in no way lend support to the opposite view. 8   In any case Deut. 1.9-18 is the ‘meeting-point’ of Exod. 18.13-26 and Num. 11 in most scholars’ understanding of the three passages. Even Cook’s unusual view that Exod. 18 is an elaboration of the tradition in Num. 11 has to reckon with renewed contact between the two passages in Deuteronomy (pp. 298-99). 7

586

EXODUS 1–18

It would (or should) take some very powerful arguments to overturn such a strongly founded consensus, but those offered are weak and inconclusive. Van Seters suggests that in Exodus 18 ‘the presentation of Moses’ office, some tasks and functions seems to be confused’ and needs to be seen as the result of a combination of Exod. 33.7-11 and Deut. 1.9-18 by his late Yahwist. His understanding of some details in Exodus 18 is probably mistaken, which undermines the charge of ‘confusion’ (see the Explanatory Notes). Significantly he does not explain why the ‘late Yahwist’ introduced Jethro as the key player in the story and he does not provide an adequate answer to Knierim’s (and now others’) proposal for a background to the passage in the monarchy period. His linguistic argument (taken from Rose) that Gen. 26.5 and Ps. 105.45 require a late date for vv. 16 and 20 carries no weight if the legal terms are understood here as we have suggested.9 According to Johnstone the Exodus passage is a Priestly recasting of Deut. 1.9-18 and passages in Numbers 10–11. His argument is briefer than that of Van Seters but vulnerable to the same criticisms. He notes differences from Deuteronomy and Numbers but only considers the P-edition as an alternative (later) source for them. The vocabulary shared by Exodus and Deuteronomy which he observes could as easily be borrowed by Deuteronomy as by Exodus. It is true that the verb ‘teach’ is used a number of times by Ezekiel (e.g. in 3.17-21), whose language is often similar to P, but the meaning is different there and the verb also occurs in non-Priestly passages (see Note t on the translation): it is never used in P itself and cannot be regarded as an indication of Priestly authorship. Finally, Albertz also cites the occurrence of vocabulary shared with Deuteronomy 1, but it is not distinctively Deuteronomic language and the transmission could just as easily have gone the other way. Albertz does provide an explanation for the introduction of Jethro into the Exodus version – it was to challenge the xenophobic attitudes of Nehemiah and those who thought like him in the fifth century B.C. – but it is an odd point of view to attribute to his ‘Hexateuch redactor’, whose main contribution was to add the highly xenophobic book of Joshua to Israel’s developing 9   Even if they are understood in the usual way, their occurrence in two probably late texts is not a sufficient proof that two other texts which use them are also late.



18.13-27

587

corpus of origin traditions!10 In any case Albertz does not explain adequately why Jethro’s involvement should be associated with the reform of the judicial system: in fact he pays very little attention to this central topic of the passage and says nothing about those scholars who have based their understanding of its origin on a more serious engagement with this. It remains most probable that the passage is earlier, not later, than Deut. 1.9-18. Before a more precise conclusion can be reached about its date and literary affinities, it is necessary to consider the question of its literary unity. There is no need to say more about theories that found extracts from two sources interwoven here, as Rudolph’s critique of this approach in 1938 justifiably dissuaded almost all subsequent scholars from adopting it.11 But a number of scholars (though not as many as for vv. 1-12) have concluded that some verses or parts of verses are secondary additions to the original narrative. The most recent commentaries (Propp, Dozeman and Albertz) do not take this view, but it has continued to be supported, in some cases affecting more of the text than before (cf. SchäferLichtenberger and Graupner). The first unit to be suspected of a later origin than the rest was v. 20, which Holzinger (pp. 61-62) found to be a confusing and moralising addition (cf. Rudolph, p. 39): despite taking the very similar expressions in v. 16b to refer to verdicts, here he thought they meant the ‘Mitteilung eines Rechtscodex’. It would surely be more consistent to understand the expressions in the same way both times. Schäfer-Lichtenberger and Graupner read both of them as references to legal instruction (like Rose, Deuteronomist, pp. 22930) and so see v. 16b as also a later addition. In the context this is surely not the primary meaning (see the Explanatory Note), and if 10   Levin (p. 361) asserts that it is obvious (‘liegt auf der Hand’) that vv. 13-26 validate a ruling from the Second Temple period: he thinks it concerns the delegation of priestly(!) arbitration to local officials. This is of course pure speculation and surely most improbable in Second Temple times: one might have thought that he would have considered alternatives. His only other argument is that v. 18 ‘cites’ Num. 11.14. This is plainly not the case, and if there is any literary connection between the verses, it is not easy to see what it is: even Levin seems to be unsure (cf. p. 374). 11   Fohrer is the only exception known to me (Einleitung in das Alte Testament [Heidelberg, 11th ed., 1969], pp. 161, 167).

588

EXODUS 1–18

it is present at all it can probably seen as an anticipation of Moses’ later role by the original author, as most commentators do. Baentsch introduced what has been the most widely followed proposal for a secondary addition: the list of specific titles for the judges in vv. 21b and 25b (p. 168: likewise Junge, Knierim, Hyatt, Fritz, Rose [pp. 230-31], Schäfer-Lichtenberger, Crüsemann [Die Tora, pp. 105-106, ET, p. 84], Cook, Graupner). The main reason given is that the titles belong to a military and hierarchical organisation that does not fit the simple two-tier judicial system proposed by Jethro. It is also unlikely that they correspond (apart from the word śar) to any actual feature of the judicial system that was in place under the monarchy: neither Deuteronomy 16–17 nor 2 Chronicles 19 mentions them. They might best be seen as adding some ‘colouring’ to fit the setting in Israel’s early history in which the author has placed the passage (which Deut. 1.15 retained), and this might as easily have been done by the original author as by a later redactor.12 Baentsch also saw vv. 25a and 26 as redactional additions, on the grounds that they were superfluous, only reflecting what had already been said; Graupner follows suit, but because of the differences from vv. 21-22 which correspond to Deut. 1.15 and 17 (the addition of ‘heads’ and the replacement of ‘great’ by ‘difficult’). Neither argument carries much weight. Schäfer-Lichtenberger saw the prophetic character of v. 15b as incompatible with Moses’ judicial role, apparently overlooking the same implication in v. 19b; Graupner excised v. 19b too. This is unduly ‘purist’: an origin tradition which elsewhere portrayed Moses as enjoying close intimacy with God (see especially 33.7-11) could perfectly well have attributed his ability as a judge to this. The section may therefore be treated as substantially a unity, though it is possible that vv. 21b and 25b are later additions. Its literary affiliation is clearly to the non-Priestly version of the Exodus story and our argument thus far has pointed to it being earlier, not later, than Deuteronomy 1. It is attached to vv. 1-12 by the time reference in v. 13 and by the fact that the author does not consider it necessary to give the name of Moses’ father-in-law again. It also   Baentsch and Crüsemann both found the attachment of the list in v. 21 awkward, because ‘over them’ might seem to refer to the officials. But the context really leaves no doubt that the officials are the object of ‘appoint’ (see Note x on the translation). 12



18.13-27

589

shares with vv. 1-12 the repeated use of ‘God’ (ʾelōhîm) in place of the divine name, here without exception, in contrast to most of the Exodus story. This encourages an association of it with other passages in Exodus which do likewise (and further passages which are closely associated with them) and have been attributed to the E source, an association which is strengthened, in part through vv. 1-12, by narrative continuity and similar terminology to parts of chs. 3–4. In addition the need for the judges to ‘fear God’ (v. 21) recalls the prominence of this quality in 1.15-21 (see the Explanatory Note on 1.17) as well as in some sections of Genesis which have commonly been attributed to E (20.11; 22.10; 42.18); and, while it is not restricted to E, the idea of God being ‘with’ a person to help and protect him (v. 19) is certainly present there (Gen. 21.20, 22; Exod. 3.12). A broadly pre-exilic date is also supported by the now wide acceptance among specialists of the view (see above) that in the background of the reform attributed to Jethro and Moses should be seen the change to a two-tier judicial system at some point in the monarchy period. It is unlikely that the actual pressures that led to such a system only had their effect after centuries of monarchic rule, so that a date for the reform as late as the time of Josiah (Junge) is improbable. The local courts seem to have been in existence by the eighth and probably the ninth century. Some scholars have placed the reforms very early, in the time of David, citing 2 Samuel 14 as evidence of tensions then (Reviv, Schäfer-Lichtenberger); others, treating 2 Chronicles 19 as having at least some basis in a historical memory, have proposed the reign of Jehoshaphat (Knierim, Crüsemann [Die Tora, pp. 113-16, ET, pp. 91-93], Jackson: against Junge’s association of Chr.’s source here with changes in Josiah’s time see Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles [NCB; London, 1982], pp. 287-89), but the ongoing debate about the authenticity of the Chronicler’s account makes it impossible to be certain about this. Nor do we know whether such procedures were perhaps first introduced in the larger northern kingdom before they reached Judah. In any case a general dating of the passage in the monarchy period is supported by the portrayal of Jethro as a kind of court adviser (see the Explanatory Notes on vv. 17-23) and it may well be that the attribution of the proposal to a foreigner was designed to deal with possible criticism of what was known to be a change that was modelled on a foreign precedent. Comparisons have sometimes been made with the fourteenth-century Edict of Horemheb (for the

590

EXODUS 1–18

text see ARE 3, §§45-67, esp. §63), in which the king of Egypt appoints two suitably qualified officials (viziers) in ‘the two great cities of the South and the North’ (the former certainly Thebes, the latter either Heliopolis or Memphis), to whom citizens could bring their disputes for resolution. This is of course long before any likely borrowing of the system by the Israelites. But the Edict is only the best-known example of a much wider body of evidence of local courts and (necessarily in such a large country) two central courts in Egypt (see for a summary and further references OEAE 2, pp. 277-82). It is in every way possible that the inspiration for the court system in Israel and Judah came, like much else in their government and administration, from Egypt. Exodus 18.13-26 has often been described as an ‘aetiology’ of the Israelite judicial system (e.g. by Knierim), but this designation has also been criticised, both by Childs and by Graupner (the latter especially in ‘Exodus 18,13-27 – Ätiologie einer Justizreform in Israel?’, but also in Elohist, pp. 109-10), though perhaps for the wrong reason. The chief reason why the designation is inadequate, though it has some truth in it, is that it fails to do justice to the intention of the narrative to regulate the institution, not simply to validate it. This is particularly evident in the qualities required of the judges in v. 21. Stephen Cook has quite rightly seen the passage as belonging to a ‘stream’ of tradition which has connections with eighth-century prophecy and Deuteronomy, which he refers to as the ‘E-stream’. This is a body of literature from the monarchy period which, among other things, shares a strongly ethical character. To modify the alternative designation proposed by Graupner, the story may best be described, not as ‘eine theologische Lehrerzählung’ (Elohist, p. 109), but as ‘eine ethische Lehrerzählung’. As such it fits very well into a central and distinctive feature of the material traditionally ascribed to E. It is visible, for example, in the shaping of the ‘wife-sister motif’ in Genesis 20 and in the midwives’ refusal to kill Israelite babies in Exod. 1.15-21 (see further e.g. Fohrer, Einleitung11, p. 171 [ET p. 157]; Graupner, Elohist, p. 393). Graupner has with good reason associated this emphasis with wisdom teaching (Elohist, p. 395), and we have noted already that Jethro appears here in the role of the wise counsellor. But just such an intense ethical concern, including its application to the law-courts, is also a prominent characteristic of eighth-century prophecy and in the case of Amos and Micah it has been specifically



18.13-27

591

linked to their closeness to wisdom teaching and forms of speech (cf. H.W. Wolff, Amos’ geistige Heimat [WMANT 18; Neukirchen, 1964]; ‘Michas geistige Heimat’, in Mit Micha reden: Prophetie einst und jetzt [Munich, 1978], pp. 30-40). This may justify us in seeing a contrast between the two Jethro episodes in Exodus 18 in relation to their originality. There seem to be good reasons to trace in vv. 1-12 (and 27) a strong element of ancient (and surprising) tradition about close contacts in early times between Israel (and specifically Moses) and the Midianites and their religion. In vv. 13-26 the impression that emerges is rather one of an engagement with an institution and perhaps its corruption which belonged to the author’s own time, just as is more explicitly the case in the parenesis in 23.1-3, 6-9 and later in Deut. 1.16-18 and 16.19-20. The benefit to the people promised in Exod. 18.23 depends on the observance of the whole of ‘Jethro’s’ advice – not just the institutional changes but also the behaviour of the judges themselves as it is presented in the qualities listed in v. 21 – and that is what Moses himself is said to have done (v. 24). As a later writer summed it up: ‘Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue, so that you may live and occupy the land that the Lord your God is giving you’ (Deut. 16.20). Graupner may well be right, therefore, to affirm that ‘no originally independent tradition can be isolated from 18.13ff.’ (Elohist, p. 110), at least as far as the role of Jethro is concerned.13 Instead we may see the author taking the opportunity provided by the tradition of a visit by a foreign notable to portray him as both a wise adviser about administrative arrangements and, under God (vv. 19, 23), a teacher of the ethical values which are essential if a society is to flourish. 13 On the next day Moses sat to give judgement fora the people and the people stood byb Moses from the morningc tilld the evening. 14 Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he was doinge for the people and said, ‘What is thisf that you are doing for the people? Why do you sit alone, whileg all the people stand by you from morning to evening?’h 15 Moses said to his fatherin-law, ‘Because the people come to me to seek God.i 16 When theyj have a dispute which comesj to me, I judge between the 13   The qualification is important, for the picture of Moses’ roles as a judge and a kind of ‘seer’ in vv. 13, 15-16 and 19 coincides with what is implied by passages such as 24.14 and 33.7-11 and may well have a basis in older tradition.

592

EXODUS 1–18 two partiesk and I declare the decisions and instructions (or ‘the statutes and laws’) of God.l’ 17 The father-in-law of Moses said to him, ‘What you are doing is not good. 18 You are tiring out both yourself and this people who are with you. The taskm is too heavy for youn – you cannot do ito on your own. 19 Now listen to my words of advicep and may God be with you!q You should continue to be the people’s representativer with Gods and bring their disputes to God. 20 You should teacht them the decisions and instructions (or ‘the statutes and laws’)l and make known to them the way in whichu they should proceed and the action(s) which they should perform. 21 But you should selectv from the whole people capable menw who fear God, honest men who hate unjust gain, and appoint them over themx (sc. the people) as officers for thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 22 They shall give judgment for the people at any time. Any serious (lit. great) disputey they shall refer (lit. bring) to you, but minor disputes they can resolve themselvesz. Lighten the load on yourselfaa and let them bear it with you. 23 If you do this and God so commands youbb, you will be able to survivecc and all this people will come todd their place in well-beingee. 24 Moses listened to his fatherin-law and did all that he said. 25 Moses chose capable men from all Israel and made them leaders over the people as officers for thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens, 26 and they would give judgementff for the people at any time. The more difficult disputes they would refer (lit. bring) to Moses, but every minor dispute they would resolve themselvesgg. 27 Then Moses let his father-in-law go and he made his journeyhh to his own land.

Notes on the Translation a. Heb. ‫לשׁפט את־העם‬. For the phrase (used of Solomon) see 1 Kgs 3.9 (cf. 2 Kgs 15.5): both here and there the context shows that ‫ ָשׁ ַפט‬can be used generally of acting as a judge and not only of the specific verdicts, favourable or unfavourable, that might be given. This wider sense is even more evident in other constructions which do not include a direct object, as in v. 16 below (cf. TWAT 8, 417-18 = TDOT 15, pp. 420-21). b. For ‫ על‬in the sense ‘by, beside, with’ (as again in v. 14) see BDB, pp. 755-56. c. Heb. ‫מן־הבקר‬, with the full spelling of ‫ מן‬retained as generally before the art. (GK §102b; JM §103d). As it happens the three other cases with ‫ הבקר‬all depart from that rule (2 Sam. 2.27; 24.15; 1 Kgs 18.26).



18.13-27

593

d. Heb. ‫( עד‬so MT, but see Text and Versions), as opposed to the ‘idiomatic’ ‫ ועד‬which appears in 9.25; 11.7; 12.12; 13.15; 23.31a; 28.42. But ‫ עד‬without waw occurs again in the next verse, as well as 22.3; 23.31b; 27.21. Overall the variation does not seem to be due to the date of a text’s composition. e. Heb. ‫עשׂה‬, with the participle here indicating continuing action in the past (from the narrator’s point of view): JM §121f. f. Heb. ‫הדבר הזה‬. The ten(!) occurrences of ‫ ָדּ ָבר‬in vv. 13-27 illustrate well some of its varied uses (on which see more generally BDB, pp. 182-84; TWAT 2, 111-33 = TDOT 3, pp. 103-25). Here, as in vv. 17 and 23, it does little more than reinforce the demonstrative (‘this thing’); in vv. 16, 19, 22 (2x) and 26 (2x) it has the technical legal sense of ‘dispute’; while in v. 18 it refers to a ‘task’ (cf. 5.13, 19). All these uses relate to the second major sense of ‫ ָדּ ָבר‬, ‘thing, matter’, except perhaps in v. 23, where it could be paraphrased ‘what I have said’ and so be derived from the primary sense ‘word’. There is a parallel use of Akk. awātu for ‘legal dispute’; compare also ‫ בעל דברים‬in 24.14 with Akk. bēl awātim (AHw, pp. 89a, 119b). This need not of course imply any linguistic borrowing. g. The clause is a circumstantial clause, highlighting the consequences which make Moses’ present practice questionable. h. This time, in contrast to v. 13, ‫ בקר‬and ‫ ערב‬are used without the article, as in 16.6-7, 19-20. The explanation here may be that a colloquial form of speech is being imitated or that the indeterminate forms imply a regular occurrence (cf. ‫ לילה‬when used adverbially): JM §137p suggests that it is due to the interrogation. i. Heb. ‫לדרשׁ אלהים‬. The expression is widespread (usually with ‫ יהוה‬rather than ‫אלהים‬, but cf. 1 Sam. 9.9; Pss. 14.2; 53.3; 69.33; 1 Chr. 21.30; 2 Chr. 19.3; 26.5; 30.19 for the latter; also Job 5.8 with ‫)אל‬ ֵ but it is used in different senses (TWAT 2, 318-27 = TDOT 3, pp. 298-304; cf. TWAT 1, 763-67 = TDOT 2, pp. 236-39 on the parallel idioms with ‫)בקשׁ‬. ‫ דרשׁ‬can be used of worship at a sanctuary (Ps. 24.6 and Isa. 58.2 are clear cases: cf. Amos 5.4-6), but ‫( בקשׁ‬esp. with ‫ )פנים‬is more common in this sense. It is also an expression for repentance (e.g. Isa. 55.6; Hos. 10.12) and piety in general (Ps. 9.11 and frequently in Chronicles). The sense which comes closest to the present context, however, is the request for divine guidance, most often through the consultation of a prophet (1 Sam. 9.9 etc.), which can also be expressed by ‫שׁאל‬. But this seems to be the only place where ‫ דרשׁ‬is used of a regular legal procedure: for comparable (but perhaps different) practices described in other ways see the Explanatory Note. j. Heb. ‫להם…בא‬. The difficulty of these words is reflected in the varied readings to which they gave rise (see Text and Versions). The pl. suff. of ‫להם‬ refers back to the collective ‫העם‬, as often, but the reversion to a sing. form in ‫ בא‬is surprising; unless, perhaps, the subject is indefinite (GK §144d) or ‫ בא‬is a participle attached to ‫( דבר‬Childs, p. 321, comparing 22.8, Houtman, p. 414,

594

EXODUS 1–18

Propp, p. 626; similarly Joosten, Verbal System, p. 302 n. 101: cf. ‫ בא‬Hiphil with ‫ דבר‬as object in vv. 22, 26). Our translation follows the latter view, but possibly the words ‫ בא אלי‬are a misplaced alternative reading for ‫ יבא אלי‬in v. 15: they are not essential to the sense here. On the use of ‫ דבר‬here see Note f. k. Heb. ‫בין אישׁ ובין רעהו‬, lit. ‘between a man and his companion’. l. Heb. ‫את־חקי האלהים ואת־תורתיו‬: cf. v. 20. This wording, as usually understood, seems to confuse legislation with the resolution of individual cases, unless the ‘making known’ refers to the citation of already existing legislation in support of Moses’ verdicts. ‫ תורה‬does occasionally mean a specific verdict or ruling (Deut. 17.11; Hag. 2.11; perhaps Isa. 2.3 par. Mic. 4.2; Job 22.22: cf. the use of ‫ ירה‬in Mic. 3.11) and might do so here (TWAT 8, 606-607 = TDOT 15, pp. 617-18). The application of ‫ חק‬to a one-off ‘decree’ or ‘prescription’ (cf. Ps. 2.7; Job 23.14; Gen. 47.22; Exod. 5.14) might justify a similar sense being given to it here in a specifically legal context: cf. the further examples of ‘concrete meanings’ in TWAT 3, 150-52 = TDOT 5, pp. 141-42. In particular the related form )‫(־אוֶ ן‬ ָ ‫ ִח ְק ֵקי‬in Isa. 10.1 is best understood, in the context of v. 2 and other passages in Isaiah, to refer to unjust verdicts rather than unjust laws (see the discussion in H.G.M. Williamson, Isaiah 6–12 [ICC; London, 2018], pp. 469-73, which speaks of ‘decisions and judgments’ by the central court in Jerusalem). This is certainly how one authority cited in MRI (Lauterbach, pp. 180, 182) thought that ‫ חק‬here could be understood. For further discussion see the Explanatory Note and Text and Versions. m. Heb. ‫הדבר‬. On the sense here see Note f. n. Heb. ‫ממך‬. For the sense ‘too…for’ (an extension of the comparative use of ‫ )מן‬cf. 1 Kgs 19.7; 2 Kgs 6.1 and BDB, p. 582 (6d). o. Heb. ‫עשׂהוּ‬.ֲ For the rarer form of the inf. constr. of a Lamed He verb, without the usual ending ‫ת‬-, see GK §75n, where it is observed that in the Pentateuch such forms are found only in passages traditionally attributed to the E source (Gen. 31.28; 48.11; 50.20: cf. also GK §69m n. 2).14 The other occurrences are in Ps. 101.3 and Prov. 16.16a; 31.4. The ‘very remarkable’ (GK) form with the suffix arises logically from the fact that this type of inf. ends in a vowel (cf. GK §58a). p. Heb. ‫שׁמע בקולי איעצך‬. It is difficult to be sure whether ‫ איעצך‬is an asyndetic relative clause subordinate to ‫בקולי‬, as in the translation given here with some support from the MT accents and Vulg atque consilia (cf. JB ‘Take my advice’ and Propp, p. 632; for the syntax see GK §155f; JM §158a); or an independent clause with a cohortative verb, ‘Let me advise you’, as it is commonly understood. Constructions of the former kind are much more

14   The only one of Graupner’s ‘exceptions’ to this observation that concerns a Lamed He verb is Gen. 48.11 (Elohist, p. 108 n. 386), and his reasons for denying that verse to E are not strong (ibid., pp. 358-59).



18.13-27

595

common, at least with a verbal clause, in poetry, though v. 20 below and 1 Sam. 6.9 provide clear examples in prose. q. Heb. ‫ויהי אלהים עמך‬. Again there is uncertainty over the syntax (cf. Propp, p. 632): is this a wish, as the jussive verb would most naturally suggest (cf. IBHS §34.3 with parallels), or an assurance, like ‫ יהי‬in 7.9 after two imperatives (cf. JM §116d, i and the more common construction with two imperatives linked by waw)?15 r. Heb. ‫היה אתה לעם‬. The independent pronoun as usual gives some emphasis to the subject (GK §135a; JM §146a-b), but in the circumstances there may be more emphasis on the verb which precedes it: Moses is to ‘continue’ with the mediatory role that he has been undertaking (cf. 1 Sam. 17.56; 23.22 for a similar weaker role for the pronoun; elsewhere, even when postponed, it does express a contrast: 20.19; Deut. 5.27; 1 Sam. 20.8). ‫ ל‬has the sense ‘on behalf of’ here, hence ‘representative’ is an appropriate paraphrase (cf. 4.16a; 2 Kgs 4.13; Isa. 6.8). s. Heb. ‫מול האלהים‬. Elsewhere, whether alone or preceded by a preposition, ‫ מול‬always refers to physical location, ‘in front of, opposite, towards’, perhaps with an element of proximity implied (cf. Num. 22.5). In the absence of other theological occurrences it is difficult to determine its relationship to ‫לפני‬, which can itself indicate varying degrees of closeness to God. What follows (‫ )אל־האלהים‬certainly implies the ability to enter God’s presence in some sense. Ehrlich’s view (pp. 332-33) that ‫ האלהים‬here means ‘the judges’ is unfounded: even in the passages where this interpretation has had more support (e.g. 21.6; 22.7, 8, 27 [cf. BDB, p. 43]) ‘God’ must be meant. t. Heb. ‫והזהרתה‬. The final he, while not necessary in this form, is ‘frequently added’ in MT according to GK §9d (and is found even in some pre-exilic inscriptions: cf. AHI 1.003.8; 2.007.5, 040.9). ‫ זהר‬Hiphil must, from the context, have the sense ‘teach, inform’ here, but the lexica continue to give ‘warn’ for most or all of its other occurrences (similarly for the Niphal). In some of these, at least, the meaning ‘teach, inform’ is possible too: 2 Kgs 6.10; Ps. 19.12; Qoh. 4.13; 2 Chr. 19.10; Sir. 35.22 [32.21]; 11QT 51.5. It has even been argued that the 15 occurrences in Ezekiel (all in 3.17-21 and 33.1-9), where the ‘watchman’ motif has seemed to require the sense ‘warn’, may be a specialised use based on ‘teach, inform’ (TWAT 2, 544-50 = TDOT 4, pp. 41-46; J. Tropper, ‘Hebräisch zhr2 “kundtun, warnen” ’, ZAH 8 [1995], pp. 144-48, with fuller examination of the Semitic cognates). ‫זהר‬, ‘shine’ (Dan. 12.3: cf. Ezek. 8.2), is a distinct homonym and not relevant (Tropper, pp. 147-48). M. Mishor, ‘On the Language and Text of Exodus 18’, in S.E. Fassberg and A. Hurvitz (eds.), Biblical Hebrew in its Northwest Semitic Setting (Jerusalem and Winona Lake, 2006), pp. 225-29 (228), is in no doubt that ‫ זהר‬here is an Aramaism and, following a hint of B. Jacob (p. 521), sees 15   Graupner (Elohist, pp. 108-109) adds a further possibility, that ‫ ויהי‬introduces a purpose clause.

596

EXODUS 1–18

it as one of a number of expressions (cf. Note v below) which show that the author of Jethro’s speech ‘tried to create the illusion that another language was being spoken by using rare terms or constructions. It seems that he did not care much about the difference between Aramaic and Midianite.’ u. Here (but not in the next clause) the relative clause is attached without ‫( אשׁר‬as in Gen. 39.4 and Exod. 9.4 perhaps), as more commonly in poetry (see Note p above). v. Heb. ‫ואתה תחזה‬. The anteposed independent pronoun as elsewhere gives emphasis, but to the new element in Jethro’s instructions as a whole. The sense ‘select, look out’ is not found elsewhere with ‫ חזה‬but it is well attested with its synonym ‫( ראה‬e.g. 2 Kgs 10.3, also with ‫)מן‬. In v. 25 the more specific word ‫ בחר‬is used. Mishor (see Note t) supposes that the author ‘was determined to insert the Aramaic [sic] verb into Jethro’s speech’. w. An ‫ אישׁ־חיל‬is sometimes a warrior (e.g. Judg. 3.29), but ‫ גבור־חיל‬is more frequent in this sense (and more explicit) and ‫ חיל‬can denote other kinds of ability or worth, as it clearly does here (cf. Gen. 47.6; Prov. 31.10; Ruth 3.11). x. Heb. ‫ושׂמת עליהם‬. The object of ‫ ושׂמת‬must (and can) be understood from the preceding clause and ‫ עליהם‬refers back to ‫העם‬, with a pl. ending as in v. 20. y. Heb. ‫כל הדבר‬. ‫ הדבר‬is presumably collective, like ‫ בן‬and ‫ בת‬in 1.22, which also have the article: cf. GK §127b and several more examples in BDB, p. 481. z. Heb. ‫ישׁפטו־הם‬. The imperfect here is permissive (JM §113l) and the independent subject pronoun underlines the contrast with the previous clause. aa. GK §110i takes ‫ והקל‬as a case of the imperative expressing a consequence when following waw. bb. Heb. ‫וצוך אלהים‬. The words seem surprisingly like an afterthought and they gave trouble to some of the Vss (see Text and Versions). But their sense and relevance is clear enough. Graupner’s view of them as a relative clause without ‫( אשׁר‬Elohist, p. 109) is baseless and of no help. cc. Heb. ‫עמד‬. For the sense see especially Ezek. 22.14, and also Deut. 25.8; Ruth 2.7. dd. One might expect ‫ אל‬rather than ‫( על‬cf. Text and Versions), but the latter is quite frequently used loosely of motion to a person or a place even where none of the special senses of ‫ על‬apply (BDB, p. 757). ee. For this common sense of ‫ שׁלום‬cf. 4.18 and 18.7. ff. Heb. ‫ושׁפטו‬. The perfect consecutive (like the imperfects later in the verse) indicates a repeated occurrence, even though the previous verb had expressed a single action (GK §112g). gg. Heb. ‫ישׁפוטו הם‬. On ‫ הם‬see Note z above. In ‫ ישׁפוטו‬the internal u-vowel is unusual but found again in MT at Prov. 14.3 and Ruth 2.8 (cf. GK §47g and Judg. 9.8, 12K). These may be survivals of the most ancient pronunciation of Hebrew. It is surprising for there to be any vowel at all (except in pause: GK §29m), but such orthography is more frequent at Qumran (cf. Meyer, II, pp. 101-102; Qimron, pp. 50-53; Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, pp. 209-11), at



18.13-27

597

least in mss exhibiting what E. Tov has called ‘the Qumran scribal practice’. The reason for this and its relationship to the Masoretic forms remains uncertain. hh. Heb. ‫וילך לו‬. The ‘centripetal lamed’ puts an emphasis on the subject’s involvement in the action denoted by the verb (JM §133d note; cf. BDB, pp. 515-16; GK §119s).

Explanatory Notes 13-16. The transition to the second narrative about Jethro and Moses is made by the common Heb. formula wayehî, ‘and it happened’, followed by a new specification of time, ‘on the next day’, which is close enough to make a connection with vv. 11-12 as well as to mark a fresh beginning (cf. Gen. 19.34; Exod. 32.30: less close are Exod. 9.6; 32.6). What follows indicates the new activity which is to be the focus of the ensuing conversation between Jethro and Moses: Moses’ role as the judge of disputes for the people. This role has not been mentioned before, but it is presupposed in 24.14, where Aaron and Hur (cf. 17.10, 12) are appointed to act as his deputies while he is up on the mountain with Joshua.16 Moses himself acts as a judge in several other passages (Lev. 24.10-23; Num. 9.6-14; 15.32-36; 27.1-11; 36.1-12), but these ‘narratives of desert adjudication’ belong to a different and much later stage of Pentateuchal legal history (cf. Crüsemann, Die Tora, pp. 121-31, ET, pp. 98-107; Jackson, Wisdom-Laws, pp. 425-30). The contrast with what Jethro proposes in v. 22 (cf. v. 26), a procedure that is available ‘at any time’ (this is the sense of bekol-ʿēt, not ‘for ever’, as some have proposed [e.g. Knierim, ‘Exodus 18’, p. 151: correctly Graupner, Elohist, p. 109]), confirms what would in any case have been probable, that Moses only acted in this way from time to time and not every day. For judges ‘sitting’ cf. Judg. 4.4-5; Isa. 28.6; Ps. 122.5: of God as a judge in Joel 4.12; Ps. 9.5. The (hyperbolic) mention of ‘the (whole) people’ standing and waiting all day (cf. v. 14) for their cases to be heard serves to accentuate the disadvantages of having only one judge. 16   Some (including Cook, ‘The Tradition of Mosaic Judges’, p. 294) presume that it is also in view in Num. 11.11-15, 24-30, but judging is not mentioned there and the issue is the burden of leadership more generally.

598

EXODUS 1–18

Jethro’s questions in v. 14 lead to a clarification of the process of ‘Mosaic judgement’ (vv. 15-16). First of all, Moses is the person through whom the people ‘seek God’, that is, in this context, they seek a divinely approved resolution to their disputes.17 The expression ‘to seek (dāraš) God/Yahweh’ has a much wider use elsewhere in the Old Testament (see Note i on the translation and C. Westermann, ‘Die Begriffe für Fragen und Suchen in AT’, KuD 6 [1960], pp. 2-30; repr. in his Forschung am Alten Testament: Gesammelte Studien II [Munich, 1974], pp. 162-90): it is used generally of worship and then of repentance and prayer. But it most frequently denotes the seeking of divine guidance in a great variety of circumstances, both through a prophet (e.g. 1 Sam. 9.9; 1 Kgs 22.7-8; 2 Kgs 22.13-14; Jer. 21.2; Ezek. 14.7) and at a shrine (Gen. 25.22; Ps. 34.5): sometimes the two coincide. Exodus 33.7 uses the close synonym biqqēš for people going to inquire of Yahweh through Moses at ‘the tent of meeting’. Neither verb seems to be used elsewhere specifically for the solution of legal disputes, but prophet(esse)s are said to have acted as judges in early Israel (Judg. 4.4-5 [Deborah]; 1 Sam. 7.15-17 [Samuel, at places known to be cultic centres]) and some laws in the Book of the Covenant provide for a divine decision to be obtained at a shrine (Exod. 22.7, 8, 9-10; cf. 1 Kgs 8.31-32).18 Here the process concludes (as also in v. 20) with a phrase that is generally understood to mean that Moses reveals ‘the statutes and instructions of God’ (NRSV and other EVV.: so also the ancient Vss): this is what the words ḥōq and tôrāh usually mean. They might then refer to the existing laws according to which Moses gives his (i.e. God’s) verdict – leaving on one side the problem that the main body of laws is yet to be delivered (but perhaps see 15.25 and 16.4, 28) – or they might be new laws (which seems to be the general view now), presumably generalisations from the particular cases brought to Moses: Houtman (pp. 414-15: cf. Albertz, p. 309) gives the clearest explanation in these terms. But either way, the process of law-giving seems to be more drawn out than it is in the standard Exodus accounts of ready-made legal collections being revealed by   Throughout vv. 13-27 Heb. ʾelōhîm, ‘God’ is used in place of the divine name Yahweh (vv. 15, 16, 19 [3x], 21, 23: cf. vv. 1a, 5, 12 [2x]). 18   For a much later relic of this practice see 28.30 and the related passages, including Ezra 2.63/Neh. 7.65. 17



18.13-27

599

God to Moses and/or the people as part of the covenant-making process. This is not the only difficulty with the usual interpretation, for the context, which is very much about legal process (jurisdiction) and not about legislation, leads us to expect a reference to verdicts, not new laws. A case can be made that the words might mean this here (see Note l on the translation). Although this is not the usual view today, there is some support for it in the Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael, a third-century A.D. Jewish commentary (Lauterbach, pp. 180, 182), where R. Joshua is said to have taken the words to mean ‘interpretations’ and ‘decisions’, both words befitting what judges do; while R. Eleazar of Modin is credited with the same interpretation of ‘instructions’, but with a reference to the sexual laws in Leviticus 18 for ‘statutes’ (because the same Heb. word is used for them in Lev. 18.30; cf. Eleazar’s interpretation of its occurrence in 15.26, ibid., pp. 94, 96). Wellhausen took this view for both words (Rechtsentscheidungen: Composition, p. 81 n. 1); also Holzinger, Baentsch and (for ‘instructions’ [tôrōt]) McNeile and Hyatt, likewise RSV, JB. Jackson has recently supported the rendering of tôrōt (but not that of ḥuqqîm) here as ‘decisions’ (Wisdom-Laws, p. 422, with the interesting shift to ‘precedents’ on p. 424). The case for this sense with tôrōt is certainly stronger, particularly in view of its appearance in Deut. 17.11 and Hag. 2.11, but there are also uses of ḥōq for a ‘decree’ or a ‘decision’ which might justify its application to a judge’s verdict in a judicial context like this (cf. Isa. 10.1). If the objection is raised that there were other more obvious words to use for a verdict (Heb. mišpāṭ, dābār), the answer might be that the very ambiguity of ḥōq and tôrāh allowed some continuity to be expressed between Moses’ (original?) judicial role and his better known part in the origin of Israel’s laws. 17-19a. Jethro’s criticism of what Moses is doing is based on its practical disadvantages: it is ‘not good’ (lōʾ ṭôb) because it is wearisome for Moses and the people, who must wait for their disputes to be resolved: there is no issue of principle involved. ‘The most common meaning of ṭôb in the OT is utilitarian’ (TWAT 3, 324 = TDOT 5, p. 304). Not surprisingly ṭôb is particularly frequent in the pragmatic teaching of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, especially in comparative sentences (e.g. Prov. 15.16; Eccl. 4.6, 9: see further TWAT 3, 333-35 = TDOT 5, pp. 313-14). It is notable that Jethro shows concern not only for his son-in-law’s well-being but for that of the people as a whole (the latter’s importance in vv. 13-26

600

EXODUS 1–18

is emphasised by Knierim, ‘Exodus 18’, p. 149 and n. 10). This too corresponds to the ethos of the wisdom literature, which is not purely individualistic but values highly the benefits (or otherwise) of an individual’s actions for the whole community (cf. W. McKane, Proverbs [OTL; London, 1970], pp. 11-12, 21-22). Jethro presents himself to Moses as an ‘advisor’: when he says, according to the literal meaning of the Heb. word, ‘(with which) I will advise you’, he is using the verb which generated (as its active participle) the word for a ‘counsellor’ (yōʿēṣ): such figures played an important part in the government of the Israelite kingdoms (e.g. 2 Sam. 17; Isa. 3.3; and numerous passages in Chronicles), as well as in private life (Prov. 15.22; 24.6). Counsellors were meant to be wise, and in this section Jethro perhaps appears as one of those ‘wise men of the East’ with whom Solomon was compared (1 Kgs 4.30). Jethro concludes his introductory remarks with what is probably a wish (rather than an assurance: see Note q on the translation) that God will be ‘with’ Moses, presumably to help him to carry out the action which he is about to recommend. This is not an expression that is typical of the wisdom literature – its theology is of a different kind – but it is widespread, especially in narrative texts, and such wishes seem to have been common as words of encouragement to those in danger or undertaking a new responsibility (1 Sam. 20.13 [cf. 17.37?]; 1 Kgs 1.37), as well as in everyday life (Ruth 2.4).19 Statements that Yahweh/God is, has been or will be ‘with’ an individual or group are even more widespread: there are numerous examples in Genesis (e.g. 21.20, 22; 26.28; 31.3; 39.3, 21, 23) and Moses himself has received such an assurance in Exod. 3.12 and 4.15. In 2 Chr. 19.6 Jehoshaphat assures his officials that Yahweh will be ‘with’ them in their work as judges – the passage is probably dependent at that point on this one. According to H.-D. Preuss such formulae belong to ‘a fundamental nomadic structure of Israelite faith and thought’; ‘Yahweh’s presence is not primarily a spiritual gift…it is a concrete promise that Yahweh will be with his own’ (TWAT 1, 492-93 = TDOT 1, p. 456). Certainly it is well rooted in the older narrative tradition and is not to be limited to any particular theological ‘stream’ (see further Preuss, ‘…ich will mit dir sein!’, ZAW 80 [1968], pp. 137-73; TWAT 1, 485-500 = TDOT 1, pp. 449-63).   In Exod. 10.10 Pharaoh expresses such a wish ironically.

19



18.13-27

601

19b-20. Jethro’s specific recommendations begin with Moses’ own role, which looks at first as if it is to continue unchanged: Moses is to go on acting as the people’s intermediary by taking disputed cases for resolution by God. The same uncertainty exists in v. 20 about the meaning of ‘statutes and laws’ as in v. 16, but the context again seems to point to a reference to verdicts (‘them’ will refer to the litigants). The omission of ‘of God’ scarcely makes any difference: if the cases have been ‘brought to God’ (v. 19), it will be his decisions that are reported to the people. When compared with Moses’ description of his task in v. 16, Jethro’s restatement of it is fuller: he adds ‘and make known to them the way in which they should proceed and the action(s) which they should perform’. These words might point to an additional task which Moses is to undertake, the instruction of the people about their general behaviour: ‘way’ (Heb. derek) and ‘proceed’ (Heb. hālak) are often used in this way. But they could equally refer to the amplification of a simple verdict, in the form of detailed instructions about the requirements imposed on the disputing parties. In one respect the language fits this better, as ‘action(s)’ is a singular noun in the Heb. (maʿaśeh): it is occasionally used collectively for ‘actions’ more generally (e.g. Mic. 6.16), but the singular meaning is the more obvious (cf. Gen. 44.15). In this case Jethro does not (yet) modify what Moses is to do to any significant extent: he keeps the limitation of it (like any wise advisor) until the end, where he underlines its practical value again (vv. 22-23). 21-23. The new element in Jethro’s proposal is to establish a much larger body of judges who will each take responsibility for the primary adjudication of disputes in a section of the people. It is highly likely that behind this story the outlines of a judicial reform can be detected, which at a later stage of Israel’s history created the system of local courts that is visible in texts from the monarchy period as the usual setting for the ordinary populace to seek arbitration in their legal disputes (for fuller discussion of this view see the introduction to this section). The responsibility for the selection and appointment of these judges is given here to Moses himself (v. 21: contrast Deut. 1.13), not the people or their representatives. They are to possess certain qualities to fit them for their task and prevent injustice from being done. Apart from the last one, these qualities are not special to good judges, they are characteristics that are admired in anyone, according to the Old Testament’s scheme

602

EXODUS 1–18

of values. The first two also appear in the description of the ideal wife in Prov. 31.10-31: she is ‘capable’ (v. 10: cf. 12.4) and she ‘fears the Lord’ (v. 30). ‘Capable men’ (literally ‘men of ability’, Heb. ʾanšê ḥayil) were often warriors, but this is unlikely to be the meaning here and, as the examples from Proverbs show, ḥayil could refer to other types of ability, as it also does in those who were to be appointed to official positions (śārîm: see further below) in Gen. 47.6. Sometimes it appears to mean ‘worth’ or ‘respect’ (1 Kgs 1.42, 52; 2 Kgs 2.16). ‘Fear of God/Yahweh’, which is also often praised in Proverbs (1.7; 8.13 etc.), introduces a religious characteristic, but it is one with a strongly ethical dimension, as can be seen from its application to the Hebrews’ midwives earlier in Exodus (1.17, 21: see the notes there and more generally TWAT 3, 876-93 = TDOT 6, pp. 297-315). The two final qualities are specifically ethical and probably belong closely together. ‘Honest men’ are men of ʾemet, a word which covers a range of meaning from ‘faithfulness, reliability’ to ‘truth’, the latter especially where speaking is involved (Prov. 12.19, where the opposite is ‘falsehood’, šeqer). The quality is naturally highly valued in judges elsewhere: ‘judgments that are in accordance with ʾemeth correspond to the actual facts so that they prove to be right and just’ (TWAT 1, 336 = TDOT 1, p. 312, with reference to Zech. 7.9; 8.16: cf. also Prov. 29.14). In this context the contrast is with partiality and unfairness (Exod. 23.6-7). Such judges will also ‘hate unjust gain’ (beṣaʿ), a word that is sometimes paired or paralleled with words for ‘bribe’ (1 Sam. 8.3; Isa. 33.15; Prov. 15.27) or is associated with judicial practice in other ways (Jer. 22.16-17): more direct criticism of bribery appears in Exod. 23.8; Isa. 1.23; Mic. 3.11 etc. The judges are to be ‘officers’ or ‘officials’, Heb. śārîm: in the original the word is repeated before each of the groups. The same expressions are used below in v. 25 and in the similar (probably later: see the introduction to this section) passage in Deut. 1 (v. 15). Elsewhere they refer to the commanders of military units, mainly in Chronicles but occasionally in some older texts (of a ‘fifty’ in 1 Sam. 8.12; 2 Kgs 1.9-15 [6x]; Isa. 3.3; of a ‘hundred’ in 1 Sam. 22.7 [perhaps also in 8.12]; 2 Kgs 11.4-15 [4x]; of a ‘thousand’ in 1 Sam. 8.12; 17.18; 22.7: no clear case exists with ‘ten’, but some have taken Ishmael’s ten supporters to be such a ‘unit’ of the army [Jer. 41.1-2; cf. de Vaux, Institutions 2, p. 27, ET, p. 226]). Such military units are sometimes referred to without explicit mention



18.13-27

603

of their commanders (1 Sam. 29.2; 2 Sam. 18.4 – thousands and hundreds only: likewise in Chr.) and the same expressions also appear without a clear military reference as divisions of a tribe, whether in the form of a ‘clan’ (Judg. 6.15; 20.10; 1 Sam. 10.19; 23.23) or of a ‘city’ (Mic. 5.1; cf. Amos 5.3?). There must, it seems, at some point have been a correspondence between the terminology for tribal divisions as such and those of the tribal contingents of the early Israelite (‘conscript’) army and this terminology, like other features of the tribal system that were gradually displaced by the organisation of the monarchic state, evidently remained in use for some time afterwards (cf. Wellhausen, Abriss der Geschichte Israels und Juda’s, in Skizzen und Vorarbeiten I [Berlin, 1884], pp. 3-112 [12]; ET in Prolegomena, p. 436: ‘In time of war they [sc. the elders and heads of houses] each commanded his own household force, and in peace they dispensed justice each within his own circle’). The śārîm (sing. śar), whether mentioned as a group or with definitions of their different responsibilities, seem to have been essentially the officials of the royal bureaucracy and its military and judicial branches (see the studies of U. Rüterswörden, Die Beamten der israelitischen Königszeit. Eine Studie zu śr und vergleichbaren Begriffen [BWANT 117; Stuttgart, 1985], and R. Kessler, Staat und Gesellschaft in vorexilischen Juda. Vom 8. Jahrhundert bis zum Exil [VTSup 47; Leiden, 1992], for wide-ranging discussions of the evidence; the article on śar in TWAT 7, 855-79 = TDOT 14, pp. 190-215, provides much valuable information). A few earlier occurrences use śar in the more general sense of a ‘leader’ (Num. 21.18; Judg. 5.15; 8.6, 14; 9.30; 10.18), but most of the occurrences in the Pentateuch are likely to be anachronistic retrojections of a later situation into the early period or the application of the later term to corresponding types of officials in neighbouring countries such as Egypt. It is clear that the śārîm of the monarchy period had, among many others, judicial roles (Isa. 1.23; 10.1-2; Jer. 26.10-16; cf. Exod. 2.14); a seventh-century Heb. inscription from Meṣad Ḥašavyahu supplements the biblical evidence in a vivid way, providing a record of a judicial petition made to a śar (AHI 7.001; cf. AHI 2, 99.008, though its genuineness has been disputed). For discussion of the original setting and purpose of this part of Jethro’s advice see the introduction to this section. The new judges are to be available ‘at any time’ (v. 22), which would avoid the long delays mentioned earlier (for evidence of similar complaints

604

EXODUS 1–18

in the monarchy period see 2 Sam. 15.1-6). There is also to be a distinction between ‘serious’ and ‘minor’ cases (lit. ‘great’– in v. 26 the word ‘difficult’ [Heb. qāšeh] is substituted – and ‘small’): the former, of which there would presumably be fewer, will be referred by the judges to Moses, but the latter they can deal with themselves. Exactly the same distinction operated in ancient Egypt, where there was a similar two-level structure of law-courts (ḳnbt: cf. OEAE 2, pp. 277-82). In his summing-up (v. 23), which is again dominated by practical concerns, Jethro recognises the need for divine approval of his proposals (for other, less satisfactory, interpretations see Text and Versions). This fits in with his (and no doubt the narrator’s) overall concept of wisdom, which has already led him to mention God several times (vv. 19, 21). Presumably he assumes that Moses will consult God before taking action – or maybe he envisages that the success or otherwise of the change will show whether God approves of it. A similar submission to God’s sovereignty is to be found in even the older sections of Proverbs (16.1-3; 19.21: 3.5-8 gives a stronger warning against a wisdom that claims independence from God). The precise way in which the people are said to benefit has been understood in different ways, because of some ambiguity in the word ‘place’ (Heb. māqôm). Some have taken ‘their place’ to mean the land of Canaan, citing 23.30 and Num. 10.29 in support. But it is hard to see this reform as a condition for God’s overall plan for his people. It is better to see ‘place’ being used here as a general expression for ‘home’ (cf. NRSV and Judg. 7.7; 1 Sam. 2.20), which had the advantage that it neither tied the assurance too tightly to the desert situation (as ‘tent’ would have done) nor anticipated too crudely (like ‘house’) the future to which it also, and perhaps primarily, was meant to apply. 24-26. Moses accepts Jethro’s advice, like a king being guided by his wise courtier(s). All that is peculiar, despite the close family relationship between them, is that Jethro is a foreigner. Perhaps there is a hint here that the reform to which this episode alludes (and which it validates) was based on a foreign model, just as it has often been thought that the administrative structure of the royal bureaucracy in later times was patterned on the much more complex Egyptian royal administration (cf. 2 Sam. 15.18-22; 23.24-39: Albertz, Religionsgeschichte, pp. 167-69, ET pp. 111-13; H. Donner, Geschichte des Volkes Israel und seiner Nachbarn in Grundzügen 1 [Göttingen,



18.13-27

605

2nd ed., 1995], pp. 229-32). In the context of the Exodus story an Egyptian ‘adviser’ could hardly be introduced, but Jethro as a trusted relative of Moses could readily serve as ‘a wise man of the East’, to bring about the favourable reception of a constitutional reform with a foreign origin. 27. It is not made clear how long it is supposed to have taken Moses to put Jethro’s proposals fully into operation: in any case the summary in v. 26 (where the Heb. imperfect tenses indicate repeated action) is, no doubt deliberately, open-ended at least through Moses’ lifetime. But the implication of the narrative’s location where it is must be that Jethro departs for Midian before the theophany and covenant-making begin. This is different from the truncated ending of a narrative about Moses’ Midianite relatives which has been placed at the end of the Sinai-narrative in Num. 10.29-32. This placing is not accidental, since the surviving part of that narrative is entirely concerned with whether a Midianite relative of Moses will accompany the Israelites on their onward journey, namely Hobab the son of Reuel, Moses’ father-in-law. There is clearly a connection there with the alternative account of Moses’ stay in Midian in 2.15-22 (and probably 4.24-26), where Moses’ father-in-law is called Reuel and not Jethro. The Hobab story, which has apparently lost its ending as well as its beginning, is complicated further, but also perhaps explained, by the fact that Hobab reappears in the book of Judges, now as the ancestor of a group of Kenites who have settled in northern Canaan (Judg. 4.11; cf. 5.24). One can then imagine, or even infer, that he was identified with the Kenite fatherin-law of Moses whose descendants entered Canaan, according to a separate tradition (Judg. 1.16: cf. LXX and B. Lindars, Judges 1–5: A New Translation and Commentary [Edinburgh, 1995], pp. 35-36), with the tribe of Judah and settled in the far south of the land near Arad. The narratives associated with the name of Jethro are evidently quite distinct from these fragments of tradition about Reuel and Hobab, with which they share only the name of Moses’ wife and his eldest son and the role of Moses’ father-in-law as a Midianite priest. There can be no real doubt that pieces of at least two different ‘jig-saws’ have been selected and combined in the present text of the Hebrew Bible. If this results in problems that can no longer be fully solved, it is also as good an illustration as any that behind the Pentateuch there once lay a much richer store of traditional

606

EXODUS 1–18

narrative, from which the epic narrators (the ‘sources’ of the present text) have selected their material before they adapted it to their own purposes. If, or where, they created and shaped their material ex nihilo, they would surely have made a much tidier job of it. Text and Versions ‫( ויהי ממחרת‬18.13) In 4QpalExm ‫ ממחרת‬is at the beginning of a line, so ‫ ויהי‬would have been in the lacuna at the end of the previous line: whether it was separated from v. 12 by a division is not certain but probable. After ‫ ממחרת‬there is some empty space as if, oddly, there was a division here. LXX μετὰ τὴν ἐπαύριον (similarly at 32.20) is probably a literalistic rendering (cf. Wevers, Notes, p. 282), not to be translated ‘After the next day’. TgJ specifies ‘the day after the Day of Atonement’ (cf. MRI [Lauterbach, p. 179]): the rationale for this chronology is worked out by Rashi in his comments here and on 33.11. ‫( ויעמד‬18.13) LXX, Sy and Vulg understandably render this as a past continuous verb (cf. v. 14b), even though it would be an unusual sense for the Heb. form here. TgN and Sy have the verb in the pl. ‫( העם‬18.13)2o LXX πᾶς ὁ λαός makes a typical heightening of the account (cf. 17.13 and Text and Versions there), perhaps in this case derived from v. 14b. ‫( על־משׁה‬18.13) 4Q365 seems to have read ‫ אל‬for ‫על‬, which is probably just an extension of a fluidity in the use of these prepositions in some biblical books (cf. BDB, p. 41, and esp. 2 Kgs 11.14). TgJ,N ‫ קדם‬adapts the picture a little. ‫( מן־הבקר‬18.13) 4QpalExm has ‫מן בקר‬, without the art., as in MT at v. 14 (see Note h on the translation: SP also harmonises, but in the opposite direction). ‫( עד־הערב‬18.13) SP (cf. Sy) prefixes waw, as also in v. 14: the ‘idiomatic’ construction is sometimes found in MT (e.g. 9.18; 11.7), but it is more frequent (though not universal) in SP. 4QpalExm has only traces of ‫ ערב‬preserved after a lacuna: presumably it again omitted the article. ‫( חתן משׁה‬18.14) LXX has Ιοθόρ (its regular spelling of Jethro’s name) instead, while 4Q365 adds ‫( יתר‬a form which appears in extant Heb. texts only otherwise at 4.18) to ‫חתן משׁה‬. The name had appeared in v. 12: its (surely secondary) introduction here may be due to the beginning of a new episode, if it is not just a case of assimilation to the near context. ‫( לעם‬18.14)1o Vulg in populo (cf. in plebe later in the verse) and TgJ ‫לעמיה‬ made minor changes to the Heb. ‫( ויאמר‬18.14) Sy, as often, adds lh to identify the addressee (cf. 17.2-3). ‫( הדבר‬18.14) LXX* (and Vulg) found an equivalent to be unnecessary, but the O-text inserted τὸ ῥῆμα (from Aq: Symm, Theod have ὁ λόγος) to represent it.



18.13-27

607

‫( יושׁב‬18.14) In 4Q365 the word is secondarily inserted above the line: the space available in the lacuna that precedes suggest that the omission by the original scribe extended back to the second ‫( עשׂה‬DJD XIII, p. 273). ‫( לבדך‬18.14) TgN added ‘to give judgement’ (cf. v. 13) for clarity. ‫( נצב‬18.14) 4Q365 has the pl. ‫( נצבים‬cf. Tgg, Sy), which would be possible in BH (GK §132g): but the agreement of MT and SP (cf. LXX, Vulg: 4QpalExm is not extant here) suggests that it is a secondary development. Vulg praestolatur, without a separate equivalent for ‫עליך‬, can mean ‘stand ready’ but in Vulg it generally has the sense ‘(a)wait’, which would highlight the effect of Moses’ practice on the people well. ‫( מן־בקר עד־ערב‬18.14) SP adds the article to each noun, assimilating to v. 13, as well as reading ‫( ועד‬for the latter cf. 4Q365, Sy). LXX has δείλης (instead of ἑσπέρας) for ‫ערב‬: the precise meaning of δείλη was ‘afternoon’ but it was used in later class. Gk. in formulae like this (LSJ, pp. 373-74) and stands for ‫ ערב‬several times elsewhere in LXX (cf. δειλινόν in 29.39, 41). ‫( ויאמר‬18.15) The word begins a new line in 4Q365 and the end of v. 14 according to MT/SP would come well before the end of the previous line. So either 4Q365 had additional text here, which seems rather unlikely, or a division which does not appear in MT or SP was marked. For some unparalleled breaks elsewhere in 4Q365 see DJD XIII, pp. 259-60. ‫( לחתנו‬18.15) LXX* had just τῷ γαμβρῷ, as the possessive pronoun could be understood, but the Three add αὐτοῦ, as does the O-text, to agree precisely with Heb. ‫( לדרשׁ אלהים‬18.15) The Vss all add a word to specify what was sought from God, taking their lead from v. 16: LXX κρίσιν and Vulg sententiam both specify a legal decision (see respectively Wevers, Notes, p. 283, and OLD, p. 1736);20 Tgg ʾūlpān, ‘instruction’, which TgO also has at Gen. 25.22 (TgN,J are different there) and Sy mltʾ, ‘a word’, use more general expressions but probably have the same object in mind. By adding ‫מן קדם‬, ‘from before’, Tgg as often avoid the impression that God interacts directly with humans: AramB 2, p. 78 n. 9, suggests that in them ‘Moses is depicted as a Torah scholar or rabbi’ (cf. v. 19 and 19.3-4). ‫( כי‬18.16) LXX (ὅταν γάρ) and Vulg (cumque) make an explicit connection with v. 15, as do numerous mss of SP (‫ )וכי‬and Sy, though not the best ones. Such connections are more likely to be added than removed and the asyndetic construction of MT and Tgg is both effective and most likely original. ‫( דבר‬18.16) Only Sy and SamTg use a regular equivalent: the other Vss have renderings that reflect the legal character of the context (see Note f on the translation). 20   This is not the introduction of an ‘intermediary’ to avoid anthropomorphism (Fritsch, pp. 56-57), in LXX at least, as the translator has no difficulty with κύριον as a direct object of ‘seek’ in 33.7.

608

EXODUS 1–18

‫( בא‬18.16) The Vss all have the verb in the pl., which is certainly expected after ‫להם‬, and SP reads ‫באו‬. 4QpalExm has a waw before and not after the verb: there is a gap between two fragments of the ms. at this point and Sanderson originally restored ‫ו[ב]א אלי‬ ׄ (Exodus Scroll, p. 333 etc.). In DJD IX, p. 96, she reads ‫ו[בו]א אלי‬ ׄ and comments that ‘the plene waw is based on other usage in this scroll’. It is hard to be sure what she means: the only other occurrence of ‫ בוא‬is at 10.1, where it is an imperative and that would not fit here. Perhaps she understands the form as an inf. abs., to which the same spelling conventions would apply: one might then see it as being used in place of a finite verb (GK §113y). But she gives no reason for not reading ‫ו[ב]א‬ ׄ as she had done earlier, which would at least get round one difficulty with MT’s perfect tense or participle (see Note j on the translation). At any rate it is clear that 4QpalExm did not have the SP reading: it is actually closer to LXX’s καὶ ἔλθωσιν and might (according to either of Sanderson’s restorations) represent LXX’s Vorlage: given LXX’s freedom later in the verse (see below), even a change from sing. to pl. by the translator would be possible. But whether the introduction of the conjunction in these two witnesses is connected or independent, it is most likely secondary, as often elsewhere (see the note on ‫ כי‬above). MT is the only reading that cannot be explained from the other evidence, as well as being unquestionably difficult, and as such probably represents the oldest reading we have. On ways in which it might be explained see Note j on the translation. ‫( ושׁפטתי‬18.16) Vulg ut iudicem draws out the element of purpose that is implicit in the people’s coming (cf. v. 15b) but as a translation it is free: the perfect consecutive here expresses recurrent action (so recently Joosten, Verbal System, pp. 300-301). ‫( בין אישׁ ובין רעהו‬18.16) Vulg inter eos is a neat and precise equivalent to the Heb., which can scarcely be said for LXX’s free ἕκαστον: the Aram. Vss follow the idiom of the original. ‫( והודעתי‬18.16) The Vss (except Vulg) add a pl. pronoun referring to the people, and this is presumably the intention behind SP’s ‫ והודעתיו‬with its sing. suffix. ‫( ואת־תורתיו‬18.16) As for ‫את־חקי האלהים‬,21 the Vss use their standard equivalents rather than words indicating ‘decisions’ in particular cases.22 More striking is LXX’s sing. τὸν νόμον, which matches its renderings in 16.28; 18.20; Lev. 26.46 and must reflect the growing use of the sing. for ‘the Law’ as a whole; AramB renders TgJ’s ‫ אורייתיה‬in the sing. too, although the form is ambiguous (Stevenson §14) and TgO’s similar form is probably meant as a

  The printing of the phrase in DJD IX, p. 96, makes it seem that in 4QpalExm some additional text might intervene between ‫ חוקי‬and ‫האלהים‬, but on the photograph it is clear that the space is no larger than between other words. 22   This contrasts with the Tannaitic interpretations of ‫ תורתיו‬that are given in MRI (Lauterbach, p. 180): ‫ההוריות‬, ‘the decisions’ (see above, p. 599). 21



18.13-27

609

pl. (cf. v. 20). TgN’s expansion ‫גזרת אורייתא‬, ‘the decree(s) of the Law’ (for the expression see 12.43, 49 as well as v. 20 here), is ambiguous but could follow the pl. form of MT and SP (the Qumran mss do not preserve this phrase) while making room for the dominant usage. ‫( ויאמר‬18.17) In 4QpalExl the verse opens a new line, which could mean that the scribe marked a division here (as in SP) by leaving the end of the previous line blank. There is a stronger reason, based on the available space, to presume this in 4QpalExm: a line begins with ‫אליו‬, and reconstructing the previous line according to the text of MT/SP would leave it about five character-spaces short of the regular line-length for this column. Vulg, which is very free in this verse, defers its inquit idiomatically until the middle of Jethro’s answer. ‫( חתן משׁה‬18.17) Vulg omits these words, the subject being self-evident. Sy ḥmwhy lmwšʾ breaks up the construct phrase and turns mwšʾ into an explicit addressee, having advanced its pronominal expression lh to anticipate it earlier in the verse, according to Syriac idiom (Brockelmann §216). ‫( לא טוב‬18.17) LXX οὐκ ὀρθῶς introduces with an adverbial expression a reshaped rendering in which, as in Vulg and Sy, the relative construction is abandoned. Tgg ‫ תקין‬and possibly Sy špyr give the same sense ‘right(ly)’ to ‫טוב‬: in LXX ὀρθῶς several times renders ‫ היטיב‬or ‫ טוב‬in this way (e.g. Gen. 40.16; Deut. 5.28). SP agrees with the wording of MT throughout, as do 4QpalExl and 4QpalExm for the first half of the verse at least. ‫( נבל תבל‬18.18) Tgg represent the idea of weariness well, but Sy mistakes the root for ‫ נָ ַבל‬I with its mṣtʿrw mṣtʿr (from ṣʿr Ethpaal, ‘be dishonoured’). LXX φθορᾷ καταφθαρήσῃ ἀνυπομονήτῳ uses a related noun for the emphatic inf. abs. (its more common equivalent in the Pentateuch: cf. H.StJ. Thackeray, ‘Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute in the LXX’, JTS 9 [1908], pp. 597-601 [598], with other exx. of the simplex noun in 21.20; 21.28), but unusually supplements it with an adjective to intensify the meaning still further – comparable perhaps to the more common addition of an adjective to a cognate object of a verb in both Heb. and Gk. The choice of καταφθείρω as an equivalent to ‫ נָ ֵבל‬is in itself imprecise and an exaggeration. Vulg stulto labore consumeris retains the sense and structure of LXX/OL, but by introducing labore takes more account of the true meaning of the Heb. …‫( גם אתה‬18.18) TgJ has ‘both you and Aaron and his sons and the elders’, based on the ‘inclusive’ understanding of ‫ גם‬in the interpretation given in MRI (Lauterbach, p. 181), where Aaron’s sons are specified as Nadab and Abihu: this points to Exod. 24.9-14 as the source of the expansion. A larger body of judges (a prototype Sanhedrin?) is assumed to exist already and to be spared from over-work: the wider benefit is set aside. By contrast LXX and Sy prefix ‘all’ to ‘this people’ (cf. vv. 13-14): the later Jewish revisers remove it. ‫( כבד ממך‬18.18) LXX βαρύ σοι (cf. μέγα σοι in Isa. 49.6) seems at first sight to miss the significance of the comparative ‫מן‬, to which Gk. has a closely corresponding idiom (cf. LSJ, p. 2040, s.v. ὥστε). But the Greek idiom could

610

EXODUS 1–18

be abbreviated and elsewhere LXX shows awareness of the sense of the Heb. in various ways (Gen. 18.14; Num. 11.14; Deut. 1.17; 17.8; 2 Kgs 6.1): perhaps, therefore, the simple adjective conveys the meaning ‘too heavy’ here. Vulg’s freer ultra vires tuos brings it out more clearly. ‫( הדבר‬18.18) LXX’s addition of τοῦτο, like its omission of the pronoun in the following clause, shows its readiness to modify the wording when it thought fit. ‫( עשׂהו‬18.18) SP ‫ עשׂותו‬replaces the unusual form with its regular counterpart. ‫( עתה‬18.19) The Heb. texts (including 4QpalExl) all make the transition to Jethro’s instructions with the simple adverb (cf. Tgg, Sy), as in Gen. 31.13 and Num. 22.11. LXX νυν οὐν (as often for ‫ )ועתה‬and Vulg sed introduced the stronger link with what precedes, whether causal or contrastive, that Greek and Latin canons of style normally prefer. ‫( איעצך‬18.19) All SP mss and recent edd. spell the word ‫( אעיצך‬so also at Num. 24.14), making the root Ayin Yodh rather than Pe Yodh (cf. the Ayin Waw by-form in MT at Judg. 19.13; Isa. 8.10, in JAram and probably in Deir Alla 2.9 [cf. DNWSI, p. 834]). For the occurrence of such variations in Samaritan Heb. see GSH §61a. Vulg has paraphrased with atque consilia mea (a second object to audi), which lends some support to the suggestion (in Note p on the translation) that ‫ איעצך‬is a relative clause without ‫אשׁר‬: atque, like LXX’s καί, is a further example of the quest for explicit linkages. ‫( ויהי‬18.19) Both LXX (καὶ ἔσται) and Vulg (et erit) take the jussive in a future indicative sense (cf. Note q on the translation): the forms in the Aram. Vss are ambiguous. ‫( היה‬18.19) As elsewhere for this form, SP has ‫( הוי‬cf. Gen. 12.2; 17.1; 27.29; Exod. 24.12; 34.2: and for the fem. in Gen. 24.60), with variants ‫הוה‬ and ‫הוא‬. Both waw as the middle root-letter and the orthography reflect the influence of Aram. on Samaritan Heb. (GSH §32aε), but for other forms of the verb the traditional spelling was retained (cf. ‫ ויהי‬earlier in the verse). ‫( מול האלהים‬18.19) The physical proximity implied by ‫( מול‬see Note s on the translation) is avoided by LXX, as in 17.6, but in a different way that fits the present context well: τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν/κύριον is a common device of the translators (Fritsch, pp. 55-56), which is used here (as in 4.16: cf. Deut. 1.36; 9.7, 24; 31.27) in an adverbial sense (cf. Rom. 15.17; Heb. 2.17; 5.1: BDF §160). ‫( והבאת אתה‬18.19) LXX καὶ ἀνοίσεις and Vulg ut referas may omit any equivalent to ‫ אתה‬because it was not strictly necessary, but for LXX at least the reason might here lie in its Vorlage, as 4QpalExl seems to have had a shorter text at this point (DJD IX, p. 40) and omission of ‫ אתה‬by homoeoteleuton is the most likely explanation (cf. Wevers, Notes, p. 286 n. 18). ‫( את־הדברים‬18.19) LXX, even though it is even less necessary in Gk. than Heb., added the possessive pronoun αὐτῶν (but Origen’s obelus is preserved in Syh), as did TgJ and Sy, presumably to reinforce Moses’ representative role.



18.13-27

611

‫( והזהרתה‬18.20) SP omits the ‫ה‬-, which it retains only with forms of ‫נתן‬ (GSH §62b). No Qumran ms. preserves the word. The Aram. Vss use the cognate verb, for which a sense ‘teach, explain’ is recognised in Tgg here (Jastrow, p. 382; CAL: cf. Vulg ostendasque); in Sy dnṭrwn, ‘that they should keep’, is added and Payne Smith (p. 111: cf. CAL) recognises only the sense ‘warn, admonish’. LXX καὶ διαμαρτυρῇ (second person sing., fut. mid.) is commonly taken (e.g. by Wevers, Notes, p. 286; Muraoka, Lexicon, p. 117) to mean ‘testify, bear witness’ here, but both classical and Septuagintal usage show that it can also refer to other kinds of solemn affirmation or declaration (LSJ, p. 403; Exod. 19.10, 21; Deut. 32.46). Aq substituted διαστέλ(λ)ου, ‘command’, probably not to change the meaning but to clarify it. ‫( אתהם‬18.20) SP substitutes ‫אתם‬, as it does in Gen. 32.1; Num. 21.3, to create complete consistency in the use of this form throughout the Pentateuch. 4QpalExl is very difficult to decipher at this point, but its mem is more likely to be an object suffix than (as DJD IX, p. 40, proposes) the final letter of an independent word, because of the limited space available. ‫( את־החקים‬18.20) LXX adds τοῦ θεοῦ to agree with v. 16. ‫( ואת־התורת‬18.20) 4QpalExl, TgO,J and Sy correspond to the MT vocalisation, but LXX (with the addition of αὐτοῦ as in v. 16) and SP have the sing. and TgN repeats its longer equivalent: see Text and Versions on v. 16. For this and the previous phrase Vulg has caerimonias et ritum colendi, probably in line with a Jewish exegetical tradition that is reflected in TgJ’s treatment of the second half of the verse (see below): due recognition is then given to the place of ritual as well as moral teaching in the Mosaic law (which is assumed to be meant). Both caerimonia and ritus occur frequently, with various equivalents, in the Vulg Pentateuch. Two examples of a quite different branch of Jewish exegesis are attested in MRI (Lauterbach, p. 182): both agree that the second phrase refers to ‘decisions’, i.e. particular rulings (in line with the narrative context), but the first is applied to ‘interpretations’ or to the sexual laws in Lev. 18 (by gezerah shawah on ‫ חקות‬in v. 30). ‫( את־הדרך ילכו בה‬18.20) As one would expect, the Vss insert a rel. pron. or particle before the verb (as in the following expression), but there is also strong attestation for ‫ אשׁר‬at this point in SP, 4QpalExl and 4QpalExm (for other places where SP makes such an addition see GSH §58b: its motive is probably consistency in each case, since it tolerates a similar omission in 9.4 and in Num. 23.13). The more difficult reading of MT (on which see Note u on the translation) is as usual to be preferred. TgJ follows an interpretation of these words in MRI (ibid.), which applies them to the care of the sick and the deceased, but places before this ‘the prayer which they shall pray in their synagogues’, which may claim a Mosaic origin for the Shemoneh Esreh. ‫( ואת־המעשׂה אשׁר יעשׂון‬18.20) TgJ again follows an interpretation in MRI (ibid.) which opts for a specific application, in this case to a distinction between strictness and leniency in judicial practice. For other relevant rabbinic texts see AramB 2, p. 213 n. 24.

612

EXODUS 1–18

‫( ואתה‬18.21) Vulg has only autem, omitting the independent pronoun. ‫( תחזה‬18.21) TgJ ‫ברור‬, ‘select’, anticipates the sense of v. 25. SP, LXX and possibly 4QpalExl (DJD IX, p. 40) add ‘for yourself’, to indicate the role of those chosen as assistants to Moses; TgN adds, equally unnecessarily, ‫גברין‬, ‘men’, before the list of attributes in which it will twice appear again. ‫( יראי אלהים‬18.21) 4QpalExl has ‫ יהוה‬in place of ‫ אלהים‬to agree with the more widespread form of the expression. LXX θεοσεβεῖς was found insufficiently precise by the Three, who replaced it with φοβουμένους τὸν θεόν (cf. Vulg). ‫( אנשׁי אמת‬18.21) LXX δικαίους employs, freely, a general word of ethical approval: the other Vss are more precise. Vulg in quibus sit veritas, with its two additions of et, turns the list into a more stylish description. ‫( שׂנאי בצע‬18.21) LXX renders ‫ בצע‬with ὑπερηφανίαν, ‘arrogance’, which is far from the sense required and never renders ‫ בצע‬elsewhere. Sanderson, Exodus Scroll, pp. 63-64, has argued strongly that LXX’s (fairly) precise rendering of the other attributes suggests that it had a different (if inferior) Vorlage from MT, SP and 4QpalExm (4QpalExl does not preserve the word), but she does not say what it was. Wevers (Notes, p. 287) prefers to think that the translator was exposing the underlying motivation of ‫בצע‬. Whether the variant originated in Heb. or Gk., it reflects the same antipathy to arrogance that appears in the Psalms and Ben Sira. The other Vss follow the reading ‫ בצע‬more closely but, whereas TgJ, Sy and the original reading of TgN do justice to its connotation of dishonesty, TgO ‫( קבלא ממון‬to which a ‘censor’ modified TgN) and Vulg avaritiam (its regular equivalent for ‫בצע‬: cf. πλεονεξίαν in the Three) exclude the ‘greedy’ in general from consideration.23 ‫( ושׂמת‬18.21) The object is supplied in 4QpalExl (‫ )אתם‬and LXX (αὐτούς): cf. Vulg’s ex eis, which actually displaces any equivalent to ‫עליהם‬. ‫( שׂרי אלפים‬18.21) Vulg’s tribunos (from OL, like centuriones) is a precise equivalent, since there were six in a legion of 6000 men. LXX could find older military terms for all four categories of officers. ‫( שׂרי מאות‬18.21) SP prefixes a waw, dividing Moses’ assistants into two pairs: similarly 4QpalExm, LXX, Vulg, TgN and Sy, which (like MT in Deut. 1.15) also add waw before the next phrase. MT’s reading there and probably here (DJD IX, p. 40) is supported by 4QpalExl (and cf. v. 25). 2QExb has the spelling ‫מאיות‬, with consonantal yodh (GK §97g; Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, p. 122), which was formerly described as ‘Aramaising’: it also occurs as the Ketib in 2 Kgs 11.4, 9-10, 15 and in 11Q 19 42.15, all as it happens in the same phrase as here. 23   MRI (Lauterbach, p. 183) is closer to the former interpretation with its limitation to behaviour ‫בדין‬, ‘in court’.



18.13-27

613

‫( שׂרי חמשׁים‬18.21) Latin military terms failed Jerome here, as the Roman army did not have units of fifty men: Vulg’s quinquageniarios was an old adjective that was now put to new use. ‫( ושׂרי עשׂרת‬18.21) OL had rendered LXX’s δεκαδάρχους with decuriones, a military term that was used by Julius Caesar in his Bellum Civile. Jerome preferred decanos, a more recent coinage employed by the fourthcent. writer Vegetius (LS, p. 516) which had already found its way into monastic use (Jer., Ep. 22.35) and was later adapted to designate an ecclesiastical or academic ‘dean’. ‫( ושׁפטו‬18.22) Vulg qui iudicent neatly creates both a tighter connection and an expression of purpose, which is presumably continued by the subjunctives in the rest of the verse. ‫( בכל־עת‬18.22) LXX πᾶσαν ὥραν follows the use of the accusative of ὥρα for an instant of time, which was already common in class. Gk. (LSJ, p. 2036; cf. BDF §161). ‫( כל־הדבר הגדל‬18.22) LXX intensified ‫ גדל‬with ὑπέρογκον, ‘excessive, very large’, no doubt implying that very few cases would now come to Moses (see also the note below on ‫)הקטן‬: the Three replaced it with the more precise μέγα. Sy rendered ‫( כל‬which is the only word in the verse to survive in 2QExb) with kd nhyʾ here and with kd later in the verse, turning the anteposed objects into temporal clauses, perhaps for easier comprehension. ‫( כל־הדבר הקטן‬18.22) LXX, Vulg and TgN put their equivalents in the pl., again as a way of indicating that most cases would no longer come before Moses. ‫( והקל‬18.22) The same Heb. text appears in SP and (though no trace of the waw survives) in 4QpalExl, but among the Vss only Sy ʾql and possibly TgNmg render it as it is generally understood now, i.e. as an imperative sing. (on the idiomatic use see Note aa on the translation). LXX and TgO,J have third person pl. future verbs and TgN and Vulg have an impersonal third person sing., perhaps because they understood the Heb. as an inf. abs., which could stand for any finite form of the verb (cf. GK §113y-z and Rashi ad loc.): in the context a future sense would fit very well. ‫( תעשׂה‬18.23) TgJ adds a clause to make explicit that Moses’ ‘freedom’ from judging is meant. MRI (Lauterbach, p. 184) improbably connects the condition with what precedes it. ‫( וצוך אלהים‬18.23) TgO,N is content with a literal rendering which implies (as MRI [Lauterbach, p. 185] comments) that Moses needs to consult God first. By omitting the conjunction and using a participle for ‫צוך‬, Sy is probably not making the apodosis begin here (Wevers, Notes, p. 288: cf. below) but treating the words as a parenthesis in which Jethro claims divine support for his recommendation (cf. the comment in MRI on ‫ אמר‬in v. 24). The other Vss do see these words as the first consequence of compliance with it. LXX, perhaps puzzled by them, has κατισχύσει σε, ‘will strengthen you’, which

614

EXODUS 1–18

is clearly a deduction from the next clause (and not based on a different Vorlage). Vulg implebis imperium Dei appears to be a paraphrase of the interpretation presupposed in Sy (which Childs and Houtman also favoured in modern times), while TgJ’s addition of ‘the commandments’ introduces its application of the next clause to Moses’ imminent task of receiving the Law on behalf of the people. ‫( ויכלת עמד‬18.23) The sense of ‫ עמד‬is evidently ‘endure’ and even LXX’s curious παραστῆναι (which looks like a lazy repeat of the more appropriate use of the verb for ‘stand by’ in v. 13) could perhaps have meant this (see Diodorus Siculus 17.43 and other exx. in LSJ, p. 1341). TgJ adds ‘to hear them (sc. God’s commandments)’ and this midrash evidently lies behind Vulg’s otherwise remarkable et praecepta eius poteris sustentare. ‫( וגם כל־העם הזה‬18.23) The introductory ‫ גם‬was presumably again the basis (as in v. 18) for TgJ’s application of these words to ‘Aaron and his sons and all the elders of the people’ (cf. MRI, p. 185) and of the following phrase to their ‘court-house’. ‫( על־מקמו‬18.23) SP and 4QpalExm read the more usual ‫ אל‬and LXX’s εἰς could well be based on such a Vorlage. It might be the original reading (so Sanderson, Exodus Scroll, pp. 58-59), but MT’s ‫ על‬also appears (with little doubt) in 4QpalExl (cf. TgO,J) and the use of ‫ על‬to indicate motion towards is frequent enough in BH for it not to be a problem (cf. Note dd on the translation). In fact it is more likely that ‫ אל‬would be secondarily substituted for it than vice versa. There is some indication in the Vss of an understanding of ‫ מקמו‬to refer not to the land of Canaan but to individuals’ ‘homes’: Vulg and TgN have ‘places’ in the pl. and Sy ʾnš lbyth is even more explicit (cf. OL’s added [i]n domus suas and Wevers, Notes, p. 289, on LXX’s τὸν ἑαυτοῦ τόπον). The non-standard renderings of ‫ יבא‬in Vulg (revertetur) and TgO (‫יהך‬, rather than ‫ייתי‬: on the variation see AramB 7, p. 51 n. 11) may point in the same direction (on TgJ see the previous note). Little survives of 18.24 in 4QpalExm but DJD IX, p. 98, calculates that both it and v. 25 opened a new line, with empty space and an enlarged waw at the end of the previous line (cf. the division before v. 25 in SP). It also appears that there was a space between v. 24a and v. 24b. In 4QpalExl the text seems to have continued without such spaces at least until the end of v. 24: after that no evidence survives, as the rest of the chapter is lost. ‫( לקול־חתנו‬18.24) LXX* did not represent the suffix, but αὐτοῦ appears in the O-text (with an asterisk) and some other witnesses. Vulg quibus auditis abbreviates the first half of the verse even more. TgO,J interpret ‫ קול‬with ‫מימר‬ in a non-technical sense (as e.g. in Gen. 3.17: cf. TgNmg here). ‫( כל אשׁר‬18.24) LXX ὅσα conveys the sense of the MT reading (cf. 6.29; 9.19; 20.17 etc.). ‫( אמר‬18.24) Sy as often adds lh (cf. v. 14). MRI (Lauterbach, p. 185) records the view that the subject of this verb is God.



18.13-27

615

In place of 18.25 SP and 4QpalExm have an adaptation of the parallel story in Deut. 1.9-18, where Moses recalls the installation of additional judges without any reference to the role of Jethro. This expansion is also preserved in translation in SamTg and in a Syriac version which appears in the margins of Syh (for the text of the latter see Lagarde’s 1892 edition; a Latin translation is provided in the apparatus critici of the Septuagint editions of BrookeMcLean and Wevers). It has the same general characteristics as the expansions of the plague narratives in these texts, but in this case the ‘borrowed’ text comes from a different book of the Pentateuch (as happens again in Exod. 20). The wording of Deuteronomy has undergone minor revisions to fit the new context.24 Some pronominal morphemes are changed (first person sing. to third person; second person pl. to third person) because the section is no longer part of an address by Moses to the people but a report of what he and they say and do. The words ‫( בעת ההיא‬Deut. 1.9, 16, 18) are omitted because the account is no longer retrospective. The introduction is expanded to ‫ויאמר משׁה אל העם‬. Otherwise the match to the SP text of Deuteronomy is very close, with only two significant variations.25 There is no equivalent to ‫ אתי‬in Deut. 1.14 (probably a more drastic instance of the removal of first person forms) and in Moses’ opening words ‫ אנכי‬is added before ‫( לבדי‬as in the same expression in Num. 11.14). Possibly both of these variations belong to a secondary stage of the expansionist text: in 4QpalExm there is a lacuna where ‫ אתו‬would appear and the ms. clearly did not include ‫( אנכי‬DJD IX, pp. 98-99). They are both reflected in the Syriac version, so they cannot be too late. This text at several points follows variations in the LXX translation, as elsewhere, but not invariably (see the general Introduction and J. Joosten in Lange and Tov, Textual History, IA, pp. 237-38 [1.3.2.2]). The older recension of SamTg (J) also has both the variations from Deuteronomy, which is significant in view of its otherwise generally careful adherence to the Heb. The substituted text does include a close equivalent to the second half of v. 25 (but not the first half) in MT and the non-Samaritan Vss. This should not, however, be understood as a sign that the scribe responsible for it saw the MT of this verse as his basis for an ‘exegetical’ development. The author of Deuteronomy 1 had already incorporated the sentence in question (cf. 1.15) as well as some other features of Exod. 18.13-26 into his drastic revision of the narrative, and the addition of the latter now provided an important corrective to the older text. The result was to make the judicial reform a matter negotiated between   For a helpful presentation of the changes see J.H. Tigay, ‘An Empirical Basis for the Documentary Hypothesis’, JBL 94 (1975), pp. 329-42 (333-35). 25   There are three further variations from the MT of Deuteronomy at places where it differs from the SP text: the expansion has no waw before ‫ משׁאכם‬in 1.12 or ‫ שׂרי חמשׁים‬in 1.15 (both in lists) and the pl. imperative ‫ שׁמעו‬appears in place of MT’s inf. abs., which is probably the original reading in this case. 24

616

EXODUS 1–18

Moses and the people (and the people now ‘choose’ their judges, not Moses), with a strongly Yahwistic foundation (from Deut. 1.10-11) and additional qualifications and instructions for Israel’s future judges (Deut. 1.13, 15-17). In the first or second century B.C. Jethro’s advice could no longer be eliminated, but it could be effectively marginalised as a mere preliminary to Moses’ consultation of the people (see further the observations of Mayes, Deuteronomy, pp. 118-19, 121-25, and Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, pp. 137-41, on the redactional aims of the Deuteronomist here). The substituted text also has a harmonising motive but, given the fact that it appears in Deuteronomy at a later point in the story when Israel was departing from, not arriving at, Mount Sinai/Horeb, it achieved its purpose at the cost of introducing a new element of anachronism into Exodus 18. ‫( ויבחר משׁה אנשׁי־חיל‬18.25) Vulg et electis viris strenuis uses the ablative absolute construction again to tighten the sentence structure (cf. v. 24) and so avoids the repetition of Moses’ name (as it does again in v. 26), while at the same time removing one of the contradictions between Exodus and Deuteronomy here. strenuis is a typical stylistic variation from the rendering of ‫ אנשׁי־חיל‬in v. 21. TgN again has an unnecessary ‫גברין‬. ‫( ויתן‬18.25) Symm κατέστησεν is the more usual word for appointments (cf. LXX in v. 21 for ‫ )ושׂמת‬and the O-text adopted it in preference to LXX’s unspecific ἐποίησεν here (cf. Vulg constituit). ‫( ראשׁים על־העם‬18.25) LXX’s abbreviation to αὐτοὺς ἐπ’ αὐτῶν is conforming to the wording of v. 21; Vulg’s principes populi is a good ad sensum equivalent. ‫( שׂרי אלפים וג׳‬18.25) The treatment of the list in the Vss on the whole corresponds to v. 21 (see the notes there), but TgO,J group the officials into two pairs (as in SP) by adding a waw before the second group and TgJ inserts the numbers for each category on the basis of the total population of 600,000 in 12.37 (as in MRI [Lauterbach, p. 183]). ‫( ושׁפטו‬18.26) MT’s perfect consecutive clearly implies repeated action, like the imperfects later in the verse, and the Vss mostly reflect this. SP has ‫וישׁפטו‬, the imperfect consecutive (cf. SamTg ‫)ואדינו‬: it does not generally differ from MT in such cases (cf. 16.21; 17.11; 33.7-11) and its reading is no less possible here, whether it be seen as treating the action of judging as a single whole or as an ‘unmarked iterative’ (Joosten, Verbal System, pp. 174-75, with a few examples). It is thus impossible to be sure which reading is more original, but MT might perhaps be seen as a secondary ‘marking’ to fit the following verbs. ‫( הקשׁה‬18.26) Tgg, Sy and Vulg agree with MT, but SP has ‫הגדול‬, an assimilation to v. 22. LXX τὸ ὑπέρογκον, also used for ‫ הגדול‬in v. 22, could be a rendering of either reading: Aq and Symm, with σκληρόν, and Theod δυσχερές clearly represent MT. ‫( וכל‬18.26) TgN, Sy and Vulg omit ‘all’, probably to match the parallel phrase.

18.13-27

617

‫( הקטן‬18.26) LXX ἐλαφρόν, ‘easy’, and Vulg faciliora depart from their renderings in v. 22: this is perhaps an indirect indication that LXX also presupposes the reading ‫ הקשׁה‬earlier in this verse. ‫( ישׁפוטו הם‬18.26) SP spells the verb in the normal way, without the first waw. Vulg iudicantes neatly removes the need for et before faciliora and, unlike v. 22, an equivalent for ‫ הם‬is deemed unnecessary. 4QpalExm has a long mid-line break after 18.26, to which there is no equivalent in MT or SP. It does serve to mark v. 27 as the conclusion to the whole chapter. ‫( את־חתנו‬18.27) LXX τὸν ἑαυτοῦ γαμβρόν, with a possessive pronoun for the first time since v. 7 and this time in its more emphatic reflexive form. Vulg, which had substituted pronouns in vv. 15 and 24, has cognatum here, but without a possessive. ‫( וילך לו‬18.27) 4QpalExm reads ]‫ [וילך אל‬here, i.e. without ‫לו‬, which both MT and SP have (on its function see Note hh on the translation). LXX and Sy do not represent ‫ לו‬here: in the same idiom at Gen. 12.1 and 22.2 LXX does likewise, but Sy follows MT. It is not surprising that Vss and even a Heb. ms. would sometimes ignore an idiom that might well have become unintelligible (cf. Wevers, Notes, p. 291) and there is no reason to depart from the MT/SP reading. ‫( אל־ארצו‬18.27) TgJ ‘to make proselytes of all the people of the (ed. pr. “his”) land’ extends a theme which it introduced in vv. 6-7 and picks up the rationale which MRI (Lauterbach, pp. 185-86, cf. 191) saw for Jethro/Hobab’s decision to leave in Num. 10.30. After these words there was a vacat in 4QpalExm: while there is no firm proof for DJD’s inference that in it 19.1 began a new line (IX, p. 99), it is inherently likely and in any case the location of ‫ וילך‬directly above ]‫השׁל[ילשׁי‬ in the next line makes it virtually certain that there was an empty space (about half a line) between 18.27 and 19.1.

618