Social Memory in Ex 16 and the Identity of Exilic/Post-Exilic Israel 9783161624063, 9783161627811, 3161624068

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe Edited by

Corinna Körting (Hamburg) ∙ Konrad Schmid (Zürich) Mark S. Smith (Princeton) ∙ Andrew Teete(Harvard)

146

Ogochukwu Daniel Onuorah

Social Memory in Ex 16 and the Identity of Exilic/Post-Exilic Israel

Mohr Siebeck

Ogochukwu Daniel Onuorah, born 1978; 2003 BA; 2008 BTh; 2008 ordained priest; 2019 SSL; 2022 STD; Assistant Head, Department of Theology, Blessed Iwene Tansi Major Seminary, Onitsha, Nigeria. orcid.org/ 0009-0004-9312-835X

Vidimus et approbamus ad norman Statutorum Universitatis Roma, Pontificia Università Gregoriana 05/04/2022

R. D. Dott. Fabrizio FICCO R. P. Prof. Jean-Pierre SONNET

ISBN 978-3-16- 162406-3 / eISBN 978-3-16- 162781-1 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16- 162781-1 ISSN 1611-4914 / eISSN 2568-8367 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at https://dnb.de. © 2023 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed on non-aging paper, and bound by Gulde-Druck in Tübingen. Printed in Germany.

Preface For a social group to form, a group of individuals must be bound together with the fundamental belief: “We are a group.” Underlying this belief is the conviction of a shared past, continually handed down among the group members in the form of narratives. From these narratives, the members jointly derive the sense of their common past, make meaning of the present, and chart their way to the future. This encapsulates the social memory/identity theory. From my earliest introduction to the critical study of the Scriptures, especially the OT, I have continually asked fundamental questions on the when and how of these biblical texts. And I have always been attracted to answers that pay particular attention to life-situations. Hence, it is not quite surprising that the application of the social memory/identity theory to biblical criticism caught my attention. The use of this hermeneutical tool in the study of biblical texts is relatively recent. But I have found it quite relevant in answering my questions. The social memory theory brings together synchronic and diachronic concerns in the analysis of biblical texts in an interesting way. It studies the extant narrative as the remembered story of the community (group). And because the way the story is remembered is shaped by the current circumstances of the remembering community, this hermeneutical approach pays particular attention to the situation of the remembering people at the relevant period. I am quite convinced that exploring this approach further will bring new vitality to our quest to understand the OT better. As it has not yet taken the centre-stage in biblical criticism, this application of these hermeneutical tools to the study of mannanarrative of Ex 16 is an attempt to bring the merits of this approach to the fore. This work is the outcome of my doctoral research, presented and defended at the Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome, in March 2022. I remain ever grateful to the moderator of the Thesis, Prof. Fabrizio Ficco and the censor Prof. J.-P. Sonnet for their inputs in sharpening my thoughts. I am also grateful to the other professors who contributed to the success of this enterprise. Worthy of mention here are Profs. Ehud Ben Zvi and Benedetta Rossi. To the other professors and to my colleagues and friends both at the Pontifical Biblical Institute and the Pontifical Gregorian University, I am very grateful. To my Archbishop, Most Rev. Valerian M. Okeke, who sustained my studies all through my sojourn in Rome and to the Archdiocesan Presbyterium Onitsha – Nigeria where I belong, I am most grateful. My family members have always been a pillar of support to me. I owe them a lot of gratitude. Of course, my heartfelt gratitude goes to the editors of Forschungen zum Alten Testament for accepting to publish this study.

Table of Contents Preface……………………………………………………………………… V List of Abbreviations……………………………………………………,,,. XIII

Introduction………………………………………………………………... 1 1. Interest of the Study……………………………………………………….. 2. Thesis Argument…………………………………………………………... 3. Methodology………………………………………………………………. 4. Status Quaestionis…………………………………………………............ 5. Presentation of the Study………………………………………………….

1 2 3 4 4

Chapter I: General Expositions…………………………………..……. 7 1. Social Memory, Social Identity and Narrative Identity…………………… 7 1.1 Social Memory……………………………………………………….. 7 1.1.1 The Selective Nature of Memory……………………………….. 8 1.1.2 Memory and Commemoration………………………………… 10 1.1.3 Sites of Memory……………………………………….………. 11 1.1.4 Memory and the Focus on the Present…………………………. 12 1.2 Social Identity……………………………………………………...... 12 1.2.1 Social Identity and Group Beliefs……………………......…..... 14 1.2.2 Social Identity and Ethics……………………………................ 14 1.2.3 Social Identity and Temporality……………………………….. 15 1.3 Social Memory as a Necessary Tool of Social Identity……….…….. 16 1.4 Narrative Identity……………………………………………………. 17 1.5 Relevance to this Study……………………………………………… 20 2. Composition of the Pentateuch: Modern Scholarly Positions……………. 21 3. Social Memory Studies in Exodus – A History of Inquiry……………….. 26

VIII

Table of Contents

3.1 Early Works on Biblical Memory…………………………………… 26 3.2 Contributions of Ronald Hendel…………………………………….. 29 3.3 Ehud Ben Zvi and Colleagues……………………………………….. 32 3.4 Some Other Contemporary Contributions………………………….. 35 3.5 Studies in Exodus…………………………………………................ 35 3.6 Observations………………………………………………................ 41

Chapter II: Exodus 16 – Unity in Complexity……..……………… 43 1. The Text of Exodus 16……………………………………………............. 43 1.1 Textual Criticism…………………………………………................. 43 1.2 Translation…………………………………………………………… 50 1.3 Textual Complexities……………………………………..…………. 53 1.3.1 Repetitions/Redundancies……………………..………………. 54 1.3.2 Tensions in Sequencing………………………….…………….. 55 1.3.3 Contradictions…………………………………….…………… 56 1.3.4 Anachronisms…………………………………………………. 57 2. Reactions to the Textual Complexities……………..……………............. 58 2.1 Two Independent Traditions………………….……………………. 58 2.1.1 Independent Traditions: P and J(E)………….……………........ 58 2.1.2 Independent Traditions: P and Dtr……………………………. 61 2.2 One Principal Source with Additions……………………………..... 63 2.2.1 P as Principal with J(E) Additions…………………………….. 63 2.2.2 P as Principal with Dtr Additions…………………………….. 65 2.2.3 J as Principal…………………………………………………... 69 2.3 Original Order Thwarted……………………………………...……. 71 2.4 Narrative Shifted from Original Position……………………..…...... 72 2.5 David Frankel’s Contribution…………………….………………… 74 2.6 General Observations……………….……………………………….. 78 3. From Historical to Narrative Criticism………………………………….. 79 3.1 Narrative Criticism: Basic Tenets and Techniques………………….. 79 3.1.1 The Narrative Plot……………………………………………… 80 3.1.2 Repetition………………………………………….…............... 81 3.1.3 Gaps……………………………………………….…................ 82 3.1.4 Suspense, Curiosity, Surprise…………………………….……. 83 3.2 Exodus 16 as a Narrative Unit………………………….…………… 84 3.2.1 Text Delimitation………………………………..……………. 84 3.2.2 The Plot of Exodus 16………………………………………… 85

Table of Contents

IX

3.2.3 Structure……………………………………….……………… 88 3.2.4 Dynamics in the Narrative…………………………….……… 89

Chapter III: The Bread from Heaven….…………………................ 92 1. The Setting of the Plot (v. 1)…………………………………................... 92 2. The People’s Complaint and the Divine Promise of Food (vv. 2–12)........ 97 2.1 The People’s Complaint (vv. 2–3)…………………………............... 97 2.2 YHWH’s Response: Promise and Test (vv. 4–5)…………………... 105 2.3 The Divine Message Relayed (vv. 6–8)…………………………… 109 2.4 Appearance of God’s Glory / Confirmation of Promise (vv. 9–12).. 114 3. Fulfilment of Promise, Instructions and Reactions (vv. 13–21)……...….. 123 3.1 Appearance of the Food (vv. 13–14)………………………............. 3.2 Clarification of the Food and First Instruction (vv. 15–16)………. 3.3 Reaction to First Instruction (vv. 17–18)………………….............. 3.4 Second Instruction and People’s Reaction (vv. 19–20)……………. 3.5 Resolution – Compliance to Instructions (vv. 21)………………….

123 128 134 136 138

Chapter IV: The Sabbath and the Memorialisation …………….. 142 1. Sabbath Instructions and People’s Reactions (vv. 22–30)…….………. 142 1.1 The Sixth Day: Preparation for the Sabbath (vv. 22–23)…..……… 142 1.2 The Seventh Day (vv. 24–30)……………………………………… 150 1.2.1 Positive Reaction and Reiteration of Instruction (vv. 24–26)… 150 1.2.2 Negative Reaction and Divine Reprimand (vv. 27–29)…….... 155 1.2.3 Resolution – Compliance to Sabbath Rest (v. 30)…………… 165 2. Epilogue (vv. 31–36)………...……………………………..…………… 167 2.1 Food Memorialisation (vv. 31–34)…………………………………. 167 2.1.1 Memorialisation by Name (v. 31)……………………............. 167 2.1.2 Memorialisation by Cultic Preservation (vv. 32–34)………… 172 2.2 Postscript (vv. 35 and 36)…………………………………………. 186 2.2.1 Duration of Manna-Sustenance (v. 35)………………………. 187 2.2.2 Size of the Omer (v. 36)………………………………............. 189

X

Table of Contents

Chapter V: “Throughout Your Generations” …………………….. 191 1. The Term ‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬in Exodus…..………………………………………… 192 1.1 The Institution of the pesaḥ-maṣṣôṯ (12,1–13,16)………………… 193 1.1.1 Ex 12,1–13,16 – A Concise Analysis…………………………. 193 1.1.2 The pesaḥ-maṣṣôṯ in Israel……………………………………. 208 1.1.3 Between Ex 12 and Ex 16………..……………………........... 210 1.2 On Daily Offerings (Ex 29,38–46)……..………………………….. 211 1.2.1 Ex 29,38–46 – A Translation…………..…………………….. 211 1.2.2 Ex 29,38–46 – A Concise Analysis…………………………. 212 1.2.3 The Daily Offerings in Israel………………………………… 217 1.3 Rituals on the Altar of Incense (30,1–10)…………………….......... 218 1.3.1 Ex 30,1–10 – A Translation……………………..…………… 218 1.3.2 Ex 30,1–10 – A Concise Analysis………………………..….. 219 1.3.3 The Daily Incense and the Day of Atonement in Israel……… 222 1.4 The Anointing Oil (30,22–33)…………...………………………… 224 1.4.1 Ex 30,22–33 – A Translation………..………………………. 224 1.4.2 Ex 30,22–33 – A Concise Analysis…………………………… 225 1.4.3 The Use of the Anointing Oil in Israel……………………….. 228 1.5 The Sabbath (31,12–17)………………………...………………….. 229 1.5.1 Ex 31,12–17 – A Translation…………………………………. 229 1.5.2 Ex 31,12–17 – A Concise Analysis………………………........ 230 1.5.3 The Sabbath in Israel………………………………………….. 234 2. The Ark of the Testimony (Ex 25,10–22)………………..………………. 237 2.1 Ex 25,10–22 – A Translation……………………………………….. 237 2.2 Ex 25,10–22 – A Concise Analysis………………………............... 238 2.3 The Ark in Israel’s Cult History……………………………………. 241 3. Observations……………………………………………………………. 243

Chapter VI: Social Memory in Ex 16 and Quest for Identity…. 246 1. The Fall, the Impact and the Reaction…….….………………………… 246 1.1 The Fall and the Impact…..………………………………….......... 247 1.2 Managing Collective Identity in Time of Crisis……………........... 249 1.3 The Revised Exodus as a Response………………………………… 253 2. The Memory of the Manna in the Quest for Identity……………............. 257 2.1 Precise Location and Time…………………………………………. 258

Table of Contents

2.2 The People’s Rebellions vs Divine Graciousness………………….. 2.3 Manna-Instructions as Training……………………………………. 2.4 The ‫ כְ בֹוד יְ הוָה‬before Sinai………………………………..…………. 2.5 The Sabbath as Identity-Defining Ethics.…………….……………. 2.6 Manna Preservation………………………………….……….......... 2.7 Observations……………………………………….……………….

XI 260 262 265 267 270 272

3. Implications for the Composition of the Pentateuch………….………… 274 4. Theological Implications………………………………………………... 277

Conclusion………………………………………………………………. 279 1. Recapitulation………………….……...…….………………………….. 279 1.1 The Social Memory Theory…………………………………........... 1.2 The Fall and the Exile: Surviving the Trauma...……………........... 1.3 Remembering the Manna………...………………………………… 1.4 Social Memory and the Pentateuch…………………………………

279 281 283 285

2. Limitation of Study / Further Research……….…………………........... 286 2.1 The Memory of the Manna in the Biblical Tradition……………… 287 2.2 Application to Existential Issues………………..………………….. 287 Bibliography……………………………………………………………….. 289 Index of References………………………………………………….......... 307 Index of Authors……………………………………………………….. ..... 315 Index of Subjects............................................................................. ........... 320

List of Abbreviations ABD AnBib ANET Anth. AOAT ASORDS ASV AThANT AYBC BA BAR BBB BBET BDB BETL BHS Bib BWANT BZAW CBET CBQ Comm. DBAT DOT.Pent DSS EA ECC EDB EHLL EvT FAT FOTL GK HALOT

Anchor Bible Dictionary Analecta Biblica Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament, ed. Pritchard, J.B., Princeton, NJ 31969. Anthropotes. Rivista di Studi sulla Persona e la Famiglia del Pontificio Instituto Tiologico San Giovanni Paolo II Alter Orient und Altes Testament American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series American Standard Version (Bible, 1901) Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Anchor Yale Bible Commentary Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeological Review Bonner biblische Beiträge Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie Brown, F. / Driver, S.R. / Briggs, C.A., A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Oxford 1907. Bibliotheca Ephemeridium Theologicarum Lovaniensium Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Biblica Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Communication Journal [published by Gordon Breach Sci Publ Ltd, Duke University Durham, NC] Dielheimer Blätter zum Alten Testament Dictionary of the Old Testament. Pentateuch Dead Sea Scrolls El Amarna Eerdmans Critical Commentary Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics Evangelische Theologie Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forms of Old Testament Literature Gesenius, H.F.W., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, edited and enlarged by E. Kautzsch, Oxford 1910. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Baumgartner, W. / Stamm, J.J. / Koehler, L. / Richardson, M.E.J., Leiden 1994–2000.

XIV HCOT HeBAI HebSyn HSK HThKAT HTR ICC IDB IECOT Interp IOS ITC JANER JAOS JBL JBS JETS JM JBS JPS JSOT JSOTSup KEHAT KöSyn KöWb LaSt LB-PT LHB-OTS LSAWS LXX Mek. MT MTS NASB NAC NCBC NICOT NIVAC NJPS NKJV NovTSup NRSV NSK.AT OBO OTL OTS

Abbreviations Historical Commentary on the Old Testament Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel Brockelmann, C., Hebräische Syntax, Neukirchen 1956. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Harvard Theological Review International Critical Commentary Interpreter’s Bible Dictionary International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament Interpretation. A Journal of Bible and Theology Israel Oriental Studies International Theological Commentary Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions Journal of American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Jerusalem Biblical Studies Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Joüon, P. / Muraoka, T., A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Subsidia Biblica 027, Rome 2006. Jerusalem Biblical Studies Jewish Publication Society Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement to the Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament König, E., Historisch-komparative Syntax der hebräischen Sprache, Leipzig 1897. König, E., Hebräisches und aramäisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, Leipzig 1936. Language and Style Libri Biblici. Primo Testamento Library of the Hebrew Bible. Old Testament Studies Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic The Septuagint Mekilta [midrashic compendium on Exodus] Masoretic Text Marburger Theologische Studien New American Standard Bible New American Commentary New Cambridge Bible Commentary New International Commentary on the Old Testament NIV Application Commentary New Jewish Publication Society [Bible, 1985] New King James Version Supplements to Novum Testamentum New Revised Standard Version Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar. Altes Testament Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Old Testament Library Oudtestamentalische Studiën

Abbreviations PoeT QS RB RBS RL SamP SB SBL.ANEM SBL.SCSt SJLA SocT SSWb ST TB TDNT TDOT TG.ST ThR TNf TO TOTC TSJTSA TTS UT

VT VTSup WBC ZAW ZDPV ZKT ZThK

XV

Poetics Today Qualitative Sociology Revue Biblique Rhetorica Biblica et Semitica Religion & Literature Samaritan Pentateuch Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Society of Biblical Literature. Ancient Near East Monographs Society of Biblical Literature. Septuagint and Cognate Studies Studies in Judaism in late Antiquity Sociological Theory Siegfried, C. / Stade, B., Hebräisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, Leipzig 1893. Studia Theologica Theologische Bücherei Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Tesi Gregoriana. Serie Teologia Theologische Revue Targum Neofiti I [Palestinian Targum to the Torah] Targum Onqelos [Literalistic Targum to the Torah] Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America Trierer theologische Studien Ugaritic Texts = GORDON, C.H., Ugaritic Textbook. Grammar, Texts in Transliteration, Cuneiform Selections, Glossary, Indices, Analecta Orientalia 038; Rome 1965. Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Introduction The writing of history, whether ancient or modern, is an act of recollection, and produces what is, in form, a collective memory of the past.1

1. Interest of the Study The study of the Pentateuch has elicited keen interest in biblical scholarship right from the rabbinic times. Till date, however, many issues arising therefrom remain unresolved, both from the literary and the historical-critical perspectives. In fact, Zenger deems modern Pentateuchal studies to be evidently stuck in deep crisis.2 This calls for new approaches in this endeavour, especially inter-disciplinary approaches.3 Within this state of affairs, the social psychology tools of social memory and social identity have, in the recent past, been applied to biblical scholarship. It is nevertheless to be observed that this approach has not gained prominence in contemporary biblical exegesis. Reading critically through the Pentateuch, and taking cognisance of the history of Israel, one discovers at the basis of the text the dynamics of social memory and group identity. At the theological level, one finds expressed in these texts the efforts of the Israeli literati to present and project the history of YHWH’s relationship with Israel as a people, creating through it a religious and ethical model for social existence in Israel. This is demonstrated in this work by the study of Ex 16. This study applies the tools of social memory/identity to the analysis of Ex 16, and argues that this narrative, in its present form, represents the collective memory of the people in the exilic/post-exilic period, and served to reinforce the identity of the people in the face of the crisis of the fall of Jerusalem (and the Temple!) and the consequent Exile. The “remembered past” narrated in Ex 16 is thus shaped by the current realities of the communal life of the people, meant to resolve existential problems at the theological level. This particular point draws my interest as an Igbo (SE Nigeria) in a special way. In a setting where cultural memory is still highly 1

P.R. DAVIES, Memories of Ancient Israel, 106. Cf. E. ZENGER, “Auf der Suche”, 353. 3 A recent example in this direction is the volume: T.E. LEVY / T. SCHNEIDER / W.H.C. PROPP, ed., Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspectives (2015). 2

2

Introduction

valued, this study demonstrates to me that our existential issues as a people today can be resolved at the theological level by taking recourse to the social memory approach. Again, coming from a background where Christianity is relatively new (just over a hundred years), but where syncretism and relapse into traditional religion is on the rise, this study adjudges the social memory approach a veritable tool to the Church’s mission of evangelisation, an approach that would help the Gospel actually take root in different cultures. To be added here is that this application of the tools of social memory and social identity to the analysis of Ex 16 constitutes an original contribution to biblical scholarship. Again, usually adjudged a composite text, there has not been a detailed narrative-critical study of this chapter of the Pentateuch till now. This study undertakes this task.

2. Thesis Argument It is the argument of this work that the Manna-Erzählung of Ex 16 arose out of the people’s collective memory of their constitutive past at the exilic/early post-exilic period, in response to the calamity of the fall of Jerusalem and the consequent deportation. This defeat of the “chosen people” had consequences in every facet of the people’s life: psychological, sociological and theological. In fact, it put their very existence as a people into jeopardy. Psychologically, their self-esteem as a specially chosen people was ruptured. Sociologically, they faced the risk of losing their identity as a people. And theologically, it seemed their God has been conquered by the gods of the land of the Babylonians, in accordance with the religious worldview of the ANE. To salvage this alarming situation, a swift, decisive action was needed. Applying the techniques of social memory provided an adequate response to this calamity. By calling to mind the great events of the constitutive past, and inserting themselves into the continuum of these mighty acts of the divine, the people of Israel drew strength and inspiration to survive the vicissitudes of the present crisis. They remembered the past mighty acts of YHWH not as stories of a distant past, but as narratives that are operative at present. If God remembered “our fathers” outside the land – in Egypt, he will also remember “us” outside the land – in Babylon. And if he punished them for their obstinacy in the wilderness but did not reject them, the present punishment does not imply that he has rejected us. Recalling the constitutive events of the past thus became a proficient response to the danger of being assimilated into other bigger cultures at this critical period. With this technique, the people were able to preserve their identity at this period of crisis. At the theological level, the fact of being defeated does not imply the impotency of YHWH. It is rather a display of his universal power, for YHWH can use whatever means he chooses to chasten his people

3. Methodology

3

when they transgress, for his a “jealous God” (Ex 20,5; 34,14). But this only constitutes a training – a Lernprozess. Ultimately, the Babylonian experience becomes interpreted as designed by YHWH to test them and bring them to a closer knowledge to him. And the Manna-Erzählung of Ex 16 reinforces such conviction.

3. Methodology The social memory approach to biblical exegesis entails both synchronic and diachronic inquiries. Thus, this study applies both approaches in analysing the text of Ex 16. Because the social memory theory focuses on the functionality of the past as remembered at present, the analysis of the “present” narrative constitutes the starting point of its inquiry and the basis of its inferences. Hence, this work undertakes a detailed close reading of the text of Ex 16 – applying the techniques of narrative analysis which, as Resseguie explains, “focuses on how biblical literature works as literature.”4 The close-reading of Ex 16 will investigate why the narrator chose to “remember” what is represented in the text to illustrate the social memory of the exilic/post-exilic Israel, and how recalling this event immerses the people into the continuum with a significant past that has an exacting meaning for the present. All the more, this analysis of Ex 16 will entail some critical intra - and intertextual analyses,5 which will elucidate the imports and functions of some strategic motifs and literary constructions employed therein by the narrator. And then, in order to examine the impact of the present on the remembered past and the relevance of this past to the people’s current circumstances, a diachronic analysis6 of our pericope is also necessary. This inquiry will reveal that the collective memory of the manna-event expressed in Ex 16 came as a theological cum psychosocial response to the alarming calamity of the Exile. Also, because the social memory approach is relatively new in biblical scholarship, this study begins with an elucidation of the necessary related terms, and

4 J.L. RESSEGUIE, Narrative Criticism, 18. On Narrative Criticism in biblical exegesis, see inter alia J.P. FOKKELMAN, Narrative Art in Genesis; M. STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative; M.A. POWELL, What is Narrative Criticism; R. ALTER, The Art of Biblical Narrative; S. BAR-EFRAT, Narrative Art in the Bible; J.-L. SKA, Our Fathers Have Told Us; J.L. RESSEGUIE, Narrative Criticism; J.-P. SONNET, “L’analisi narrativa”, 45–85. 5 On inner biblical exegesis, see inter alia M. FISHBANE, “Revelation and Tradition”, 343–361; IDEM, Biblical Interpretation; W.C. KAISER, “Inner Biblical Exegesis”, 33–46. 6 Diachronic (historical-critical) analysis in biblical exegesis encompasses form criticism, source criticism and redaction criticism (these concepts are briefly treated in Chap. I). The diachronic analysis in this work, however, concentrates on the “when” and “why” of the narrative as presented in the Bible.

4

Introduction

how they apply to biblical exegesis. And it ends with the application of these tools to the analysis of the Manna-Erzählung in Ex 16.

4. Status Quaestionis The status quaestionis of this study evolves in two steps, embedded in the unfolding of the study. On the one hand, the studies that have applied the tools of memory studies to Pentateuchal criticism are analysed in Chap. I. This analysis exposes the relevance of this relatively new hermeneutical approach in biblical exegesis. It reveals that social memory performs an important mediatory function in the dialogue between the biblical text and historical-archaeological inquiry, a mediatory role on the argument concerning the “truth value” and the “truth claim” of the biblical text. From this analysis also, the need to apply the devices of this “new” exegetical tool to the analysis of particular narratives is observed. This work constitutes a response in this direction. On the other hand, the scholarly inquiry into the manna-narrative of Ex 16 is x-rayed in Chap. II. And it is exposed from this excursus that the scholarly discussions on this chapter have mostly been “source-oriented”,7 but resulting in differing conclusions. This study undertakes also a historical-critical approach, but focuses on unravelling the circumstances that prompted the eminent remembrance of the ‫לֶחֶ ם ִמן־הַ שָ מָ ִים‬, as represented in the narrative.

5. Presentation of the Study This work is presented in six chapters, with an introduction and a conclusion. The first chapter exposes certain essential themes, necessary for a good comprehension of the entire work. In the first section of this chapter, the terms – social memory, social identity and narrative identity – are explicated, and their interconnectivity explored. In the second section, the modern scholarly positions on the composition of the Pentateuch are briefly brought into discussion with the social memory approach. And in the third section, the studies that have applied the social memory approach to the study of the Pentateuch are succinctly recapitulated. The second chapter turns attention to the text of Ex 16, the central pericope of this work. It begins with a textual criticism of Ex 16 and its translation, observing pertinent exegetical issues. Then, complexities arising from the text 7 As explained by M. Sternberg (The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 15), in contrast with discourse-oriented analysis which sets out to understand “the text itself as a pattern of meaning and effect”, source-oriented inquiry, focuses interest “on some object behind the text… which operated at the time as a source of biblical writing.”

5. Presentation of Study

5

are noted, difficulties for which the majority of scholars adjudge this pericope a “composite text.” An x-ray of the different endeavours in this direction, however, reveals a glaring lack of agreement, suggesting the need for a different approach. The chapter goes on to argue for the literary unity of the text of Ex 16 as a narrative unit, in spite of the difficulties found therein. To ground this argument, the basic tenets of narrative criticism are exposed. Against this backdrop, Ex 16 is then succinctly analysed as a narrative unit – a unified plot with a narrative thread that runs from the beginning to the end. In the third and fourth chapters of the work, a detailed close reading of Ex 16 is undertaken.8 This analysis, taken according to the episodes in the narrative, exposes in details the dynamics of the narrative plot. The narrative begins with a clear exposition in v. 1 which provides the necessary spatiotemporal background against which the entire story is built. From v. 2, the story of the bread-from-heaven unfolds, evolving gradually in connected episodes with complications and resolutions until the climactic resolution in v. 30 (vv. 2–12: Complaint and promise of food; vv. 13–21: Fulfilment of promise and people’s reaction; vv. 22–30: Sabbath instructions and people’s reaction). It is then concluded by an epilogue which centres on the memorialisation of the food (vv. 32–34), with an explanatory postscript (vv. 35–36). The textual unit presents a general dynamic of complaint – divine intervention – instructions/people’s reactions – memorialisation. And the attitude of the people through the narrative reveals a gradual movement from “not knowing” to “knowing” (revelation plot).9 In Ex 16, it is instructed that an omer of manna is to be preserved ‫לְ דֹ ֹרתֵ יכֶם‬ (“throughout your generations”), so as to keep the memory of this gracious provision alive in the subsequent generations. Interestingly, this term ( ‫)לְ ֹדרֹ תֵ יכֶם‬ recurs 9x in Exodus in six different contexts, employed in prime moments of the people’s constitutive past to recount the institution of important practices in Israel. The fifth chapter studies the memory-implications of this term in Exodus generally, so as to shed more light on its functionality in the mannanarrative. Employing both the synchronic and the diachronic analytic approaches, this chapter moves to establish that the term became used in the exilic/early post-exilic period as a formula that expresses the people’s collective memory of certain institutions which, at a period of crisis, highlight their identity as a chosen people. Also considered here, because of its central importance in marking the holiness of Israel, is the most essential object of the wilderness sanctuary – the Ark of the Testimony. The Ark depicts the special presence of God among the Israelites – a vital mark of their chosenness.

8 To be noted here is that in the course of this detailed close reading, the study also finds it opportune to clarify certain concepts that facilitate a better understanding of the text. 9 On this concept (revelation plot), see J.-P. SONNET, “L’analisi narrativa”, 56–57.

6

Introduction

The last chapter examines the functionality of the collective memory of the manna-event in Israel’s quest for identity at the exilic/early post-exilic period. It aims at establishing that the manna-narrative of Ex 16 consists in an “integrated and integrative” memory of God’s gracious provision of food for our ancestors in the wilderness, which functions to provide an identity-reinforcing response to the calamity of the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE and the consequent Exile. The study arrives at this inference by applying the tools of social memory theory. In effect, this chapter ultimately applies the expositions of Chap. I to the Manna-Erzählung of Ex 16. The final chapter also considers the implications of the social memory approach to biblical exegesis for the discourse on the composition of the Pentateuch. On the basis of this approach, it is inferred that as regards the articulation of the Pentateuch as we have it today, the project was eminently theological; the tool was the narrative; and the material was the collective memory of the people at the exilic/immediate post-exilic period. The application of the tools of social memory/identity to the study of the Manna-Erzählung in Ex 16, undertaken in this work, attests to this.

CHAPTER I

General Expositions 1. Social Memory, Social Identity and Narrative Identity This work studies Exodus 16, using the instance of the Manna-Erzählung to demonstrate how the collective memory of the constitutive events of Israel as a nation, as narrated in the Pentateuch, furnished and sustained the identity of the exilic/post-exilic Israel. So as to build on a solid foundation, it is necessary here to clarify these concepts – social memory and social identity – as applied to this work, and to explore succinctly the relationship between them. It is also deemed fit, for the purposes of this work, to illustrate briefly the concept of narrative identity – a term coined by Paul Ricœur – especially as it applies to biblical criticism. This is undertaken as it sheds light on the impact of “history writing,” here specifically the composition of the Pentateuch, on the (re)formation of social identity. 1.1 Social Memory Social (or collective) memory is “the public, integrated, and socially integrative representation of the past that is held, shaped, and negotiated within a social group, and which holds it together.”1 The social memory theory therefore “examines the ways in which communities and individuals reconstruct and commemorate their pasts in light of shared experiences and current social realities.”2 In the words of Jan Assmann, the theory of collective memory “draws our attention to the role of the past in constituting our world through dialogue and intercommunication, and it investigates the forms in which the past presents itself to us as well as the motives that prompt our recourse to it.”3 Contrasting history and memory, Ehud Ben Zvi notes that history (as understood in contemporary discourse) tends to separate the past from the present and focus on the unique, unrepeatable character of the past or past event…. [Whereas, on the other hand, memory] tends to construe a past that is presently alive in the community, to fuse past and present, and to shape the past in terms of a basic metanarrative/myth that is constantly reused to interpret and provide

1

E. BEN ZVI, “The Memory of Abraham”, 4. A. KIRK / T. THATCHER, ed., Memory, Tradition and Text, back-cover. 3 J. ASSMANN, Religion and Cultural Memory, ix. 2

8

Chapter I: General Expositions

significance to a recounted past, which accordingly becomes, to some extent, both cyclical and recyclable.4

Ben Zvi goes on to clarify that memory studies is characterised by this “fusion of the past and the present,” that is to say, the significance of the present with regard to the held notion of the past. It follows, therefore, that social/collective memory does not imply a passive remembrance of the past. Rather, commemoration in this sense is “an intensively signifying and hermeneutic activity, which strives to fix the meaning and purpose of the past. It is an attempt to counteract the danger of rupture and disconnect between the community and the past.”5 For him, therefore, social memories are results of coherence-bestowing activities. Every society distinguishes certain events of its past as possessing constitutive significance. And these memories become fashioned into the society’s “master commemorative narrative.” As Alan Kirk points out, “through recitation of this master narrative, a group continually reconstitutes itself as a coherent community, and as it moves forward through its history, it aligns its fresh experiences with this master narrative.”6 When a social group ceases to collectively remember, it ceases to exist as a group. In fact, as J. Assmann importantly observes, the disappearance of an ethnic group is not a matter of physical annihilation but of collective and cultural forgetting 7. It is important to re-emphasise here that these master commemorative narratives that have become statutorily accepted in the collective memory of the people “are not inert, museum-piece representations of the past; rather, they vitally shape perception and organization of reality. They are cognitive schemata… for interpreting and processing streams of experience.”8 1.1.1 The Selective Nature of Memory Social memory is essentially selective, continually shaped by the vicissitudes of the present. This is to say, memory is a continuous process of remembering and forgetting. The past is thus not a fixed, given reality. It is rather a collective reconstruction. It does not survive in itself, but continually reconstructed, in 4 E. BEN ZVI, “The Voice and Role”, 172. Also, Davies adds here that modern history “lacks the persuasive and emotional power of cultural memory in providing existential meaning, reinforcing identity and values, and illuminating trajectories towards the future.” P.R. DAVIES, Memories of Ancient Israel, 110. 5 K. BERGE, “Sites of Memory”, 288–289; See also A. KIRK, “Social and Cultural Memory”, 7; P.R. DAVIES, Memories of Ancient Israel, 106–107. 6 A. KIRK, “Social and Cultural Memory”, 5; Cf. Y. ZERUBAVEL, Recovered Roots, 7. 7 J. ASSMANN, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization, 140. 8 A. KIRK, “Social and Cultural Memory”, 15. Hence, as articulated by P.R. Davies (Memories of Ancient Israel, 110), “the purpose of cultural memory is precisely not to record, but to remember, with everything that the act of remembering entails.”

1. Social Memory, Social Identity and Narrative Identity

9

response to the situation at present.1 This continuous shaping and reshaping of social memory in the history of a group necessarily entails a continuous process of “remembering” and “forgetting.” Remembering/forgetting here implies “pushing other things into the background, making distinctions, obliterating many things in order to shed light on others.”2 What is “remembered” or “forgotten” by the group at each period in history is largely determined by the current circumstances of that period. Here, Ron Hendel observes that “in the work of remaking the past to suit the exigencies of the present, narrative details can be surprisingly fluid.”3 The inherited contents of collective memory are re-examined and updated. This implies, as explained above, that while some important details are pushed forward to the forefront, others are pushed backwards. They become suppressed or forgotten.4 An outstanding example here is the moment of communal crisis. In crisis situations, Hendel aptly points out, cultural memories are radically reformulated and rehearsed to face the challenges of the present circumstances. Crisis unavoidably leads to modifications of cultural ethos and boundaries, and generates the circumstances for the creation of new cultural syntheses. As such, when the present appears muddled up, reformulated cultural memories supply the models to surmount the incongruity. They supply “an intelligible model for thought and action” when the old models appear functionally inadequate.5 The adjustment of cultural memory is therefore important for the continued existence of the group as such, and particularly in crisis moments.6 That this applies to Israel/Judah after the fall of Jerusalem and the consequent exile goes without saying. Such collective trauma created the need for the people to reexamine and update the inherited contents of their cultural memory, and this has a lot of implications for the Hebrew Bible as we have it today. Jean-Pierre Sonnet, for instance, correlates the concept of election that pervades the Hebrew Bible with Israel’s traumatic experience of destruction-and-survival at the time of Exile. In the midst of this crisis, Israel dramatises its “chosenness” 1

M. HALBWACHS, On Collective Memory, 189. J. ASSMANN, Religion and Cultural Memory, 3. 3 R. HENDEL, “Remembering the Exodus”, 330. 4 This position appears contradicted by what J.-L. Ska (Introduction, 169) terms the “law of conservation” as regards ancient traditions: “Ancient society is fundamentally conservative. Indeed, nothing is eliminated; everything is preserved and interpreted.” But Ska also admits in the same text (Introduction, 171): “Although the ancient world was conservative, it also preserved only the things that had value for the present time.” 5 R. HENDEL, “Remembering the Exodus”, 331; see also P.R. DAVIES, Memories of Ancient Israel, 112–113. 6 Hendel notes here: “The revision of cultural memory in times of crisis is a strategy of survival […] The resilience of a culture is tied to its cultural memory. The past must change so that the group can survive the vicissitudes of the present.” R. HENDEL, “Remembering the Exodus”, 330. 2

10

Chapter I: General Expositions

– its status as YHWH’s chosen people, and the figures of the fathers in the Pentateuch becomes a “screen memory” for the people to create the required positive mindset to survive the present real crisis.7 The revision of mindsets in moments of crisis does not imply its denial. It is rather a conscious action that accepts the present condition, which also empowers the mind to reinterpret it in such a way to be able to pull through it. In this regard, Sonnet asserts that, rather than being repressed, “the experience of the exile has thus been internalized in the Pentateuch, and this points to the depth of Israel’s answer to its most dramatic trauma.”8 This “answer” codified in the Pentateuch, was meant primarily to protect and retain Israel’s identity as a people – God’s chosen people. 1.1.2 Memory and Commemoration In order to “remember” the constitutive elements of the past, the society sets up certain mechanisms to continuously remind its members of such, and to hand down this memory to new members of the society. Along this line, Jeffrey Olick points out that “genuine communities are communities of memory that constantly tell and retell their constitutive memories.”9 This is the role of rituals. The recitation of the Exodus narrative during the Passover meal – the Seder – presents a good example here. It is an established sociological fact that familiarising new members with its past is an important part of a community’s effort to incorporate them.10 This is exactly the goal of the commemorative narratives at the Passover Seder. Communication and Commemoration are important features of social memory. Maurice Halbwachs points out that memory is a socially-conditioned phenomenon. “No memory is possible outside frameworks used by people living in society to determine and retrieve their recollections.”11 For him, memory can only be fashioned during the process of socialisation, and collective memory is dependent on its bearers who pass it down from one generation to the next.12 Jan Assmann goes a step further, however, to point out a period of transition between two phases of collective memory in the historical progression of a group. The first phase – communicative memory – is characterised by the face-to-face circulation of foundational memories which are shared among those who experienced the originating events. This type of memory, however, cannot sustain remembrances for a long time after these events. This limitation necessitates, in the evolving community, the emergence of a second 7

Cf. J.-P. SONNET, “Writing the Disaster”, 353–354. J.-P. SONNET, “Writing the Disaster”, 355. 9 J.K. OLICK, “Collective Memory”, 344. 10 See E. ZERUBAVEL, “Social Memories”, 290. 11 M. HALBWACHS, On Collective Memory, 43. 12 M. HALBWACHS, On Collective Memory, 59. 8

1. Social Memory, Social Identity and Narrative Identity

11

phase – cultural memory – which retrieves from the past a body of reusable texts, images, and rituals specific to each society in each epoch, whose “cultivation” serves to stabilize and convey that society’s self-image. It is upon such collective knowledge of the past for the most part, though not exhaustively, that each group bases its awareness of unity and particularity.13 All the more, as the period of communicative memory passes, groups tend to find ways to remember the group’s prototypes from the past, a remembrance that serves the needs of the group in its current situation.14 1.1.3 Sites of Memory An important concept in the study of social/collective memory is what Ben Zvi terms “site of memory,” a term he adopts from Pierre Nora’s concept of lieu de mémoire.15 “As a working definition most appropriate for the present goals,” Ben Zvi explicates, “site of memory” refers here to any constructed space, place, event, figure, text or the like – whether it exists ‘materially’ or only in the minds of members of a social group – whose presence in the relevant socio-cultural milieu evokes or was meant to evoke core images or aspects of images in the past held by the social group living in that socio-cultural milieu.16

Most of these sites, according to Ben Zvi, act as symbols whose meanings are determined within a particular social discourse, designated as “locations” to be visited or revisited, often mentally, and geared towards strengthening the mechanism of self-support in the area of socialisation or social reproduction. He notes that, in the dynamics of social memory, not all sites of memory show the same level of mindshare. This means that not all sites are allocated the same “mental space” in the community. Mindshare is expressed in terms of the relative amount of references to particular sites of memory. The more important a site of memory is to a group at each moment in history, the more frequently it is referred to. As an example here, Ben Zvi points out that much more mental space is allocated to the Temple than to any other space-related concept in the Hebrew Bible (with the possible exception of “the land”). This demonstrates the central place of the Jerusalem Temple in the social memory of post-exilic Israel, at least, among the 13

J. ASSMANN, Religion and Cultural Memory, 24–31; See also: J. ASSMANN / J. CZAPLICKA, “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity”, 131–132. 14 Cf. C.A. BAKER, “A Narrative-Identity Model”, 110. 15 Pierre Nora describes lieu de mémoire as any significant entity, whether material or non-material in nature, which by dint of human will or the work of time has become a symbolic element of the memorial heritage of any community. See P. NORA, “General Introduction. Between Memory and History”, xvii. 16 E. BEN ZVI, “Remembering the Prophets”, 26. Noteworthy here is that this definition includes physical tokens of memory. Hence the expression site of memory will be used in this work as an all-inclusive term in this regard.

12

Chapter I: General Expositions

literati.17 Analysing the Bible (including the NT), it is deducible that from the period of the Exile onwards, the manna progressively gained mindshare in the collective memory of Israel as a nation. 1.1.4 Memory and the Focus on the Present From the above exposé, one can decipher that the emphasis in social memory studies lies, not in what actually happened in the “historical” past, but in the current particular circumstances of the remembering community. It is “about the past that is constantly present within the community and about the present of the community that is legitimized by that past.”18 As such, social memory approaches pay much attention to the historical circumstances of the remembering community. In fact, as Ben Zvi notes, It is the focus on the remembering community and what it imagined that calls us to pay less attention to whether the narrated events historically happened or not. What counts within this approach is what the historical community “remembered.”19

Michael Hundley arrives at similar conclusions in his analysis of the Priestly document “P” in the Pentateuch, using the social memory approach. According to him, what matters is not the historical veracity of the projections in these texts, but their appreciation in the collective memory of the present 20: The Priestly account gives Israel a proud heritage that creates a collective memory, brings solidarity to the group, sets them apart from (and in some ways over) other cultures, offers them hope for the future, and provides a pattern to follow to actualize that hope.21

Obviously, this observation of Hundley is applicable to the whole Pentateuch, nay to the entire Hebrew Bible. The Scripture is meant to protect and reinforce the identity of Israel as a people. And to the concept of social identity we now turn. 1.2 Social Identity Henri Tajfel describes social identity as “that part of an individual’s self concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership.”22 It “consists of those aspects of an individual’s self-image that 17

Cf. E. BEN ZVI, “Remembering the Prophets”, 27–28. E. BEN ZVI, “The Memory of Abraham”, 4. 19 E. BEN ZVI, “Remembering the Prophets”, 22. 20 This does not imply that the events recorded in Exodus are entirely without any historical backgrounds. Hundley’s point is that the emphasis of social memory is not on the historical accuracy of the reported events, but on the events as remembered and appreciated at present. 21 M. HUNDLEY, “The Way Forward”, 223. 22 H. TAJFEL, “Social Categorization, Social Identity”, 63, emphasis original. 18

1. Social Memory, Social Identity and Narrative Identity

13

derive from the social categories to which he perceives himself as belonging.”23 It is immediately noteworthy here that social identity is not an attribute of a group but that of an individual, part of his/her self-concept that is drawn from belonging to a group. Identity is thus a matter of consciousness. The collective identity of a group is that common image which the group members have of themselves, and with which they associate themselves. It has no existence of its own, but comes into being through recognition by its participating individuals.24 This awareness of belonging to a group shapes, or at least influences, one’s appreciation of oneself especially in relation to others, both within and outside the group, and in relation to reality in general. As such, one’s self-esteem depends much on his/her positive social identity. The Social Identity Theory (SIT) arises out of the need to answer necessary basic questions concerning the existence and sustenance of the social group, a reality of human existence. These questions are well-articulated by John Charles Turner and his colleagues: How does a collection of individuals become a social and psychological group? How do they come to perceive and define themselves and act as a single unit, feeding, thinking and selfaware as a collective entity? What effect does shared group membership have on their social relations and behaviour? 25

Turner and his colleagues use the terms Self-Categorization and Depersonalization to describe the process of group formation. Self categorization implies that, for a group to form, two or more people who find themselves in a similar situation come to perceive themselves in terms of similarities and differences that they share in contrast with other people. They recognise that they belong to one social category in distinction to other social categories to which they do not belong. Philip Esler elucidates further: Where two or more people in a situation recognize that they belong to such a category, they are likely to internalize preformed culturally available information relating to that category. Thus, psychological group formation occurs to the degree that two or more people come to perceive and define themselves in terms of some shared ingroup-outgroup categorization.26

Depersonalization, on the other hand, refers to “the process of ‘self-stereotyping’ whereby people come to perceive themselves more as the interchangeable exemplars of a social category than as individual personalities defined by their individual differences from others” 27. Pertinent to note here is that depersonalization does not imply a loss of individual identity, or a submergence of the self in the group. Rather, as Esler explains, it actually allows individuals to

23

H. TAJFEL / J.C. TURNER, “The Social Identity Theory”, 16. J. ASSMANN, Cultural Memory, 114–115. 25 J.C. TURNER et al., Rediscovering the Social Group, 1. 26 P.F. ESLER, “An Outline of Social Identity Theory”, 24. 27 J.C. TURNER et al., Rediscovering the Social Group, 53. 24

14

Chapter I: General Expositions

“gain” identity, as it allows individual persons to act in terms of social similarities and differences built up in human cultures over time.28 1.2.1 Social Identity and Group Beliefs If one is to belong to a social group, one has to share the beliefs of the group. Daniel Bar-Tal defines group beliefs as the “convictions that group members (a) are aware that they share and (b) consider as defining their ‘groupness’ .”29 According to him, the fundamental group belief is “We are a group,” since if the different individuals do not share this belief, they would not consider themselves to be members of the group. Further to this, there are other beliefs of varying content that members share, which relate to a variety of subjects. These beliefs underlie their “we-ness” and uniqueness, and define the social identity they derive from belonging to that group.30 The members of a group are thus connected by the beliefs which they share. J. Assmann points out that every social group formulates what might be called a connective structure which “binds people together by providing a ‘symbolic universe’ – a common area of experience, expectation and action whose connecting forces provide them with trust and with orientation.”31 Bar-Tal goes on to illustrate that, in the social group, some beliefs are more vital than others. The more fundamental group beliefs are held as prototypic in the characterization of a social group, and they are thus referred to as basic group beliefs.32 Sometimes, some of these beliefs are so established that going against them is considered taboo within the group circle. 1.2.2 Social Identity and Ethics Social identity denotes an individual’s consciousness of being the member of a group. Hence, belonging to a group also imposes expectations and boundaries to one’s actions. This is to say, norms function as the distinctive feature of one’s conformity to the groups to which one belongs. In this context, norms are described by Michael Hogg and Scott Reid as those “regularities in attitudes and behaviour that characterize a social group and differentiate it from other social groups.”33 Norms are very important for the subsistence of the group as they bring order and predictability to it. They shape the group members comprehension of the world, and point out appropriate behaviours in new and ambiguous 28

Cf. P.F. ESLER, “An Outline of Social Identity Theory”, 27. D. BAR-TAL, Group Beliefs, 36. 30 Cf. D. BAR-TAL, Group Beliefs, 37. 31 J. ASSMANN, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization, 2. 32 Cf. D. BAR-TAL, Group Beliefs, 58. 33 M.A. HOGG / S.A. REID, “Social Identity”, 7. 29

1. Social Memory, Social Identity and Narrative Identity

15

situations. As such, norms enhance and maintain group identity. They can be descriptive (regularities on how people actually behave) or prescriptive (how people should behave). The prescriptive force of group norms derives from their “internalized self-definitional function.” In this sense, norms are related to “ethics” as employed in the fields of philosophy and biblical scholarship .34 The book of Exodus provides an eloquent example of the interrelationship between group identity and ethics.35 1.2.3 Social Identity and Temporality Another important aspect of the social identity theory is the recognition that groups exist in time. As Esler aptly explains, groups have a past, a present and a future. And in some cases, as in the case of ethnic groups, they may have a history going back to centuries. Often, the past bears upon the group identity in a manner that affects the present experience of the members and their expectations for the future.36 In this regard, Susan Condor explains social life as a temporal trajectory in which social agents take up identities, ideas and practices and hand them on to their successors, often transforming them as they go. As such, “part of the social identity which we derive from belonging to groups inevitably includes the fact of their being situated in history, stretching backward and forward in time.”37 And so, as David Carr further explains, one’s social existence not only puts one in contact with a co-existing multiplicity of contemporaries. Rather, it links one with “a peculiar form of temporal continuity” that is handed down in succession, from predecessors to successors.38 It follows therefore that the past “is powerful in defining contemporary identity because it is represented in terms of a narrative structure which invites those in the present to see themselves as participants in an ongoing drama.”39 But how do the members of a group at present link up with the past? To this crucial question, Esler replies, “In relation to the past, it is clear that groups are nourished by collective memory.”40 In fact, without some form of shared memory, maintaining social/communal continuity through time would not be possible, whether in the long term or in the short term. In the same vein, it is not possible to sustain the handing down of tradition in the society or to 34

Cf. P.F. ESLER, “An Outline of Social Identity Theory”, 32. The requirement to keep the Sabbath, emphasised in the book of Exodus (16,23–29; 20,8–11; 31,13–16; 35,2–3), provides a good example here. The identity implication of this instruction is discussed in this work (see Chapters V and VI). 36 P.F. ESLER, “An Outline of Social Identity Theory”, 36–37. 37 P.F. ESLER, “An Outline of Social Identity Theory”, 37; cf. also S. CONDOR, “Social Identity and Time”, 289–303. 38 Cf. D. CARR, Time, Narrative, and History, 113–114. 39 S. REICHER / N. HOPKINS, Self and Nation, 150. 40 P.F. ESLER, “An Outline of Social Identity Theory”, 37. 35

16

Chapter I: General Expositions

maintain laws that keep the society organised as a political entity without some form of shared memory. As such, as Ben Zvi aptly points out, “All historical communities – even at the level of family and kin – are to a large extent imagined communities based on a shared memory.”41 J. Assmann goes on to explicate that the consciousness of belonging to a social group depends very much on shared knowledge and shared memory, expressed by a common language and handed down by way of an organised system of symbols.42 There is obviously, therefore, a link between social memory and social identity. And exploring this relationship merits more attention here. 1.3 Social Memory as a Necessary Tool of Social Identity Social/collective memory plays an essential role in the formation and maintenance of group identity. “Social memory defines a group, giving it a sense of its past and defining its aspirations for the future.”43 It shapes common myths and teleological convictions of the group, which are interpretative tools to assign meanings to events: past, present and future. Since memories shape an image of what the group is about, they play a crucial role in terms of identity formation and self-legitimisation, and particularly so given the common ideological role of “the past” as a legitimising factor in traditional societies. Moreover, even the communal, social act of remembering a similar past plays an important role in social cohesion. A society that “remembers together” is far more likely to “remain together,” that is, to socially produce itself in a successful way.44 J. Assmann states emphatically that it is virtually impossible to think of any social group where memory culture is not to be found in one form or another.45 This complex of shared symbols – established and, above all, passed on – which forms culture, corresponds to a collective identity. The formation of culture is therefore “the medium through which collective identity is created and preserved down through the generations.”46 The shared beliefs, arising from the narratives of the past, define the collective identity and ethnic boundaries of the people, and offer them a common basis for social and religious life. This social function of history (as remembered) is evident in the processes of ethnic self-definition. This is evidenced in the stories and in the annual festivals of a people (for e.g., the Passover), which re-enacts this collective 41

Cf. E. BEN ZVI, “Remembering the Prophets”, 20–21. J. ASSMANN, Cultural Memory, 119–120. 43 J. FENTRESS / C. WICKHAM, Social Memory, 25. Corroborating, P.R. Davies (Memories of Ancient Israel, 106) notes that “identity is created by memory through interpreting the past as a coherent narrative, or set of narratives.” 44 E. BEN ZVI, “On Social Memory and Identity Formation”, 100. 45 J. ASSMANN, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization, 16. 46 J. ASSMANN, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization, 120. 42

1. Social Memory, Social Identity and Narrative Identity

17

memory.47 During the feast of Seder, for instance, the child learns to say “we” because he is drawn into a story and a memory that forms and reinvigorates the group. He feels himself grafted into the Exodus tradition which is the central memory figure in the identity of Israel. Even during the Exile, when the celebration of the Passover was no more feasible, one can imagine that such “mnemotechnics”48 was used by the Israelites to keep the memory of the past alive so as to preserve the collective identity of Israel. Ben Zvi uses the term “socialization” to depict the social functions of collective memory within the group, especially its identity-forming character. Socialization in this sense means that social memory serves to socialise the group into acquiring its proper identity, behaviour and ideology. This implies that social memory “inculcates” an accepted and shared way of thinking, of engendering ideas, of raising questions and providing ways of addressing them, of assigning significance to stories. It all implies being “socialized” in order to erect mental fences.49 Social groups (or “ethnies”) are not static. In order to survive, they must be dynamic. As such, their self-identities, and consequently their memories, are not static. Therefore, social memory and social identity, including all related perceptions of boundary delimitation, are in a recurrent process of being shaped and reshaped. The dynamism of any social group is proportionate to its continual reconfiguration of self-identity, which necessarily connotes the continual reshaping of social memory. This occurs mostly in minor ways, but often in major ways too. It is only through this process that a group can retain and maintain its identity, navigating through diverse circumstances.50 It is the argument of this study that the narratives we find in the book of Exodus (nay in the Pentateuch as a whole) reflect the “reshaped” memory of the people of Israel in reaction to the dreadful experience of the Exile. In order to preserve its identity, Israel has to strongly propagate its chosenness in spite of the calamity that has befallen it. This study of the Manna-Erzählung in Ex 16 proves this point. 1.4 Narrative Identity The term – narrative identity – was coined by Paul Ricœur, who defines it as “the kind of identity that human beings acquire through the mediation of the

47

R. HENDEL, Remembering Abraham, Chap. IV, “The Exodus”, 72. A term developed by J. Assmann to refer to the different techniques developed by a society/group to keep the memories of its past alive. Cf. J. ASSMANN, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization, 191. 49 Cf. K. BERGE, “Sites of Memory”, 290. 50 Hence, Ben Zvi points out that the emphasis here should be on “identity formation” and not just on “identity.” Cf. E. BEN ZVI, “On Social Memory and Identity”, 100. 48

18

Chapter I: General Expositions

narrative function.”51 Ricœur formulated this concept in his Time and Narrative (vol. III) in his attempt to provide a solution to the “aporia of temporality.”52 Here, Ricœur observes that the very goal of narrative is “to substitute for the bits and pieces of stories that are unintelligible and unbearable [for] a coherent and acceptable story, in which the reader can recognize his or her selfconstancy.”53 According to him, narratives perform a very important function because: The self does not know itself immediately, but only indirectly by the detour of the cultural signs of all sorts which are articulated on the symbolic mediations which always already articulate action and, among them, the narratives of everyday life.54

For Ricœur therefore, the form of language that best expresses human temporality is narrative. Narratives bring about the fusion of history and fiction, the two models of the narrative imagination that constitute the ways in which human historicity is retold.55 As such, history and fiction together constitute a narrative depiction for what is humanly possible. Narratives therefore embody tangible possibilities of exploits, possible manners of approaching issues, possible “worlds.” They create and portray the very many ways in which we can live. These possibilities are not only for individual, but also for whole societies. “In creating possible worlds,” Kevin Vanzooher explains, “stories and histories thus make up the ‘substance’ of things hoped for.”56 Ricœur expounds further that the “fragile offshoot” that issues from the union of history and fiction “is the assignment to an individual or to a community a specific identity that we can call their narrative identity.”57 Individuals and communities are constituted in their identity by adopting narratives that become for them their actual history. Ricœur uses the example of biblical Israel to illustrate this point. This is especially applicable to them “because no other people has been so overwhelmingly impassioned by the narratives it has about itself.”58 Ricœur explains that the delineation of the narratives which would later attain canonical status goes a long way to divulge the character of this people who gave themselves the patriarchal narratives, those of Exodus, the settlement in Canaan, the Davidic monarchy, the Exile and return, among other writings. And with critical diachronic analysis, one can infer that “it was in telling these narratives taken to be testimonies about the 51

P. RICŒUR, “Narrative Identity”, 188. Cf. P. RICŒUR, Time and Narrative, III, 244–249. 53 P. RICŒUR, Time and Narrative, III, 247. 54 P. RICŒUR, “Narrative Identity”, 198. 55 Ricœur’s concept of the historicity of the human person, which is part of being “human”, consists in one’s awareness of oneself as related to the past and the future. 56 K.J. VANHOOZER, Biblical Narrative, 86–87. 57 P. RICŒUR, Time and Narrative, III, 246. 58 P. RICŒUR, Time and Narrative, III, 247. 52

1. Social Memory, Social Identity and Narrative Identity

19

founding events of its history that the biblical Israel became the historical community that bears this name.”59 From this, Ricœur points out a circular relationship: as a historical community, the Jewish people draws its identity from receiving and accepting the texts which it had earlier generated. According to Ricœur, one who engages oneself in reading a narrative goes through a threefold process in the development of one’s own narrative identity. Coleman A. Baker succinctly describes this process: – Prefiguration: the preunderstanding that the reader/hearer brings to the text (pre-existing identity/ies) – Configuration: the author’s construction of the text and the reader’s interaction with the narrative world of the text – Refiguration: the fusion of the world of the text and the world of the reader.60 Baker notes from the above that narrative identity is therefore “constructed as an individual (or group) engages a narrative with a certain pre-existing identity (which is based upon pre-understanding) and reconfigures that identity upon interaction with the narrative.”61 We note here, therefore, the two aspects of narrative identity according to Ricœur: the narrative identity of the characters in the text which is an expression of human longing and aspiration, and the narrative identity of the reader of the text which is “refigured” by interaction with the narrative. It is pertinent to note here that it is through narratives that what is remembered about the past is transformed into a coherent discourse. Narratives “recount memories but, in a sense, they constitute memories, for they organize the past in narrative temporality and form, which makes the past memorable.”62 However, selective memory is an inherent part of recounting an event, whether fact or fiction, oral or written. Every narrator forms his narrative by “remembering” the aspects of the story that serves his present purposes while “forgetting” the other aspects that do not serve such purposes. In collecting and synthesising his materials, as Hundley appropriately notes, the narrator “necessarily remembers some materials while dismissing other information, all for the purpose of recording history, that is, interpreting events through a particular socio-cultural lens for rhetorical purposes,” in such a way that we can assert that “whether fact or fiction, any narrative is a collection of the author’s conscious and unconscious choice to include or dismiss details, to selectively remember or forget.”63 59

P. RICŒUR, Time and Narrative, III, 248. C.A. BAKER, “A Narrative-Identity Model”, 106. 61 C.A. BAKER, “A Narrative-Identity Model”, 106. 62 R. HENDEL, “Cultural Memory”, 33. 63 M. HUNDLEY, “The Way Forward”, 209–210. 60

20

Chapter I: General Expositions

Narratives are meant to depict, recall, preserve or challenge the collective memories of groups and societies. Liu and László, acknowledging that the collective memories go back to the assumed genesis of the group, indicate that they objectify and encode those memories that prove essential to the group into stories, and preserve them as public narratives in such a way that new members will be able to share this group history. In this manner, such narratives connect individuals to a collective by the sharing of the same symbols, knowledge and meaning.64 As individuals encounter these narratives through history, they help shape their social memory and thus their social identity. In Baker’s words, Thus, narrative identity is constructed, and reconstructed, during the interaction between the audience, whose present identity has been constructed by its social memory, and the text, which reinforces previous identity or seeks to counter and reform identity and memory.65

One can then understand here Ricœur’s assertion that it is “through the narrative function that memory is incorporated into the formation of identity.”66 1.5 Relevance to this Study At this juncture, after this rather long exposition of terms, seemingly fuori campo in biblical exegesis, it is very important to connect the exposé with the project and purpose of this work. We begin by noting that C.A. Baker has already pointed out the usefulness of the “methodological mix” of social memory, social identity and narrative analysis in biblical studies.1 Bringing together this “methodological mix” and Ricœur’s three-stage process of narrative identity formation, he expounds: Since the narrative world of the text is embedded in the historical/cultural world in which the text was written and received, attention to historical and cultural context (prefiguration stage) is an important part of this approach…. Within the world of the text, the implied author constructs the narrative by use of plot, setting, characters, etc.; thus, narrative theory is useful in examining the structure and function of the narrative components including plot, setting, characters, etc. (configuration stage). Likewise, the authorial audience engages the text in a reciprocal process in which the audience reads/hears the narrative and makes certain judgments which may be refined as the audience continues along the narrative (configuration

64

Cf. J.H. LIU / J. LÁSZLÓ, “Narrative Theory”, 87–88. C.A. BAKER, “A Narrative-Identity Model”, 115. 66 P. RICŒUR, Memory, History, Forgetting, 84–85. 1 In fact, Baker makes a statement which has turned out to become a major inspiration to the present research: “Together, this methodological mix of social identity, social memory and narrative theories can help students and scholars analyse the identity-forming function of early Christian narratives.” C.A. BAKER, “A Narrative-Identity Model”, 118. Though this statement is made with particular reference to the NT, the methodology is appropriated here for the analysis of Ex 16. 65

2. Composition of the Pentateuch

21

and refiguration stages); audience-oriented and social identity/memory approaches are helpful here to understand better the process of interaction and identity formation.2

This study adopts and adapts this approach in the exegesis of Ex 16. It is a wide consensus in modern biblical scholarship that the final text of the Pentateuch is a post-exilic work.3 As such, this inquiry locates the primary purposes of the Manna-Erzählung in its final form in responding to the exigencies of this perilous experience. However, in studying this text closely, some literary difficulties are noticed. There are “problems” of repetitions and seeming lack of logical sequencing in some sections. The general tendency among scholars is to explain this narrative as a composite text (see Chap. II, § 2). As seen above, the social memory approach acknowledges the fluidity of narratives as they navigate through different epochs and circumstances. It is most probable that different traditions of the narrative were known at the time of the composition of the final text of Ex 16, both in oral and written forms. However, in composing this text, the narrator chose what served his purposes to create a narrative that accords to his plot and purposes. This argument has implications for the age-long debate on the composition of the Pentateuch. As such, to argue this point better, it is worthwhile to turn attention briefly to the modern scholarly positions on the composition of the Pentateuch.

2. Composition of the Pentateuch: Modern Scholarly Positions Outlining the process of the composition of the Pentateuch has generated scholarly interest right from the rabbinic period till the present day. For our purposes here, the scope is restricted to modern scholarly positions, and this revolves around the documentary hypothesis. The aim here is not to present an elucidation of the different views 4 but to discuss them in relation to the argument of this work that the Pentateuch is a product of the social memory of the exilic/ post-exilic Israel, aimed at (re)shaping and reinforcing the identity of Israel as YHWH’s chosen people in the time of crisis. The major tenet of the classical documentary hypothesis is that the Pentateuch got composed through the fitting together of four independent “documents”, each of them an originally separate book written at a different time, ranging from 10th to 6th century BCE. The process of this merging lasted

2

C.A. BAKER, “A Narrative-Identity Model”, 118. Even the proponents of the classical documentary hypothesis concur that the final text of the Pentateuch is post-exilic (see below). 4 For an elucidation on the history of Pentateuchal criticism, see inter alia J. BLENKINSOPP, The Pentateuch; J.-L. SKA, Introduction to Reading; R.N. WHYBRAY, The Making of the Pentateuch; A. ROFÉ, Introduction; J.A. SOGGIN, Introduction. 3

22

Chapter I: General Expositions

several centuries and was undertaken by a number of redactors.5 It is therefore the position of the proponents of this hypothesis that narratives we have today in the Pentateuch were already fixed compositions dating right from the period of the United Monarchy (c. 10th century BCE), and were only “merged together” to produce the Pentateuch. One apparent point of difficulty here, considered from the Standpunkt of social memory, is that this hypothesis precludes the liberty of the “compiler” of the Pentateuch to represent and address current situations in the bid to be true to the sources. The form-critical approach, though going beyond the texts to the oral traditions at their background, still presupposes largely the tenets of the documentary hypothesis. The search into the pre-compositional stage of the Pentateuch is actually meant to strengthen the tenets of the documentary hypothesis by clarifying some difficulties found therein.6 As such, the above critique to the documentary hypothesis applies here too. However, the recognition of the essential place of oral tradition in the process of the composition of the Pentateuch is an important contribution. Furthermore, the form-critical approach led some scholars, especially in the Scandinavian, to place so heightened an emphasis on oral tradition that they virtually reject the documentary hypothesis. These proponents of the Traditionsgeschichte school, emphasising the sociological aspect of the life situations that gave rise to the different traditions, aver that ancient traditions were transmitted orally until the post-exilic period. For them, in fact, the Pentateuch took its present shape in the Persian era when the works of the two movements on Israel’s origin and history which existed side by side (the D-Komposition and the P-Komposition) were combined, a move that was important for the survival of Israel as a people after the Exile.7 The position of the Traditionsgeschichte school, though meritorious, raises some difficulties. First of all, there are biblical and archaeological indications of writing activities before the

5 The classical documentary hypothesis finds full expression in J. Wellhausen, especially in his Prolegomena. 6 Form-criticism in the Pentateuch is largely inspired by H. Gunkel (cf. Introduction to Genesis). The eminent scholars who tow this line of thought include G. von Rad who proposes the Yahwist as the great theologian of Solomon’s era who elaborated the succinct creed and linked up its different components into the major framework of the Hexateuch (see his essays in The Problem of the Hexateuch, especially Chapter I, “The Form-Critical Problem”, 1–78); and M. Noth who proposes the Überlieferungsgeschichte – the history of transmission (see esp. his opus magnum: Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch; English trans.: A History of Pentateuchal Traditions). 7 Notable among the contributors to this school of thought are I. Engnell (cf. Gamla Testamentet; “Methodological Aspects”); R. Rendtorff (cf. inter alia “Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte”; “Traditio-Historical Method”; Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem; “The ‘Yahwist’ as Theologian?”); E. Blum (cf. his two major works: Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte; Studien zur Komposition).

2. Composition of the Pentateuch

23

Exile. One cannot preclude the existence of some written narrative cycles before the deportation. Again, the position that the Pentateuch is a sort of compromise between the two fixed documents of the Dtr school and the P school leaves much to be desired. Though this may be part of the process of composition, the Pentateuch appears a freer response to the vicissitudes of the present by “recalling” the events of the past, transmitted via traditions. More recently, the majority of scholars posit a post-exilic dating for the Pentateuch.8 Still, there remains a divergence of views as regards the process of its composition. In some circles, the documentary hypothesis is not rejected outright but modified. It is posited by some scholars that J is a “late” document, because they find a lot of thematic and linguistic linkages between the work of J and documents emanating from the exilic and early post-exilic era.9 The detection of this confluence of motifs casts a shadow over the classical documentary hypothesis, but this position is itself not bereft of difficulties. The view that the Pentateuch is a compilation of different documents regurgitates the difficulties raised by the classical documentary hypothesis, as pointed out above.10 Another recent position is the view that the Pentateuch is a result of the process of Fortschreibung – a series of successive redactional additions to a Grundschrift – an original limited work.11 This position favours the understanding of the Pentateuch as a continuous story but tends to overlook the reality of some literal difficulties in the text, such as apparent repetitions. This difficulty appears resolved by another school of thought which posits that different independent Erzählkränze (narrative cycles) were brought together in 8 Such view is expressed by G. Fischer who asserts that “the Torah was written, for the most part, in the two centuries after the fall of Jerusalem.” G. FISCHER, “Don’t Forget Jerusalem’s Destruction”, 307. Ska corroborates this in his assertion that there was never any “authentic source” before the Exile, or specifically before the Priestly document. For him, at the beginning of the redaction of the Pentateuch, these were only isolated narratives or short narrative cycles – Erzählkränze (cf. the hypothesis of fragments: Gunkel, Rendtorff, Blum). The so-called sources came later, after the Deuteronomic theology, primarily with the Priestly author. It was after the Exile that the actual Pentateuch came into being, a result of the compilation and revision of existing sources in which some texts were added at strategic points (cf. the hypothesis of supplements). Cf. J.-L. SKA, Introduction, 191–192. 9 The prominent proponents of this view include J. Van Seters (cf. Abraham in History; The Life of Moses); and C. Levin (cf. Der Jahwist). 10 Noteworthy here is that some contemporary scholars still hold on to the classical documentary hypothesis. Among them are W.H. SCHMIDT (cf. Einführung) and H. SEEBASS, (cf. “Que reste-t-il”). Some others express the conviction that comprehensive compositions, now termed J and E, were already in existence, for the most part, before the fall of the Northern Kingdom (722 BCE), while the redactions of the D and the P schools followed successively. Cf. J.A. SOGGIN, Introduction; A. ROFÉ, Introduction. 11 Among the prominent proponents of this view are P. WEIMER, Untersuchungen; and J. VERMEYLEN, “Les Premières”.

24

Chapter I: General Expositions

the formation of the Pentateuch.12 Because different narrative cycles could be on the same theme, the repetitions in the Pentateuch become understandable. This is reasonable. However, evaluated from a social memory point of view, it has to be asserted that the Pentateuch does not just consist in a collation of different narrative cycles. Rather, it is advertently brought together through a conscious process of “remembering” and “forgetting” to represent the collective memory of the people – the meaning that the people attribute to “their” past at present, while charting a path for the future. In his recent succinct review of the trends in Pentateuchal criticism over the last few centuries, David M. Carr draws the inference that most of the scholars currently involved in this intellectual inquiry seem to concur that the Pentateuch began as different stories composed separately. It then metamorphosed to include different legal materials, especially from P and Dtr, and then grew further to incorporate layers of connective tradition – the post-P redactional layers. As Carr points out, even if this is totally agreed upon, one issue that remains very important to clarify “is the extent and character of these early, originally separate compositions (at each stage) and the process by which they were joined.”13 On this, Erhard Blum asserts that “neither the model of redactional additions nor the pattern of an independent literary source is capable of explaining the picture as a whole.”14 In sum, therefore, the assessment of some scholars that modern biblical scholarship has produced two broad groups as regards the composition of the Pentateuch – the “biblical maximalists” who favour an early dating of the sources, and the “biblical minimalists” who insist that the Pentateuch is a literary production from after the Exile – does not actually depict the situation.15 The above exposition shows that the picture is more complicated. In some cases, the different positions share some common grounds, while in others, the positions are apparently mutually exclusive.16 In fact, assessing the situation in

12

See, inter alia, E. ZENGER, Einleitung. D.M. CARR, “Changes in Pentateuchal Criticism”, 466. 14 E. BLUM, “Issues and Problems”, 42. 15 Such sharp demarcation is made by E.M. MEYERS / J. ROGERSON, “The World of the Hebrew Bible”, 45. 16 It is fitting to point out here that the different positions as regards the composition of the Pentateuch directly influences the hermeneutical approach employed in studying it. For the proponents of the hypotheses of documents, the primary approach to Pentateuchal studies is source criticism – the search for the original sources that form the basis of the biblical text, and redaction criticism which works on the basic assumption that literary units come as a result of a process of editing multiple sources, often with a similar theme, into a single document (see C. NIHAN, “L’analisi redazionale”, 121–165). Form criticism searches for small units: remnants and evidence of the oral tradition behind the Pentateuch, and tries to classify these units by genre and Sitz im Leben (see G.M. TUCKER, Form Criticism). More recently, many scholars have resorted to literary criticism – canonical criticism, rhetorical 13

2. Composition of the Pentateuch

25

Pentateuchal criticism, Erich Zenger submits that current Pentateuchal research is evidently stuck in a deep crisis.17 The different positions adopted by scholars on the composition of Ex 16 present a case in point here. And it is within this state of affairs that the social memory approach is put forward and appreciated. This work proposes the social memory approach as the middle point and binding centre between the positions exposed above. Applying this method to Pentateuchal studies, one realises that the tenets of the different positions on the composition of the Pentateuch are accommodated and streamlined. The Pentateuch is an exilic/post-exilic end-product. But what is contained therein is a crystallisation of the collective memory of the people over the centuries. In the words of Arnaldo Momigliano, the Hebrew historian “only gave an authoritative version of what everybody was supposed to know.”18 As observed above, collective memory of the people is not static. People respond by “remembering” and emphasising the aspects of memory that help them face the current challenges. And so, certain points are highlighted in the Pentateuch to meet the urgent needs of the exilic and early post-exilic times. But still, the social memory of the Israelites preserved in the Pentateuch is built upon traditions, both oral and written, handed on from generation to generation, which the people hold as true and binding.19 And if the quest of origin is a normal human tendency and not a crisis-driven need, there is no basis of

criticism and narrative criticism – which shifts attention to the text itself. Canonical criticism approaches the biblical books as whole units, responding to the perception that biblical criticism has obscured the meaning and authority of the canon of the Scripture (see B.S. CHILDS, Introduction). Rhetorical criticism attempts to discover and evaluate the rhetorical devices used within a text to accomplish the goals of such text (see J.R. LUNDBOM, Biblical Rhetoric). Narrative criticism focuses on the artistic weaving of the biblical texts into a sustained narrative. It analyses narratives as complete tapestries and organic wholes, and attends to constitutive features of narratives such as characters, setting, structure, plot, literary devices, etc. Narrative criticism embraces the textual unity of canonical criticism, but admits the existence of sources and redactions of historical criticism (cf. M.A. POWELL, What is Narrative Criticism). This is the criticism that aligns with the social memory approach. 17 In his words: “Die Pentateuchforschung, einst Prunkstück der kritischen Exegese, ist zusehends in eine tiefe Krise geraten.” E. ZENGER, “Auf der Suche”, 353. To this, G. Fischer (“Keine Priesterschrift”, 203) corroborates: “Die Pentateuchforschung befindet sich gegenwärtig im Umbruch.” 18 A. MOMIGLIANO, Essays in Ancient, 195. 19 One calls to mind here M. Sternberg’s notable distinction between history and fiction. According to him, “the antithesis lies not in the presence or absence of truth value but of the commitment to truth value [.... Here,] the difference between truth value and truth claim is fundamental.” As such, what makes for historiography or fiction “all boils down to the rules of the writing game, namely, to the premises, conventions, and undertakings that attach to the discourse as an affair between the writer and the audience.” Cf. M. STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 25–26.

26

Chapter I: General Expositions

assuming that the Israelites began reflecting on their origins as from the exilic period. There is therefore the likelihood that there were narrative cycles (Erzählkränze), oral and written, that recount the story of the people from the “beginning” to the “present” before the Exile. These traditions were continually reviewed and adapted (Fortschreibungen), especially in response to current situations, until they were skilfully put together to form the Pentateuch. In this process, however, the narrator was not just constrained only to putting together existing traditions or creating a “compromise” between established traditions/sources. Rather, it appears that “remembering” what serves his purposes and “forgetting” what does not, he freely applied his narrative skills in unravelling a stupendous narrative plot. These points will be investigated by applying the tools of social memory and social identity to the study of the Manna-Erzählung in Ex 16.

3. Social Memory Studies in Exodus – A History of Inquiry Social memory/identity is an emerging field.20 Thus, the application of the tools of social memory/identity to biblical exegesis is relatively new. This section exposes the studies that has utilised this approach in the Pentateuchal studies in general and in the study of Exodus in particular. It will follow basically a chronological sequence. And when possible, the works of an individual author will be considered together. 3.1 Early Works on Biblical Memory In 1962, Brevard S. Childs produced the work: Memory and Tradition. He begins by decrying the fact that though the important role played by memory in formulation of Old Testament tradition has been widely recognised, no thorough study has been carried out on this subject. Analysing the Hebrew root zkr in its verbal and nominal forms in the OT, he infers that God’s remembering always implies his movement toward the object of his memory. The essence of God’s remembering lies in his acting toward someone or a people (especially Israel) because of a previous commitment. On the other hand, when used with Israel as its subject, the verb zkr denotes a basic human psychological function: 20 The application of social memory/identity studies to the Hebrew Bible has its foundations in social sciences/humanities. It is generally acknowledged that the modern study on social memory was initiated by the French sociologist Maurice Halbwachs (1877–1945); cf. his three works: Les Cadres Sociaux de la Mémoire (1925); La Topographie Légendaire des Évangiles en Terre Sainte (1941); La Mémoire Collective (posthumous, 1950) = On Collective Memory (1992). The concept was expanded by other scholars, notable among whom are Jan and Aleida Assmann.

3. Social Memory Studies in Exodus

27

to recall a past event. Theologically, “Israel’s remembrance became a technical term to express the process by which later Israel made relevant the great redemptive acts which she recited in her tradition.”1 Childs thus infers from his study of memory that each successive generation encountered anew the same determinative events of Israel as a people. In each successive generation, there is an immediate encounter and actual participation in the great acts of redemption. In other words, each new generation was challenged to enter God’s redemptive time. Childs terms this actualisation: “the process by which a past event is contemporized for a generation removed in time and space from the original event.”2 We note here that Childs took primarily a synchronic approach to the study of memory in the Hebrew Bible. His study did not grow out of the innovations in social sciences described above. However, though he did not delve into the effect of memory in the formation of the Pentateuch during/after the Exile, he called for studies in this direction. Childs’ call for thorough studies on the role of memory in the formation of the Old Testament tradition did not receive immediate response in biblical scholarship. In 1975, John Van Seters published his work, Abraham in History and Tradition. Though this is not squarely a study of social memory/identity in the Hebrew Bible, it has implications thereupon. Van Seters sets out to investigate the question of the antiquity of the Abraham tradition as found in the Hebrew Bible, and the history of its formation. He examines the presentation of Abraham in the Patriarchal narratives from different perspectives, tracing its form and development so as to determine its dating, and, more importantly (he indicates), to understand the nature and function/intention of this tradition in its historical and sociological context. From his exploration of comparative history and archaeology, Van Seters posits that there is no convincing evidence of a great antiquity for this tradition. Rather his critical study of Genesis reveals a conscious portrayal of a primitive age which gives frequent clues to a much later period of composition. From his analysis, he adopts an exilic date for the Yahwist version of the tradition (which he holds to be the earliest), while the Priestly version is post-exilic. And he infers from his investigations that the tradition of Abraham was employed as a means of corporate identity for Israel, and this came to the fore in the exilic period. “It can hardly be doubted,” he states, “that the function of the Yahwistic presentation of the patriarchal tradition is to articulate Israel’s identity and destiny.”3 In 1982, Yosef H. Yerushalmi published his work, Zakhor. Jewish History and Jewish Memory, in which he examines the tension between collective memory and modern history in the Jewish context. He argues that, in the Jewish world, collective memory serves a role which history cannot replace. In the 1

B.S. CHILDS, Memory and Tradition, 74. B.S. CHILDS, Memory and Tradition, 85. 3 J. VAN SETERS, Abraham in History, 153. 2

28

Chapter I: General Expositions

past, the Jews used their biblical Weltanschauung as a blueprint for making sense of the present, and used rituals to encase important events of the past and enshrine them in the memory of the people. Yerushalmi raises remarkable questions on the use of history in modern times and its “hypertrophic tendency” to collect facts for their own sake. For him, while history can provide us with facts, collective memory provides a people with a meaningful interpretation of those facts as well as a sense of identity. As such, he avers, while many Jews of the present day are in search of a past, they do not actually want the past that is offered by the modern historian. In his 1992 work, Das kulturelle Gedächtnis,4 the Egyptologist Jan Assmann depicts Exodus as a memory figure, and Deuteronomy as a paradigm of cultural memory.5 As regards Exodus, he holds that all the vital elements of Israel’s subsequent history that led to a unique stabilisation of tradition are already prefigured in this one act of identity-giving: the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt, the situation of the minority, oppression, and resistance against the pressure to assimilate into a physically superior culture with its allures. The biblical account of Exodus is thus a “memory figure.” What matters here is not the historical accuracy but the importance of this story for Israelite memory. “The Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt was the foundational act that provided a basis for the identity not only of the people, but also of God himself.”6 For him, the Exodus tradition is older than the Babylonian Exile, and it is by holding on to this tradition that Israel was able to endure the calamity of the Exile without losing its identity. Deuteronomy, on the other hand, is a paradigm of cultural memory. The book employs new “mnemotechnics” to transfer the memory of the major religious loci of the Israelites “from the exterior to the interior and from the material to the imaginary, so that a spiritual Israel now emerged which could be situated wherever a group assembled to study the sacred texts and revive memory.”7 Deuteronomy therefore “develops an art of memory that is based on the separation of identity from territory.”8 Religion becomes, in the Deuteronomic sense, an artificial enhancement of collective memory. Since it would be natural in the Promised Land to forget the wilderness, or in Babylon to forget Jerusalem, remembering is demanded in Deuteronomy, and this can only be activated by daily practice and concentration.

4 Translated into English as Cultural Memory and Early Civilization (2011). The citations here are from the English version. 5 J. ASSMANN, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization, 179–205. 6 J. ASSMANN, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization, 180. 7 J. ASSMANN, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization, 191. 8 J. ASSMANN, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization, 192.

3. Social Memory Studies in Exodus

29

3.2 Contributions of Ronald Hendel In 2005, under the title Remembering Abraham, Ronald Hendel published a collection of six essays on culture, memory, and history in the Hebrew Bible. Four of these are revised and updated versions of previously published essays, spanning from 1994. It is worth noting here that Hendel is among the pioneer biblical scholars who have devoted much attention to memory studies in the Hebrew Bible.9 In the preface to this volume, Hendel states clearly, as the fundamental assumptions of his research, that the present is rooted in the constitutive events of the past, and that the remembered past is the material with which biblical Israel constructed its identity as a people, a religion and a culture. In the essay, “Israel Among the Nations: Biblical Culture in the Ancient Near East,”10 Hendel explores the Hebrew Bible’s portrayal of Israel. He analyses the prophecy of Balaam in Num 23, the genealogies in Genesis and other relevant passages, and compares them with historical findings in the ANE. And he submits that “Israel was a people of the ancient Near East, but a selfconsciously unique member of that cultural family. Israel differentiated itself from its ancient neighbours by constructing and maintaining a variety of cultural, religious and ethnic boundaries.”11 It constructed its self-image out of the rich traditions of prior ideologies, narratives, and rituals, but made something new out of them. This exemplifies the function of selective memory in the construction of identity. In the essay, “Remembering Abraham”, Hendel points out that the memory of Abraham “serves in varying measures to articulate Israel’s identity, to motivate the remembering agent to take appropriate actions, to give solace, and to activate social, religious, or political ideals.”12 The implications of remembering Abraham are mutable and subject to reinterpretation, influenced by the conditions of the ever-changing present. This means that the memory of Abraham was subject to revisions, counterclaims and reinterpretations. Such deliberate casting and recasting of memory Hendel terms “countermemory” – intended to refute, revise, and replace a previously compelling or accepted memory of the past. Often, vestiges of the old tradition remain, or continue to hold sway in certain other quarters. This accounts for the differing representations of Abraham in the Pentateuch.

9

There have been other scholars from other fields who have applied memory studies to the biblical studies. The Egyptologist, J. Assmann, is a good example here. 10 Originally published 2002 in D. BIALE, ed., Culture of the Jews, 42–75. 11 R. HENDEL, Remembering Abraham, 3. 12 R. HENDEL, Remembering Abraham, 31.

30

Chapter I: General Expositions

In “Historical Memories in the Patriarchal Narratives”,13 Hendel contends the current position of many scholars that the patriarchal period in Genesis is no more than a “glorified mirage” concocted by the Pentateuchal authors. This, for him, oversimplifies and distorts the complex relationship between history and cultural memory. In a culture’s self-representation of the past, there is a relationship between history and fiction in which history and imagination intermingle. The patriarchal narratives are thus a composite of historical memory, traditional folklore, cultural self-definition and narrative brilliance. To illustrate this, he studies the “Fort Abram” in the Negeb, the absence of YHWH in the patriarchal names, and some geographical references in the lineage of Abram. These he regards as good evidences of the power of tradition to preserve ancient memories stretching back to pre-Israelite times. In “The Exodus in Biblical Memory”,14 Hendel emphasises once more that cultural memories tend to be a mixture of historical truth and fiction, composed of some historical details, folklore motifs, ethnic self-definition, ideological claims and narrative imagination. He describes the biblical account of the Exodus as mnemohistory (a concept that he adopts from J. Assmann), which is concerned not with the past as such but with the past as remembered – not opposite of history but a branch of it – and could be understood as reception theory applied to history. He studies the themes: Pharaohs and slaves, signs and wonders, and Moses as mediator of memory both from the biblical and the historical points of view, and he finds in the biblical narrative of the Exodus a conflation of history and memory. “To view the Exodus with an eye to only one of these,” he concludes, “is to misjudge the complexity and multiplicity of the whole.”15 In “The Archaeology of Memory: Solomon, History and Biblical Representation,”16 Hendel analyses the memory of King Solomon as represented in the Hebrew Bible, holding that whatever the impression one holds of the king, one has to ascertain why the Bible portrays him in the manner it does. For him, the biblical account of Solomon’s reign is a perspective on the past, a testimony compounded of true and false memories, shaped by political and psychological concerns, and influenced by prior testimonies. Hendel considers the revised dating of the Iron Age period in I. Finkelstein’s low chronology, and notes that under this, the depiction of Solomon as the great builder outside Jerusalem becomes a false memory. He is however convinced that it was Solomon who built the Temple, for if this were not so, the construction would have been more 13 Originally published as “Finding Historical Memories in the Patriarchal Narratives”, BAR 21,4 (1994) 52–59, 70–72. 14 Originally published in JBL 120,4 (2001) 601–622. 15 R. HENDEL, Remembering Abraham, 73. 16 Originally published in S. GITIN / J.E. WRIGHT / J. DESSEL, ed., Confronting the Past, 219–230.

3. Social Memory Studies in Exodus

31

easily attributed to David, the dynasty founder. From his analysis of the biblical portrayal of Solomon in the light of historical/archaeological studies, Hendel arrives at the conclusion that “the archaeology of memory in the case of King Solomon follows the intertwining aspects of narrative discourse, public memory, chronology, and the structures of social change.”17 In “The Biblical Sense of the Past”, Hendel observes that the past in the Hebrew Bible is a central religious drama; and that, to biblical writers, the traditional stories of the collective past are true, though these stories are subject to revision in order to maintain or revive their claim on truth. This is to say, history in the Hebrew Bible carries the authority of sacred tradition, but tradition has to be revised in order to retain its truth. Hendel goes on to assert that the close relationship between myths of cosmic order and the orientations towards the past in the Bible can be clarified by the concept of collective memory. He uses his analysis of the Song of the Sea in Exodus 15 to illustrate that, in the Hebrew Bible, “Israel combines the mythic and the historic in such a way that its collective past takes on the authority of sacred myth.”18 Hendel also notes, as a caveat, that the biblical presentation of the formative past has its own distinctive qualities that are not exhausted by any particular classification, such as are usually imposed by scholars in analysing a text. In a different later publication, “Cultural Memory”,19 Hendel analyses Genesis as a book of cultural memory. He begins by asserting that the past “exists only in our present memories,” though memories can be of things that never happened or that did not happen precisely in the way we remember them. He succinctly describes three facets of cultural memory – social frameworks, mnemohistory, and poetics – which “illuminate contemporary and interlinked dimensions of Genesis as a book of memory.”20 Pointing out the function of cultural memory in giving the past a present relevance and authorising the present with the authority of the past, Hendel draws attention to the important place of narratives as the medium used to “dramatize the details and events of cultural memory.” He applies the dynamics of cultural memory to the study of some sections of the Jacob cycle in Genesis, and arrives at the inference that “Cultural memory in Genesis moves in a cycle of remembering and forgetting, of shifting and self-authenticating versions of the past.”21 He concludes this piece by noting that the social memory approach in biblical criticism “encompasses several areas of inquiry that sometimes seem resistant to one another: it

17

R. HENDEL, Remembering Abraham, 94. R. HENDEL, Remembering Abraham, 103. 19 Published in R. HENDEL, ed., Reading Genesis, 28–46. 20 R. HENDEL, “Cultural Memory”, 33. 21 R. HENDEL, “Cultural Memory”, 45. 18

32

Chapter I: General Expositions

includes literature, history, culture, and religion in a way that crosses disciplinary boundaries.”22 3.3 Ehud Ben Zvi and Colleagues Lately, three scholars have notably been in the forefront of memory studies in the Hebrew Bible: Ehud Ben Zvi (University of Alberta), Kåre Berge (NLA University College, Bergen), and Diana V. Edelman (Sheffield, UK). E. Ben Zvi, a specialist in History and Classics, explores the ways in which the Israelites construed their past in the late Persian/early Hellenistic period. Though his works centre mostly on the prophetic books, he has made noteworthy contributions to social memory studies in the Hebrew Bible as a corpus. In his 2010 article, “The Voice and Role of Counterfactual Memory in the Construction of Exile and Return”,23 Ben Zvi argues that it is memory rather than history that counts most in the world of ancient Yehud, at least the literati. As such, it is appropriate to focus on the question of counterfactual memory in this period. He notes further that the memory shaped through the main discourse of the Yehudite literati associated the return from Babylon with the Exodus from Egypt, and consequently the Babylonian exile with the stay in Egypt. In his 2011 article, “On Social Memory and Identity Formation in Ancient Yehud”,24 Ben Zvi studies the impact of the Prophetic Literature, Chronicles and Deuteronomistic history on the formation of collective identity in the late Persian Yehud. Acknowledging the essential role of social memory in identity formation in ancient Israel, he goes on to explore how the studies of social memory in the late Persian Yehud contributes to a better understanding of the self-image of the community and the social roles that such acts of social imagination had in the community. From his analysis of different passages in this study, he infers that given its role in shaping and reshaping identity, social memory as a whole tends to create mental maps of “otherness”, and that the concept of “the other” as shaped and reshaped in social memory contributes to identity formation. Also in 2011, E. Ben Zvi produced another essay, “The Memory of Abraham in Late Persian/Early Hellenistic Yehud/Judah.”25 Here, recognising that social memory “is the public, integrated, and socially integrative representation of the past that is held, shaped, and negotiated within a social group, and which holds it together,”26 he goes on to demonstrate that, at the Late Persian/Early Hellenistic period, Abraham was a site of memory meant to evoke and reinforce diverse values and images at the core of the community’s self-characterisation 22

R. HENDEL, “Cultural Memory”, 46. Published in E. BEN ZVI / C. LEVIN, ed., The Concept of Exile, 169–88. 24 Published in L. JONKER, ed., Texts, Contexts and Readings, 95–148. 25 Reproduced in D.V. EDELMAN / E. BEN ZVI, ed., Remembering Biblical, 3–37. 26 E. BEN ZVI, “The Memory of Abraham”, 4. 23

3. Social Memory Studies in Exodus

33

and self-understanding, and to strengthen the community’s common hope for the future. In 2012, the work Remembering and Forgetting in Early Second Temple Judah, co-edited by Ben Zvi and C. Levin was published.27 This work contains nineteen essays on social memory in the OT.28 In his own article in this volume, “Remembering the Prophets”, Ben Zvi begins by dealing with issue of approaches informed by memory studies for a better understanding of the “memory-scape” and the social mindscape of the literati in Yehud and their followers, and the implications associated with the use of these approaches. He asserts here that social memories are constantly shaped within a certain social mindscape, exemplify aspects of it over and over, and illuminate its fabric.29 Some other essays in this volume are relevant for our purposes here. In his study, “The Anti-Hero as a Figure of Memory and Didactism in Exodus”, K. Berge argues that the figure of Pharaoh in Exodus is a “site of memory” among the literati in the Persian Period, meant for didactic functions. The ritual texts in Ex 12–13 in which the defeat of Pharaoh and Egypt is stipulated to be celebrated for all generations in the Pesach ritual has didactic functions meant to shape and preserve identity. “The Pesach ritual for all generations in Exod 12–13 is not about initiation, nor rites of passage, but first and foremost a commemorative ritual of teaching and demarcation of ethnic boundaries.”30 Michael Hundley’s essay “The Way Forward is Back to the Beginning” presents reflections on the Priestly texts in the Pentateuch. According to him, the Priestly account has a two-dimensional outlook: looking both backward and forward. It seeks to establish the greatness of YHWH, his system, and the priesthood in the past, thereby creating an ideal prototype to aspire to and a powerful shared identity for present and future readers.31 He notes that “the priestly texts in the Persian period chose to remember the past in such a way that it convinced the people with powerful rhetoric that the only way forward was back to the beginning, in the form of cult modelled on the ancient prototype.”32 This means that the “creation” of the past in these texts is meant to serve the present, and to face the circumstances of the days to come. Hundley therefore adjudges the priestly texts to have been cast as a restoration, intended to give Israel a shared past which has powerful implications for the present and the future.

27 This publication is the fruit of a workshop convened by the two in Ludwig-MaximilianUniversity Munich in 2011. Ben Zvi acknowledges in his introduction to this work that though memory studies are beginning to make inroads to the study of this formative period of the Hebrew Bible, it is still “new” (to many biblical scholars). 28 The Nevi’im got the majority of the essays here. Ben Zvi’s influence is obvious! 29 E. BEN ZVI, “Remembering the Prophets”, 17–44. 30 K. BERGE, “The Anti-Hero as a Figure”, 153. 31 Cf. M. HUNDLEY, “The Way Forward”, 223. 32 M. HUNDLEY, “The Way Forward”, 224.

34

Chapter I: General Expositions

In 2013, E. Ben Zvi and D.V. Edelman co-edited the publication: Remembering Biblical Figures in the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic periods. In this volume of twenty-three essays, different biblical figures are considered from a social memory point of view. Ben Zvi here explores the memory of Moses as “the prophet”,33 and comes to the conclusion that Moses being remembered as “the prophet” of the Exodus means that the Exodus was seen at this period as a paradigmatic case of prophetic activity. “The remembered Moses came to embody in one person virtually every feature associated with prophecy,” and “Memories of him also reminded the readers that non-prophets could fulfil some of these prophetic roles, thus blurring the category of prophet,”34 Ben-Zvi detects here memory’s function of “constructing of integrative fuzziness.” Two publications appeared in 2014 on memory studies in the Hebrew Bible, both co-edited by E. Ben Zvi and D.V. Edelman. The first, Imagining the Other and Constructing Israelite Identity in the Early Second Temple Period, containing sixteen essays, focuses on the role of the concept of “the other” in the Hebrew Bible in shaping Israel’s identity in the early Second Temple period. The other, Memory and the City in Ancient Israel, a collection of seventeen essays, traces the impact of the depiction of different cities and some loci within the cities in the Hebrew Bible (for e.g., city-gates, threshing floors) made on the memory of the Israelites in the Persian/Hellenistic period. The studies in these volumes, however, do not bear directly upon the subject of the present work. Worthy of mention here also is the Festschrift written for E. Ben Zvi in 2015: History, Memory, Hebrew Scriptures (co-edited by Ian D. Wilson and D.V. Edelman). Though not focusing squarely on social memory studies, K. Berge contributes herein an interesting piece: “Sites of Memory and the Presence of the Past in Ehud Ben Zvi’s ‘Social Memory’.”35 Here, he recognises Ben Zvi as “probably the most distinguished user of the notion of ‘social memory’ and its cognates among biblical scholars” and goes ahead to analyse succinctly his contributions to this hermeneutical approach, especially his appropriation and application of the term “site of memory” in biblical studies. In 2016, D.V. Edelman and E. Ben Zvi again co-edited another work on social memory in the Hebrew Bible: Leadership, Social Memory and Judean Discourse in the Fifth–Second Centuries BCE. Here, the important theme of leadership in ancient Israel is explored through memories of leaders and institutions such as monarchy, priesthood, and prophecy. This collection of essays surveys the ways in which the concept of leadership in the Hebrew Bible was

33

E. BEN ZVI, “Exploring the Memory of Moses”, 335–364. E. BEN ZVI, “Exploring the Memory of Moses”, 362. 35 K. BERGE, “Sites of Memory”, 287–300. 34

3. Social Memory Studies in Exodus

35

shaped and reflected through social memory and how, in turn, those memories played a socialising role within the community. 3.4 Some Other Contemporary Contributions In his 2001 essay, “National Identity and Popular Sentiment in Genesis and Exodus”,36 K. Berge points out that the Pentateuch tradition was composed to meet the need of the fifth century Yehud/Judah to forge an ethnic identity. This society comprised mainly of the immigrants from the exile, who formed some kind of a community centred around the Temple in Jerusalem. The Pentateuch was composed by the priestly scribes of the Jerusalem Temple who reformulated the popular sentiments of the time to meet the identity needs of this “emerging” community. The Pentateuch, he explicates, was shaped during the Persian period, probably as an addition and introduction to a pre-existing Deuteronomistic History. In 2008, A. Leveen produced the monograph: Memory and Tradition in the Book of Numbers. According to her, Numbers comprises a collection of materials dating from fairly early in Israel’s history to post-exilic times. “These different materials, by their careful placement within the larger narrative, create an inner-biblical dialogue that allows different aspects of tradition and memory to be illustrated, considered, rejected, and/or promoted.”37 Leveen goes on to examine how the editors of Numbers crafted a narrative of the fortyyear journey through the wilderness in order to shape Israelite understanding of the past and influence the worldview of future generations. Acknowledging Yerushalmi’s submission that the principle behind the Bible’s selection of collective memories is to recall God’s acts of intervention in history and man’s responses to them, Leeven explores religious politics, the complexities of collective memory and the literary strategies used by the editors of Numbers to convince the ‫ בני יׂשראל‬to accept priestly rule. She calls attention to how this process took place in the face of the horrifying memory at the heart of the Book of Numbers: the death of an entire generation of Israelites in the wilderness, struck down before their children’s eyes by divine decree. In this work, Leeven applies a combination of the synchronic and the diachronic approaches. 3.5 Studies in Exodus Some essays which have memory implications in the analysis of Exodus have already been touched in some of the sections above. Because this study focuses primarily in Exodus, this section now examines inquiries that have applied the social memory/identity approach to the study of this book.

36 37

Published in G. EIDEVALL / B. SCHEUER, ed., Enigmas and Images, 37–52. A. LEVEEN, Memory and Tradition, 25.

36

Chapter I: General Expositions

In 2009, Jean-Louis Ska got published his collection of essays on Pentateuchal studies: The Exegesis of the Pentateuch: Exegetical Studies and Basic Questions. In the essay, “Exodus 19:3–6 and the Identity of Post-Exilic Israel”, Ska contends that Ex 19,3–6 is a post-Deuteronomic and post-Priestly text that brings the heritage of the two currents together by its style and theology. The text contains a plan for post-exilic Israel, and is collocated at the very beginning of the Sinai pericope to give it the stamp of authenticity. In the Persian period, Israel was no longer an independent kingdom and thus without a monarchy. Thus, it had to forge its identity from its religious and cultic institutions, as especially demonstrated by the Law of Holiness. Israel therefore designated itself as a “kingdom ruled by the priests (of YHWH)” and this is what distinguished it from the other nations. This is to say, so as not to be absorbed and disappear, the post-exilic Israel developed a “resistance culture” by recasting their identity in a new definition of their relationship with the nations, based on the theological traditions of the ‫ ברית‬and the Exodus.38 In his 2010 article, “Memory, Narration, Identity: Exodus as a Political Myth”,39 J. Assmann considers the Exodus narrative as “a political myth of high sacredness.” According to him, political myths are the form in which societies interiorise their history in order to make it the motor of their development. They are based on or made of mythicised history, and concentrate on the narrative construction of collective identity. In political myths, facts may be correct or incorrect, but myths are beyond true and false. Their truth lies in their function, and their value in the use to which they are put. Political myths are a form of memory, and memory is the faculty that enables people to form an identity, both on the personal and on the collective level. He finds four phases in the Exodus narrative: exodus, election, wilderness, and conquest; and he locates in Ex 19,6 – “And you shall be to me, a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” – the central scene of the book of Exodus from which all its surrounding scenes receive their meaning. For Assmann, the whole narrative in its four phases is about the establishment and adoption of a new identity of a people reluctantly converting from paganism, polytheism and idolatry to monotheism and iconoclasm. “The whole myth thus turns out to be centred on identity in terms of difference, conflict and separation…. Separation is the condition for being chosen, and the award is the Promised Land.”40 He infers that it is the memory of the exodus story that helped the Southern kingdom survive the Babylonian Exile as “the people of the book,” quite unlike the “lost ten tribes” of the Northern Kingdom who got lost together with their homeland, their memory and identity because they lacked something like the Moses mnemonic. With the Exile experience, 38

J.-L. SKA, The Exegesis of the Pentateuch, 139–164. Published in H. LISS / M. OEMING, ed., Literary Construction of Identity, 3–18. 40 J. ASSMANN, “Memory, Narration, Identity”, 13. 39

3. Social Memory Studies in Exodus

37

residing in the country no longer counted as the most decisive factor for the new Jewish identity. “By means of Scripture, Jewishness became an identity independent of state and territory.”41 In her study, “Exodus and Pesach-Massot as Evolving Memory”,42 D. Edelman moves to demonstrate how the common myth of the ritual battle preceding the creation of the ordered world becomes transformed into a myth of YHWH’s victory over Pharaoh/watery adversary, which leads to the creation of Israel; and she discusses how this “creative event” is ritually celebrated. For her, the pesach-massot became a commemorative festival associated with the Exodus only after the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem. At this time, the priesthood “was in a position to develop the commemorative ritual that provided a social schema to help structure the cognitive social world of the golah and nongolah communities living within the province of Yehud.”43 This festival was celebrated at the newly rebuilt central Temple. She also argues that the need to celebrate a commemorative national festival which provided a sense of common origin and membership in a community established and led directly by YHWH and the Torah (without recourse to an intermediary human leader), only arose after the demise of the Kingdom of Judah. In the essay, “Remembering the Exodus in the Wake of Catastrophe”,44 R. Hendel argues that the catastrophe of the Exile elicited responses found in the Hebrew Bible, including revisions of the cultural memory of the Exodus. “Such collective trauma creates a need to re-examine and update the inherited contents of cultural memory.”45 The revision of cultural memory in such situation is a strategy for survival. As the resilience of any culture is tied to its cultural memory, the past must change so that the group can survive the vicissitudes of the present. Crisis unavoidably brings about revisions of cultural ethos and boundaries, and creates the conditions for new cultural syntheses. In crisis situations, the revised cultural memories provide “an intelligible model for thought and action” when old models appear non-functional. But these revised models also establish a sense of continuity. Such revisions blunt the perception that anything has truly changed, being essentially the same story, propagated by authoritative sources and celebrated by the same rituals. As such, the revised Exodus is still recognisable as Exodus, though a richer version with altered details and ramifications. Hendel illustrates this with his analyses of the depictions of Exodus in Ezk 20, Isa 43 and Gen 15. In 2015, the volume Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspectives was published, co-edited by T.E. Levy, T. Schneider and W.H.C. Propp. This work, 41

J. ASSMANN, “Memory, Narration, Identity”, 17. Published in E. BEN ZVI / C. LEVIN, ed., Remembering and Forgetting, 161–193. 43 D.V. EDELMAN, “Exodus and Pesach-Massot”, 190. 44 Published in P. DUBOVSKÝ et al., ed., The Fall of Jerusalem, 329–345. 45 R. HENDEL, “Remembering the Exodus”, 330. 42

38

Chapter I: General Expositions

a collection of forty-three essays on the Exodus event contributed by scholars from different disciplines, has a section dedicated to “Exodus as Cultural Memory.”46 In the essay, “Exodus and Memory”, J. Assmann observes that the interest of the story of Exodus “lies not in what really happened but how, by whom, when, in which form, and for what purpose it was told in the course of the millennia.”47 The Exodus gained diverse significances across the centuries. The earliest allusions to it are in the early prophets: Hosea (11,1), Amos (2,10), and Micah (6,4).48 In the ANE, the 8th and 7th centuries marked, by and large, “a time of general reorientation where the past began to matter in various conspicuous forms as a ‘normative past’ that must by all means be remembered and followed as a source of political, legal, religious, and artistic models and norms.”49 The Exodus performed such function at this epoch, but did not become the dominant religious view in Israel until the exilic/post-exilic period, when it also served to provide the grounds for faithfulness to the covenant with YHWH. Eventually, the Exodus becomes commemorated in the Passover Seder as a central constitutive event, and this liturgical/cultural memory provides the society with a connective structure both in the social and in the temporal dimensions. Such cultural connectivity “works as a principle of continuity linking past, present, and future, in that it creates meaning, memory, and expectation by integrating images and stories of the past into an ever-progressing present.”50 In the essay “The Exodus and the Bible: What was Known; What was Remembered; What was Forgotten”, the archaeologist W.G. Dever puts up an archaeological critique of the biblical memory of the Exodus event. He equates collective memory with culture which “is formed by patterned repetition of thoughts and actions in a social context that gives them meaning and reinforces that meaning until the whole becomes ‘tradition’, eventually enshrined in literary form,”51 and points out that though history and memory are commonly intertwined, they are not identical and must be carefully separated. Dever admits that there are some points of convergence between biblical narratives and archaeological evidence, but states emphatically that there are no 46 This publication is actually the outcome of a symposium organised in 2013 at the University of San Diego, California, under the theme, “Out of Egypt. Israel’s Exodus between Text and Memory, History and Imagination.” 47 J. ASSMANN, “Exodus and Memory”, 3. For him, however, this does not imply that there is no historical background to the Exodus story. Rather, it is quite probably built upon the memory of varied historical experiences. 48 Assmann however acknowledges that, if scholars are right in dating of the Song of Ex 15 to the 9th century BCE (or earlier), then this should be the earliest allusion to the Exodus myth. 49 J. ASSMANN, “Exodus and Memory”, 9. 50 J. ASSMANN, “Exodus and Memory”, 13. 51 W.G. DEVER, “The Exodus and the Bible”, 399.

3. Social Memory Studies in Exodus

39

archaeological findings to support the movement of a large number of people from Egypt to the Southern Levant in the LBA, nor is there material evidence to support the conquest narratives in the book of Joshua. At best, he reasons, there may have been a relatively small number of escapees from Egypt, whose memories became adopted as “foundational myths” of the nation of Israel. He concludes that, by and large, the Exodus-Conquest story is a fiction, a legend. “Whoever the early Israelites were, they were not invaders from Egypt, the Sinai, or Transjordan. They were indigenous peoples, displaced Canaanites, though possibly some have been slaves in Egypt, passing on genuine historical memories.”52 In his essay, “Exodus as a Mnemo-narrative: An Archaeological Perspective”, A.M. Maeir attempts to combine the archaeological and the social memory perspectives in the study of the Exodus. Maeir holds that the Exodus as narrated in the Bible did not happen at a specific, single period/context, rather, “it should be understood as a literary matrix of mnemo-narratives – a narrative (or rather narratives) of memories.”53 Exodus, he approximates, belongs to “constructed group memories”, in which groups construct a memory by weaving different events – real and “fabricated” into a seemingly uniform collective memory. Because these memories get reshaped in the course of the transmission according to current needs, one “has to look both at the original events behind memories and the history of their reception, and appropriation, over time.”54 Maeir critically examines the different hypotheses on the historical kernel of the Exodus, and infers that none of the positions has a solid archaeological basis. Rather, he finds diverse traces that spread through a very long arc of history. He then concludes that the Exodus narrative is an outcome of the merging of various strands of memory through the centuries, “each serving the needs and fulfilling the requirements of the group constituents at each particular point in time. Some of these memories gained more prominent positions… while others were marginalised – or even forgotten.”55 In his own article, “The Exodus and History”, W.H.C. Propp takes a position more far-reaching than that of Maeir. According to him, though, the Exodus has become an accepted cultural memory through centuries, it “cannot be adequately tested by the historical method.”56 Searching through history and comparing it with miraculous tale of the “Angels of Mons” of the World War I, Propp tends towards the probability that the Exodus was initially cast as a fictional myth which eventually became accepted as a historical reality. This

52

W.G. DEVER, “The Exodus and the Bible”, 406. A.M. MAEIR, “Exodus as a Mnemo-Narrative”, 409. 54 A.M. MAEIR, “Exodus as a Mnemo-Narrative”, 413. 55 A.M. MAEIR, “Exodus as a Mnemo-Narrative”, 415. 56 W.H.C. PROPP, “The Exodus and History”, 429. 53

40

Chapter I: General Expositions

memory was perpetuated through centuries, with adaptations, until it finally got to its fixed form in the Torah around 400 BCE. In his contribution, “The Exodus as Cultural Memory”, R. Hendel reiterates his position that “the Exodus derives, at least in part, from Canaanite memories of the Egyptian oppression during the Egyptian Empire of the Late Bronze Age, when Canaan was an Egyptian province.”57 Recognising the position of Syro-Palestine archaeologists, such as W. Dever, that there is no archaeological evidence for a historical exodus, he notes, however, that the task of “mnemohistory” does not consist in substantiating the Exodus event but in tracing its history as cultural memory. Hendel argues that the idea of the Exodus as freedom from slavery in Egypt encapsulates the memory of the fate of the Canaanites during the Egyptian rule, in which all the Canaanites were considered slaves to Pharaoh, while some were actually taken to Egypt as slaves. The wonder of the abrupt end of this oppressive rule in the mid-12th BCE, which also brought about the return of many slaves from Egypt, found expression in the Exodus story. And through this collective memory, “a ‘mixed multitude’ of settlers in the highlands” became a new community – Israel. As such, “the Exodus from Egypt becomes the narrative site for forging a new people, who enter Canaan with clearly marked ethnic boundaries.” And so, “Through the strategic processes of cultural memory, Israel projected its origins to ‘outside’ in order to construct a distinctive identity ‘inside’.”58 Hendel also demonstrates that the Song of the Sea in Ex 15 combines Canaanite mythology with Egyptian royal ideology to portray YHWH as the true Divine Warrior who overthrows Pharaoh, here depicted as an emblem of chaos. In his essay “Remembering Egypt”, Victor H. Matthews investigates “how and why collective memories are created, perpetuated, used and reused”, and applies this to the memory of Egypt in ancient Israel, especially as regards the Exodus event. Succinctly exposing the tenets of the social memory theory, he argues that, in Israel, the collective memory of Egypt “evolved over time through the process of retelling that transformed the original events into attitudes that became the basis for emotional responses whenever the word/place Egypt is uttered.”59 Matthews acknowledges the complexity of ascertaining the veracity of the Exodus event. He observes, however, that Israel remembers Egypt as a metaphor for any current foe (for e.g., Assyria in Is 10,24), or any location from which YHWH will deliver and restore the people in captivity (cf. Mic 7,11–15). In sum, the counsel to remember Egypt became a “theological survival mechanism” for Israel. “It provided a theodicy for God’s punishment of the people and an immediate reassurance and incentive that in time they

57

R. HENDEL, “The Exodus as Cultural Memory”, 66. R. HENDEL, “The Exodus as Cultural Memory”, 69. 59 V.H. MATTHEWS, “Remembering Egypt”, 420. 58

3. Social Memory Studies in Exodus

41

would be liberated and restored to their covenant relationship with all its obligations and benefits.”60 3.5 Observations The above exposé has shown that though the use of the hermeneutic tool of social memory/identity in biblical criticism is relatively new, its relevance to this field is obvious. Very notable is its contribution to clearing the misconceptions connected to the historical value of biblical narratives vis-à-vis their functionality in the evolving life of Israel as a nation. Social memory performs an important mediatory function in the dialogue between the biblical text and historical-archaeological inquiry. It performs a mediatory role on the argument concerning the “truth value” and the “truth claim” of the biblical text. As such, the approach is highly valued for highlighting the crucial place of memory in the process of the composition of the Bible. The works of J. Assmann and R. Hendel are outstanding in this regard. The social memory approach is also very useful in drawing applications for contemporary life. The relevance of the biblical text to the current situations at the time of its composition is central to this approach. Different “sites of memory” are appropriated as much as they prove relevant to making meaning of the present and pointing the way to the future. Memories of the constitutive events of the past provide paradigms at present for norms, events, and institutions. Such reflections find expression in the contributions of E. Ben Zvi and his colleagues. Certainly, the utility of this valuable approach in the study of the Hebrew Bible has neither been exhausted nor optimally explored. The social memory approach to biblical criticism has not become prominent in scholarly circles today. In fact, many biblical scholars are not yet acquainted with it. And, till date, many biblical students are not exposed to it. The present work, which applies the exegetical tool of social memory/identity to the study of the MannaErzählung in Ex 16, contributes in bringing to light the prospects of adopting this relatively new approach in biblical scholarship, especially in Pentateuchal criticism. This work does not dwell much on the inquiry about the historicity of the manna event as recorded in Ex 16. It works rather with the general principle of the social memory theory that what counts in the narrative is not the event as a historical fact, but the event as operative in the memory of the people at present. This does not imply that the Manna-Erzählung is totally bereft of historical roots. Rather, this inquiry builds on the position of R. Hendel that Pentateuchal narratives come from a blend of history and imagination. As such, important for our purposes is that the memory of the miraculous giving of manna 60

V.H. MATTHEWS, “Remembering Egypt”, 426.

42

Chapter I: General Expositions

in the wilderness is accepted by the Israelites as “our history”, and that they see themselves as participants in the flow of an ongoing drama. Because the social memory approach emphasises the functionality of the narrative among the people at the time of its composition, the analysis of the final text is a central to it. Therefore, a detailed narrative-critical analysis of Ex 16 forms a major part of this inquiry, from which the purposes of the narrator could be inferred. It will be demonstrated that from the sources at his disposal, oral and written, the narrator put together a well-crafted narrative unit – a crystallisation of the people’s memory of YHWH’s intervention to the plight of their ancestors in the wilderness through the provision of manna. The instruction to preserve the manna “throughout your generations” hinges the perpetuation of the memory of the manna-event on divine instruction at a prime moment in the people’s history. At the exilic and immediate post-exilic period, the attitude of the ancestors in the wilderness and the response of the divine assume a new meaning in the present “wilderness” situation in which the intervention of YHWH is reassured. However, analysing the text as a narrative unit, some literary difficulties are discovered. These difficulties have led most of the scholars who have studied this pericope to spend much energy in trying to demarcate and delimit the sources from which the text got “composed.” But this expedition has resulted in very diverse views, some of which are quite difficult to reconcile. To put this in perspective, this study now turns to a critique of the different studies in Ex 16. This will provide the grounds to make a case for the application of the social memory theory as an appropriate tool of analysis of this pivotal narrative.

CHAPTER II

Unity in Complexity 1. The Text of Exodus 16 This section embarks, first of all, on a textual criticism of the extant ancient fonts of Ex 16, so as to establish the text in use for this study. From the established text, a translation will be provided. And then, some complexities and tensions within the text will be pointed out. 1.1 Textual Criticism In this textual critical analysis, the Masoretic Text (MT) as presented in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) is adopted as a basic text. This implies that this MT reading is adopted where no variants are attested.1 The attested variants are discussed here in the order of verses. 1.1.1 Verse 2 The MT indicates here qere: ‫ ַו ִיּלֹונּו‬/ ketib: ‫ ַויַּלִ ינּו‬. The qere form is ‫ ו‬+ niphal 3rd person masculine plural of the verb ‫לון‬, while the ketib form is ‫ ו‬+ its hiphil counterpart. The Samaritan Pentateuch (SamP) and the DSS document 4QpaleoGen-Exod1 read ‫וילנו‬, which corresponds to the MT qere reading (with the shortened form of the vowel ‫)ֹו‬.2 Here, there is no major variant, as both the niphal and the hiphil convey the meaning – to murmur. However, from the attestations, the qere form is preferred here. It appears that the masoretic scribe inadvertently applied the hiphil form, as the forms are quite similar, and both convey the same meaning. 1.1.2 Verse 3 To the MT ‫“( ִמי־יִ תֵ ן מּותֵ נּו בְ יַד־ ְיהוָה‬would that we have died by the hand of YHWH”), the LXX has ὄφελον ἀπεθάνομεν πληγέντες ὑπὸ κυρίου (“would that we have died smitten/stricken by the Lord”). This LXX variant is not attested in any other ancient version, and is not picked up by most major commentaries and

1 On the relevant extant ancient fonts for textual criticism in the Hebrew Bible, see inter alia J. JOOSTEN, “La critica testuale”, 15–43. 2 Cf. E. ULRICH, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls, 66.

44

Chapter II: Unity in Complexity

translations,3 indicating a consensus that it appears to be an interpretation to the Hebrew text.4 It is also interesting to note with Wevers here that this is the only instance in which the LXX gives this translation for ‫בְ יַד‬. The usual rendering is (ἐν) τῷχειρὶ.5 1.1.3 Verse 6 The LXX reads πρὸς πᾶσαν συναγωγὴν υἱῶν Ισραηλ (“to the whole congregation of the Israelites”) as against the MT ‫“( אֶ ל־כָל־בְ נֵי ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬to all the Israelites”). The LXX reading appears to add the word συναγωγὴν in consonance with the appearance of the phrase πᾶσα συναγωγὴ υἱῶν Ισραηλ in vv. 1.2.3.9.10. All the more, this addition is attested only in the LXX. And the major commentaries and translations go with the MT. The MT is preferred. 1.1.4 Verse 7 a. The LXX has ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ (“against God”) to the MT ‫“( ַעל־ ְיהוָה‬against YHWH”). This appears a deliberate change by the LXX which often avoids using the divine name (cf. 4,1.11.30 etc.). Here also, the MT is followed by all the above-mentioned major commentaries and translations. The MT is thus preferable here. b. The SamP has the longer form ‫ ואנחנו‬to the MT ‫וְ נַחְ נּו‬, both having the same meaning: ‫ ו‬+ we (1st pers. pl.). There are only two occurrences of ‫ נַחְ נּו‬in the MT of Exodus: in vv. 7.8 of this chapter. The form ‫ אנחנו‬does not appear at all in Exodus.1 In the SamP, these two occurrences appear in the longer form. Though the meaning is not affected by this change, the shorter form is preferred here, as it appears the SamP follows the more common occurrence in the Pentateuch2 (this same variant appears in v. 8). c. The MT here again notes qere: ‫ תַ ּלִ ינּו‬/ ketib: ‫ תַ ּלֹונּו‬on the verb ‫לון‬. But here, the qere form is the hiphil 3rd person masculine plural of the verb, while the ketib form is its niphal counterpart. The SamP has ‫ תלנו‬while the 4QpaleoGen-Exod1 reads ‫תלינו‬, both corresponding to the qere form (note the short form of the

3 When not specified, the major commentaries referred to in this section are W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18; M. NOTH, Exodus; B.S. CHILDS, Exodus; J.I. DURHAM, Exodus; T.B. DOZEMAN, Exodus; M. PRIOTTO, Esodo; C. DOHMEN, Exodus; C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II; V.P. HAMILTON, Exodus; G.I. DAVIES, Exodus 1–18; while the major (Eng.) translations are NRSV; NJPS; NKJV; NASB. 4 There are other possible interpretations of the expression ‫בְ יַד־ ְיהוָה‬. These different possibilities will be treated in the detailed analysis of v. 3 in the next chapter. 5 Cf. J. WEVERS, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus, 243. 1 The form ‫ אנחנו‬however appears much more frequently in the Pentateuch, occurring 17x in Gen, 5x in Num, 5x in Dt. 2 The longer form appears 27x in the Pentateuch while the shorter one appears only 4x.

1. The Text of Ex 16

45

vowel ‫ ִי‬in the SamP). The qere form is again preferred here for the same reasons as given in v. 2 above. 1.1.5 Verse 8 a. The LXX has καθ᾽ ἡμῶν (“against us”) to the MT ‫“( ָעלָיו‬against him”). But the LXX reading does not actually fit the context, considering the very next statement: “Now what are we? Your murmuring is not against us but against YHWH.” The LXX appears influenced here by the occurrence of καθ᾽ ἡμῶν in vv. 7.8.3 In this case too, all the above-mentioned major commentaries and translations align with the MT. Thus, the MT is to be preferred. b. The second variant here is exactly the same as discussed in v. 7b above. c. The LXX has κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ (“against God”) to the MT ‫“( ַעל־ ְיהוָה‬against YHWH”). The LXX avoids the divine name (cf. v. 7). The MT is preferred. 1.1.6 Verse 9 The LXX has ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ (“before God”) to the MT ‫“( לִ פְ נֵי ְיהוָה‬before YHWH”) – same case as in vv. 7 and 8 above. The MT is preferred. 1.1.7 Verse 10 The LXX has ἐν νεφέλῃ (“in a cloud”; indefinite article) to the MT ‫“( בֶ ָענָן‬in the cloud”; definite article). The indefinite article implies reference to a new cloud while the definite article implies reference to an already existing cloud. A decision on this is not easy as both readings can go with the consonant ‫בענן‬. Propp notes that this variation is not trivial due to the uncertainty whether this refers to the theophanic cloud in Ex 13,21–22.4 Noth, Durham, Dozeman, and Hamilton follow the LXX, while Childs, Houtman, Dohmen, Priotto, NRSV, and NKJV follow the MT.5 Wevers points out however that the appearance of YHWH’s glory here “refers to his actual presence in a revelatory sense.”6 In this case, it appears that the MT vocalisation is an expression of the revelatory divine glory in the cloud as a fixed concept. In all, on the basis of lectio difficilior, the MT is preferred. 1.1.8 Verse 13 To the MT ‫הַ ְשלָו‬, the SamP has ‫ ;הׂשלוי‬the LXX has ὀρτυγομήτρα (plural); and the Peshitta has slwy. According to HALOT, the SamP ‫( ׂשלוי‬and the Peshitta

3

Cf. W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 585. W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 585. 5 Cf. M. NOTH, Exodus, 130; J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 216; T.B. DOZEMAN, Exodus, 374; V.P. HAMILTON, Exodus, 245; follow the LXX while B.S. CHILDS, Exodus, 273; C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 334; C. DOHMEN, Exodus, 372; M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 299. 6 J. WEVERS, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus, 248. 4

46

Chapter II: Unity in Complexity

slwy) seems to be the original version, following the Syriac salway and the Arabic salwā (slwy). But Propp points out that the SamP reading may have been influenced by the Syriac/Arabic.7 Moreover, in Num 11,32, the DSS text 4QNumb reads ‫ השלו‬in correspondence with the MT.8 This indicates that this is the Hebrew form of the Syriac/Arabic word ‫( ׂשלוי‬quail). The omission of the definite article ‫ ה‬in the Peshitta version is grammatically understandable, as this is the first occurrence of this term in the narrative, and functions as a collective. This suggests then that the article was removed to smoothen the text. However, Propp notes that, with regard to animal names, Hebrew often uses the singular collective preceded by the definite article.9 The LXX version appears to smoothen the text by removing the definite article and rendering the word in the plural to function as a collective: ὀρτυγομήτρα (quails).10 The MT appears more original – lectio difficilior. 1.1.9 Verse 14 a. The LXX completely omits the MT phrase ‫ וַתַ ַעל ִשכְ בַ ת הַ טָ ל‬at the beginning of the verse. Though the LXX presents itself as lectio brevior, this omission may either be deliberate, to avoid a somewhat repetition of the last phrase of v. 13, or a case of parablesis. The MT sequence does not suggest any later addition. The major commentaries and translations follow the MT. b. In place of the MT ‫“( ְמחֻסְ ָפס דַ ק‬a fine flaky thing”) the LXX has ὡσεὶ κόριον λευκὸν (“like a white coriander seed” = ‫ ;כְ גַד לָבָ ן‬cf. v. 31); 1QExod has ‫;כחספס‬ while the Peshitta has wmtqlp wqrjm: fine and flaky. The MT rendition ‫ְמח ְֻס ָפס‬ is a hapax legomenon in the Hebrew Bible, difficult to translate. Hence, these variants are probably various attempts at translating this hapax. The LXX adopts the description of manna in v. 31 here. 1QExod uses the comparative article ‫כ‬, creating a parallelism with ‫דַ ק כַכְ ֹפר‬. Though this appears appealing, the MT is certainly the lectio difficilior. The Peshitta corresponds broadly to the MT, and the SamP agrees totally with it. The major commentaries and translations all follow the MT too. The MT is thus to be preferred. 1.1.10 Verse 21 a. To the MT ‫כְ פִ י אָ כְ לֹו‬, a Genizah manuscript reads ‫לְ פִ י־אָ כְ לֹו‬. However, observing that the phrase ‫ לְ פִ י־אָ כְ לֹו‬occurs in vv. 16 and 18, it is most probable that the scribe of this manuscript aligns the phrase in this verse with the preceding occurrences. The meaning is however not affected.

7

W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 586. Cf. E. ULRICH, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls, 144. The word is not attested in the fragments containing Ex 16. 9 W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 595. 10 Cf. J. WEVERS, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus, 249. 8

1. The Text of Ex 16

47

b. The MT reads ‫ וְ חַ ם הַ שֶ מֶ ש‬while the SamP reads ‫וְ חַ מַ ה הַ שֶ מֶ ש‬. Given that the substantive ‫ ֶּׁשמֶּׁ ׁש‬appears as both masculine and feminine in the Hebrew Bible,11 both readings are possible. The meaning is certainly not affected. 1.1.11 Verse 23 a. To the MT ‫וַי ֹאמֶ ר ֲאלֵהֶ ם‬, some Greek manuscripts, the Peshitta, the Targum Jonathan and the Vulgate add ‫מֹ שֶ ה‬. This appears to be an addition, meant to clearly specify who the speaker is (though not quite necessary here). Another Greek manuscript LXXB specifies κύριος as the speaker. From the context, this is rather strange. The major commentaries/translations follow the MT. b. The LXX has τοῦτο τὸ ῥῆμά ἐστιν ὃ ἐλάλησεν κύριος to the MT ‫הּוא ֲאשֶ ר דִ בֶ ר‬ ‫ ְיהוָה‬. Here, the LXX aligns the text to vv. 16.32: ‫זֶה הַ דָ בָ ר ֲאשֶ ר צִ ּוָה ְיהוָה‬. Propp, Dohmen, Dozeman, Priotto, Durham, Davies and the NKJV maintain the distinction in the MT, while Noth, Childs, the NRSV, NJPS; NASB do not.12 To be noted, however, is that this distinction could be lost in the process of translation. The MT seems preferable here. 1.1.12 Verse 25 The MT has three occurrences of ‫“( הַ יֹום‬today”) in this verse. The LXX does not have the third. ‫ הַ יֹום ל ֹא ִת ְמצָ ֻאהּו בַ שָ דֶ ה‬is simply rendered οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ. Though it may be argued that the three occurrences in the MT seem superfluous, the rhetorical use of repetitions in this narrative is quite evident. In vv. 25–26 there are five references to the “day.” This is meant to create an effect regarding the Sabbath. As such, the three occurrences of ‫ הַ יֹום‬is preferred here. The major commentaries and translations follow the MT. 1.1.13 Verse 29 a. The LXX reads ἔδωκεν ὑμῖν τὴν ἡμέραν ταύτην τὰ σάββατα (“has given you this day – the Sabbath”) to the MT ‫“( נָתַ ן ָלכֶם הַ שַ בָ ת‬has given you the Sabbath”) Wevers argues that the LXX “makes perfect sense” here, because, with the added words, the initial clause contrasts perfectly with “on the sixth day” in the next clause.13 That is acceptable. However, one has to note here that the Sabbath is well accentuated in this narrative. The addition of these words before the Sabbath, though explicatory, tends to reduce the impressive force of “the Sabbath” as a special gift of YHWH. Considering also that there is no other

11 In Exodus, the word occurs 4x: 16,21; 17,12; 22,2; 22,25. In these four occurrences, 22,2 is clearly feminine. 12 Cf. W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 584; C. DOHMEN, Exodus, 373; T.B. DOZEMAN, Exodus, 375; M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 300; J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 222; G.I. DAVIES, Exodus 1–18, II, 478; M. NOTH, Exodus, 130; B.S. CHILDS, 272. 13 Cf. J. WEVERS, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus, 258.

48

Chapter II: Unity in Complexity

attestation of this addition, the MT is preferable here, and is followed by the major commentaries and translations. b. In place of the MT ‫בַ יֹום הַ ְשבִ יעִ י‬, (“on the seventh day”), the SamP, corresponding to the LXXF, the Ethiopic, and Origen (lat) have ‫“( בַ יֹום הַ שַ בָ ת‬on the Sabbath”). The many attestations of the both alternatives indicate that the two have long traditions. However, the major commentaries and translations all follow the MT. In Exodus, these two phrases are well attested. But in this narrative, there is no (other) occurrence of the phrase ‫בַ יֹום הַ שַ בָ ת‬. There is a nuanced use of the substantive ‫ שַ בָ ת‬in this narrative – a careful introduction of this all-important motif in the Hebrew Bible, with emphasis on its being a special day to YHWH, to be specially observed by the people. Therefore, though any of the two variants is possible, the MT version is preferred. 1.1.14 Verse 31 The MT reads ‫“( בֵ ית־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬the house of Israel”) while the LXX, the Peshitta, some Targum manuscripts and a few MT manuscripts read ‫“( בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬the Israelites”). The MT reading is also supported by the SamP, 4QpaleoGen-Exod1, 4QpaleoExodm, some other Targum manuscripts and the Vulgate. The major commentaries and translations all follow the MT. There are 11 occurrences of the word ‫ יִ ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬in this chapter.14 All the other occurrences appear with the prefix (construct) ‫ ְּבנֵי‬. It is then most probable that some scribes corrected this particular occurrence to align with the others. But, on the other hand, looking at the plot of this narrative, using the phrase ‫ בֵ ית־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬at this point appears appropriate as representing the collective act of the people in naming the bread from heaven. The MT is thus preferred. 1.1.15 Verse 32 a. To the difficult MT construction ‫“( ְמל ֹא הָ ֹעמֶ ר ִממֶ ּנּו לְ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת‬an omerful of it to be kept”), the SamP, corresponding to the LXX reads ‫“( ִמלְ אּו הָ ֹעמֶ ר ִממֶ ּנּו לְ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת‬fill an omer of it….”). The SamP and LXX transform the noun construct ‫ ְמל ֹא‬into an imperative ‫ ִמלְ אּו‬, and thus seem to smoothen the difficult text. P. Maiberger, comparing this verse with the next where the instruction is carried out – ‫ְמל ֹא־‬ ‫( הָ עֹ מֶ ר מָ ן‬v. 33), and taking recourse to Old Hebrew scripts, suggests that the word ‫ ִממֶ ּנּו‬is an erroneous scribal combination of two words ‫ ָמן ְּתּנּו‬. He then opines that this text may have originally read ‫ ְמל ֹא הָ עֹ מֶ ר מָ ן ְתּנּו‬: (keep [plu. impv.] an omerful of manna), thus resolving the problem by adding a verb which also finds correspondence in the following verse.15 But, as he himself accepts, this is only a conjecture, an attempt to resolve the difficulty found in the MT text. D. Frankel prefers the MT on the ground that the command is for Aaron alone

14 15

The term occurs in vv. 1.2.3.6.9.10.12.15.17.31.35. Cf. P. MAIBERGER, “Ein Konjekturvorschlag zu Ex 16,32”, 118.

1. The Text of Ex 16

49

and not for the Israelites. Thus, the plural imperative does not fit the context.16 Applying the principle of lectio difficilior, the MT is preferable here. And the major commentaries and translations follow the MT. b. The LXX has τοῦ μαν (“of the manna”) to the MT ‫“( ִמ ֶּׁמּנּו‬of it”). The LXX appears to be elaborating this very important instruction. The MT is preferred here: lectio brevior. No major commentary/translation follows the LXX. c. The LXX reads τὸν ἄρτον ὃν ἐφάγετε ὑμεῖς ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ὡς ἐξήγαγεν ὑμᾶς κύριος ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου (“the bread which you ate in the wilderness, when the Lord brought you out of the land of Egypt”) to the MT ‫אֶ ת־הַ ּלֶחֶ ם ֲאשֶ ר הֶ ֱאכַלְ ִתי אֶ ְתכֶם‬ ‫יאי אֶ ְתכֶם‬ ִ ִ‫“( בַ ִמדְ בָ ר בְ הֹוצ‬the bread which I fed you in the wilderness when I brought you out of the land of Egypt”). For the LXX then, Moses is only reporting the command of YHWH, and not quoting it directly (cf. v 23). Now, both versions attest that the speech begins with the formula: “This is what YHWH has commanded.” It is thus more probable that Moses is relaying the exact words of YHWH. All the more, this variant is attested only in the LXX (the DSS is partly extant here, supporting the MT), and no major commentary/translation follows it. Hence, the MT is preferred. 1.1.16 Verse 33 a. To the MT term ‫“( צִ ְנצֶ נֶת‬jar”) a hapax legomenon in the Hebrew Bible, the LXX has στάμνον χρυσοῦν (“golden jar”). According to Wevers, from the context, the ‫ צִ ְּנצֶּׁ נֶּׁת‬must be a container of sorts, while χρυσοῦν seems to be a free invention of the LXX, possibly in view of the gold of so many of the tabernacle utensils.17 The MT is thus preferable here. b. The SamP has ‫ והניח‬to the MT ‫וְ הַ ּנַח‬. Considering the imperative sequence: ...‫ וְ הַ ּנַח‬...‫ וְ תֶ ן‬...‫קַ ח‬, the MT appears preferable here. c. The LXX has ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ to the MT ‫לִ פְ נֵי ְיהוָה‬. The LXX avoids the divine name (cf. vv. 7.8.9). The MT is thus preferred. 1.1.17 Verse 34 a. To the MT ‫ =( אֶ ל־מֹ שֶ ה‬LXX τῷ Μωυσῇ), many manuscripts (e.g., SamP, 4QpaleoExodm, Trg. Jonathan, fragments from Cairo Geniza) have ‫את־משה‬. The both attestations are possible, and the meaning is not in any way affected. b. The Codex Vaticanus reads τοῦ θεοῦ to the MT tetragrammaton ‫– ְיהוָה‬ avoidance of the divine name (see v. 33c above). The MT is thus preferred.

16 17

D. Frankel, The Murmuring Stories, 84, n. 57. J. WEVERS, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus, 258. So also M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 301.

50

Chapter II: Unity in Complexity

1.2 Translation 1

The whole congregation of the Israelites 18 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 after their departure from the land of Egypt. 2And the whole congregation of the Israelites murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness.19 3The Israelites said to them, “Would that we had died by the hand of YHWH in the land of Egypt, when we were sitting by the fleshpot,20 when we were eating bread to satiety; for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger.” 4 Then YHWH said to Moses, “I myself21 will rain down bread from heaven for you, and the people shall go out and gather the portion of a day for each day22; in order that I may test them, whether they will walk according to my instruction or not. 5But on the sixth day, when they prepare what they bring in, it shall be twice as much as they gather day by day.” 6 Then Moses and Aaron said to all the Israelites, “By evening23, you shall know that YHWH brought you out of the land of Egypt, 7and by morning, you 18

The expression ‫בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬, literary “sons of Israel”, refers obviously to all the “children” of Israel. Here, the translation “Israelites” is preferred (So NJPS, NRSV). 19 B. Jacob translates ‫“ בַ ִמ ְדבָ ר‬because of the desert”, referring to Num 21,4. Cf. B. JACOB, The Second Book, 440. Though the proposition ‫ ב‬can perform a causative function (cf. v. 8; JM § 170j), the context here suggests a locative function. Jacobs’s interpretation is not followed by any major commentary or translation. 20 This collective noun is translated in the plural by most biblical translations (NJPS; NRSV; NKJV) and many commentaries (M. NOTH, 129; B.S. CHILDS, 271; C. DOHMEN, I, 372; etc.), influenced by the LXX rendition: ἐπὶ τῶν λεβήτων τῶν κρεῶν. This translation sticks with the MT singular (so W.H.C. PROPP, I, 583; M. PRIOTTO, 298). 21 This construction is used to depict the emphasis portrayed by the term ‫הִ ְנ ִני‬. This emphasis is lost in the plain translation of most bibles and commentaries: “I am going to....” Priotto highlights this in his translation: “Eccomi, io sto per…” (M. PRIOTTO, 298). In Durham’s translation: “Just watch me rain down…” (J.I. DURHAM, 215) and that of Dohmen: “Siehe, ich werde…” (C. DOHMEN, I, 372), the emphasis appears shifted from “I” to the act of watching/seeing. 22 ‫ דְ בַ ר־יֹום בְ יֹומֹו‬literally translates “the thing of a day in its day.” Scholars translate this phrase in such a way as to portray its meaning: “a day’s supply on each day” (V.P. HAMILTON, 247); “a day’s amount in its day” (T.B. DOZEMAN, 374); “ogni giorno la provvista di un giorno” (M. PRIOTTO, 298). The translation provided here – the portion of a day for each day – follows this line of thought. 23 The expressions ‫ ֶע ֶרב וִ ידַ עְ תֶ ם‬and ‫( ּובֹ קֶ ר ְּור ִאיתֶ ם‬v.7) are difficult to translate without losing the peculiarity of the construction (in the other occurrences in this chapter, we find ‫– בָ ֶע ֶרב‬ ‫)בַ בֹ קֶ ר‬. Faithful to the MT, Propp translates “Evening: and you will know…; and morning: and you will see…” (W.H.C. PROPP, I, 583). Brockelmann (HebSyn § 13a) points out that here, ‫ ֶע ֶרב‬stands alone here as a Nominalsatz for emphasis. And Joüon and Muraoka (JM § 176g) observe that, in this construction, the following ‫ ו‬is a waw of apodosis after a temporal indication, using Ex 16,6 as a remarkable example. Considering all the above, this work translates “By evening, you shall know…. And by morning, you shall see….”

1. The Text of Ex 16

51

shall see the glory of YHWH, because24 he has heard your murmuring against YHWH; for25 what are we, that you murmur against us?” 8And Moses said, “When the YHWH gives you meat to eat in the evening and bread to satiety in the morning, because YHWH has heard your murmurings which you murmur against him, now what are we? Your murmuring is not against us but against YHWH.” 9 And then Moses said to Aaron, “Say to the whole congregation of the Israelites, ‘Draw near before YHWH, for he has heard your murmurings’.” 10As Aaron was speaking to the whole congregation of the Israelites, they turned towards the wilderness, and behold, the glory of YHWH appeared in the cloud. 11 Then YHWH spoke to Moses saying, 12“I have heard the murmurings of the Israelites. Speak to them saying, ‘At twilight 26 you shall eat meat, and in the morning you have you shall be sated with bread. Then you shall know that I am YHWH your God’.” 13 In the evening, quail came up and covered the camp, and in the morning, there was a layer of dew around the camp. 14When the layer of dew went up, behold, on the surface of the wilderness was a fine flaky thing, fine as frost, on the earth. 15When the Israelites saw it, they said to one another, “What is this?”27, for they did not know what it was. Then Moses said to them, “This is the bread which the Lord has given to you to eat. 16This is what28 YHWH has commanded: Gather from it what each person can eat 29, an omer per head30,

24 Here and in v. 8, “‫ ב‬+ infinite” functions with a causal force: “because.” Cf. JM § 170j; see also BDB, ‫ב‬, III.5. 25 The ‫ ו‬here is causal/explicative. Cf. JM § 170c. It is also possible to interpret it as adversative. Cf. JM § 172a (so NKJV; M. PRIOTTO, 298–299). 26 Lit: “Between the two evenings.” The expression ‫ בֵ ין הָ ַע ְרבַ ִים‬has been subjected to diverse interpretations. For many early Jewish writings (such as Jub 49,1 and 11QTemple 17,7), it extends from late afternoon to sunset. And for Holzinger, it means exactly at sunset. Cf. H. HOLZINGER, Exodus, 39. This work follows the submission of Propp who adopts the position that the phrase refers to the “twi-light” between sunset and dark, synonymous with ‫“ ערב‬evening.” Cf. W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 390. 27 It is widely recognised that it is grammatically possible to translate ‫ מָ ן הּוא‬as “It is manna.” NJPS and NRSV note the possibility of this translation in their footnotes. However, as many scholars have pointed out, the subsequent comment “for the people did not know what it was” indicates clearly that the narrator intends it to be a question. Cf. inter alia, B.S. CHILDS, The Book of Exodus, 289; C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 339. 28 Lit: “This is the thing which YHWH has commanded.” This same expression is found also in v. 32. Propp (I, 583) translates: “This is the word that….” This is a possible translation but not likely within the context. The emphasis here is not so much on the spoken word as on the content of the instruction. So M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 299. 29 Lit: “a man according to his food”, translated here according to the sense it depicts. Also, ‫ ִאיש‬is obviously used here to depict a person (this applies also in vv. 18–21.29). 30 ‫ גֻלְ ֹגלֶת‬literally means “skull” (cf. HALOT), used also in the Hebrew Bible in reference to headcount (cf. Num 1,2.18). Here, it refers to a person.

52

Chapter II: Unity in Complexity

according to your number of persons; each of you shall gather for those in his tent.” 17And the Israelites did so; some gathered much, some gathered little.31 18 But when they measured (it) by the omer, the one who gathered much did not have a surplus, while the one who gathered little did not lack. They gathered according to what each person could eat. 19Then Moses said to them, “Let no one leave any of it until morning.” 20But they did not listen to Moses. Rather, some people left some of it until morning, and it bred worms and stank. And Moses was angry with them. 21And then, they gathered it morning by morning, each person according to what he can eat. But when the sun became hot, it would melt. 22 And on the sixth day, they gathered bread twice as much, two omers for each. Then, all the leaders of the congregation came and reported to Moses, 23 and he said to them, “This is what YHWH has spoken: Tomorrow is a day of solemn rest32, a holy Sabbath to YHWH. Bake what you would bake, and boil what you would boil, and set aside all that remains for yourselves, to be kept 33 until morning.” 24And they set it aside until morning as Moses had commanded, and it did not stink and there was no worm in it. 25Then Moses said, “Eat it today, for today is a Sabbath to YHWH. Today, you shall not find it in the field. 26 Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, a Sabbath, there will be none in it”34. 27 Now, on the seventh day, some of the people went out to gather, but they did not find anything. 28Then YHWH said to Moses, “Until when will you refuse to keep my commandments and my instructions? 29See that YHWH has given you the Sabbath, therefore, on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. 31 The Hebrew construction ‫ ַו ִילְ קְ טּו הַ מַ ְרבֶ ה וְ הַ מַ ְמעִ יט‬is difficult to translate literally. It is clear however that the verb ‫ ַו ִילְ קְ טּו‬relates directly with each of the two following hiphil participles. Many major commentaries reflect this line of thought in their translation: “they gathered, some more, some less.” Cf. inter alia B.S. CHILDS, 272; T.B. DOZEMAN, 375. 32 The term ‫ שַ בָ תֹון‬is difficult to appropriately capture in translation. Scholars offer different translations: a complete rest (V.P. HAMILTON, 249); a Sabbath rest (T.B. DOZEMAN, 375); a day of solemn rest (M. NOTH, 130); a day of sacred rest (B.S. CHILDS, 272); un giorno di assoluto riposo (M. PRIOTTO, 300); a sabbatical (W.H.C. PROPP, I, 584); Schabbaton (C. DOHMEN, I, 373). Noteworthy is that in all its 11 occurrences in the Hebrew Bible, the term portrays the sense of the content/observance of the Sabbath – a mandatory complete rest for the people, a solemn rest. 33 Priotto translates ‫“ לְ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת‬in quanto servizio”, arguing that it indicates a liturgical act (M. PRIOTTO, 300; so also T.B. DOZEMAN, 375, who translates: “for service until morning”). Though used in vv. 32–34 in a liturgical context, it does not appear so here. The people are instructed to conserve the remnant of the food for the next day, so as not to go out to gather on the Sabbath. Other major commentaries – W.H.C. PROPP, I, 584; C. DOHMEN, I, 373; M. NOTH, 130; B.S. CHILDS, 273 – reflect this idea of preservation. 34 Many translations – NJPS; NRSV; NJKV; NASB; M. NOTH, 131; B.S. CHILDS, 273 – omit the translation of ‫בֹו‬, which refers to ‫ בַ שָ דֶ ה‬in the preceding verse. Though this locus is understood without this explicit mention, the translation here is more faithful to the text.

1. The Text of Ex 16

53

Let each person remain in his place 35, let no person leave his place on the seventh day.” 30And the people rested on the seventh day. 31 And the house of Israel named it manna 36. Now, it was like a coriander seed, white, and its taste was like wafer in honey. 32Then Moses said, “This is what YHWH has commanded: Let an omer 37 of it be kept throughout your generations, in order that they may see the bread which I fed you in the wilderness, when I brought you out of the land of Egypt.” 33And Moses said to Aaron, “Take a jar and put an omer of manna in it; and set it before YHWH, to be kept throughout your generations.” 34According as38 YHWH commanded Moses, Aaron set it before the Testimony 39, to be kept40. 35 Now, the Israelites ate the manna forty years until they came to an inhabited land. They ate the manna until they came to the border of the land of Canaan. 36Now, an omer is one-tenth of an ephah. 1.3 Textual Complexities A critical study of Ex 16 reveals some considerable literary difficulties. The pericope has, in fact, been remarked by scholars as a particularly complex text.41 These difficulties consist mainly in repetitions/redundancies, perceptible tensions in sequencing, seeming contradictions, and apparent anachronisms. In view of this classification, these difficulties overlap. This will be noticed in the following discussion of these complexities.

35 As BDB explicates, the term ‫ תחת‬with a reflexive pronoun is used idiomatically in biblical Hebrew to mean: “in one’s place”, “where one stands.” Cf. Jos 5,8; Jdg 7,21. 36 Lit: “…called its name manna.” 37 Lit: “Let an omerful of it….” However, an omerful depicts the measure of an omer. The same applies in v. 33 (so M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 301, n. 15). 38 We have here a comparative clause introduced by ‫ ַכ ֲאשֶ ר‬, and a waw of apodosis in ‫ ַו ַי ִּניחֵ הּו‬. Cf. JM § 174a.g. 39 The term ‫ ֵעדֻת‬is diversely translated: “Pact” NJPS; “covenant” NRSV; “decree” G.I. DAVIES, Ex 1–18, II, 445–446. This work retains the traditional rendering: “Testimony.” 40 This is the third occurrence of the term ‫ לְ ִמ ְשמָ ֶרת‬in this pericope. The translation “to be kept” is used here to retain the same translation all through (so NJPS; NKJV; J.I. DURHAM, 222; L.R. KASS, 233). The sense is clear though: Aaron placed it there for preservation. 41 Maiberger describes this chapter as “one of the most disputed and difficult chapters in the OT as far as literary-critical considerations are concerned.” P. MAIBERGER, “‫”מָ ן‬, TDOT, VIII, 393. Corroborating this, Van Seters asserts emphatically, “There is a broad recognition that the text of Exodus 16 contains a number of doublets that argue for a division of sources.” J. VAN SETERS, The Life of Moses, 181–182. And D. Frankel postulates that the major problem here “centres on the continuity of verses 1–12. There are many difficulties in the flow of these verses […] The most difficult problem is the relation of the verses 1–13 to the rest of the chapter.” D. FRANKEL, The Murmuring Stories, 63–64.

54

Chapter II: Unity in Complexity

1.3.1 Repetitions/Redundancies The most noticeable difficulty that one encounters in the text of Ex 16 is the repetitions which appear redundant in many cases. These include: a. The Divine Speeches in vv. 4–5 and vv. 11–12 In vv. 4–5, YHWH reacts to the hunger-complaint of the people in vv. 2–3, promising to provide them with food from heaven. In vv. 6–8, this intervention of YHWH is made known to the people. Yet, in vv. 11–12, YHWH speaks again, repeating the promise of food already given in vv. 4–5, and also repeating that he has heard the complaint of the people, which has already been communicated to them by Moses and Aaron in vv. 6–8. This appears redundant.42 b. The Speech of Moses/Aaron in vv. 6–7 and that of Moses in v. 8 The intervention of YHWH in vv. 4–5 is communicated to the people in vv. 6– 7, highlighting three points: the deeds of YHWH which will come evening and morning; that the Lord has heard their murmurings; and that the murmuring is directed against YHWH and not against his human agents. But in v. 8, we have a clear case of Wiederaufnahme43: Moses takes up the address once more, restating the very same three points already communicated to the people in vv. 6–7, and in some cases, making use of the same or very similar words (v. 7: ‫ וְ נַחְ נּו מָ ה כִ י תַ ּלִ ינּו ָעלֵינּו‬// v. 8: ‫) וְ נַחְ נּו מָ ה ל ֹא־ ָעלֵינּו ְת ֻל ֹּנתֵ יכֶם כִ י ַעל־ ְיהוָה‬. Again, this is apparently redundant.44 c. The Instructions of Moses in vv. 25–26 These instructions concerning the Sabbath rest – to gather for six days and rest on the seventh – appear superfluous, considering that the instructions have already been kept in vv. 22.24. As such, the people’s act in vv. 22.24 indicates that the Sabbath instructions given by YHWH in v. 5 have been passed down to the people, and they were already abiding by it. Thus, repeating them in vv. 25–26 appears unnecessary and redundant. Again, though the instruction of YHWH in 28–30 could be regarded as a reprimand, it is basically a repetition of

42 This repetition has been pointed out by many scholars. See inter alia V. FRITZ, Israel in der Wüste, 9; E. RUPRECHT, “Stellung und Bedeutung”, 271; T.B. DOZEMAN, Exodus, 378; J. VAN SETERS, Life of Moses, 181; G.I. DAVIES, Exodus 1–18, II, 424. 43 As explained by C. Nihan, the technique of Wiederaufnahme, is often used to as a redactional tool to introduce a new development between parallel passages. Here, the speech of Moses is incorporated to give a clarification to the speech in vv. 6–7. Cf. C. NIHAN, “L’analisi redazionale”, 136. See also C. KUHL, “‘Die Wiederaufnahme’”, 1–11. 44 Cf. Inter alia M. NOTH, Exodus, 107; E. RUPRECHT, “Stellung und Bedeutung”, 280; A. SCHART, Mose und Israel, 132; D. FRANKEL, The Murmuring Stories, 71.

1. The Text of Ex 16

55

the same Sabbath instructions in vv. 25–26 (cf. v. 5): to gather for six days, and on the sixth day to gather double, so as to rest on the Sabbath.45 d. The Reiterated Information in v. 35 In this verse, the same information is given two times in a parallel form, in two different complete sentences brought together in the same verse. The first sentence states that the Israelites ate the manna for forty years until they came to a habitable land. The second sentence repeats the same information, omitting the exact duration of the sustenance with manna but adding the name of the habitable land – Canaan. This repetition appears unnecessary and redundant, indicative of different traditions.46 1.3.2 Tensions in Sequencing The text of Ex 16 also exhibits some tensions in the logic of the sequencing of narrative. Such tensions include: a. Meat in the Narrative The promise of meat relayed by Moses to the people in v. 8 does not appear in the divine speech of vv. 4–5 but only in the theophanic speech of vv. 11–12. Now, as there were allusions to both bread and meat (fleshpot) in the people’s complaint in v. 3, it appears that YHWH only adequately addressed their complaint in v. 12, and not in his intervention in vv. 4–5 which follows the complaint immediately. Again, the appearance of meat (quail), which is promised complementarily with bread in v. 12, is mentioned only once again (v. 13a), and no more in the entire narrative.47 b. The Speech of YHWH in vv. 11–12 In vv. 4–5, YHWH reacts to the complaints of the Israelites. And in vv. 6–8, Moses and Aaron relate this in their speech to the people. But the divine speech in v. 12, which begins emphatically with ‫ת־תלּו ֹּנת בְ נֵי ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬ ְ ֶ‫ שָ מַ עְ ִתי א‬, is presented in a language that makes it seem as if YHWH is reacting to the complaint for the first time. This smacks not only of redundancy but also of some tension in the unfolding sequence of the narrative.48

45

Cf. inter alia J. VAN SETERS, Life of Moses, 182; E. RUPRECHT, “Stellung”, 273–274. Cf. inter alia J. WELLHAUSEN, Die Composition,78–79; P. MAIBERGER, Das Manna, 136; E. RUPRECHT, “Stellung”, 278–279; D. FRANKEL, The Murmuring Stories, 87. 47 Cf. inter alia J. WELLHAUSEN, Die Composition,78; D. FRANKEL, The Murmuring Stories, 68–70. 48 Cf. inter alia W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 590; J. VAN SETERS, Life of Moses, 181. 46

56

Chapter II: Unity in Complexity

c. The Statement ‫( ַו ִּיפְ נּו אֶ ל־הַ ִּמ ְדבָּ ר‬v. 10) In vv. 1–2, it is explicitly stated that the Israelites were in the wilderness, specifically in the wilderness of Sin. But in v. 10, the Israelites are reported to have turned “towards the wilderness.” Within the unfolding sequence of the narrative, the meaning of this clause is indeterminate.49 d. The Events of the Seventh Day In vv. 24–26, the events of the seventh day are described. The Israelites are reported to have kept the seventh day as commanded, and Moses reaffirms the Sabbath instructions. But the following verse (v. 27) begins with ‫ַו ְיהִ י בַ יֹום‬ ...‫הַ ְשבִ יעִ י‬, as if commencing the report of the events the seventh day. Again, the new report brings in a totally different perspective – disobedience to the Sabbath commandments. Though the disobedience is attributed to some of the Israelites, there is a noticeable tension between the two successive descriptions of the events in the seventh day.50 1.3.3 Contradictions The text of Ex 16 also contains some apparent contradictions in the internal dynamics of the narrative. Some of these incongruities include: a. The Amount of Manna Gathered In vv. 17–18, it seems that the Israelites ultimately gathered only the amount of manna that would be enough for the day. Some extraordinary phenomenon appears to have taken place, as both those who got more and those who got less realise that each household got exactly as much as they needed for the day. The implicit implication is that there is no abundance to be kept for the next day. But in v. 19, Moses instructs that no one is to leave the manna till the following day. This instruction agrees well with v. 17: some gathering more, some less; but not with v. 18: each person gathering as much as he needs. And v. 20 confirms that some actually gathered more and stored it for use in the following day(s). As such, the incongruity here lies in the functionality of v. 18 within the context. It appears to introduce the power of the divine to mysteriously level each person’s collection to the required daily need. But the unfolding of the story shows otherwise.51

49

Cf. inter alia C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 335; B.S. CHILDS, The Book of Exodus, 287. Cf. inter alia J. WELLHAUSEN, Die Composition, 78; D. FRANKEL, The Murmuring Stories, 74. 51 Cf. inter alia J. WELLHAUSEN, Die Composition, 78; H. GRESSMANN, Mose und seine Zeit, 124. 50

1. The Text of Ex 16

57

b. The Tenacity of the Manna under Heat In v. 21, it is explicitly stated that the manna melts under the heat of the sun. This implies that it does not stand a certain degree of temperature. But in v. 23, Moses exhorts the people to bake and boil the manna. One cannot but wonder whether Moses’ exhortation is about the same manna of v. 21.52 1.3.4 Anachronisms Among the clear difficulties in this text, as already well noted in biblical scholarship, is the problem of anachronisms. There appear in this passage some terms and themes that belong to a later period in the chronological unfolding of the book of Exodus. They seem anticipated in this narrative. a. The Instruction ‫ קִּ ְרבּו לִּ פְ נֵי יְ הוָּה‬in v. 9 The phrase ‫ לִ פְ נֵי יְ הוָה‬is used as a fixed expression in the Pentateuch to refer to the Tabernacle (from the time of its erection and consecration at the end of Exodus). This instruction to draw near before YHWH is similar to such instructions found often in the book of Leviticus, which implies to come before the Tabernacle.53 Within the present context in which the Tabernacle has not been constructed, the import of this instruction appears anachronistic.54 b. The Placing of an Omer of Manna ‫ לִּ פְ נֵי הָּ ֵעדֻת‬in vv. 33–34 In v. 33, Moses instructs Aaron to place a jar containing an omer of manna ‫לִ פְ נֵי‬ ‫“( ְיהוָה‬before YHWH”) for a perpetual preservation. In accordance with this instruction, Aaron places the jar ‫“( לִ פְ נֵי הָ ֵעדֻת‬before the Testimony”). In this case, as Aaron’s reaction shows, the significance of the phrase ‫ לִ פְ נֵי ְיהוָה‬is indisputably clear – before the Ark of the Covenant. As the Tabernacle is yet to be set up (at the Sinai), this is a clear case of anachronism.55

52 Cf. J. WELLHAUSEN, Die Composition, 78; L. SCHMIDT, “Die Priesterschrift”, 492; S.A. GELLER, “Manna and Sabbath”, 10. For Gressmann, v. 21 does not align well with vv. 19–20 because in v. 21, the manna melts like frost in the sun, while in v. 20, it does not melt but becomes full of worms. Cf. H. GRESSMANN, Mose und seine Zeit, 125. 53 In the book of Leviticus, the phrase ‫ לִ פְ נֵי ְיהוָה‬appears over 50x, all referring to the Tabernacle. 54 Cf. inter alia E. RUPRECHT, “Stellung”, 270; B.S. CHILDS, The Book of Exodus, 287. 55 Propp notes two more instances of anachronism in this chapter. For him, the Sabbath instructions in vv. 23–29 are given as if the Sabbath is already known. Again, he finds meat eating in vv. 8–13 difficult without the sacrificial cult. Cf. W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 590. However, though the law of the Sabbath comes later in Exodus, it seems tactfully introduced here in the unfolding of this narrative. Furthermore, the craving for meat here does not depict a cult situation. It is a rather a survival situation. The promise and provision of meat appears a response to the people’s mention of fleshpots in their murmuring (v. 3).

58

Chapter II: Unity in Complexity

2. Reactions to the Textual Complexities The complexities pointed out above are very suggestive of a composite text. It is then not surprising many scholars have expended much time and energy searching for the sources of this narrative and its redactional history,56 a quest influenced to a large extent by the documentary hypothesis.57 This section reviews the different approaches employed by scholars to resolve the perceived difficulties in this text, and provides a critique to each. 2.1 Two Independent Traditions For some scholars, the difficulties in the text arise because it comprises two completely independent stories which were combined at a later stage of redaction to form the present narrative. While some of these scholars ascribe the stories to P and J, others ascribe them to P and Dtr. 2.1.1 Independent Traditions: P and J(E) Some of the scholars who advance this position are Julius Wellhausen, Hugo Gressmann, George W. Coats, and Joel S. Baden. a. Julius Wellhausen For Wellhausen, though there are two discernible strands (P and JE) in the Ex 16 narrative, P (which he terms Q) is the principal strand. He reasons that vv. 9–13a certainly belongs to P because of the occurrence of the expression ‫כְ בֹוד‬ ‫ ְיהוָה‬. As such, it is deducible that vv. 4–8 does not, because we already know from these verses everything we should learn from vv. 9–12. Also, in v. 4, only bread is mentioned (the meat comes in JE only in Num 11), while in v. 12–13a, we find meat and bread. Furthermore, there is a problem of sequence in vv. 22– 30. In vv. 24–26, it is already Sabbath but in v. 27, the Sabbath day begins again. In fact, just as vv. 4–8 (JE) is placed between two P strands: vv. 1–3 and 9–12, so also vv. 27–30 (JE) is placed between vv. 22–26 and 31–34 (P). Again, the suffix in ‫( שמֹו‬v. 31) finds no reference in vv. 27–30, but rather connects v. 31 to v. 26. As such, v. 31 follows from v. 26. In addition, the identical information in vv. 15 and 31 and vv. 35a and 35b are indicative of diverse sources. So also are the contradictions that in v. 21, manna melts in heat while in v. 23, it is to be cooked or baked; and that in vv. 16a.18c–21, everyone collects 56 P. Maiberger presents a very elaborate description of the history of scholarship on Ex 16 from the early 19th century to the point of his research (1983). Cf. P. MAIBERGER, Das Manna, 9–86. 57 The 19th century marked the peak of the development of the documentary hypothesis. This provides a ready explanation for the approach of scholars in perceiving the composite nature of this text. The source critical approach has deeply influenced the study of Ex 16.

2. Reactions to Textual Complexities

59

according to his need ( ‫)לְ פִ י אָ כְ לֹו‬, whereas in vv.16b.17.18ab, everyone collects exactly one omer. For Wellhausen, therefore, the P strand is found in vv. 1–3.9–13a.16b– 18.22–26.31–34.35a, while vv. 4–5.13b–16a.19–21.27–30.35b belong to JE. The rest, vv. 6–8.36, are later redactional additions. He holds that the most significant difference between the accounts of P and JE is the people’s twoway disobedience to the divine order in the JE account. Though the accounts appear similar, the JE strand follows an independent pattern. The Sabbath is hardly found in it. The Torah in v. 4 is not the Sabbath commandment, but the specific instruction to collect no more than ‫דְ בַ ר־יֹום בְ יֹומֹו‬, with a reference in v. 20. The tone in v. 27–30 is reminiscent of Deuteronomy, and one cannot but wonder from where ‫ ִמצְ ֹותַ י וְ תֹורֹ תָ י‬should be known to the people.1 Considering the critical observations he makes in the text, Wellhausen’s work is quite impressive. But his assertion that the division of sources in this chapter is certain is too optimistic. He bases his argument on the redundancies and the difficulties in sequencing found in the text. But in his division of sources, the terminologies traditionally ascribed to different sources appear to be mixed up.2 Again, Wellhausen reckons vv. 15 and 31 as springing from different sources because they give “identical information.” But a closer look at the two verses reveals that they are complementary rather than identical. These points indicate that, against Wellhausen’s assertion, a “neat” division of sources in this narrative remains a herculean task. b. Hugo Gressmann Gressmann also attributes the bulk of the narrative to P, but holds that Ex 16 is a combination of two Sagen emanating from P and J. For him, vv. 1–3 is characteristically P (though v. 3 contains some elements of J), while vv. 4–5 cannot belong to P because v. 5 does not fit with vv. 22–26 which is P. Also, parallel to vv. 4–5, YHWH replies that there would be meat in the evening and bread in the morning in vv. 9–13a. The two parallels cannot belong to the same source. Vv. 9–13a features Moses and Aaron, and is therefore P. Again, vv. 6–8 talks about meat/bread in line with v. 3, and so is P. However, v. 8 is repetitive and constitutes a later gloss to vv. 6–7 (here, the terms ‫ ֶע ֶרב‬and ‫ בֹ קֶ ר‬must be struck out because they imply Moses anticipating YHWH’s answer). Going further, vv. 13b–15a could be the direct continuation of 13a, but is more likely derived from the J, as the motif of the etymology clearly speaks for J. This etymology is only completed in v. 31, and v. 31a fits v. 15a perfectly. Again, vv.19–20 and 22–26, which represent a unit, come from the P. V. 21 cannot belong together with vv. 19–20 because in v. 21, the manna melts like 1

Cf. J. WELLHAUSEN, Die Composition des Hexateuchs, 78–79. For e.g., the term ‫ ַעד־בֹ קֶ ר‬found in vv. 19.20.23.24 is adjudged P terminology by scholars (cf. W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 589). But Wellhausen ascribes vv. 19–21 to JE. 2

60

Chapter II: Unity in Complexity

frost in the sun, while in v. 20, the manna does not melt but becomes full of worms. V. 21 continues rather from v. 14 which is J. Also, in vv. 22–25 and 27–30, Moses announces the Sabbath twice, implying different sources. As vv. 22–25 is P, vv. 27–30 is understandably J. Again, vv. 32.34a are characteristically P, while vv. 33.34b constitute a redactional addition meant to glorify Aaron. Also, v. 35 is composite: v. 35a is J while v. 35b is P. For Gressmann therefore, to P belongs vv. 1–3.6–7.9–13a.15b–17.19– 20.22–26.32.34a.35b (some redactional additions are found in vv. 6–7: ‫ ֶע ֶרב‬, ‫ ;ּובֹ קֶ ר‬and in v. 16: ‫ ;) ֹעמֶ ר ַלגֻלְ גֹ לֶת‬while to J belongs vv. 4a.5.13b–14.21.27.29–31. The rest of the chapter are redactional additions. Gressmann holds that J was the earlier of the two Sagen, and developed gradually. First, it recounted simply the Israelites’ finding of manna in the wilderness, and then added Moses’ “discovery” of the Sabbath by his clever interpretation of the double portion on the sixth day as implying non-gathering on the seventh; thus a day of rest. The P version came later and was more elaborate. A later redactor transferred the origin of the Sabbath observance to the divine domain as a mark of obedience and loyalty. This is, however, in keeping with P’s theology of the divine rest on the seventh day at creation.3 Gressmann’s attempt to resolve the complexities in Ex 16 is laudable in that it is based on clear principles. However, his solutions are not without some difficulties. For instance, he posits that vv. 6–7 cannot come before v. 12, as Moses cannot anticipate the divine speech. But, it appears that the divine speech appears as a confirmation of the speech of Moses/Aaron. And, as we shall see later, it is set in this order as a narrative technique. Also, as Propp notes, in the other P episodes of revolt, the ‫ כְ בֹוד ְיהוָה‬appears with a solution only after Moses has got to his wit’s end (Num 14,10; 16,19; 17,7; 20,6). Hence, what we have here is more likely “a case of prescience or faith vindicated.”4 Furthermore, the Gressmann’s submission that Moses is the discoverer of the Sabbath in the narrative is merely speculative.5 In the narrative, the Sabbath instructions are clearly presented as coming from God. c. George Wesley Coats Coats holds that the chapter in its present state stands together as a unit because the itinerary formula in v. 1 ties the different traditions in the narrative together. He however finds a clear disunity in the entire text which he attributes to a complex process of combining diverse traditions. Asserting though that source analysis cannot be carried out with certainty in Ex 16, he detects two traces of literary sources: P and J. This is detectable in the two speeches of YHWH in vv. 4–5 and 11–12; two speeches with instructions for gathering bread in 3

Cf. H. GRESSMANN, Mose und seine Zeit, 124–145. Cf. W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 592. 5 Cf. also the evaluation of C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 322–323. 4

2. Reactions to Textual Complexities

61

preparation for the Sabbath in vv. 22–29; two speeches with instructions for preserving an omer of manna in vv. 32–33; and two conclusions in vv. 35a.b. Based on these doublets, he distinguishes the strand that contains P motifs thus: vv. 1.2–3.6–21(22).23–24.27(28).33–35a. For Coats, the original P narrative combines two distinct units of tradition, one about bread and the other about meat. And he notes that it is to the meat tradition that the murmuring motif belongs. The J strand, much simpler in construction, contains neither the meat tradition nor any trace of the murmuring motif. As such, in J, the narrative is “preserved in the context of positive relations between God and people.” This appears in vv. 4–5.22.25–26.29–32.35b. The verses 4bβ and 28 constitute Dtr expansions while the gloss in v. 36 attributable to a late commentator who worked after the two sources were already combined.6 One of the strong points of Coat’s analysis is his recognition of the diversity of traditions that came together in the Manna-Erzählung of Ex 16. However, his attempt to reduce the sources of the narrative to two – P and J, influenced by the documentary hypothesis, creates some logical tensions. His submission that the sources of the narrative cannot be traced with precision is an indicator that the development of the narrative is more complex that a straightforward combination of P and J, with some Dtr expansions.7 2.1.2 Independent Traditions: P and Dtr Some other scholars hold that these two traditions are P and Dtr. Among them are Thomas C. Römer and Stephen A. Geller. a. Thomas Christian Römer According to Römer, because the rhythm which God fixed at creation (in Gen 2,1–3) is revealed in this chapter’s recount of the discovery of the manna and the Sabbath, it is reasonable to attribute the major fibre of Ex 16 to P. However, P most probably adopted and expanded an older aetiology of the manna, which hypothetically can be found in vv. 1*.4a.13b–14b.15.21.31.8 The P narrative is interested in highlighting the importance of the Sabbath for Israel. As such, it does not report any rebellion or divine punishment. In vv. 22–24 (P), Moses exhorts the people to make provisions for the seventh day, the Sabbath. On the seventh day, he urges the people to eat what is 6

Cf. G.W. COATS, Exodus 1–18, 127–136; IDEM, Rebellion, 83–96. To be noted also is that Coat’s submission that the J strand represents a positive relationship with God is contested by some other scholars. J.S. Baden, for e.g., holds that Ex 16 combines the stories of J and P who, as independent authors, retrojected their current traditions of the Sabbath into the wilderness period. However, while P (vv. 1.2–3.5–25.31–36) tends to be more positive, J (vv. 4–5.26–30) presents an aetiology of the Sabbath by way of a divine test. Cf. J.S. BADEN, “The Original Place”, 492–494. 8 Römer adopts this scheme from C. LEVIN, Der Jahwist, 77, 352–355. 7

62

Chapter II: Unity in Complexity

kept, as they will not find anything in the field (vv. 25–26; P). Those who go out to gather on the seventh day find nothing (v. 27; P). And v. 30 relates the logical consequence of this: “So the people rested on the seventh day.” This link between vv. 27 and 30 is interrupted by the interpolation of vv. 28–29, an insertion that reflects deuteronomistic terminology and concerns (such as keeping ‫) ִמצְ ֹותַ י וְ תֹורֹ תָ י‬. This tract converts the priestly exposé of the Sabbath into a story of rebellion, as do vv. 2–3.6–12 which emphasise the grumbling of the people against Moses/Aaron. As such, the original priestly document – vv. 1.4abα.13b.15–17.21–27.30–31 – was oblivious of the rebellion in the wilderness. P adopts the positive tradition akin to the one exposed in Hosea and Jeremiah. On the other hand, vv. 2–3.6–12.28–29, which emphasise rebellion, belong to Dtr and other later redactors. For Römer, the thesis that the Pentateuch is a compromise between a Priestly group and a Dtr group remains viable.9 Römer’s concise submission on Ex 16 is indeed valuable, and his logic consistent. Especially notable is his linking of the P strand of the narrative to the positive traditions of Israel’s wilderness wanderings in the prophets. But his division of sources raises serious issues. Though vv. 2–3.6–12 contain obvious elements of rebellion, they also reflect unmistakable P terminologies and concerns, for e.g., the appearance of the ‫ כְ בֹוד ְיהוָה‬in the cloud (vv. 9–12). b. Stephen A. Geller Geller identifies in Ex 16, a twin strand that was merged “far from seamlessly” into a single narrative: the covenantal-Deuteronomic strand which highlights the motif of the testing of the faith of the Israelites and the Priestly strand which presents an aetiology of the cultic institution of the bread of Presence. These two strands, interwoven in the present narrative, are linked with a sequence of Leitwörter that share two Hebrew consonant: ‫ ש‬and ‫ – ב‬šābat (to stop, cease), šabbatôn (stoppage), šabbāt (stop), yāšab (sit, remain), and šĕbî‘î (seventh). In the covenantal-Deuteronomic strand of the story, the manna and the Sabbath are presented as symbols of testing. Going out to collect enough manna for each day reflects the trust that God will still provide for the next day, while loyalty/disloyalty to the Sabbath represents loyalty/disloyalty to God. On the other hand, the Priestly strand highlights the appearance of the cloud (vv. 9 – 12) and the command to place of the manna ‫( לִ פְ נֵי ְיהוָה‬vv. 32–34). Geller sees this command is anticipatory, meant to be fulfilled when the Tabernacle is constructed. The people would place and replace there an omer of the manna they collect each day from the field. And when they enter Canaan, with the cessation of manna, the ritual will be performed with normal bread – the bread of Presence.10

9

Cf. T.C. RÖMER, “Israel’s Sojourn in the Wilderness”, 431–433. Cf. S.A. GELLER, “Manna and Sabbath”, 5–16.

10

2. Reactions to Textual Complexities

63

The strong point of Geller’s work is his persuasive identification of two traditions in the Manna-Erzählung of Ex 16. However, it must be reckoned that, following his analysis, it is quite difficult to “neatly” delineate the two stands in the present narrative. Furthermore, Geller’s interpretation of the instruction in vv. 32–34 as a reference the bread of Presence when Israel reaches the Promised Land leaves more to be desired. An explicit description of this bread, clearly distinct from the manna, is found in Lev 24,5–9. 2.2 One Principal Source with Additions Some other scholars are of the opinion that Ex 16 comprises one major narrative strand, supplemented by later additions. While some hold that the major strand is P with J(E) additions, other hold that it is P with Dtr additions, while yet others hold that the major strand is J with P additions. 2.2.1 P as Principal with J(E) Additions Many scholars hold that the Priestly document “P” provides the basic text of this narrative, and was supplemented with fragments from the Yahwistic document “J” (and “E”). Among the scholars who have identified with this position are B. Baentsch, M. Noth, S.R. Driver, and W.H.C. Propp. a. Martin Noth Noth holds that P provides the major Grundlage and framework, not only of the Manna-Erzählung, but of the entire Pentateuch. In Ex 16, the language of P dominates, and to compose his story, P combined many older traditions, and introduced the quails story only at a later stage. The P trajectory provides a coherent story to which a redactor added fragments of J (and E) at different points of the story. The “striking repetitions” in the narrative are indicative of such additions. Vv. (28)29–30 repeats earlier Sabbath instructions; v. 31a repeats the naming of the manna in v. 15a; in vv. 4–5, something is anticipated, but it is presented as a surprise in v. 22. Noth detects that vv. 4–5.28–30 lack the “linguistic and stylistic characteristics of P which otherwise appears throughout”, and appear to belong to earlier traditional materials appropriated by P. These should then be attributed to J with some certainty. In all, belonging to P are vv. 1–3.6–7(8).9–27,32–35a. Here P deals with the issue of the feeding of the Israelites in the wilderness once and for all in the Pentateuch (for Noth, Num 11 is clearly not P). On the other hand, J, which generally provides the literary basis for the combined JE narrative, is found in vv. 4abα.5.29–31.35b.36. And v. 28, which reprimands Israel in the deuteronomistic characteristic manner, is a Dtr gloss which presupposes J.11 11

See M. NOTH, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, 8–37; IDEM, Exodus, 129–137. Fritz also takes this position, and agrees with Noth’s division of the sources within the

64

Chapter II: Unity in Complexity

Noth’s concise presentation is clear. He finds a predominance of P language in the narrative and therefore infers that P provides its major framework. From his submissions, it is obvious that he assumes the principles of the classical documentary hypothesis. But these principles are today contested in biblical scholarship. Again, Noth accepts that the P strand of the story is not homogenous. This is an indication that rather than stemming from just P and J, it appears that this narrative comprises of stories from diverse sources/traditions. b. William H.C. Propp Propp states categorically that the basic source of the manna story in Ex 16 is P. To demonstrate this, he lists a large number of terms in the narrative which he depicts as “priestly terminology.”12 The wide spread of these terms shows that the story is eminently P. Propp also acknowledges some “well-known anachronisms” in the P strand. They include: ‫( לִ פְ נֵי ְיהוָה‬vv. 9.33) which ordinarily refers to the Tabernacle, ‫( הָ ֵעדֻת‬v. 34) which is yet to be given, and the presentation of the Sabbath as if it were already known (vv. 23–30). Propp notes, however, that the narrative does not originate entirely from P. Though he notes that P narratives are also often characterised by redundancy, in the present narrative, he finds the “greatest redundancy” in vv. 4–5.14– 15.21b.27–31.35, and thus adjudges these verses JE interpolations 13. Considering vv. 4–5, he finds it odd that YHWH would respond twice to the grumbling of the Israelites (vv. 4.11–12), and that the leaders of the people would be surprised about the double gathering on the sixth day (v. 22). Also, in this tract, he detects Elohistic language in the motif of test (cf. Gen 22,1; Ex 15,25; 20,20); and notes that the phrase ‫ דְ בַ ר־יֹום בְ יֹומֹו‬though appearing in other sources, occurs last in Ex 5,13 (E); and that the term ‫ הִ ְמ ִטיר‬appears in J and E (cf. 2,5;

chapter. Cf. V. FRITZ, Israel in der Wüste, 9–10. Also of this view is B.S. Childs who holds that a literary analysis of Ex 16 without acknowledging and, as far as possible, identifying its constituent sources is virtually an impossible task. Acknowledging the lack of agreement among scholars here, he aligns himself with the position of B. Baentsch, S.R. Driver and M. Noth in assigning the bulk of this manna narrative to P and attributing only some fragments of it to J. In his estimation, P is most probably found in vv. 1–3.6–13a.16–26.32–35aα; while to J belong vv. 4–5.13b–15.21b.27–31.35aβ; while it is difficult to assign v. 36 to any source with certainty. Cf. B.S. CHILDS, The Book of Exodus, 274–276. 12 These terms include: ‫( ֵעדָ ה‬vv. 2.9.22), ‫( קָ הָ ל‬v. 3), ‫ בֹ קֶ ר‬...‫( ֶע ֶרב‬vv. 6–8.12.13), ‫כְ בֹוד ְיהוָה‬ (vv. 7.10), ‫( לִ פְ נֵי ְיהוָה‬vv. 9.33), ‫( בֵ ין הָ ַע ְרבַ ִים‬v. 12), ‫( וִ ידַ עְ תֶ ם כִ י ֲא ִני ְיהוָה‬v. 12; cf. v. 6), ‫זֶה הַ דָ בָ ר‬ (v. 16), ‫( ִאיש לְ פִ י אָ כְ לֹו‬v. 16.18; cf. v. 21), ‫( ַלגֻלְ ֹֹּ֗ג לֶת‬v. 16), ‫( נַפְ שֹ תֵ יכֶם‬v. 16), ‫( ַו ַיעֲׂשּו־כֵן‬v. 17), ‫עדף‬ (vv. 18.23), ‫( ַעד־(הַ )בֹ קֶ ר‬vv. 19.20.23.24), ‫( נ ִָׂשיא‬v. 22), ‫( שַ בָ תֹון‬v. 23), ‫( קֹ דֶ ש לַיהוָה‬v. 23),‫ִמ ְשמֶ ֶר‬ (vv. 23.32.33.34), ‫( (כ) ֲאשֶ ר צִ ּוָה‬vv. 24.32.34), ‫ ּובַ יֹום הַ ְשבִ יעִ י‬...‫( שֵ שֶ ת י ִָמים‬v. 26), ‫( הָ ֵעדֻת‬v. 34). Cf. W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 588–589. G.I. Davies (Exodus 1–18, II, 428) is generally in agreement with Propp here. 13 Noteworthy here is that Propp basically follows the main tenets of the classical documentary hypothesis. Cf. W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 49.

2. Reactions to Textual Complexities

65

7,4; 19,24) but not in P. Propp links vv. 14–15 to v. 4 as its continuation and fulfilment, and 21b to v. 14, hence JE. He considers v. 27a a necessary prelude to v. 28 which resumes the theme of obedience of v. 4, arguing also that the verb ‫ מאן‬appears only in JE but never in P (cf. Gen 39,8; 48,19; Ex 4,23; 7,14; 10,3; 22,16; Num 20,21; 22,13.14). Also, v. 29 echoes v. 5 while v. 30 most likely followed v. 29; and v. 31 could be taken as a doublet with v. 16,15a, thus JE. Finally, against the opinion that v. 35 is composite, he deems it as coming from one hand, probably JE.14 The deliberations of Propp are very thorough, logical and consistent. He bases his argument on two grounds: terminology and redundancy. In spite of this coherent argument, Propp admits that it is not quite easy, in some instances, to distinguish sources in this narrative, as the redactor had to cut and join materials from different sources.15 One could agree with Propp that the terms he specified have been mostly associated with P. But this does not always provide a conclusive argument, as some of the terms are also found in passages attributed to other sources. Again, there is not enough basis to hold that every verse or statement in which these terms appear has to be (totally) P. In addition, there are noticeable tensions in the sections attributed by Propp to P. He actually admits that the redactor combines sources in the flow of the narrative. And we cannot determine the limits of his freedom in this regard. 2.2.2 P as Principal with Dtr Additions For some other scholars, the principal strand of Ex 16 is provided by P, but the non-P components derive not from J but are Dtr additions. Prominent among the advocates of this view are E. Ruprecht, A. Schart, and L. Schmidt. a. Eberhard Ruprecht Ruprecht begins by noting that the previous judgments of scholars in the source division of the chapter smacks of disturbing variations, an indication that the literary criticism fixed on source division has reached a limit and cannot come to a reliable judgement. This calls for a modified methodological approach. He therefore submits that formgeschichtliche considerations should take precedence over literary criticism. Ruprecht starts his analysis by recognising from precious research the general attribution of vv. 1–3.9–12.15b–17.22–26 to P, as they exhibit clear linguistic indices of P. And then, beginning from vv. 22–26, he goes on to reconstruct the P strand of the story. According to him, v. 27 which recounts that the people who went out to gather on the Sabbath found none, continues and confirms vv. 25–26 in which it is clarified that what is kept from the sixth day 14 15

W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 588–591. Cf. W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 590.

66

Chapter II: Unity in Complexity

should be eaten on the seventh day on which there will be none. In P then, the Sabbath is not introduced as a divine law, rather it is discovered as an already given order. It links back to the basic rhythm of time at creation. Further, v. 27 is followed by v. 30 which reports that the people then rested on the seventh day. The two verses in-between, vv. 28–29, display a different form, and thus from a different source. The question in v. 28 represents a typical deuteronomistic formulation. Hence, vv. 28–29 are Dtr additions. Furthermore, he describes vv. 31–34 as deutlich nachgeklappt und mühsam angefügt to the P story. Introduced by v. 31 which repeats the naming and description of the manna in v. 14, this section describes an event that belongs to the future. Also, the statement in v. 32 that the preservation of the manna (which now does not decay) is meant for future generations “that they may see the bread which I fed you in the wilderness, when I brought you out of the land of Egypt” is not P but typically Dtr, serving the deuteronomistic function of reminding the future generations of the great deeds of God and to call for their obedience. And vv. 33–34 constitutes a repetition to v. 32. Then, v. 35a is the conclusion to the P strand of the narrative, while v. 35b is a clarifying gloss to it. The concluding v. 36 is a gloss placed in a wrong position. Going backwards from vv. 22–26, Ruprecht reasons that the double collection of manna builds upon the instruction to collect daily portion of it in vv. 16–21, which thus belongs to P. Further backwards, the situation that brought about the provision of this heavenly bread is recounted. This is found in vv. 2– 15, which consists in the charge against the leaders (vv. 2–3), the Verteidigungsrede of the leaders, the invitation to turn to YHWH (v. 9), the appearance of glory of YHWH (v. 10), the announcement of salvation as answer to the complaint of the people (vv. 11–12), and the arrival of the salvation (vv. 13– 15). Noticeably, vv. 4–5 falls out here. It neither addresses the complaint of vv. 2–3 nor is it picked up in the Verteidigungsrede of the leaders in vv. 6–7. Rather, like vv. 28–29, it contains a Sabbath instruction and a typical Dtr motif: “in order that I may test them, whether they will walk according to my instruction or not.” Hence, vv. 4–5 constitute a Dtr addition. For Ruprecht then, the original (P) line of the story consists in vv. 1–3.6– 7.9–27.30.35a. The P strand accentuates the appearance of the ‫ כְ בֹוד ְיהוָה‬in v. 10 to legitimise the function of the Heiligtum among the people. The Dtr additions, found in vv. 4–5.28–29.31–32, unilaterally shift the accent to the problem of the Sabbath, putting the whole narrative under the theme of testing the people’s obedience to YHWH’s commandment. The latest additions are the glosses – vv. 8.35b.36 – which could have come from different hands.16 16 Cf. E. RUPRECHT, “Stellung und Bedeutung”, 271–281. Also, E. Blum and A. Schart largely follow Ruprecht in this submission. Blum holds that beyond the priesterliche Haupterzählung in Ex 16, one cannot distinguish any other parallel Erzählung. To be found beyond this are only additions which are actually Dtr elements, adopted and redacted into

2. Reactions to Textual Complexities

67

In all, the observation of Ruprecht that source criticism has reached its limits without resolving the difficulties in Ex 16 is a very vital point. However, his form-critical inquiry is founded on the assumptions of source criticism. Again, his submissions do not resolve some of the difficulties found in the text, for e.g., the double “resumption” of the seventh day (vv. 24.27). Also, the major motif in vv. 32–34 is clearly P. As such, his evaluation of vv. 31–32 as Dtr additions raises questions. b. Ludwig Schmidt For L. Schmidt, apart from v. 1aα, there are no pre-Priestly fragments in the Wachtel-Manna-Erzählung of Ex 16, which basically derives from P. The narrative begins from the Ankunftsnotiz in v. 1aβ, and continues in vv. 2–3 with the murmuring of the Israelites. Because vv. 4–5 mentions only bread, it does not respond to the meat/bread complaint of the people in vv. 2–3. Again, vv. 6–8 comes too early to pre-proclaim a divine announcement. It appears more logical then to connect v. 9 directly to v. 3 – the people complain against Moses and Aaron recalling the fleshpots and bread in Egypt; and Moses tells Aaron to instruct the people to draw near before YHWH, who promises meat and bread in abundance. And this promise is immediately fulfilled. Thus vv. 1aβb.2f.9– 14bα.15 constitutes the first part of the story. The second part of the story begins from v. 16 and mentions the quail no more. The section, vv. 16–21, concludes with the assertion that the Israelites collect each morning as much as they needed, while the rest melts with the sunrise. This submission fits perfectly with the divine promise of abundance in v. 12. But the regulations about the measure to be collected per person and the command not to keep it till the next morning do not flow from this promise. Thus, vv. 16–20 came as later additions. Further, the discovery of the Sabbath in vv. 22–26 links backs to the order of creation in Gen 1–2, and thus represents P concerns. Except for a few interpolations – v. 22aβ: “two omers for each”; v. 24b: “and it did not stink and there was no worm in it” – this section is P.

the Priestly narrative for the purpose of creating new emphases. These additions connect the Grunderzählung of the revelation/discovery of the Sabbath to the motif of testing the loyalty of the Israelites to YHWH. For him, such redactional verses are vv. 4f.28f.31f. Cf. E. BLUM, Studien zur Komposition, 146–148. For A. Schart, the large framework of the text belongs to P: vv. 1–3.6–7.9–27.30–31.35. Here, the Sabbath is understood from the background of the structure of time which has been subject to the order of creation from the beginning. This strand aims at highlighting the recognition of the order of creation as a heilsvolle limitation of the Versogemöglichkeiten of human labour. The Dtr additions found in vv. 4–5.28–29 presuppose the principal Priesterschrift and shifts the focus to the testing of Israel’s obedience to God. He finds a strong link between vv. 4–5 and 15,25b–26 which accentuates this test motif. Vv. 32–34 are late additions in the P style, while vv. 8.36 are later glosses. Cf. A. SCHART, Mose und Israel im Konflikt, 122–136, 178–180.

68

Chapter II: Unity in Complexity

Further still, there is a clear relationship between the language and motifs of vv. 27–30 with vv. 4–5 (for e.g., the use of ‫ הָ ָעם‬for the people), thus non-P. Again, because of the suffix in ‫ ְשמֹו‬, v. 31 appears to follow from v. 26. But the expression ‫ בֵ ית־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬is not documented in P. Thus, v. 31 is non-P. In P, the name of the bread – manna – is given in v. 35a which concludes the P story (v. 35b is explanatory to v. 35a). Also, vv. 32–34 reflects P concerns. But the anachronisms ‫לִ פְ נֵי ְיהוָה‬/‫ לִ פְ נֵי הָ ֵעדֻת‬indicate that this section is a secondary addition. Also, v. 36 is an additional gloss. Hence, the original P story is found in vv. 1aβb.2–3.9–14bα.15.21.22aαb.23–24a.25–26.35a. Schmidt explains that there were several stages of expansion of the narrative while this P writing was still free-standing, and this was finally supplemented by Dtr redactions found in vv. 4–5.27–29.30. For him, v. 1aβ originally followed directly from the conclusion of the Priestly narrative of the miracle at the sea in 14,29. And this Erzählung is for P the bridge between YHWH’s saving act at the Sea of Reeds and the encounter at Sinai. Schmidt also argues that the Priestly text originated in the early post-exilic period, when Sabbath and circumcision had become for the Jews who were deported to Babylon, a “confessional” sign for belonging to YHWH and to Israel.17 Schmidt’s work is commendable in his combination of different criteria to distil the original P tract in Ex 16. And he produces a coherent P story. However, if the Priestly writer put down this story immediately after the Exile, as he posits, it seems logical to assume that what Schmidt adjudges later expansions, such as vv. 6–8.32–34, would have been incorporated into the story at this time, when there was an obvious need to strengthen cultic institutions through appeal to the people’s collective memory. Again, his argument that the manna is only named in v. 35a (as v. 31 is non-P) is not very convincing.

17 Cf. L. SCHMIDT, “Die Priesterschrift” 483–498. See also: IDEM, Studien, 36–45. P. Maiberger (Das Manna, 87–142) also observes the gradual growth of the basic (P) story in his literary-critical analysis of Ex 16. After a thorough research through the history of the studies in Ex 16, he infers from the varied analysis of different scholars that the chapter does not represent a unity. From his own analysis, he avers that this narrative is composed of different units which he sets in a chronological order. The basic/simple unit comprises of vv. 1 – 3.6+7.9–14abα.15.21.31.35a. At the first expansion, the section vv. 22–26 is included. The next expansion adds vv. 16–20.32.34 (vv. 22aβ.24aβb.36 are additional glosses at this point). And the final expansion adds vv. 4+5.27–30. Then, vv. 8.14bβ.35b came as glosses at the final stages of redaction. Maiberger finds Priestly terminologies in the basic unit, but does not assign the other units to any definite source. Similar to this, W. Bührer (Schriftgelehrtes Murren, 87–106) finds the basic layer of the narrative in the Wachtel-und-Manna-Erzählung in vv.1aβγb.2f.9–15.21.31 (P), while the Sabbath story in vv. 4f.16–20.22–30 is an addendum – a later Priestly redaction influenced by Dtr theology. Vv. 6f.8.32–35.36 are later additions.

2. Reactions to Textual Complexities

69

2.2.3 J as Principal Some scholars, few in number, propound that the principal strand of Ex 16 comes from J, while other additions were made to bring the narrative to its present shape. Among the proponents of this view are W. Rudolph, J. Van Seters and J. A. Wagenaar. a. Wilhelm Rudolph To demonstrate his conviction that the story of Ex 16 stems basically from J and gradually expanded, Rudolph begins by arguing that though the introductory section (vv. 1–3) appears to be of the P style, it does not belong to P because there is no story recounted by P between the Sea of Reeds and Sinai.18 The section rather continues the J story in 15,27. Again, though vv. 4–5 is usually attributed to J, the idea of the test and of the double collection in vv. 4bβ.5 are later additions. Further, the section vv. 6–12 is normally attributed to P because of the occurrences of the terms Aaron, ‫ ֵעדַ ה‬, and ‫כְ בֹוד ְיה ָוה‬. But, for him, the first appearance of ‫ כְ בֹוד יְ הוָה‬in P is at the Sinai. Hence, this section cannot belong to P. He does not however attribute this section to J but to a secondary addition, noting also that the section does not present a unity but is brought together from different sources. YHWH’s response to the people’s complaint and the clarification of the bread happen in vv. 13–17, and they gathered the bread morning by morning (v. 21). And the original story concludes in the naming of the bread in v. 31. Thus, the basic J source recounts a simple story of the need/complaint of the Israelites and YHWH’s response in the provision of bread which the people collect and name it manna, and Rudolph finds this in vv. 1a.2*.3.4a.bα.13b–17.21.31. According to him, the rest of the chapter are secondary expansions and additions.19 The strong point of Rudolph’s analysis is his observation that the narrative appears to have grown gradually, and thus presents a recognisable plot, even in its present “expanded” form. However, his analysis appears to be a reaction against the predominant position that the narrative is principally P. To contest this, he goes to the extreme of refusing to attribute to P the sections that reflect clear Priestly language and concerns, for instance, vv. 6–12. b. John Van Seters One of the recent strong voices propelling the view that J constitutes the basic narrative strand in Ex 16 is J. Van Seters. He begins by contesting the broad submission that the principal strand of the narrative originates from P, 18 Rudolph takes this against the scholars who hold that Ex 16 is the only P text between the redemption from Egypt (Ex 14) and the arrival at Sinai (Ex 19). This position is however held by some scholars till date. Cf., for e.g., W. BÜHRER, Schriftgelehrtes Murren, 85. 19 Cf. W. RUDOLPH, Der “Elohist”, 34–36.

70

Chapter II: Unity in Complexity

generally believed to be found in vv. 1–3.6–7(8).9–27.32–35a. He notes that on the basis of the terms ‫ ֵעדָ ה‬and ‫קָ הָ ל‬, the dating formula, and the mention of Moses and Aaron, vv. 1–3 is identified with P. But these terms/motifs are not found in P alone. First of all, as regards the complaint against Moses/Aaron, there are similar complaints in Ex 5,20–21; 14,11–12, both J. Again, the term ‫ קָ הָ ל‬is not only found in P but also in J, for e.g., Num 22,4. And so, following the itinerary notices in 15,22.27 (J), it is reasonable to attribute vv. 1 –3 to J, except for the expression ‫ כָל־עֲדַ ת‬and the dating formula in v. 1b, which could be taken as Priestly expansions. In the P scheme, the people’s complaint is followed by the communication of deliverance by Moses and Aaron, without a prior revelation from YHWH. That is most unusual for P. The people’s complaint is rather followed by the divine response in vv. 4–5, which is characteristically J. This response is relayed to the people in vv. 6–7. Considering that vv. 6–7 depends on vv. 4–5 to derive its meaning, it belongs then to J. Added to this, v. 8 is largely repetitious of vv. 6–7, but both are strangely attributed to P. Also, it is most likely that the ‫ כְ בֹוד יְ הוָה‬in v. 7 refers not to the theophany in v. 10 but to the upcoming manna experience. It is then unlikely that P used this same terminology to in two entirely different senses in one sub-unit. These points corroborate the point that vv. 6–7 is J, while the parallel v. 8 belongs to P. This repetition from P interprets the reference of evening/morning in vv. 6–7 as two different events associated with meat/bread, and interprets the ‫ כְ בֹוד ְיהוָה‬as a theophany which he then develops in vv. 9–12, but which contains nothing new. “In this way,” he remarks, “the whole of P in vv. 8–12 is simply a midrashic expansion of J that introduces the quail from the later story of Numbers 11, which, in turn, is entirely out of place here.”20 The J account continues in vv. 13b–15 with the fall and discovery of the manna. This etymological aetiology, completed in v. 31, is quite characteristic of J. The story resumes in v. 21 – the daily gathering of the manna which corresponds to v. 4. Hence, vv. 16–20 is secondary, an expansion J. In vv. 22–26, the manna becomes more of a miraculous phenomenon, as against the more natural food in v. 21. Also, the regulations on the Sabbath in vv. 22–26 (P) constitute a doublet for vv. 27–30 (J). To be noted is that in vv. 22–26, the Sabbath is understood as an institution already in existence, instituted at creation. As such, the regulations made are meant to prevent its violation. But in vv. 27–30, linking back to vv. 4–5, the Sabbath comes as a test of the people’s loyalty to God’s laws. The J story is concluded in v. 31 which connects to v. 15, and v. 35a which reports the duration of the manna experience. The rest – vv. 32–34.35b – are additions from P. For Van Seters therefore, the basic J text is found in vv. 1a. 2–3*.4–7.13b– 15.21.27–31.35a – a consistent, self-contained account, and the basis of the 20

J. VAN SETERS, The Life of Moses, 184.

2. Reactions to Textual Complexities

71

expanded version. P modifies this account in his own aetiology of the Sabbath which he links back to creation, and also accentuates the miraculous aspect of the provision of manna, just as he did in his presentation of the crossing of the Sea of Reeds. The P additions represent “a midrashic expansion or amplification of details in the older J source.” However, the P strand of the story here cannot stand as an independent coherent story.21 Van Seters makes a strong case here for J as the basic account of Ex 16. One strong contribution of his analysis is the demonstration that the terminologies which are usually attributed to a particular source are not exclusively used by that source in the Hebrew Bible. This calls for caution in the use of terminology as the basis of source division. However, the argument of Van Seters puts forward to attribute the most of vv. 1–3 to J, which forms the basic foundation on which he builds the J story, is not totally convincing. Rather than creating a clear division of sources in vv. 1–3, it would be better to assume that, in the present form of the narrative, these introductory verses (nay the entire narrative) are blended from diverse sources/traditions. 2.3 Original Order Thwarted Due to the difficulties logical sequences encountered in the text, especially in vv. 4–12, some scholars submit that this original order was distorted in the process of the complex redaction of the text. To address this, they propose what they suppose to be the original order of the text. Among such scholars are of Abraham Kuenen and Bruno Baentsch. Kuenen locates the cause of the problem of disarray in vv. 1–12 in the addition of the non-P vv. 4–5 to the originally flowing story of P.22 It was in the bid to add this tract that the redactor rearranged the original order of the narrative. In the original P arrangement, after the complaint of the people comes the divine response, then the Erscheinung of the ‫כְ בֹוד ְיהוָה‬, and then the re-emphasising of the divine message to the people by the leaders. It is thus his opinion that after the introductory verses 1–3, the text originally unfolded in the following order: vv. 11.12.9.10.6.7. He holds that from v. 13 onwards, the text has survived in the original order, with insertions at certain points.23 21 Cf. J. VAN SETERS, The Life of Moses, 181–191. Another proponent of this view is J.A. Wagenaar for whom the main storyline of the manna narrative belongs to a post-Dtr J. For him, J links the Exodus/wilderness wandering story to that of the conquest in the Dtr History. And he sees the manna story of J in Ex 16 as a development of themes and motifs found in Dt 8. This J strand is found in vv. 2–3.4–7.13b–15.21.27–31. Cf. J.A. WAGENAAR, “The Cessation of Manna”, 192–209. 22 Kuenen also attributes the narrative of Ex 16 principally to P. To this major narrative came other additions. For him, in this narrative, JE kommt nicht in Frage. Cf. A. KUENEN, “Manna und Wachteln”, 277. 23 A. KUENEN, “Manna und Wachteln”, 293. Also holding the view that the original order has been thwarted is B. Baentsch for whom vv. 1–3.6–13a.16–26.31–34 belong to P (vv. 35–

72

Chapter II: Unity in Complexity

It is pertinent to point out here that Brevard S. Childs has criticised this approach. According to him, from a form-critical analysis of other stories of complaint attributed to P – Num 14; 16 – there is a “traditional pattern” shared by these three stories: people’s murmuring – disputation – theophany – divine instruction to Moses (meant to be communicated to the people). For Childs, this “traditional pattern” provides explanation for the seeming lack of logical sequence in Ex 16,1–12. The sequence is thus original to P and should not be rearranged.24 Reacting to this also, Propp reasons that though this solution appears “superficially quite plausible, and unquestionably ingenious,” it seems more logical in the narrative sequence that the self-abnegation of Moses/Aaron “What are we?” should precede the divine apparition, and not follow it.25 In all, the basic task of the analyst should consist in making sense of the narrative as presented, not in rearranging it, no matter the difficulties encountered in the text. 2.4 Narrative Shifted from Original Position Some studies have also suggested that the Manna-Erzählung of Ex 16 has been shifted forward from its original place in the course of the composition of the Pentateuch. Joel S. Baden traces the original place of the P story, which constitutes the principal strand of the narrative. He begins by noting that the P story in the Ex 16 is found in vv. 1–3.6–25.31–36, remarking that a test does not constitute a response to a complaint anywhere in P. As such vv. 4–5.26–30 comes from another source (J), which is an aetiology of the Sabbath by way of a divine test. In the P story, there are a number of anachronisms, the most obvious of which are found in vv. 32–35. In v. 33, Moses instructs Aaron to place the manna ‫לִ פְ נֵי יְ הוָה‬. From the context, it is clear that the expression has a concrete meaning: “before the Tabernacle in which Yahweh resides.” In v. 34, Aaron places the jar of manna ‫לִ פְ נֵי הָ ֵעדֻת‬. But the ‫ ֵעדֻת‬is yet to be given (cf. Ex 31,18) and the ark is yet to be constructed (cf. Ex 35–40). In v. 35, it is reported that the Israelites ate the manna for forty years. But the forty-year wandering period and the death of the Exodus generation in the wilderness was only decreed at the episode of the spies in Num 14,28–35. Though one could argue that these are proleptic, they would constitute the only examples of such in the entire P work. It has to be reckoned that the number of anachronisms in this pericope 36 are glosses). For him, however, from a comparative study of this pericope with some corresponding passages in the book of Numbers, the order of vv.1–12 in the present narrative should be: vv. 1–3.(4–5).9–12.6–7. This order, he believes, was twisted as the different sources were being redacted into the present single narrative. Cf. B. BAENTSCH, Exodus– Leviticus–Numeri, 144–156. 24 Cf. B.S. CHILDS, The Book of Exodus, 279–280. 25 Cf. W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 592.

2. Reactions to Textual Complexities

73

is striking and requires explanation. “The cumulative evidence,” he infers, “strongly suggests that this story should have originally stood after the Sinai pericope, not before.”26 But where should we imagine that this chapter was originally located? It has to be after Ex 40,34–38 when YHWH inhabits the Tabernacle. The locus of the complaint – in the desert – suggests sometime after the departure from the Sinai in Num 10,28; and the mention of the forty-year itinerary suggests that it comes after the sentence is pronounced in Num 14,28–35. Also, the presence of Aaron indicates that it comes before Num 20,22–29, the episode of Aaron’s death. Whether the narrative comes before or after the rebellion of Korah in Num 16– 17 is difficult to determine. And so, for Baden, the Manna narrative is originally collocated between Num 14,35 and 20,22.27 It is remarkable that Baden takes a bold step in the bid to resolve the clear problem of anachronisms that have been long recognised in Ex 16. But the anachronisms, as he himself attests to in his analysis, concentrate in the later part of the narrative, which can be regarded as an added epilogue in the process of the development of the present narrative. Hence, it is tenable that the core of the story can be collocated at its present position, and the proleptic concluding part of the story is told here by the narrator to wrap up the story, and to accentuate the significance of this event in the “present” life of Israel.28 In addition, Baden’s submission has been refuted in some quarters in Pentateuchal criticism. Frankel wonders what the Israelites were eating from the time they crossed the Sea of Reeds to this point in the book of Numbers. He also finds it difficult to understand why the Israelites would only complain of hunger when they were condemned to a forty-year wandering and death in the wilderness.29 Again, Römer contends that the book of Numbers, in which Baden finds the original collocation of the story of Ex 16, was “created” towards the conclusion of the process of the canonisation of the Pentateuch. For him, the book of Numbers contains texts that would have fitted better in the books of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and this indicates that the book was created to bring in some other laws and narratives when the other books had reached a fairly definite form.30

26 J.S. BADEN, “The Original Place”, 499. T. Pola and E. Otto also hold that in P, the Erscheinung of the ‫ כְ בֹוד ְיהוָה‬cannot come before the Sinai. Cf. T. POLA, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift, 137; E. OTTO, Das Deuteronomium, 37. 27 J.S. BADEN, “The Original Place”, 492–500. In a later publication, Baden goes more specific. He situates the Manna-Erzählung in Num 15, between vv. 16 and 17. Cf. J.S. BADEN, “The Structure and Substance”, 354–357. 28 On the proleptic character of the epilogue of this narrative, see Chap. IV, § 2.1.1. 29 D. FRANKEL, “The Priestly Conception”, 213–214. 30 Cf. T.C. RÖMER, “Israel’s Sojourn in the Wilderness”, 444.

74

Chapter II: Unity in Complexity

2.5 David Frankel’s Contribution In a recent study, having concisely explored the different approaches applied by scholars in the attempt to resolve the difficulties in the text of Ex 16, Frankel surmises that scholarship has reached an impasse in this quest.31 To solve this problem, he finds it crucial to unravel the problem of continuity in the narrative, by resolving the issue of “the inconsistent reference to the provision of meat alongside the manna” which occur in vv. 3.8.12–14. For him, the key to this solution lies in the analysis of vv. 9–10. He refutes the assumption of many scholars that the statement ‫ וְ הִ ּנֵה כְ בֹוד ְיהוָה ִנ ְראָ ה בֶ ָענָן‬in v. 10 refers to the appearance of both the glory and the cloud as in Num 17,7. It is rather akin to the Num 14,10 in which the ‫“ כְ בֹוד יְ הוָה‬appeared in the tent of meeting.” As the tent of meeting is deemed to be ever-present in this passage, so also is the cloud in Ex 16,10 held to be ever-present. The appearance of the ‫ כָבֹוד‬in the cloud outside the camp is a recognition that the Tabernacle has not yet been set up. But the command in v. 9 – ‫ – קִ ְרבּו לִ פְ נֵי ְיהוָה‬implies the presence of the sanctuary (cf. vv. 33–34). This indicates that vv. 9 and 10 are not of the same stratum. Frankel deems v. 10 as belonging to a later layer, together with the following theophany and the provision of quail. For him, in an earlier text, v. 14b followed immediately after v. 10a, and reads thus: “As Aaron was speaking to the whole congregation of the Israelites, behold, on the surface of the wilderness was a fine flaky thing, fine as frost, on the earth.” In v. 3, the situation in Egypt is described as sitting by the fleshpot and eating bread to satiety. But it is surprising that this sinful murmuring is met with a promise of provision, not punishment. The story would be logically more coherent if the phrase ‫ בְ ִשבְ תֵ נּו ַעל־סִ יר הַ בָ ׂשָ ר בְ אָ כְ לֵנּו לֶחֶ ם ָלׂשֹבַ ע‬is removed. The longing of the Israelites would then be to die ‫ בְ יַד־ ְיהוָה‬in Egypt which implies a swift death by a plague sent by God rather than a slow death by hunger in the desert brought about by Moses and Aaron. Further, the remaining reference to meat (v. 8) is widely recognised as a repetition of vv. 6–7, and therefore of a later stratum. And in vv. 6–7, a critical analysis shows that the phrase ‫ּובֹ קֶ ר‬ ‫ ְּור ִאיתֶ ם אֶ ת־כְ בֹוד יְ הוָה‬in v. 7a fits poorly in the flow of the sentence. Its removal makes for a simple, understandable sentence in which the preposition ‫ ב‬in ‫בְ שָ ְמעֹו‬ is understood as instrumental – “through his response to your complaints.” With the removal of vv. 8.10b–14a and parts of vv. 3.7, a coherent story appears. The Israelites complain of starvation (vv. 2–3; P); God promises bread from heaven (vv. 4–5; non-P); the people are informed (vv. 6–7; P); the people are gathered and the provision appears immediately on the desert floor (vv. 9– 10a.l4b); Moses clarifies to the surprised people that it is the promised food (v.

31

For the difficulties inherent in the text (esp. vv. 1–12) and the scholarly attempts at resolving them, see D. FRANKEL, The Murmuring Stories, 63–67.

2. Reactions to Textual Complexities

75

15). This coherent story combines P and non-P materials. It is then pertinent to distinguish and analyse the non-P material in the pericope.32 Frankel accepts the broad recognition of vv. 4–5 as non-P. Working on this basis, he finds linguistic and thematic links between vv. 4–5 and 27–30. In both tracts are found the terms/motifs: ‫ ָעם‬, ‫וַי ֹאמֶ ר ְיהוָה אֶ ל־מֹ שֶ ה‬, the use of the verb ‫ לקט‬in reference to gathering food, and Moses being addressed in the second person plural. Thus, vv. 27–30 is non-P. Against some scholars (like Noth) who argue that v. 27 belongs to vv. 22–26 (P), he argues that the statement ‫ַו ְיהִ י בַ יֹום הַ ְשבִ יעִ י‬ in v. 27 marks a clear resumption of an account of the seventh day. He points out, however, that syntactically analysed, the words ‫ַעד־אָ נָה מֵ אַ ְנתֶ ם לִ ְש ֹמר ִמצְ ֹותַ י‬ ‫ וְ תֹורֹ תָ י‬in v. 28b fits poorly in the divine speech, and reflects P concerns as reported in vv. 25–26. It is thus an inserted P clause. As such, vv. 27–30 is not a reprimand but a clarification. Also, the words ‫תֹור ִתי ִאם־ל ֹא‬ ָ ְ‫ לְ מַ ַען ֲאנַסֶ ּנּו ֲה ֵילְֵך ב‬in verse 4b should be considered as belonging to the same editorial layer as v. 28b. This test-remark appears to interrupt the flow of vv. 4–5, and is often considered a Dtr addition. However, since the idea of this test coincides well with the Priestly editor’s material, it is preferable to attribute it to P. Further, against the position that v. 31 is non-P, he argues that the naming of the food happened only in v. 31. After the question ‫ מָ ן הּוא‬in v. 15, the food is referred to as a nameless “it” (vv. 16.19.20.24.25) until it is named in v. 31. Again, Frankel points out that v. 21 in which the manna melts under the heat of the sun (contra the more durable and “cookable” manna of v. 23 – P), does not follow smoothly from vv. 19–20 and appears superfluous in its present context. It should thus be attributed to non-P. The non-priestly material in Ex 16 forms a narrative. It begins in vv. 4–5, a cryptic divine communication in which YHWH informs Moses that he will rain down food from heaven for the Israelites, with instructions on its collection. The story continues in v. 21 which relates that the Israelites indeed gathered the food daily as commanded in v. 4, and that it was gathered in the morning before it melted in the sun. And in v. 27, the events of the seventh day unfold, clarifying why a double gathering was instructed on the sixth day. The story concludes in v. 30 with the people’s observance of the Sabbath rest. This conclusion brings out the main point of the story as well. Through the instructions related to the food from heaven, God introduced the Sabbath rest to Israel. While P “anchors the Sabbath in the Divine-cosmic realm,” the non-P “anchors it in the realm of national history.”33 And there is no test in the non-P story. Again, that this story does not describe the ‫ לֶחֶ ם‬is an indication that its chief interest lies in introduction of the Sabbath to Israel. But the earliest form of the tradition simply recounted the provision of food. The non-P story then

32 33

Cf. D. FRANKEL, The Murmuring Stories, 68–73. D. FRANKEL, The Murmuring Stories, 81.

76

Chapter II: Unity in Complexity

developed this ancient tradition to serve a new function. It is thus reasonable to assume that the non-P narrative is a late development.34 Frankel observes that, while much of the P material in Ex 16 expands the non-P story, there is also a part of it that does not. This part represents an early, independent, P story. The late P layer comes from an editor who combined early P and non-P stories, adding significant expansions. And he embarks upon distilling the early P stratum from the later P. For him, it is observable that vv. 6–10a is composite. In vv. 6–7, Moses addresses the people together with Aaron, but in v. 9, he instructs Aaron to speak to the Israelites alone. Again, v. 9 appears to be Moses’ initial reaction to the people’s complaint. And Aaron’s words to the people: “Come before YHWH for he has heard your complaint” appear superfluous following the speech of vv. 6–7. And so, since vv. 6–7 logically continues vv. 4–5 (non-P), they belong to the later P layer. Going further, v. 14b continues v. 10a, and thus continues the early P story till v. 15a. But v. 15b does not flow well from v. 15a, but rather identifies the manna with the ‫ לֶחֶ ם‬of vv. 4–5 (non-P). Again, vv. 16–20 is a direct continuation of vv. 15b and anticipates v. 21, thus non-P. Also, vv. 22–26 anticipate the non-priestly material in verses 27–30 and builds on vv. 15b–20. It thus belongs to the same later P layer. Furthermore, v. 31 follows v. 30 poorly. It uses the pronoun “it” to refer to the manna which does not appear in v. 30. It logically follows from vv. 14–15a, a continuation of the name aetiology started in verse l5a (cf. Gen 32,3). The section, vv. 32–34, also appears composite. In v. 32 Moses informs the people of a divine command, that an omer of manna is to be preserved for the future generations. And in v. 33, he commands Aaron to preserve an omer of manna in a jar before the Lord. Thus, this command is given twice, the first with an explanation, and the second without an explanation. This repetition is uncalled for, as the command is meant for Aaron alone. Surprisingly, Aaron who is to carry out the command gets no explanation for the act. It could be observed that v. 33 stands well independently, and follows v. 31 smoothly (‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬is a later addition in v. 33). It also parallels v. 9 which is of the early P stratum. Hence, v. 32 belongs to the later P while v. 33 belongs to the early P stratum. The introduction of v. 32 was made to explain the significance of preserving the manna. The early story concludes with v. 35a (vv. 35b and 36 are later additions). But where does this story actually begin? The secondary nature of vv. 6–7 raises suspicions about v. 3, to which it is quite related thematically. That vv. 6–7 belongs to the later layer suggests that v. 3 belongs there too. Also, v. 3 does not follow smoothly from v. 2. It begins with ‫ֹאמרּו ֲאלֵהֶ ם בְ נֵי ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬ ְ ‫ וַי‬which repeats the subject ‫ בְ ֵני ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬that already occurs in v. 2, creating a somewhat overloaded sentence. V. 2 stands perfectly on its own. Here, the people 34

Cf. D. FRANKEL, The Murmuring Stories, 73–82.

2. Reactions to Textual Complexities

77

complain, but there is nothing “negative” in this complaint. They rather justly express a hard situation. And this connects smoothly with the intervention in v. 9 (early P). V. 1 is obviously editorial, functioning to site this event in the macronarrative of Exodus by giving it a precise location and date. In all, the early P story is found in vv. 2.9–l0a.14b–l5a.31.33.34–35a. The Sabbath is not mentioned here, the presence of the Tent of Meeting is assumed, and it exhibits no knowledge of the non-P. Later, a P editor combined it with the non-P story and expanded it to create almost the present narrative. He highlights the vindication of the divine authority of the Moses/Aaron, Israelites’ stubbornness, and most significantly the Sabbath motif. Finally, a late “supplementer,” who knew the tradition of the meat provision, saw the narrative as incomplete inserted the provision of quails (vv. 8.10b–14a, and parts of vv. 3.7) into the already developed narrative.35 In a later publication, tracing the Priestly conception of the Sabbath in this chapter, D. Frankel arrives at the conclusion that the Priestly writer built his Sabbath narrative on and around an already existing non-P material. As such, one finds two levels of the concept of the Sabbath in this pericope. The earlier concept is not linked to the sanctification of Israel or the creation of heaven and earth, neither does it reflect God’s eternal covenant with Israel. This reflects the concept of the Sabbath in the non-Priestly sources (cf. Ex 23,12; 34,21). But the later (P) concept of the Sabbath aligns Israelites’ rhythm of working for six days and refraining from it every seventh day to YHWH’s work cycle. By so doing, the Israelite becomes, so to speak, God’s partner or coworker. Frankel observes, however, that these concepts are so deeply intertwined in Ex 16 that it becomes necessary to analyse of the entire chapter as an integrated and literary whole.36 One cannot but appreciate Frankel’s painstaking contribution towards the resolution of the difficulties found in the current text of Ex 16. His submission that the present narrative developed in stages is a great contribution to understanding the tensions in the text. However, Frankel’s arguments in his distinction of the different stages (and sources) of the text are sometimes not quite convincing. For instance, his denial of Dtr influences in the entire text, in spite of the obvious Dtr language detectable therein, is perplexing. Again, his division of vv. 9–12 into different strata of composition, which forms a primary basis of his entire argument, is not very persuasive. Furthermore, his argument that the early P stratum of the narrative assumes the presence of the sanctuary is hardly convincing. And his ascription of v. 33 to the early P stratum raises questions. This verse reflects characteristics of a later addition. And so, assessing the many intricacies in Frankel’s analysis, one cannot but agree with

35 36

D. FRANKEL, The Murmuring Stories, 82–117. D. FRANKEL, “The Priestly Conception”, 218–227.

78

Chapter II: Unity in Complexity

his later submission that the best approach of analysis would be to study the chapter as an integrated and literary whole.37 2.6 General Observations It is clear from the above considerations Ex 16 is a particularly difficult text, for which many scholars adjudge it as composite and difficult to read as a narrative. In the words of S.A. Geller, Ex 16 “has the characteristics of a narrative that has been cobbled together from different sources.”1 And with such a concept of the text, the major (and almost exclusive) approach to studying has been the historical-critical approach (source/redaction criticism). Though scholars broadly agree that Ex 16 is a composite text, the attempts to resolve the complexities in the text tend towards no agreement. Each illustration above portrays a logical line of thought, but the submissions of scholars do not tally. The attribution of a particular section to different sources by different scholars, each one backing his submission with a coherent logic, is an indicator that we may never arrive with certainty at the original sources of the narrative. It is noticeable that, directly or indirectly influenced by the tenets of the documentary hypothesis, the scholars tend to limit the sources of the narrative to J(E), P, and Dtr. But taking these analyses together, it seems more likely that the sources of this narrative, in the figurative expression of Alexander Rofé, “were forty in number than four.”2 The above attempts have been dedicated mostly to tracing the sources and path of development of the text. But the lack of consensus in the terminus ad quem of the different scholars, in spite of the apparent consistency of each individual’s exposé, suggests the need for a different approach in resolving the complexities in the text. This approach would recognise both the diversity of the sources in the narrative and the freedom of the redactor to compose the narrative from these sources. It is the thesis of this work that these sources – written and oral – represent the collective memory of the people. Thus, considered from the social memory Standpunkt, it appears that there was a basic story of the manna/Sabbath (Grundschrift) known to the people. At the exilic period, the instrumentality of the Sabbath as an identity-defining practice for the Israelites informed its highlighted emphasis in the people’s collective memory, and this gets reflected in the text. Now, as the acceptability of the presented narrative as “our story” depends on how much it is perceived as representing “our past,” the biblical narrator had the task of presenting a narrative which represents the people’s accepted memory of their past while responding to current realities. To establish this submission, an important step is to understand the dynamics of the pericope as a narrative. To this task we now turn. 37

Cf. D. FRANKEL, “The Priestly Conception”, 212. S.A. GELLER, “Manna and Sabbath”, 7; emphasis mine. 2 A. ROFÉ, Introduction to the Literature, 95. 1

3. From Historical to Narrative Criticism

79

3. From Historical to Narrative Criticism In spite of the complexities noticeable in the text of Ex 16, W.H.C. Propp, who has contributed influentially to the source/redaction analysis of this narrative, admits: “Unaware of the Documentary Hypothesis, we would probably not suspect multiple hands in chap. 16.”3 This is an admission that Ex 16 is a wellcrafted narrative unit, and can be studied as such. In spite of the many difficulties pointed out by different scholars, it is possible to appreciate this text as a narrative unit, skilfully woven by the author who adeptly developed its plot in such a way as to produce determined effects on the reader. It is pertinent to point out here that there have been a few attempts to apply a basically narrative approach to the study of Ex 16.4 In undertaking this, these scholars do not shy away from the literary difficulties arising from the text, especially as regards sequencing and repetitions. Rather they search for the purposes of such “difficulties” within the plot of the narrative in its present form.5 On the sequencing of vv. 1–12, for instance, John Durham submits: “As in so many instances in the compiled narrative literature of the OT, purpose takes precedence over logic, and emphasis overrides considerations of sequence.”6 In order to appreciate better the narrative-critical approach to the analysis of the Manna-Erzählung in Ex 16, a brief exposition of some basic tenets and techniques of this exegetical method is apt at this point. 3.1 Narrative Criticism: Basic Tenets and Techniques In historical criticism, as aptly observed by Powell, texts are taken as the final form of a process that has come through diverse sequential stages. “The task of interpretation, therefore, involves an analytical process that seeks to identify 3

W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 590. Coats also admits such in his assertion that the narrative, in its present shape, stands together as a unit. He notes, however, that “a distinct disunity pervades the entire scope of the chapter” which he attributes to a combination of complex traditions and source complexities. Cf. G.W. COATS, Exodus 1–18, 127. 4 Among the works that have analysed Ex 16 with a narrative-critical approach to are: H. GALBIATI, La Stuttura Letteraria, 164–175; B.J. MALINA, The Palestine Manna Tradition, 1–20; C.D. KUPFER, Mit Israel auf dem Weg, 55–77. The recent work of Kupfer is particularly commendable here, in his application of the reader-oriented approach to the study of the narrative. Some commentaries on Exodus also focus attention on the text in its final form, and thus study Ex 16 basically as a narrative. These include: U. CASSUTO, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, 186–187; J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 215–228; M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 298– 313; B. JACOB, The Second Book, 439–475. 5 In the words of Sternberg, “our primary business as readers is to make purposive sense of [the Bible], so as to explain the what’s and how’s in terms of the why’s of communication.” M. STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 1. 6 J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 218.

80

Chapter II: Unity in Complexity

these stages and to work backward through them in reconstructing a hypothetical pattern of the text’s origins” 7. Narrative criticism, on the other hand, [F]ocuses on how biblical literature works as literature. The “what” of a text (its content) and the “how” of a text (its rhetoric and structure) are analyzed as a complete tapestry, an organic whole. Narrative critics are primarily concerned with the literariness of biblical narratives – that is, the qualities that make them literature. Form and content are regarded as indissoluble whole. Narrative criticism… [focuses on] the way a text communicates meaning as a self-contained unit, a literary artefact, an undivided whole. 8

This description hints also at the close relationship between narrative criticism and rhetorical criticism, which is “viewed as a pragmatic approach to literature that focuses on the means through which a work achieves a particular effect on its reader.”9 Powell explains further that both narrative criticism and rhetorical criticism are “interested in discerning the effect that a work has on its reader and in explicating why it has this effect. Narrative criticism, however, employs a concept of the reader that makes it a more text-centred approach.”10 3.1.1 The Narrative Plot Narrative criticism emphasises the unity of the text as a complete narrative. A narrative unit presents a coherent plot that runs from the beginning to the end. The plot of a narrative, in the description of Bar-Efrat, [C]onsists of an organised and orderly system of events, arranged in temporal sequence…. [It] is constructed as a meaningful chain of interconnected events. This is achieved by careful selection, entailing the omission of any incident which does not fit in logically with the planned development of the plot.11

The narrative plot does not just connect events. Rather it “serves to organise events in such a way as to arouse the reader’s interest and emotional involvement, while at the same time imbuing the events with meaning.”12 It typically consists of an exposition, a complication, its resolution, and the epilogue.13 The plot of a narrative can be unified or episodic. In a unified plot, “all the episodes are relevant to the narrative and have a bearing on the outcome of the events recounted. Every episode supposes what precedes and prepares for what follows”; while in an episodic plot, “the order of episodes can be changed…,

7

M.A. POWELL, What is Narrative Criticism, 9. J.L. RESSEGUIE, Narrative Criticism, 18–19. 9 M.A. POWELL, What is Narrative Criticism, 14. 10 M.A. POWELL, What is Narrative Criticism, 15. 11 S. BAR-EFRAT, Narrative Art in the Bible, 93. Aristotle simply states: “The ordered arrangement of incidents is what I mean by plot.” ARISTOTLE, Poetics, 6. 12 S. BAR-EFRAT, Narrative Art in the Bible, 93. 13 On the order: esposizione – complicazione – scioglimento – epilogo, see J.-P. SONNET, “L’analisi narrativa”, 56–57. Cf. also S. BAR-EFRAT, Narrative Art, 111–131. 8

3. From Historical to Narrative Criticism

81

every episode is a unit in itself and does not require the clear and complete knowledge of the former episodes to be understood.”14 It will be demonstrated below that Ex 16 presents a unified narrative plot. In order to establish the unity and coherence of a text, narrative criticism employs the technique of close reading: “the detailed analysis of the complex interrelations and ambiguities (multiple meanings) of the verbal and figurative components within a work.”15 It involves “the painstaking analysis of the nuances, ambiguities of words, images, metaphors, and small units of a text.”16 Furthermore, for the purposes of this work, some rhetorical strategies which apply conspicuously in Ex 16, and are often regarded as difficulties in the text, are considered here: repetitions, gaps, and the narrative techniques of suspense, curiosity, and surprise. 3.1.2 Repetition To the modern reader, repetitions in the Bible appear redundant, disturbing the flow of the narrative.17 In the words of R. Alter, repetition is probably “the feature of biblical narrative that looks most ‘primitive’ to the casual modern eyes, reflecting, we may imagine, a mentality alien to our own and a radically different approach to ordering experience from the ones familiar to us’.18 He clarifies further: [T]he composite texts of the Bible sometimes confront us with discontinuities, duplications, and contradictions that cannot be so readily accommodated to our own assumptions about literary unity. [But] the biblical writers and redactors had certain notions of unity rather different from our own, and the fullness of statement they aspired to achieve as writers in fact led them at times to violate what a later age and culture would be disposed to think of as canons of unity and logical coherence.19

In the Bible, repetitions perform specific functions, advertently intended by the narrator. “Granting the profusion of variants that went into making the Bible,” Sternberg submits, “the fact remains that the finished discourse never introduces them as variants but rather strings them together into a continuous action.”20 As such, placed under scrutiny, “most instances of repetition prove to be quite purposeful, and this would include repetition not only of relatively brief statements but… of whole episodes presumably compiled from parallel 14

J.-L. SKA, Our Fathers Have Told Us, 17. M.H. ABRAMS, A Glossary of Literary Terms, 151. 16 J.L. RESSEGUIE, Narrative Criticism, 23–24. 17 Noteworthy is that patterns of repetition in the Hebrew Bible involve Leitwort, motif, theme, sequence of actions, or type-scene. For further explanations, see R. ALTER, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 119–121; J.L. RESSEGUIE, Narrative Criticism, 42–54. 18 R. ALTER, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 111. 19 R. ALTER, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 165. 20 M. STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 127; emphasis original. 15

82

Chapter II: Unity in Complexity

traditions.”21 This implies that what we often regard as redundancies in the Bible are actually “deliberate and functional; in fact, no redundancy at all .”22 One important function of repetition in narratives is its use to provide emphasis. The art of repetition “adds force and clarity to a statement or motif.”23 In biblical literature, it “helps identify the norms, values, beliefs, and point of view that the narrator considers important.”24 Repetition is also a powerful tool of characterisation in the Hebrew Bible. “The effectiveness of composite narrative as a purposeful technique,” Alter observes, “is even more vividly evident when the primary aim is the presentation of character.”25 More still, the technique of repetition is employed in biblical narratives to perform other significant functions in the development of the narrative plot. Here, “the slightest strategic variations in the pattern of repetitions could serve the purposes of commentary, analysis, foreshadowing, thematic assertion, with a wonderful combination of subtle understatement and dramatic force.”26 We shall discover, subsequently, that the repetitions in Ex 16 are advertently employed to serve these diverse functions. 3.1.3 Gaps The literary work that makes up the Bible, Sternberg explains, “consists of bits and fragments to be linked and pieced together in the process of reading: it establishes a system of gaps that must be filled in.”27 But what precisely is a gap? Sternberg explicates further: A gap is a lack of information about the world – an event, motive, causal link, character trait, plot structure, law of probability – contrived by a temporal displacement. What happened (or existed) at a certain temporal point in the world may be communicated in the discourse at a point earlier or later, or for that matter not at all.28

Gaps therefore “result from a chronological twisting whereby the order of presentation does not conform to the order of occurrence” 29. Sternberg builds his description of gaps on his submission that the chief strategy employed in the composition of the Bible is the manoeuvre “between the truth and the whole truth.”30 The biblical narrator is omniscient but not omni-communicative. This implies that “as an inspired omniscient, he has access to a whole range of 21

R. ALTER, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 112. M. STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 369. 23 C.H. HOLMAN, A Handbook to Literature, 376. 24 J.L. RESSEGUIE, Narrative Criticism, 42. 25 R. ALTER, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 183. 26 R. ALTER, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 115. 27 M. STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 186. 28 M. STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 235. 29 M. STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 235. 30 Cf. M. STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 230. 22

3. From Historical to Narrative Criticism

83

information that remains closed to the unprivileged audience unless and until he pleases to disclose it.”31 This technique is significantly applied in the narrative of Ex 16, especially in vv. 1–12. And this forms one of the major reasons why the text is considered difficult. But the use of gaps forms part of the techniques employed by the narrator to sustain the interest of the reader, and get him more involved in the act of reading. Wolfgang Iser terms this “the game of imagination” played by both the narrator and the reader.32 “The gaps function as a kind of pivot on which the whole text-reader relationship revolves” 33. Gaps therefore open up a communication between the narrator and the reader. In filling gaps, however, the reader does not operate arbitrarily. His interpretation is shaped by the context created by the text.34 In addition, Sternberg clarifies that among the functions of ambiguity in biblical narratives, “the most basic consist in the manipulation of narrative interest: curiosity, suspense, surprise.”35 The manipulation of these narrative universals manifests the narrator’s skills as a story-teller. As this is applicable to the Manna-Erzählung of Ex 16, a brief exposition of these universals is pertinent at this point. 3.1.4 Suspense, Curiosity, Surprise Suspense arises from the difference between what is already given in the narrative, what is, and what is yet to happen.36 It “derives from incomplete knowledge about a conflict (or some other contingency) looming in the future. Located at some point in the present, we know enough to expect a struggle but not to predict its course, and above all its outcome, with certitude.”37 In this case, the suspense gap fills the reader with “expectant restlessness”, and he is propelled to read on with particular attention until the ambiguity is definitely resolved. Sternberg remarks that often, the reader has a stake in the undetermined event. In such situation, “the play of expectations then escalates into a clash of hope and fear, which engenders the sharpest form of suspense, because these rival hypotheses about the outcome are both loaded (hope with a positive charge, fear with a negative) and mutually exclusive.”38

31

M. STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 261. Cf. W. ISER, The Act of Reading, 108. 33 W. ISER, The Act of Reading, 169. 34 Cf. M. STERNBERG, The Poetics, 188; W. ISER, The Act of Reading, 21. 35 M. STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 259. 36 Cf. J.-P. SONNET, “L’analisi narrativa”, 65. 37 M. STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 264. For a detailed treatment of these three narrative dynamics, see 264–320. 38 M. STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 264. 32

84

Chapter II: Unity in Complexity

The dynamics of the technique of curiosity is similar to that of suspense, but the two differ in with regard to their perspectives. “Both are interests that derive from a felt lack of information about the world…. Unlike suspense, however, curiosity bears on things past relative to the moment of their becoming of interest”39. With regard to curiosity, an element of the past, which has already played some part in determining the present, escapes the reader because the narrator has chosen to bypass it in silence. And, as Sonnet points out, curiosity is strictly a special component in the Bible in that the divine design underlies all history, and offers itself to the reader as an element to decipher and recognise (cf. for e.g., Gen 50,20).40 With the technique of surprise, the narrator “unseats” the reader with a revelation about issues which he considers as concluded, which obliges him to review such issues completely.41 In doing this, the narrator, “catching the reader off-guard due to a false impression given earlier, brings all the pleasures of the unexpected as the elements spring into new shape” 42. Noteworthy here is that while suspense and curiosity “are active interests, generated and sustained by felt discontinuities that interpretation does its best to repair,” the technique of surprise “depends on the reader’s being lured into a false certitude of knowledge.”43 The application of these three narrative universals in the unfolding of the story of Ex 16 will be detected and analysed at the close reading of the text. 3.2 Exodus 16 as a Narrative Unit Having exposed some of the basic tenets of narrative criticism, but also bearing in mind the “composite” nature of Ex 16, it is pertinent to ask at this juncture: Is it sustainable that Ex 16 presents a literary unity with a thread holding it together? In other words, does this narrative present a plot that unfolds systematically from the beginning to the end? To justifiably answer this in the positive, we shall at this point delineate the unit, outline its plot and structure, and identify the dynamics operative within the narrative. 3.2.1 Text Delimitation The narrative unit of Ex 16 is delineated from the preceding pericope (Ex 15,22–27) by a change in locus. In Ex 15,27, the Israelites camp by the twelve springs in Elim, where they have some respite: ‫ ַו ַיחֲנּו־שָ ם ַעל־הַ מָ ִים‬...‫ ַו ָי ֹבאּו אֵ ילִ מָ ה‬. In Ex 16,1, they depart from Elim and come to the wilderness of Sin : ‫ַו ִיסְ עּו מֵ אֵ ילִ ם‬

39

M. STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 283. Cf. J.-P. SONNET, “L’analisi narrativa”, 66. 41 Cf. J.-P. SONNET, “L’analisi narrativa”, 66. 42 M. STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 259. 43 M. STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 309. 40

3. From Historical to Narrative Criticism

85

‫ל־מדְ בַ ר־סִ ין‬ ִ ֶ‫ ַו ָי ֹבאּו ָכל־עֲדַ ת בְ נֵי־יִ ְׂש ָראֵ ל א‬. This change of location is very significant here as it marks the beginning of a new experience, a new narrative unit. In the same vein, Ex 16 as a narrative unit is marked off from the subsequent pericope – Ex 17,1–7 – also by a change in locus. The entirety of the events of Exodus 16 happens in the wilderness of Sin “between Elim and Sinai” (v. 1), while in Ex 17,1, the Israelites leave the wilderness of Sin and arrive at Rephidim: ‫ ַו ַיחֲנּו בִ ְרפִ ידִ ים‬...‫ ַו ִיסְ עּו ָכל־עֲדַ ת בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל ִמ ִמ ְדבַ ר־סִ ין‬. At Rephidim, there is a new occurrence, a new narrative unit. It is clearly deducible from the above analysis that the narrative unit of Exodus 16 is collocated between ‫ל־מ ְדבַ ר־סִ ין‬ ִ ֶ‫( ַו ָי ֹבאּו כָל־עֲדַ ת בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל א‬Ex 16,1) and ‫( ַו ִיסְ עּו ָכל־עֲדַ ת בְ נֵי־יִ ְׂש ָראֵ ל ִמ ִמדְ בַ ר־סִ ין‬Ex 17,1). It recounts the events at the wilderness of Sin. Further to be noted is that it is within the context of the Israelites’ sojourn in the wilderness (Ex 15,22–18,27), between their liberation from Egypt (Ex 12,1–15,21) and their all-important encounter with YHWH at Sinai (Ex 19–40) that the narrative of the Manna-Erzählung (Ex 16) is collocated.44

3.2.2 The Plot of Exodus 16 Ex 16 presents a coherent narrative unit, with a narrative thread that runs from the beginning to the end – a unified plot. It begins with a clear exposition in v. 1 which provides the necessary spatiotemporal background against which the entire story is built. It recounts the departure of the ‫ בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬from the Elim to the wilderness of Sin, and gives the date of this arrival. It is here that the events of the narrative happened (vv. 2–30). This information, which links to the precedent events concerning the departure from Egypt, places the narrative within context. And the events at this locus are structured into three successive episodes and an expanded epilogue. In the plot of this narrative, complications set in from v. 2 and develop gradually in interconnected stages of progression until v. 30. The first episode, vv. 2–12, is built around the motifs of murmuring and divine intervention 45. In fact, the root ‫ לון‬forms an inclusio in this episode (vv.2.12) 46. In the first scene of the episode, vv. 2–3, because of the harsh conditions of the desert, the Israelites 44 We also note at this point, G. Fischer’s submission that the book of Exodus presents two principal images of God: God as liberator and God as lawgiver (Gott als Befreier und als Gesetzgeber). For him, these two images of YHWH derive from the two main parts of the book: 1–15,21 liberation from Egypt; 19–40 covenant/law at Sinai. The intermediary section between these two main parts: 15,22–18,27 forms a transitional unit, in which occurs some recurrence of the theme of the first part (Gott als Befreier) and an anticipation of the theme of the second part (Gott als Gesetzgeber). It is within this “transitional unit” that our pericope is collocated. Cf. G. FISCHER, Theologien des Alten Testaments, 29–37. 45 The root ‫ לון‬occurs 8x in this episode both in verbal and substantive forms; and the divine speech occurs twice here, in reaction to the people’s murmuring. 46 The motif of eating meat/bread also forms an inclusio in this episode: vv. 3.12.

86

Chapter II: Unity in Complexity

raise a bitter complaint against Moses and Aaron, accusing them of the plot to exterminate them by hunger in the wilderness, having lured them away from the life of abundance in Egypt. This complaint occasions the divine intervention of YHWH in vv. 4–5, who promises the people “bread from heaven”, but also hands down regulations on the collection of the food, so as to test their obedience. They are to collect enough for each day. But the sixth day receives a special regulation – a double portion will be collected on this day. The linking of the hunger/food motif to the motif of compliance to instructions is notable in this scene. The next scene, vv. 6–8, builds on this antecedent. Moses and Aaron deliver the message of YHWH’s intervention to the people. Two of them speak in vv. 6–7 in a figurative way, introducing the dynamics of evening-morning which is not found in the preceding divine speech. And in v. 8, and Moses takes up the address alone, making the message of YHWH more concrete to the people, but still repeating the evening-morning sequence. Again, in this scene, it is notably emphasised by Moses and Aaron that the murmurings of the Israelites are against YHWH, and not against them. But, looking critically at the content of the address in this scene, one wonders if the message relayed by the duo actually represents the words handed down by YHWH. This ambiguity is cleared in the theophany scene of vv. 9–12. Instructed to “turn towards the wilderness”, the people turn and behold the glory of YHWH ‫בֶ ָענָן‬. And from this theophanic cloud, YHWH speaks to Moses in words that confirm speech to the people in vv. 6–8. YHWH confirms that the people will eat meat in the evening and bread in the morning,47 and that through these acts of wonder, the people will come to know that he is YHWH their God. This scene divine of apparition functions as both the climax of this episode, and the dissolution of the complications therein. We find here both the resolution of the problem of hunger as bemoaned, and an element of revelation 48 – by feeding them, YHWH intends to bring them to a deeper knowledge of his identity. A new episode takes place in vv. 13–21, built around the fulfilment of the foregoing divine promise and the people’s reactions to given instructions. The first scene of this episode, vv. 13–15, recounts this fulfilment of promise – the appearance of meat and bread. Quails appear in the evening, and in the morning, a “fine flaky substance.” The Israelites, not knowing what it is, are astounded and ask: ‫מָ ן הּוא‬. And Moses explains that it is the promised divine gift (v.15; cf. vv. 4.8). It is fitting to note here that the appearance of food here provides a definite resolution to the complication of hunger vv. 2–3, and a subtle transition to the following events of the narrative. 47

The motif of evening-morning binds vv. 6–12 together. Citing the example of Ex 14,30–31, Sonnet (“L’analisi narrativa”, 57) points out that the phenomena of resolution and revelation are often combined in biblical narratives. This, he notes, is already indicated by Aristotle. Cf. ARISTOTLE, Poetics, 11. 48

3. From Historical to Narrative Criticism

87

Going further, the stress of the unfolding scenario now shifts to the instructions about the food which Moses gradually hands down to the people,49 and their reactions to them. In the following scene (vv. 16–18), the instruction concerns the amount of food to collect – an omer per head. And when they collect and measure it, they realise that, enigmatically, what each of them has collected corresponds to what each person needs. There is neither abundance nor lack. In the following scene (vv. 19–20), the unravelling of instruction continues, but there is a shift in the content – the people should not leave any of the food till the following morning. However, some of them do not give heed to this instruction. But what they keep till morning breeds worms. This disobedience brings about the annoyance of Moses, for those people have failed the divine test (cf. v. 4). But then, there comes the resolution of this complication which brings the episode to its culmination. The people comply to the divine command by gathering, morning by morning, as much as each person needs (v. 21). Some sort of recognition plays out here. The people did not know what the food was ab initio. Though Moses brought some clarification, they would come to discover through experience that this is a special food. To enjoy it, they have to keep to the given stipulations. The plot advances into issues concerning the Sabbath which constitute the next episode (vv. 22–30).50 This evolves in two scenes: events on the sixth day (vv. 22–24) and events on the seventh day (vv. 25–30). On the sixth day, the Israelites gather twice as much food, two omers per person (v. 22a). Though this links up to v. 5, it is not explicitly stated that Moses handed this instruction down to the people. This ambiguity prompts the leaders of the people to approach Moses for clarification. And he justifies the collection of the double portion, declaring that the following day is a holy Sabbath to YHWH, in which no one should go out to collect (vv. 22b–23). As such, part of what is collected on the sixth day should be kept for the seventh. On the seventh day, the kept-over food did not become foul, in contrast to v. 20. Moses then encourages them to eat it, and reaffirms the instructions about the Sabbath rest (vv. 24–25). But some people disobediently go out to collect without success (v. 27). And this draws a reaction of disappointment from YHWH who laments – “Until when will you refuse to keep my commandments and my instructions?” (v. 28) – and restates the Sabbath instructions (v. 29). At this juncture, the episode is brought to culmination with a resolution of the

49

The instructions are about gathering the manna, which links back to v. 4. And this motif binds vv. 16–21 together. The verb ‫לקט‬, which occurs 4x within these verses, also forms an inclusio here: vv. 16.21. 50 The Sabbath motif holds this episode together. The root ‫ שבת‬occurs 5x in the episode: vv. 23.25.26.29.30.

88

Chapter II: Unity in Complexity

complication: “And the people rested on the seventh day” (v. 30).51 This compliance brings the narration of the day-to-day gathering of the special food from heaven to a climactic end. It also signals the people’s recognition through the manna-experience that they depend on God for their survival and success. With the crescendo reached in v. 30, the plot enters the stage of epilogue (vv. 31–36). Here, there is a remarkable shift in the narrated time, from seven days (vv. 2–30) to the span of forty years. In first scene here, (v. 31), the people identify the food with a name manna, which harks back to the question ‫מָ ן הּוא‬ in v. 15. With this special name, the manna is recalled in the memory of the people as a special divine gift at the dire moment of need in the wilderness. In the next scene (vv. 32–34), Moses declares the divine command that an omer of manna – the measure of the food collected for a person per day – is to be kept before YHWH “throughout your generations”, as a perpetual memory of the divine sustenance of the people. As directed by Moses, a jar containing the omer of manna is placed by Aaron ‫לִ פְ נֵי הָ ֵעדֻת‬, a very significant act. The act is however proleptic. It is presented as having happened at this point when the Tabernacle is yet to be constructed in the narrative sequence of Exodus. It is clear that a future event is brought within the arc of this narrative, brought in by the narrator at this point for certain purposes.52 Finally, the epilogue concluded with two explanatory verses (vv. 35–36). The first verse reveals that the manna sustained the Israelites throughout the period of their forty-year sojourn in the wilderness, while the second describes the volume of an omer: one-tenth of an ephah. The above represents a clearly unified plot, knit together by the theme of YHWH’s wondrous act of provision of “heavenly” food for the Israelites in the wilderness. The evolvement of the narrative sequence presents a well-crafted progressive plot, evident also in the structure of the narrative presented here below. 3.2.3 Structure Setting v.1 A. vv.2–12 Complaint and Promise of Food vv.2–3 Complaint against Moses/Aaron vv.4–5 God’s Response: Promise of Food + General Instructions vv.6–8 Moses/Aaron Relay God’s promise to the People vv.9–12 Appearance of God’s glory + Confirmation of Promise B. vv.13–21 Fulfilment of Promise and People’s Reaction vv.13–14 Appearance of the Food 51 A broadly similar structural pattern is detectable in the two successive episodes – vv. 13–21 and 22–30. Both episodes advance thus: event – instruction – positive reaction – instruction – negative reaction – anger (Moses/YHWH) – compliance. 52 These purposes will be uncovered in the subsequent verse-to-verse analysis.

3. From Historical to Narrative Criticism

89

vv.15–16 Clarification of the Food and First Instruction (Quantity) vv.16–17 Reaction to First Instruction vv.19–20 Second Instruction (Duration) and People’s Reaction v.21 Resolution: The People’s Compliance C. vv.22–30 Sabbath Instructions and People’s Reaction vv.22–23 The Sixth day: Preparation for the Sabbath vv.24–30 The Seventh day vv.24–26 Positive Reaction + Instruction Reiterated vv.27–29 Negative Reaction + Divine Reprimand v.30 Resolution: The People’s Compliance Epilogue vv.31–34 Memorialisation of the Food v.31 Memorialisation by name vv.32–34 Memorialisation by preservation Postscript vv.35–36 The above diagrammatic presentation shows a progressive structure with a clear introduction and conclusion.53 The body of the narrative is articulately laid out in three sections, each of them ending with a climactic experience. The entire narrative culminates in a special epilogue – the preservation of the special bread from heaven ‫ לִ פְ נֵי ְיהוָה‬for an everlasting memory! 3.2.4 Dynamics in the Narrative This textual unit presents a general dynamic of complaint – divine intervention – instruction/people’s reaction – memorialisation.54 The thread of the narrative 53 The progressive character of this narrative is also attested in Kupfer’s structural analysis. For him, however, the narrative evolves in two major steps: crisis and announcement of YHWH’s gift that leads to knowledge (vv. 1–12); and the gift of the manna and the testing of Torah fidelity (vv. 13–36). Cf. C. KUPFER, Mit Israel, 55–56. Schart (Mose und Israel,124) distinguishes three great parts of the text: die Gabe des Manna (vv. 1–15); die Verteilung des Manna und der Sabbat (vv. 16–31); das Manna als Zeichen für die Zukunft (vv. 32–35); v. 36 is a clarification. Coats finds four principal “elements” in the plot after the itinerary formula in v. 1: meat and bread narration (vv. 2–12); instructions for gathering bread (vv. 13–30); aetiology for manna (v. 31); and instructions for preserving the manna (vv. 32–34). Then the conclusion follows in v. 35, a gloss in v. 36. Cf. G.W. COATS, Exodus 1–18, 125–128. Though these two latter structures are progressive, they tend to overlook the different moments in the narrative plot. Again, E. Galbiati (La stuttura letteraria, 164–175) divides the narrative into three sections: vv. 1–21; 22–30; 31–35(36), and argues for a concentric structure in each of the sections. However, the logic of his expositions is quite difficult to follow. 54 In the murmuring pericopes of Ex 14,10–30; 15,22–26; 17,1–7, there occurs the dynamics of complaint – Moses’ intercession – divine intervention. One remarkable difference here is that there is no memorialisation of the divine intervention. This is also the case in the murmuring stories of Num 11 and 14 in which, rather than memorialisation, the divine intervention is followed by punishment.

90

Chapter II: Unity in Complexity

moves from the people’s complaint about lack of food to the memorialisation of the food brought by God. The dynamics of this movement from “food-complaint” to “food-memorialisation” constitutes the major frame of the narrative. Again, the dynamics of the shift from the situation of hunger to the situation of sufficient food plays out strongly in this narrative. In v. 3, the people accuse Moses and Aaron of bringing them out of Egypt into the wilderness “to kill this whole assembly with hunger.” In v. 35, it is stated emphatically that the Israelites ate the manna for forty years until they reached an inhabited land, the Promised Land.55 We find here also the dynamics of the shift of the people’s attitude from negative to positive. From the murmuring of the people (vv. 2–3) to their not keeping the instructions about gathering the manna (vv. 16–29), the people exhibited an attitude of disregard to the divine. But from v. 30 to the end of the chapter, the attitude is depicted as submissive to divine instructions. The depiction of God’s enduring patience through this process is also noteworthy. The narrative unit therefore portrays the dynamics of a people who gradually, by divine guidance, turn from insolence into submission and obedience.56 Closely connected to this is the dynamics of divine test – people’s fallibility – closer relationship.57 YHWH’s intervention in the plight of the people comes with instructions in order to test them (vv. 4–5). The people fail the divine test (not just once), but God continues to instruct them until their acts attest t o a closer relationship with him. The process of this “bringing closer” through testing sustains the plot of this narrative. Also connected to the above is the dynamics of the movement of the people from ignorance to knowledge. The content of the murmuring of the Israelites smacks of ignorance.58 In his solemn proclamation in v. 12, on the other hand, God himself makes it clear that through his intervention, the people will come to know that he is YHWH their God. And the comportment of the people towards the end of the pericope attests to their having come to such realisation.

55

The motif of eating is a Leitmotiv in this narrative. In this chapter, the verb ‫ אכל‬occurs 9x. The only chapter that has more occurrences of this verb in the book of Exodus is, understandably, ch. 12 [18x], which recounts the institution of the Passover Seder. 56 On this, Coats comments: “Behind the murmuring patterns, one can still see a positive tradition about Yahweh’s aid to his people.” G.W. COATS, Exodus 1–18, 136. 57 Compare Ex 15,22–26, esp. the divine statement in v. 26; and Ex 20,20: “Do not be afraid; for God has come only to test you and to put the fear of him upon you so that you do not sin” (NRSV). On this, Houtman comments: “YHWH brings the people into a precarious situation so that he may learn if they are completely devoted to him and ready to obey him.” C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 307. 58 For instance, they refer to Moses and Aaron as the ones who brought them out from the land of Egypt (v. 3). In response, Moses and Aaron tell the people that they will come to know that it is YHWH who brought them out of Egypt.

3. From Historical to Narrative Criticism

91

As such, the plot of the story manifests the dynamics of moving from “not knowing” to “knowing” (realisation). Going further, it is noteworthy here that the dynamics at play in this narrative unit mirror the dynamics of the plot of the entire book of Exodus as a macronarrative unit. In the book of Exodus, we find the dynamics of the gradual (not linear!) shift of the people’s attitude from negative to positive. After witnessing the great wonder of their redemption for the cruelty of the Egyptians ‫בְ יַד־יְ הוָה‬, one would expect the Israelites to be submissive to God’s demands and to be exhibit trust in the face of difficulties. But this is not the case. They rather continue to disobey and to complain even after the ratification of the covenant (chs. 32–34, for e.g.). However, God continues to show them patience and understanding so as to bring them closer to him. Again, the dynamics of the movement from not knowing YHWH to knowing him, present in Ex 16, also plays out in the macronarrative of Exodus. At the beginning of the book of Exodus, the figure of Pharaoh depicts the nonknowledge of YHWH. And this “ignorance” leads to improper acts. Pharaoh becomes in the plot of the book a foil upon which the Israelites will come to know God.59 And then, at the end of the book, Bezalel and Oholiab are presented as figures that depict the possession of the knowledge of YHWH .60 And because they possess this knowledge, they could produce good works.61 These dynamics will be exposed in details in the thorough analysis of the narrative plot, through the close reading of this narrative. And this constitutes the next step of our inquiry. To this task, we now turn.

59 To Pharaoh’s outburst of not knowing YHWH (Ex 5), God declares to Moses that he will deliver the Israelites from the grip Pharaoh by a mighty hand, “and you shall know that I am YHWH your God” (Ex 6,7). 60 In Ex 36,1, Bezalel and Oholiab are tasked, with others who have the requisite knowledge and skill given by YHWH, to do the vital work of construction of the tabernacle. These figures are used as a counter to the figure of Pharaoh, who did not know YHWH, and therefore did not receive such inspiration to do good. 61 Based on these considerations, it would therefore not be wrong to describe Ex 16 as a microcosm of the macronarrative of the book of Exodus.

CHAPTER III

The Bread from Heaven The detailed analysis of Ex 16 begins in this chapter, and will be treated in sections, according to the structure presented in the preceding chapter. In this chapter, a close reading of the setting of the plot (v. 1), the people’s complaint and the divine promise of food (vv. 2–12), the fulfilment of promise and the people’s reaction (vv. 13–21) will be undertaken.

1. The Setting of the Plot (v. 1) The pericope begins with a wayyiqtol – ‫“( וַיִ סְ עּו‬and they set out”) which connects the narrative with the preceding narrative at the end of chapter 15,1 both syntactically and by content: Ex 15,27 (preceding verse) begins with the words: ‫ַו ָי ֹבאּו אֵ ילִ מָ ה‬ Ex 16,1 (beginning verse) begins with the words: ‫ַו ִיסְ עּו מֵ אֵ ילִ ם‬ Syntactically, by the successive use of wayyiqtol (and its subsequent recurrent use), this chapter continues the story of Israel’s wilderness journey from the end of chapter 15. As regards content, while 15,27 announces the arrival at Elim, 16,1 recounts the departure from there. This shift in location marks the continuation of a story – the pre-Sinai Wüstenwanderung of the Israelites. This first verse constitutes the exposition of the narrative plot.2 It clarifies the background of the narrative unit, but also subtly chips in some notes that, from the outset, create discreet impressions on the reader. The next clause ‫ַו ָי ֹבאּו‬ ‫ר־סין‬ ִ ַ‫ל־מדְ ב‬ ִ ֶ‫“( ָכל־עֲדַ ת בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל א‬and the whole congregation of the Israelites came to the wilderness of Sin”) does not just announce the arrival of the Israelites at the wilderness of Sin. Rather, by the use of the expression ‫ כָל־עֲדַ ת בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬here, the narrative highlights the involvement of the entire people of Israel in this shift of scenario. The use of the term ‫ ֵעדָ ה‬here has been interpreted in some 1 The entire narrative of Ex 16 unfolds in a succession of wayyiqtol until v. 34. The final two verses, vv. 35–36, do not follow this narrative sequence. They constitute an explanatory postscript. 2 As S. Bar-Efrat aptly explains, exposition in biblical narratives “serves as an introduction to the action described in the narrative, supplying the background information, introducing the characters… and providing the other details needed for understanding the story.” S. BAR-EFRAT, Narrative Art in the Bible, 111.

1. The Setting of the Plot

93

quarters as indicating the cultic character of this pericope,3 a cultic situation from which important divine regulations emanate.4 This submission is based on the argument that the construct ‫ עֲדַ ת ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬occurs mostly in cultic settings in Exodus (15x). Before Ex 16, it occurs only in Ex 12 (4x), at the institution of the Passover feast. Its occurrence at this point thus makes this pericope comparable to the cultic scenario of the Passover. Though this appears tenable, more considerations are necessary here. In the Hebrew Bible, the term is used both in cultic settings (cf. Ex 12,6.47; 1Kgs 8,5) and in non-cultic settings (cf. Ex 17,1; Jdg 21,10.13.16). But one common denominator in all its uses is that it is used to lay particular emphasis on remarkable issues that involve the whole of Israel as a community.5 Levy and Milgrom corroborate this in the assertion that in the Hebrew Bible, this term refers to “a general assembly; the popular, legal, and cultic community or congregation.”6 The use of ‫ כָל־עֲדַ ת‬here thus indicates that whatsoever unfolds in this narrative would impact on the history of the Israelites as a nation, as an entity, as a people. Further, the disclosure of the arrival at the wilderness of Sin provides the spatial setting for the following narrative. The entire events of this narrative are collocated in this wilderness. The wilderness is a crucial locus in Israel’s constitutive events recounted in the book of Exodus.1 The ‫ ִמדְ בַ ר‬has a symbolic significance for the Israelites. Generally, the wilderness symbolises adversity, desolation and lifelessness (cf. Isa, 27,20; Jer 2,6; etc.). And one can imagine here that, for the real audience of this narrative, the harsh conditions of the ‫ – ִמדְ בַ ר יְ הּודָ ה‬to which they were acquainted – adds vividness to the story. In the theology of the Hebrew Bible, this desolate area is portrayed as “yet in the primeval state of chaos (Dt 32,10) or was reduced again to such chaos as divine 3

Cf. M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 303. Cf. C.D. KUPFER, Mit Israel, 58. 5 Thus, as Houtman (Exodus, II, 168) notes, the term ‫ ֵעדָ ה‬is used in Exodus “as designation for the people of Israel as a juridical and cultic community held together by a common bond with YHWH.” In this pericope, there is nothing particularly cultic about the situation in 16,1–2 (just as in the Wegnotiz of 17,1). Such can be sustained for the occurrences in vv. 9– 10. It thus seems more probable that the expression ‫ כָל־עֲדַ ת בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬is employed here by the narrator to highlight the involvement of the whole Israel as a “bonded” people in the important events of Ex 16. 6 D. LEVY / J. MILGROM, “‫” ֵעדָ ה‬, TDOT, X, 470. 1 In its 25x in this book, the ‫ ִמ ְדבַ ר‬is heavily linked to the salvation of the people. Its first occurrence in 3,1 introduces the burning-bush experience in which YHWH reveals to Moses his salvation plans for his people. The last occurrence in 23,31 is in the context of YHWH’s promise of the conquest of Canaan. And, most significantly, the covenant between God and the Israelites is ratified at the ‫מ ְדבַ ר ִסינָי‬. ִ Thus, the wilderness event of Ex 16 could be interpreted against the backdrop of the YHWH’s gratuitous salvific acts for his people. For further reading on the wilderness in Exodus/Pentateuch, see W.W. LEE, “The Concept of the Wilderness”, 1–16; R. ALBERTZ, “Wilderness Material in Exodus”, 151–168; C. THOMAS / X. LEON-DUFOUR, “Desert”, 121–122. 4

94

Chapter III: The Bread from Heaven

punishment for human transgressions (Isa 64,9[10]; Jer 22,6).”2 The passage through the desert therefore signifies victory over adverse forces (cf. Ps 68,8 – 9[7–8]; 136,13–16). Specifically, in the collective memory of Israel as a people, the sojourn in the wilderness which includes God’s miracles for the people and the ratification of the covenant on the one hand, and the people’s doubt, apostasy and rebellion on the other hand, calls to mind the plan of God for his people and the triumph of God’s merciful faithfulness.3 In sum, the wilderness “symbolises passage from a negative pole (bondage, exile) to a positive one (promised land).”4 In the flow of the narrative, the arrival of the ‫ בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬at the wilderness implies that the brief respite at the oasis at Elim has become a thing of the past. To “arrive” at the wilderness of Sin implies to face a new reality, the harsh reality of the adverse conditions of the desert. It is within the circumstances of this “new reality” that the narrative unfolds. The story continues with the stipulation of the exact location of the wilderness of Sin within the desert area: ‫“( בֵ ין־אֵ ילִ ם ּובֵ ין סִ ינָי‬between Elim and Sinai”). This has triggered a lot of researches and debates in biblical and archaeological circles. The details of this intellectual engagement are beyond the scope of this piece.5 It is fit to point out here, however, that no one has been able to successfully demonstrate the actual locus of Sin in the Sinai Peninsula.6 The record of the wilderness itinerary of the Israelites in Num 33 also complicates issues for

2

S. TALMON, “‫”מ ְדבַ ר‬, ִ TDOT, VIII, 91. Cf. Cf. C. THOMAS / X. LEON-DUFOUR, “Desert”, 122; see also R.P. CARROLL, “Rebellion and Dissent”, 176–204. 4 S. TALMON, “‫”מ ְדבַ ר‬, ִ TDOT, VIII, 111. 5 Reporting his archaeological expedition in this region, Y. Aharoni points out that five biblical names are given to the area currently regarded as the Sinai Peninsula: the Wildernesses of Zin, Paran, Shur, Sin, and Sinai. Cf. Y. AHARONI, God’s Wilderness, 143–144. Attempts to delineate these loci have proved abortive till date. In his own review of the archaeological inquiry into the wilderness itinerary of the Israelites, G.I. Davies (“The Wilderness Itineraries”, 175) recommends the distinction of the documents that belong to the epoch of the Exodus (if any) from the documents which only reflect later conceptions of the wilderness route. And for J.I. Durham (Exodus, 281), “the varied and sometimes apparently conflicting information about Israel’s wilderness travels must be understood as the result of an attempt to combine into a single route the traditions of the separate travels of a number of tribal groups.” The above submissions strongly suggest that our text reflects later conceptions of the wilderness route. It represents the collective memory of the people on the desert wanderings of their ancestors at the nascent period of Israel as a nation. 6 At the literary level, many biblical scholars find a connection between Sin and Sinai (cf. M. NOTH, Exodus, 133; J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 216; W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 592). But such etymological affinity does not amount to sameness (contra Noth who regards the distinction between Sin and Sinai as “purely artificial”). In the Pentateuch, these two loci are presented as clearly distinct places. 3

1. The Setting of the Plot

95

this research, as it presents a different itinerary sequence.7 In all, the important relevant question for us here remains: Why does the narrator insist on giving the exact location of the Sin at the outset of this narrative? What purpose does it serve? Quite tenable here is the observation of Fischer and Markl that the term Sin sounds like Sinai and thus prepares for it.8 That this is the first occurrence of the term – Sinai – in the Hebrew Bible also lends credence to this submission. All the more, over and above the scholarly suggestions that the narrator, in specifying this location, was only representing an inherited tradition or manifesting his concern for “history” writing,9 it appears more probable that the narrator was setting his story within a concrete location, to confer on it some mark of legitimacy and credibility. He demonstrates that this narrative is not a fairy tale,10 but rather recounts of the concrete experiences of “our fathers” in the wilderness, a narrative to which “we” are connected.11 Such mindset drives also the narrator’s provision of the temporal setting of this Erzählung. It is noted that the ‫ בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬came to the wilderness of Sin precisely on the fifteenth day of the second month after their departure from Egypt. To be noted is that there are two possibilities on the meaning of this assertion. First, in relation to Ex 12,6 and 13,4, it implies exactly a month after the Israelites left Egypt, as they left on the fifteenth of the first month.12 On the other hand, it could also imply the fifteenth of the second month, counting from the

7 According to Num 33,8–15, the itinerary of the Israelites coming from Egypt and having crossed the sea is as follows: wilderness of Etham (camped at Marah) – Elim – Sea of Reeds – wilderness of Sin – Dophkah – Alush – Rephidim – wilderness of Sinai. 8 Cf. G. FISCHER / D. MARKL, Das Buch Exodus, 182. Similar views are also expressed by C. Dohmen (Exodus 1–18, 383) and C. Kupfer (Mit Israel,58). 9 Cf. B.S. CHILDS, The Book of Exodus, 284. Childs suggests a theological motive here, pointing out that the biblical writer “never tires of stressing the point that God led Israel through the wilderness. Israel did not just find its way.” Priotto (Esodo, 303) sees also a theological motive for the itinerary notice, but holds that the dating is liturgical. For Noth (Exodus, 133), the details about the stopping place and exact dating of this event is simply characteristic of P, representing what “he frequently does in the ensuing sections.” Such submission misses the purpose of the narrator in stating this. 10 It is fitting to point out here that some scholars, even today, hold that there is a historical core behind the biblical Exodus narrative, though the details cannot be reconstructed. See, inter alia, A. MICHEL, “Exodus”, 32–34; C. FREVEL, Geschichte Israels, 63–64. 11 When history is understood not in the modern sense of a record of fact – what really happened, but as a discourse that claims true representation of the past, then this narrative can be adjudged history. As Sternberg avers, such discourse is an affair between the writer and the audience. The narrative is true if both sides hold it to be so. Historiography thus becomes a “sociocultural judgment of factuality.” Cf. M. STERNBERG, The Poetics, 23–26. 12 So U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 189; W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 592; D. FRANKEL, The Murmuring Stories, 97; L.R. KASS, Founding God’s Nation, 224.

96

Chapter III: The Bread from Heaven

point they left Egypt.13 The two positions are actually tenable. Whichever view one takes here, to be noted is that the explicit temporal connection of this narrative to the departure from Egypt imbues the manna-event with “salvific” significance. By situating this narrative within a determinate time, the narrator draws the audience to align themselves into the temporal sequence of the story,14 which does not just recount an event of the past but incorporates them into the connective trajectory of its continuum.15 In giving this specific temporal information, the narrator highlights the increasing adverse condition which the people have to grapple with. No specific time-limit was given to their wandering in 15,22–26. There is only a clue that it did not last for more than a few days (cf. 15,22), while the length of stay at Elim where they found an oasis is not indicated. However, with the report that they reach here on the fifteenth day of the second month after leaving Egypt, one gets the impression that the people have journeyed for a considerable length of time after leaving Elim. And thus, if they had any provision on them, whether from Egypt or from Elim, one can imagine that it has been exhausted.1 Furthermore, it is deducible from the macronarrative of Exodus that the explicit delineation of the date of an event is an indication of its marked importance. Apart from this manna event, only three other events are so marked in Exodus: the Passover Seder/setting out from Egypt (12,18; 13,4), the arrival at Sinai (19,1), and the setting up of the Tabernacle (40,2.17). These events are so remarkable in the life of the people that their exact dates are “remembered.” In fact, these events mark a new beginning of some sort in the life of Israel as a nation.1 We can therefore deduce that this narrative is of remarkable importance for the Israelites (especially at the time of its narration), and that it marks the beginning of something significant in their history. But the beginning of what? The reader has to find this out as the plot of the narrative unfolds. Hence, suspense begins to build up.

13

So M. NOTH, Exodus, 133; M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 303. The real (primary target) audience of this narrative was the exilic/post-exilic Israelites. However, the other implied readers are surely not excluded from this experience. 15 On this function of soc. memory, see S. REICHER – N. HOPKINS, Self and Nation, 150. 1 Some early Jewish commentators have already pointed out that this specific dating is meant to indicate that the provisions which the Israelites brought from Egypt were exhausted. For RASHBAM and RASHI, this is when the people ran out of the “unleavened cakes” they brought from Egypt; while Ibn Ezra holds that at this point, the people has eaten most of their livestock. See also JOSEPHUS, AJ, III, 11; Mek II, 99. 1 The Passover event marks the beginning of a new life for the Israelites: the life of freedom from slavery; cf. C. Dohmen (Exodus 1–18, 383) who notes that the Passover marked “einen Neuanfang in einem großen Gang.” The arrival at Sinai marks the beginning of a new phase of life for Israel as a nation: they are bound to YHWH by a covenant. And the erection of the Tabernacle marks the beginning of something very important in the history of Israel: YHWH’s special cultic presence among his people. 14

2. The People’s Complaint and the Divine Promise

97

2. The People’s Complaint and the Divine Promise of Food (vv. 2–12) This section comprises the people’s complaint (vv. 2–3), YHWH’s response to the complaint (vv. 4–5), relay of the divine response to the people (vv. 6–8), appearance of divine glory and confirmation of promise (vv. 9–12). 2.1 The People’s Complaint (vv. 2–3) From the description of the desert setting, the narrative shifts attention immediately to the reaction of the people, a suddenness meant to create an impact on the reader. The next word that one encounters after the setting is ‫“( ַויַּלִ ינּו‬and they murmured”).2 As Schunck aptly points out, in the Hebrew Bible, “the basic meaning of the root is to ‘murmur, grumble’. The context may suggest a stronger sense of ‘rebel’.”3 As such, in the development of the narrative plot, the keenness of the reader is met right away with the revolt of the people. Again, in the other two instances in Exodus where this verb introduces the murmuring of the people: 15,22–24 and 17,1–3, the narrator justifies, to an extent, the reason for such reaction of the people.4 But here, the murmuring motif is introduced without any explicit expression of need. As Childs notes, the narrator uses this as a technique to cast the complaint of the people in a negative light5. And the impact of this would remain strong at the background of the reader’s mind in the course of the peregrination through this narrative. This murmuring is not an act of only a section of the people, or even of most of them. The narrator asserts distinctly: ‫“( ַויַּלִ ינּו כָל־עֲדַ ת בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬And the whole congregation of the Israelites murmured”), repeating the same phrase ‫כָל־עֲדַ ת‬ ‫ בְ נֵי־יִ ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬already given in the previous verse. This repetition is obviously not necessary here, as the story would still flow seamlessly without it. But it is employed here to accentuate the involvement of the whole people of Israel in

2 The verb ‫ לון‬is a Leitmotiv in the pre-Sinai wilderness wandering of the Israelites, where it occurs 5x: 15,24; 16,2.7.8; 17,3 – notably 3x in our pericope (and 5x in the substantive form). For Ruprecht, the verb has no negative connotation in this chapter. Cf. E. RUPRECHT, “Stellung”, 281–283. But as Coats has observed, in all its appearances in this pericope, the verb is juxtaposed with the preposition ‫על‬, which gives it a more specialised connotation. It “moves the action described by the verb from an inarticulate complaint to a well-defined event”, i.e., a face-to-face confrontation, an open act of rebellion. G.W. COATS, Rebellion, 23–24. So also A. SCHART, Mose und Israel, 124–125. 3 K.-D. SCHUNCK, “‫”לון‬, TDOT, VII, 510. 4 For the complaint in 15,24, the people’s need for water is made explicit in vv. 22–23. And so, the demand of their complaint appears reasonable: ‫ – מַ ה־ ִּנ ְשתֶ ה‬what shall we drink? Again, for the murmuring in 17,3, it is explicitly stated in v. 1 that there was no water for the people to drink, and in v. 3a that they were thirsty. Thus, their murmuring was not groundless. 5 Cf. B.S. CHILDS, The Book of Exodus, 284.

98

Chapter III: The Bread from Heaven

this act of rebellion.6 At this point, the reader cannot but begin to wonder, with a bit of disappointment, how it has turned out that not even a single person is able to call to mind the great acts of YHWH in the proximate past. Would he who has performed these mighty works of deliverance before them, also giving them portable water in the desert, not be able to do something positive for the people in this life-threatening situation? But the narrative divulges at this point that the murmuring is not directed at YHWH, but ‫“( ַעל־מֹ שֶ ה וְ ַעל־אַ הֲרֹ ן‬against Moses and Aaron”). From the time the Israelites left Egypt, there have been two incidences of complaint (Ex 14,10 – 12; 15,23–24). These two occurrences are similar to the present one in that the Israelites met a really difficult situation and appeared helpless. But their rebellion in both instances was against Moses only. Here, the rebellion is directed against both Moses and Aaron.7 Is this of any significance? M. Priotto avers that the reappearance of Aaron here, and in the entire pericope, is meant to underscore the cultic background of this narrative.8 This is tenable, as Aaron will later in the narrative play a major role in the liturgical conservation of the manna, destined for perpetual preservation (vv. 32–34). However, it appears that this revolt directed against both Moses and Aaron evokes further nuances. As Ruprecht and Schart note, in rebelling against the duo, the people question the divine authority – the authenticity – of their leadership. It is thus deemed by the people that it is not by divine design but by the “evil plot” of Moses/Aaron that they currently face death in the wilderness.9 But still, one doubts the justifiability of questioning the divine authority of Moses/Aaron, considering all that YHWH has accomplished through them for the people. And so, though the murmuring is not ostensibly directed at YHWH, this “double rejection” implicitly connotes the rejection of the guidance of YHWH, whose presence and lordship among the people is signified in the figures of Moses and Aaron.10 In the final analysis, therefore, the murmuring is

6 On the use of repetition for emphasis in biblical narratives, see Chap. II, § 3.1.2, R. ALTER, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 112–115; C.H. HOLMAN, A Handbook, 376. 7 We note here that the only time the people had reacted negatively to both Moses and Aaron was after the first encounter of the duo with Pharaoh, which resulted in Pharaoh increasing the daily task of the people. In reaction, the people confronted both of them in anger and frustration, as their expected liberation had turned into greater anguish (Ex 5,21). Noteworthy also is that in response to this, after the prayer of Moses (5,22), YHWH reiterated his resolve to deliver his people (6,1–8). 8 Priotto notes that the last mention of Aaron in the Exodus narrative was in 12,50 (the mention in 15,20 is indirect). But in this narrative, he is mentioned 6x: vv. 2.6.9.10.33.34. This presence, he infers, is senza dubbio due to the liturgical character of the manna episode. Cf. M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 303. 9 Cf. E. RUPRECHT, “Stellung”, 282; A. SCHART, Mose und Israel, 125. 10 The guiding pillar of cloud, another figure of YHWH’s presence, is not mentioned again after the crossing of the Sea of Reeds (last mentioned in Ex 14,24). The next mention of the

2. The People’s Complaint and the Divine Promise

99

ultimately against YHWH. It is only indirectly implied at this point, however, in accordance with the development of the narrative plot. The second verse ends with the disclosure of the locus of this murmuring: ‫“( בַ ִמדְ בָ ר‬in the wilderness”). Because the arrival of the Israelites in the wilderness of Sin has been clearly expressed in the previous verse, the addition of this location has triggered reactions in biblical scholarship.11 Some scholars evaluate the superfluity as indicating that this verse originates from a source other than that of the preceding verse.12 It is more likely, however, that this repetition is advertently inserted by the narrator to place more emphasis on the locale of the unfolding event.13 In v. 3, the content of the murmuring of the Israelites is disclosed, and this is divulged in a direct speech. With this narrative technique of “showing”,14 the narrator lays bare the reaction of the Israelites to the judgment of the reader. In this speech, the voice of the ‫ בְ נֵי ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬is heard for the first time in this narrative. The reader thus begins to construct the character of the people with some level of certainty, evaluating their very words. And the narrator highlights attention to this speech by introducing it (once more) with the statement: ‫ֹאמרּו ֲאלֵהֶ ם בְ נֵי‬ ְ ‫וַי‬ ‫“( ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬And the Israelites said to them”).15 The speech begins with the expression: ‫ – ִמי־ ִיתֵ ן‬a remarkable expression used in the Hebrew Bible “to express a wish more forcefully than by the jussive,”16 most often of an unrealisable

‫ ַעמּוד הֶ ָענָן‬is in 33,9 where it “descends and stands” at the entrance of the Tent of meeting. It appears then that on Moses (and Aaron) falls the responsibility of guiding the people through the wilderness. 11 The LXX drops this expression entirely, suggesting that the Greek text adjudges it a later addition. 12 Eerdmans, in fact, uses this as his major argument to show that vv. 1 and 2 stem from different sources. Cf. B.D. EERDMANS, Das Buch Exodus, 51–52. On another note, while dismissing source criticism, Cassuto holds this expression as a proof that the previous verse is a latter addition meant to provide a frame for a story that was not originally cast in a definite time. Cf. U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 188. 13 So C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 328. The emphasis on the desert locality serves not so much to justify the murmuring of the Israelites as it functions as a foil on which the subsequent intervention of YHWH acquires a greater significance. 14 For a succinct clarification of the terms “telling” and “showing”, see J.-L. SKA, Our Fathers Have Told Us, 53. 15 D. Frankel (The Murmuring Stories, 89) evaluates this introduction as marking a “new beginning”, indicating the secondary nature of v. 3 in relation to v. 2 (which he regards as early P). But it is not infrequent in the Hebrew Bible that the narrator uses the speech-introduction formula to introduce direct speeches even when it is not quite necessary, for e.g., Ex 3,5–6; 6,1–2. In such cases, an emphasis is intended by the narrator. Also to be noted here is the repetition, for the third time, of the denotation: ‫בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬, which links up to the ‫כָל־עֲדַ ת‬ ‫ בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬of vv. 1–2. For emphasis! 16 G.I. DAVIES, Exodus 1–18, II, 439.

100

Chapter III: The Bread from Heaven

wish.17 It is thus significant that the Israelites begin their speech in this narrative on such “negative” note, expressing their desire for the absent and, as such, dissatisfaction and disapproval of the present. But, as they disapprove of the present, for what do they actually wish? The Israelites desire Egypt! ‫“( ִמי־ ִיתֵ ן מּותֵ נּו בְ יַד־ ְיהוָה בְ אֶ ֶרץ ִמצְ ַר ִים‬Would that we had died by the hand of YHWH in the land of Egypt”). Dying “by the hand of YHWH” in Egypt is preferred to the present experience.18 This is to say, considered altogether, the experience in Egypt under the taskmasters (and Pharaoh) is better than the experience out of Egypt under Moses/Aaron (and YHWH). This is therefore not just a proclamation of desire. It is a passing of judgment, a vote of no confidence on the leadership of Moses/Aaron, and consequently (though implicitly) on YHWH. The Israelites declare that they prefer to die in Egypt ‫“( בְ יַד־ ְיהוָה‬by the hand of YHWH”)19. But what actually does it signify here to die “by the hand of YHWH”20? This has stirred an interesting debate in biblical scholarship. Some scholars interpret the expression as referring to death by natural causes. This connotes death at old age, deemed by the Israelites as a blessing from YHWH.21 This position appears supported by the portrayal of life in Egypt as that lived by the fleshpots, a picture that depicts leisure and abundance which would naturally lead to a long life. Some other scholars, on the other hand, argue that the expression ‫ בְ ַיד־ ְיהוָה‬is used in biblical Hebrew to refer to plagues (cf. 1Sam 5,6;

17 Cf. inter alia Dt 5,29; 28,67; Jdg 9,29. An elaborate consideration of this expression is given in JM§ 163d; GK § 151a.1; B. JONGELING, “L’Expression My Ytn”, 32–40. 18 This wish is obviously linked to Ex 14,11 where the people desired death/burial in Egypt. Both reveal the tendency of the people to regret leaving the routine life in Egypt, to embark on this precarious venture. In both instances, facing a life-threatening situation, they judge it better to “die with dignity” in Egypt than to “be wasted” along the way, in the course of this risky journey they have embarked. Also, in the subsequent murmuring of Ex 17,3, the desire to die in Egypt is not explicit, but implied. Considering these murmurings of the people, Kass notes: “Although physically liberated, they seem to still be physically and morally in bondage.” L.R. KASS, Founding God’s Nation, 225. 19 As Houtman points out, there are basically two interpretations of the composite term ‫ – ביד‬either emphasising the agency of the ‫ יד‬or reinforcing the preposition ‫ב‬. For him, the use of the term here emphasises agency. Cf. C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, I, 24; see also HebSyn § 106k. BDB provides also other possible uses of this term in the Hebrew Bible. 20 It is grammatically possible to interpret ‫ ב‬as locative here. In this case, the statement would imply that, taken away from Egypt into the desert, the people see themselves as having been removed from the sphere of the activity of YHWH. They are thus about to die in the wilderness “outside” the ‫יַד־ ְיהוָה‬. This interpretation however is unlikely here. While they were in Egypt, the Israelites recognised that the mighty hand of YHWH could save them there (cf. Ex 4,30–31). Going out from Egypt, they have also witnessed the saving power of YHWH (chs. 14–15). It appears unlikely then that the Israelites would interpret the present desert situation as being “outside” the sphere of YHWH. 21 So RASHBAM; U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 189; E. RUPRECHT, “Stellung”, 281–282.

2. The People’s Complaint and the Divine Promise

101

2Sam 24,14), which are regarded as punishments from God. As such, the longing of the Israelites here is not a long life marked by abundance, but a swift death by plagues, such as the ones they had witnessed in Egypt. For them, this is better than the slow death by starvation to which they are subjected by Moses and Aaron.22 Though the two positions find support in the Bible, it seems more probable that the reference to the hand of the YHWH here has something to do with divine power. First of all, though the term ‫ בְ יַד‬has a number of different meanings in the Hebrew Bible (cf. BDB), all its 10 occurrences in Exodus depict instrumentality.23 Thus, the reference in this verse is most probably death by the instrumentality of the ‫יַד־ ְיהוָה‬. Again, all the references to the hand of YHWH in Exodus are related to deeds of power.24 As such, the reference here is more probably to a death that demonstrates the power of the divine.25 P. Ackroyd corroborates this in his assertion that in the theology of the Hebrew Bible, “divine power is expressed in a variety of ways through reference to the hand of God; [and] the more general idea of the powerful hand is associated with various divine actions.”26 From the context of this narrative, it appears that the Israelites were comparing death by starvation in the wilderness – a slow painful death, with a swift death that comes from YHWH, which they would have preferred. To be noted, however, is that though the people preferred a sudden death, there is no indication in our narrative that this death has to be by plague. The Israelites express preference to die swiftly in Egypt “when we were sitting by the fleshpot, when we were eating bread to satiety.” The two phrases, poetic in form and parallel in structure, are used to describe the condition in which they claimed to have lived in Egypt, and in which it would have been obviously better to die: ‫בְ אֶ ֶרץ ִמצְ ַר ִים בְ ִשבְ תֵ נּו ַעל־סִ יר הַ בָ ׂשָ ר‬ ‫בְ אָ כְ לֵנּו לֶחֶ ם ָלׂשֹבַ ע‬

These two prepositional phrases, used to qualify ‫בְ אֶ ֶרץ ִמצְ ַר ִים‬, are constructed in the same way: a temporal ‫ ב‬+ infinitive construct + suffix (1pers. plu).27 This construction is purposely applied here to depict the claim of the people: it was not a single or rare incident, but a habitual occurrence while they were in Egypt. According to them, they were sitting there by the fleshpot and were eating 22 So D. FRANKEL, The Murmuring Stories, 70. See also C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 329; M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 303, n. 32. This view is supported by the LXX rendition: ὄφελον ἀπεθάνομεν πληγέντες ὑπὸ κυρίου – would that we have died smitten/stricken by the Lord. 23 Cf. Ex 3,19; 4,13; 6,1; 9,35; 13,9; 14,8; 16,3; 34,29; 35,29; 38,21. 24 Cf. Ex 6,1; 7,4.5; 9,3.15; 13,3.14.16; 14,31; 15,7; 16,3; 32,11. 25 It is to be recalled at this point that it is this same ‫ יַד־ ְיהוָה‬that produced the plagues of Egypt 7,4–5; 9,3.15. We have here therefore a case of irony. 26 P.R. ACKROYD, “‫”יַד‬, TDOT, V, 419. 27 Note also the acoustic pun at the end of both strophes: ‫ הַ בָ ׂשָ ר‬and ‫ ָלׂשֹבַ ע‬.

102

Chapter III: The Bread from Heaven

bread to satiety.28 Childs points out, however, that “the eating of meat was a rare delicacy for the common person in the Ancient Near East”29. Thus, the claim that they were usually sitting by pots of meat was not factual. This lends itself to a negative characterisation of the people. Also, in the both strophes, the people’s exaggerated positive portrayal of their condition in Egypt is evident. Frankel describes this as “a sinful idealisation of the harsh reality” of their Egyptian experience.30 And from this, the reader deduces the character of the people as ungrateful, faithless and untrustworthy.31 At this juncture, Propp makes a notable observation about the people complaint. He wonders why the people should explicitly mention YHWH in this speech: “Why mention Yahweh? Should not the people say, ‘Would that we had died… in peace?’.” And he infers that though the Israelites heap the blame explicitly on Moses and Aaron, “they obliquely condemn God himself, as if to say, ‘Why did not Yahweh kill us then, rather than now? We might at least have received proper burial’ (cf. 14,12).”32 Propp’s observation is insightful. The seemingly “positive” allusion to the divine name provides a foil for heaping the blame for the present calamity on Moses and Aaron. Nevertheless, as already indicated above, an indirect revolt against YHWH is implied. Though supposedly revolting against humans, the people cannot totally conceal their loss of faith in the divine. Further, having portrayed the past (in Egypt) as positive, the second part of the people’s speech turns attention to the present. It consists of an evaluation of the current circumstance and a pointed indictment of Moses and Aaron. Beginning with an evaluative ‫( כִ י‬for),33 the people accuse Moses and Aaron of being the ones who brought them out from the Egypt of fleshpot and abundant bread to the wilderness of terrible consequences: ‫“( כִ י־הֹוצֵ אתֶ ם אֹ תָ נּו אֶ ל־הַ ִמדְ בָ ר הַ זֶה‬for

28

The term ‫ ׂשבע‬used by the Israelites to claim abundance in Egypt will be used again in vv. 8.12 to declare YHWH’s provision of bread. This serves not only a counter to the claim of the people but also to assert that it is YHWH who truly gives food in abundance. 29 B.S. CHILDS, The Book of Exodus, 284–285. To be noted also is that this particular craving would subsequently be explicitly condemned in the Bible: Num 11,4; Ps 78,27–30. 30 D. FRANKEL, The Murmuring Stories, 70. 31 The mind of the reader is definitely cast back to the situation of the Israelites in Egypt which made them cry out to YHWH: ‫ – ַויֵאָ ְנחּו בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל ִמן־הָ ֲע ֹבדָ ה ַו ִי ְז ָעקּו‬And the Israelites groaned because of their bondage, and they cried out (Ex 2,23b). Their redemption from this bondage is totally an act of YHWH (Ex 3,7–8). And having seen the display of YHWH’s mighty hand to save them (and the recent provision of water as they thirsted in the desert), the reader would at least expect some level of trust from the people to the divine project of leading them to the Promised Land. This expression turns out then a sharp disappointment, a ground for a negative characterisation of the people. 32 W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 592. 33 For the causative/evaluative function of ‫כִ י‬, see Holladay (Lexicon); GK § 158b.

2. The People’s Complaint and the Divine Promise

103

you have brought us out into this wilderness”). Here again, as in the first part of the speech, the reference to God is indirect.34 In this complaint-speech, the Israelites designate the wilderness as the destination of their being “brought out” 35. As such, the project of their being delivered from the clutches of Pharaoh and the bondage of the Egyptians is construed as “bringing us ‫אֶ ל־הַ ִמ ְדבָ ר הַ זֶה‬.” There is no reference to, and therefore no trust in, the declared plan of YHWH to lead them as his people to the Promised Land (cf. 4,30; 6,10; 13,5). The people’s comparison, which betrays limitedness of foresight, is between ‫ אֶ ֶרץ ִמצְ ַר ִים‬and ‫הַ ִמדְ בָ ר הַ זֶה‬, between the “favourable” sphere of the Egyptians and the tragic sphere of Moses/Aaron.36 It is indeed a rebellion. The final part of the speech brings the complaint to a crescendo, divulging the alleged reason of the deliverance from Egypt: ‫“( לְ הָ ִמית אֶ ת־כָל־הַ קָ הָ ל הַ זֶה בָ ָר ָעב‬to kill this whole assembly with hunger”). Moses and Aaron are depicted as gruesome murderers. The intention of all the manoeuvre of deliverance is a most cruel death – death by starvation (cf. Lam 4,9).37 Facing the danger of such death, living under the bondage of Pharaoh appears paradise. At least, there was food and shelter. In the present circumstance, there is nothing but the danger of a slow death. Furthermore, it is made distinctly clear that it is the entire people that is exposed to this danger of death: ‫“( אֶ ת־כָל־הַ קָ הָ ל הַ זֶה‬this whole assembly”).38 No one will be able to escape this death. It is thus an extermination

34 The persons directly at play in this speech are “you” (‫ – )הֹוצֵ אתֶ ם‬the causative subject, and “us” (‫ – )אֹ תָ נּו‬the recipient object. To be noted, however, is the significant use of the verb ‫ הֹוצֵ א‬in vv. 1–3. In v. 1, it is reminiscent of the exodus: “after their coming out from the land of Egypt.” In v. 3, it becomes a tool of accusation: “for you have brought us out here….” Geller aptly describes this as “the reverse of the expected covenantal gratitude” of the people to YHWH. Cf. S.A. GELLER, “Manna and Sabbath”, 9. 35 This is the third occurrence of the word ‫ ִמדְ בָ ר‬in this narrative, an occurrence in each verse, and thus a Leitmotiv here. In line with his purposes, the narrator makes it abundantly clear that the locus of this event is the wilderness. The Israelites were really in difficulty. 36 As Houtman points out, the basic problem lies in the Israelites’ inability to see a connection between YHWH’s saving acts and their travails in the wilderness. All the more, “They contrast YHWH, as God who can bring about a quick and hence merciful death, with Moses and Aaron as bringers of a slow and hence painful death.” C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 330. Houtman’s observations are ad rem. However, on the grounds of the previous events in the plot of the macronarrative of Exodus, the idea of a total delineation of the mission of Moses/Aaron from that of YHWH appears difficult to assimilate. 37 An irony plays out in this accusation. It was to be saved from ‫ ָר ָעב‬that the Israelites went down to Egypt (cf. Gen 41–47; esp. 47,4). With this accusation, the “bringing out” from Egypt is then deemed a return to the former life-threatening situation. 38 To be noted here is the subtle shift in the reference: from “us” to the emphatic ‫כָל־הַ קָ הָ ל‬ ‫הַ זֶה‬. Also noteworthy is the “localisation” of ‫ כָל־עֲדַ ת בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬as ‫ כָל־הַ קָ הָ ל הַ זֶה‬here. Ruprecht (“Stellung”, 282) interprets the Israelites’ self-description with the “traditional designation” ‫ קָ הָ ל‬as a recall of their special cultic relationship with God. As such, the people uphold their

104

Chapter III: The Bread from Heaven

of the whole race.39 And to make matters worse, it is not a death ‫בְ יַד־ ְיהוָה‬, it is rather a death ‫ !בָ ָר ָעב‬Also noteworthy here is that the word ‫ ָר ָעב‬, which depicts the current condition of the Israelites in the wilderness, is notably placed at the very end of this speech. It serves as a connecting link to the next episode, and triggers a chain of reactions that go on till the end of the narrative. A structural analysis of this murmuring speech, which constitutes the primary complication in the plot of the narrative, is also worthwhile here: ‫ ִמי־ ִיתֵ ן מּותֵ נּו בְ יַד־ ְיהוָה בְ אֶ ֶרץ ִמצְ ַר ִים‬A ‫ בְ ִשבְ תֵ נּו ַעל־סִ יר הַ בָ ׂשָ ר בְ אָ כְ לֵנּו לֶחֶ ם ָלׂשֹבַ ע‬A' ‫ כִ י־הֹוצֵ אתֶ ם אֹ תָ נּו אֶ ל־הַ ִמדְ בָ ר הַ זֶה‬B ‫ לְ הָ ִמית אֶ ת־כָל־הַ קָ הָ ל הַ זֶה בָ ָר ָעב‬B'

The speech is made up of two parts, each part made up of a main clause and a subordinate clause (A-A' and B-B'). The first part portrays an idealised positive memory Egypt, while the second part describes a deplorable present situation. A converse relationship exists between the two sections, detectable in the antithetical relationship between A//B and A'//B' above. In the main clauses A//B, the locations are placed in antithetical comparison. The location in A is wished for while the location in B is regrettable. In the subordinate clauses, the life situations in the two loci are exaggerated in two extremes.40 While A' is marked by abundance to eat, B' is in contrast marked by death by hunger. Also noteworthy here is that the motif of death forms an inclusio in this speech (A.B'), providing an interpretative key to this rebellion speech.41 Also, a consideration of the order of presentation of this grumbling speech is also instructive. Part A presents the wish for Egypt and its “goodies”, while part B describes the current life-threatening situation in the wilderness. The relationship with God in spite of their present difficulty. This appears unlikely. Though the terms ‫ ֵעדָ ה‬and ‫ קָ הָ ל‬are often used interchangeably in the Hebrew Bible, the shift in terminology here is remarkable. Schart (Mose und Israel, 125) notes that the use of the term ‫ קָ הָ ל‬has a negative connotation here, as it portrays a sense of independence by the people who thus reject the purpose set for them by God. Kupfer (Mit Israel, 60) also detects here a shift in the self-understanding of the Israelites, no longer as a community but as an (arbitrary) assembly. The shift in terminology thus denotes rebellion. 39 This accusation depicts Moses and Aaron (and indirectly YHWH) as worse than Pharaoh in his plan to put all the male children born to the Israelites to death (Ex 1,8–16). Here, the purported plan of Moses/Aaron is to exterminate the whole assembly. 40 For Cassuto, this exaggeration can be understood from a psychological viewpoint, “for people are inclined to forget past troubles when faced with new ones, and to picture the past to themselves as far better than it was in fact.” U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 189. Though this is tenable, it is more likely that this exaggeration is employed as a tool of characterisation. With this, the people are presented forgetting so hastily their deplorable situation in Egypt, and the great works of deliverance that came to them ‫בְ יַד־ ְיהוָה‬. 41 This provides a good example of the poetics of repetition in the Hebrew Bible: the repetition of the death motif frames the complaint-speech of the people.

2. The People’s Complaint and the Divine Promise

105

speech could have possibly started with part B, which proffers the reason for the people’s adverse reaction. But the shock of the wish for Egypt is purposely put forward first. The speech begins with, and thus highlights, the desire to remain and die in Egypt – an affront to the saving act of YHWH in delivering them from servitude in Egypt. In the apt description of Childs, If God had made himself known in the deliverance from Egypt, then Israel’s repudiation of this deliverance obviously struck at the heart of the relationship [….] In short, the people’s complaint is not a casual “gripe”, but unbelief which has called into question God’s very election of a people42.

At this point, the suspense in the plot becomes heightened: What will b e the outcome of this rebellion? Will the people survive this situation? How will Moses and Aaron react to the accusation? Will Moses turn again to YHWH? And ultimately, how would YHWH react to this implicit attack? 2.2 YHWH’s Response: Promise and Test (vv. 4–5) Surprisingly, though the complaint was not explicitly directed at YHWH, it is he who intervenes. This is a masterstroke in the plot of this narrative,43 lost to many source/redactional critics in their bid to demonstrate that vv. 4–5 is an insertion from another source into the flow of the narrative. Immediately after the rebellious speech of the people,44 YHWH speaks to Moses,45 addressing the concern of hunger raised by the people 46 – a big surprise in the unfolding of the narrative. The response of YHWH begins by the categorical assertion: ‫הִ ְנ ִני מַ ְמטִ יר ָלכֶם לֶחֶ ם‬ ‫“( ִמן־הַ שָ מָ ִים‬I myself will rain down bread from heaven for you”). These are the first words of YHWH in the narrative, and they portray ab initio an image of YHWH who is sensitive to the needs of his people.47 The use of ‫ הִ ְנ ִני‬makes this 42

Cf. B.S. CHILDS, The Book of Exodus, 285. So C.D. KUPFER, Mit Israel, 61. 44 Compared to the preceding episodes of murmuring (Ex 14,10–18; 15,22–25; and also 17,1–7), the reaction of YHWH is sharper here, in that it normally takes Moses’ intercession for YHWH to intervene. Such does not happen here. And even if it is assumed to have happened, the narrative makes no mention of it, even indirectly, so as to place emphasis on YHWH’s swift intervention. 45 This is in line YHWH’s modus operandi in all the disobedience scenes in the wilderness journey (Ex – Num). YHWH reacts to the Israelites through Moses. 46 Contra E. Ruprecht (“Stellung”, 279) and B.S. Childs (The Book of Exodus, 285) who posit that YHWH’s speech here does not actually address the concern raised by the Israelites. Striking to note is that the complaint of the Israelites ends with the accusation that they have been lured into the wilderness to be killed ‫בָ ָר ָעב‬, while YHWH’s response begins by asserting emphatically that he will send ‫לֶחֶ ם‬. To be noted also is the plural ‫ ָלכֶם‬which is also an indicator that YHWH is reacting to the people’s plight. 47 This is in contrast with the first words of the Israelites in the narrative: ...‫מי־ ִיתֵ ן מּותֵ נּו‬, ִ a wish that characterises them negatively. 43

106

Chapter III: The Bread from Heaven

promise emphatic, as is the case in the other usages of this expression by YHWH in Exodus, all of which are connected to his salvific acts.48 In this instance, it highlights YHWH’s self-adopted (salvific) role to resolve the death-threat facing the people, according to their complaint. And, notably, he promises to graciously rain down this bread in spite of the people’s negative reaction. Again, the use of the participle ‫ מַ ְמ ִטיר‬here is instructive. The promise to rain down bread is not to be realised just once. It is rather meant to be continual. As Levin notes, right from the beginning, rain has been a medium through which YHWH demonstrates his power over creation – either positively or negatively (cf. Gen 2,5; 7,4; 19,24; Ex 16,4) 49. As such, “Just as the gift of rain reflects YHWH’s love, so also does the absence of rain reflect divine anger” 50 (cf. Dt 11,11–17). Again, it is noteworthy that the content of this rain is not water (or anything liquid) but bread. This is however not the first time that YHWH would rain down something solid in the Hebrew Bible. Before this point, YHWH had rained down (‫ )הִ ְמטִ יר‬brimstone and fire to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19,24), and as part of the plagues, he rained down ( ‫ ) ַוי ְַמטֵ ר‬hail against the Egyptians (Ex 9,18–23).51 In this case, ironically, the rain of something solid – ‫ – לֶחֶ ם‬is meant for the salvation of the people.52 It is inferable that the use of such forceful word here is meant to highlight YHWH’s antithesis to the complaint of life-threatening hunger in the desert. Also pertinent to note here is the use of the plural ‫ ָלכֶם‬which accentuates the figure of Moses as a representative of the people.53 Further, as the first allusion to it, the manna is described as ‫לֶחֶ ם ִמן־הַ שָ מָ ִים‬. This is paradoxical. As Propp aptly observes, bread ordinarily comes from the earth (cf. Ps 104,14; Job 28,5), and rain from the heavens usually water the grains that produce bread. In this case, it is the bread itself that will come from the 48

YHWH uses this expression 7x in Exodus to refer to himself, in each case to declare emphatically the salvific act he was to accomplish for the sake of his people: Ex 8,17; 9,18;10,4; 14,17; 16,4; 17,6; 34,11. On this, see also T. MURAOKA, Emphatic Words, 138. 49 Cf. C. LEVIN, Der Jahwist, 352. 50 H.-J. ZOBEL, “‫”מָ טָ ר‬, TDOT, VIII, 257. Geller explains here that from the background of a covenant religion, rain portrays a special theological meaning (cf. Dt 11,10–17; 28,12). It could stand positively for providence, and (its absence) negatively for divine punishment. As such, described here as the rain of bread, the manna links these two covenantal themes. Cf. S.A. GELLER, “Manna and Sabbath”, 10–11. 51 Note the use of the same expression ‫ הִ ְנ ִני מַ ְמטִ יר‬by YHWH in Ex 9,18 and 16,4 – in the former, unto destruction; in the latter, unto salvation. 52 Hamilton corroborates this in his observation that though the term “rain” appears in the plagues narrative both as a noun (Ex 9,33–34) and as a verb (Ex 9,18.23), “there is a radical difference between the two rains in Ex 9 and 16. The divine rain God sends in the seventh plague is a destructive rain, a rain of hail on the land of Egypt. However, the divine rain that God promises to send in chap. 16 (see Ps 78,24.27) is a beneficial, life-giving rain.” V.P. HAMILTON, Exodus, 251; so also M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 304. 53 So C. HOUTMAN, Exodus II, 330. Note also the play on words ‫ ָלכֶם לֶחֶ ם‬: alliteration.

2. The People’s Complaint and the Divine Promise

107

heavens. As such, YHWH is to bypass the natural process in order to provide this food54. This implies that, in providing this food, YHWH demonstrates once more his supernatural powers manifested in saving his people. In line with this, Kupfer observes that the annotation ‫ לֶחֶ ם ִמן־הַ שָ מָ ִים‬links this provision of bread directly with YHWH’s creative activity. He notes also that the second word of the paronomasia ‫ ָלכֶם לֶחֶ ם‬links with the ‫ לֶחֶ ם ָלׂשֹבַ ע‬of v. 3. And this implies that the ‫ לֶחֶ ם ִמן־הַ שָ מָ ִים‬provides an emphatic contrast to the “satisfying” ‫ לֶחֶ ם‬of Egypt.55 The divine speech proceeds by pointing out the modality for collecting this unusual food: ‫“( וְ יָצָ א הָ ָעם וְ לָקְ טּו דְ בַ ר־יֹום בְ יֹומֹו‬and the people shall go out and gather the portion of a day for each day”). This marks a shift from promise to instruction, from the realm of divine providence to that of human responsibility. The instruction begins with ‫“( וְ יָצָ א הָ ָעם‬and the people shall go out”).56 Seemingly superfluous at first sight, this clause is imbued with deep imports. First, in going out to collect, Israel cooperates with the work of YHWH who provides the bread.57 All the more, the verb ‫ יצא‬connects the manna event with the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, which culminates in the act of “going out.”58 This underscores the “salvific” quality of this heavenly nourishment. Further, the instruction specifies that the people are to collect only the amount of bread needed for the day in each day. And the question naturally arises at this juncture: Why this instruction? The response is not far-fetched. YHWH makes known immediately the motive for the directive: ‫תֹור ִתי ִאם־ל ֹא‬ ָ ְ‫“( לְ מַ ַען ֲאנַסֶ ּנּו ֲה ֵילְֵך ב‬in order that I may test them, whether they will walk according to my instruction or not”). This is instructive! The difficult journey in the wilderness is now understood as not accidental. It is happening by divine design, programmed by YHWH to create this opportunity of test the people.59 Analysing the verb ‫נסה‬, Korn explains that humans putting 54 Cf. W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 593. Priotto describes the ‫ לֶחֶ ם ִמן־הַ שָ מָ ִים‬as “un pane non conosciutto dall’uomo e appartenente al mondo divino.” M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 304. 55 Cf. C.D. KUPFER, Mit Israel auf dem Weg, 61. 56 Note the transition from ‫ ָלכֶם‬to ‫ הָ ָעם‬here, a shift of emphasis to the nation of Israel as a corporate entity. 57 Following YHWH’s rhythm of work (at creation) will turn out to become a major motif subsequently in the narrative. 58 Occurring 94x in Exodus, the verb ‫ יצא‬constitutes a major motif in its macronarrative (see, for e.g., Ex 3,10–12; 6,6–7; etc.). In Ex 16, it occurs 6x – the first in v.1 refers to the time of their “going out” from Egypt: ‫ ;לְ צֵ אתָ ם מֵ אֶ ֶרץ ִמצְ ָר ִים‬and the last is in v. 32 where YHWH instructs the manna to be preserved as a memorial of his making Israel “go out” from Egypt: ‫יאי אֶ ְתכֶם מֵ אֶ ֶרץ ִמצְ ָר ִים‬ ִ ִ‫( בְ הֹוצ‬hence an inclusio). Just as in “going out” from Egypt, Israel both cooperated with and benefited from the salvific act of YHWH, so also are they expected to cooperate to God’s design in “going out” to gather manna. 59 The motif of test is a Leitmotiv in the journey between the Sea of Reeds and Sinai (the verb ‫ נסה‬occurs 5x in Exodus, 4x in Ex 15–17). Noteworthy is that when God tests his people, the ultimate reason is to bring them closer to himself (cf. Ex 20,20).

108

Chapter III: The Bread from Heaven

God to the test implies calling the reality of God’s power into question. “Mortals venture into their thinking to treat God like one of themselves…. ‘Tempting’ God means nothing less than seeking to test and judge God by human standards.”60 On the other hand, when God puts humans to the test, such as in the Wüstenwanderung, “the testing is depicted as a means of discipline. Yahweh puts his people to the test to find out whether Israel will obey or disobey (Dt 8,2) and to bring Israel to knowledge of divine discipline (Dt 8,5).”61 Through the daily gathering of the manna, the Israelites would discover the futility of selfishness, the sense of self-sufficiency and independence from God (through accumulation); and they would learn to trust in divine providence for their day-to-day existence and survival (cf. Dt 8,3).62 And so, before the ratification of the covenant at Sinai, YHWH deems it necessary to train the people on obeying his Torah through this epic experience.63 That this experience is meant to be a “training session” 64 is further supported by the addition of ‫ִאם־ל ֹא‬ at the end of this purpose clause. YHWH recognises the possibility that the Israelites may not keep this Torah.65 The implication is that if this happens, they would be made to learn the futility of such venture, an important lesson for them before they enter the covenantal relationship with YHWH at Sinai. And this will eventually turn out to be the case in the unfolding of the narrative (cf. vv. 18.20.27). The divine speech continues with a new dimension to the legislation about the manna, introduced by ‫( וְ הָ יָה‬v. 5).66 The new instruction focuses on the sixth day: ‫וְ הָ יָה בַ יֹום הַ ִש ִשי‬. It is fit to note here that after the mention of the sixth day at creation in Gen 1,31, this is its next occurrence in the Hebrew Bible, providing a link between this narrative with the first account of creation.67 On this day, 60

J.H. KORN, Peirasmos, 34. F.J. HELFMEYER, “‫” ִנסָ ה‬, TDOT, IX, 450. 62 Cf. A. SCHART, Mose und Israel, 125–126; M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 304–305. 63 Keeping the Torah of YHWH will summarise the part Israel is expected to play in the Sinaitic covenant with YHWH. And so, the training to keep the Torah here (which refers to the instructions concerning the manna) is a preparation for keeping the Torah which will be given at Sinai. The manna event is thus a preamble to the Sinaitic event. It should be no wonder then that covenantal themes are found in this narrative. In line with this submission, Priotto finds a connection between the legge concreta here and the Legge divina (Torah) generally. Cf. M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 305. 64 For Rashbam, the phrase ‫ לְ מַ ַען ֲאנַסֶ ּנּו‬is better translated “that I may thus train them.” 65 The expression – to walk in YHWH’s Torah – appears here for the first time in the Hebrew Bible, and will subsequently be used to refer to obeying his commandments and keeping to the covenant. Cf. Jsh 22,5; 2Kgs 10,31; Neh 10,29; Ps 78,10; 119,1; Jer 26,4. 66 For the different uses of ‫ וְ הָ יָה‬as an introductory formula, see GK § 112y; C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, I, 16. Here, it introduces a new dimension to the divine instruction (cf. Ex 33,22). 67 However, this link is generally not picked up in biblical scholarship as this section of the narrative (vv. 4–5) is mostly regarded by source-critics as non-P, while the first account of creation is generally attributed to P. But this obvious link (which provides the foundation 61

2. The People’s Complaint and the Divine Promise

109

they should gather a double portion in comparison to the other days. But the reason for this is not given. The narrator chooses to keep tacit on that, a narrative technique in the plot meant to keep the interest of the reader enkindled to search further: In YHWH’s scheme of testing the people, why would he instruct such double activity on the sixth day? The techniques of curiosity and suspense both apply here.68 Also to be noted is the emphasis on ‫ יֹום‬which occurs 5 times in this divine speech (17x in Ex 16) – and indicator that temporality is decisive for this narrative.69 In all, this Jahwerede, strategically placed, is programmatic for the entire pericope. It is both analeptic and proleptic. Bringing together promise and instruction, it addresses the people’s anxiety and anticipates their reaction. Also to be noted here, as many scholars have pointed out, is that considered vis -àvis the rebellion of the people, it stands out that this divine speech does not in any way betray annoyance or blame against the Israelites.70 Their approach was negative, but God’s response is positive. 2.3 The Divine Message Relayed (vv. 6–8) The scenario now shifts from the intervention of YHWH to the transmission of his message to the people. To be noted here, first of all, is that YHWH spoke to Moses alone (v. 4). But it is the duo of Moses and Aaron who convey the message to the people. This leaves a “gap” to be filled, and makes evident the point of Sternberg that the biblical narrator is omniscient but not omnicommunicative.71 Between YHWH’s address to Moses and the duo’s joint address to the people, the reader has to “fill the gap” that Moses had relayed the divine encounter to Aaron, who, as his mouthpiece (cf. 4,16), joins him to transmit the message to the people. Obviously portrayed here is their full communion in transmitting the divine message. Also noteworthy here is that the duo direct their address to ‫ ָכל־בְ נֵי ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬. It was ‫ כָל־עֲדַ ת בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬that murmured against them (v. 2), and it is to ‫ ָכ ל־בְ נֵי ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬that they respond.

for the Sabbath in the narrative) strengthens the argument that the line of demarcation between “sources” in this narrative (nay in the Pentateuch generally) is blurred. The Pentateuch should be read primarily as an unfolding narrative. 68 The reader would look back for a clue on the reason for this special instruction for the sixth day – curiosity. But being that there is no other reference to ‫ יֹום הַ ִש ִשי‬since Gen 1, he eagerly reads forward to find out – suspense. 69 This repetitive emphasis is all the more understood vis-à-vis the role of the ‫ יֹום‬in the process of creation in Gen 1. It is in relating the instruction of the work-schedule here to the divine work-schedule at creation that this instruction attains its deepest significance. 70 Cf. inter alia B.S. CHILDS, Exodus, 286; C. KUPFER, Mit Israel, 62. 71 Sternberg’s description of the manoeuvre from the truth to the whole truth in biblical narratives, and the reader’s task to continue to “fill gaps” until he arrives at “the whole truth” is briefly discussed in Chap. II, § 3.1. Cf. M. STERNBERG, The Poetics, 230–263.

110

Chapter III: The Bread from Heaven

But the response of Moses and Aaron comes in a coded, figurative language: “By evening, you shall know…; and by morning, you shall see” (vv. 6.7). It has been observed by scholars that the sequence – evening/morning – links back to the creation narrative (Gen 1: ...‫) ַו ְיהִ י־ ֶע ֶרב ַו ְיהִ י־ ֹבקֶ ר יֹום‬.72 The exact meaning of the terms ‫ ֶע ֶרב‬and ‫ ֹבקֶ ר‬in their usage at this point is difficult to determine. But, as Van Seters aptly observes, if we recognise that the address in vv. 6–7 “is imitation of poetic structure, then the two statements ought to mean the same thing and do not refer to two different events.”73 As such, the two terms do not refer to two distinct times, but to one, comprehensive time in which YHWH’s intervention to the complaints of the people will come about.74 Cassuto explicates further: The meaning is not that just in the evening they would know that it was the Lord who brought them out from Egypt and precisely in the morning they would see the glory of the Lord, but that, in accordance with one of the idiomatic usages of Biblical parallelism, both in the evening and morning they would see the Lord’s glory.75

And so, as a counter to the people’s allegation that they brought them out into the wilderness with the evil intent to kill them with hunger, Moses and Aaron present the approaching glorious act of YHWH – by evening/morning – as the proof that, even amidst the difficulties of the wilderness, they are still under the guidance of YHWH who brought them out of Egypt. It is remarkable that Moses and Aaron begin their response to the people with the statement: …‫“( ֶע ֶרב וִ ידַ עְ תֶ ם כִ י ְיהוָה‬By evening, you shall know…”). This implies that whatever is to happen successively will culminate in the people’s deeper knowledge of YHWH as their deliverer and sustainer.76 The import of 72 Cf. E. ZENGER, Gottes Bogen, 170. Priotto (Esodo, 305, n. 31) interprets this link as signifying that, all through the wilderness journey (not only at the crossing of the Sea), YHWH was creating a new people. For S.A. Geller (“Manna and Sabbath”, 11–12), it indicates that “the manna is a new work of creation, a new stage in God’s relationship to Israel, the introduction of cult.” 73 J. VAN SETERS, The Life of Moses, 183. 74 So E. RUPRECHT, “Stellung”, 284; C. DOHMEN, Exodus 1–18, 385; M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 305; B.S. CHILDS, The Book of Exodus, 287; contra W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 593; V.P. HAMILTON, Exodus, 252. The use of ‫ ֶע ֶרב‬and ‫ בֹ קֶ ר‬without the definite article here (similar to the use in Gen 1) lends support to this interpretation. Hence, as a response to the people after their complaint, the focus of this figurative speech is not to set a time-table, but to relate to the people that YHWH will intervene in their plight and thus exhibit his glory. Again, linked with the ‫ יֹום‬in the divine speech of vv. 4–5, the usage of evening/morning here could be understood as a merismus for the “day.” As such, they function, not as distinct times, but as symbolic time-frame of YHWH’s intervention. 75 U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 189. 76 Corroborating this, Ruprecht points out the link between the motif of knowing YHWH (connected to his glory) here and in Ex 14,17–18: “17Then I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they will go in after them; and so I will gain glory for myself over Pharaoh and all his army, his chariots, and his chariot drivers. 18And the Egyptians shall know that I

2. The People’s Complaint and the Divine Promise

111

this “knowing” becomes more instructive when understood within the context of the dynamics of the transition from “not-knowing” to “knowing” in the macronarrative of Exodus.77 Such dynamics plays out in this chapter as well. The people’s reaction (murmuring vv. 2–3) indicates that they have not indeed “known” YHWH. And now, Moses and Aaron disclose to them that the coming events will bring them to know him. And this is achieved through the wonder of the manna.78 Again, the announcement that the people will know YHWH throws up more suspense in the narrative, both for the reader and for the characters in the narrative – the people of Israel. Again, the accusation of the Israelites that it is Moses and Aaron brought them out of Egypt to face death in the wilderness shows that they actually do not know YHWH. They have not recognised him in his saving deeds. Thus, the statement in v. 6a constitutes a direct response to the accusation in v. 3c: v. 3c: v. 6a:

‫ – כִ י־הֹוצֵ אתֶ ם אֹ תָ נּו אֶ ל־הַ ִמ ְדבָ ר הַ זֶה‬for you have brought us out into this wilderness ‫ – ֶע ֶרב וִ ידַ עְ תֶ ם כִ י ְיהוָה הֹוצִ יא אֶ ְתכֶם מֵ אֶ ֶרץ ִמצְ ָר ִים‬By evening, you shall know that YHWH brought you out of the land of Egypt

Further, the Israelites will also “see” 79 the ‫כְ בֹוד ְיהוָה‬. In biblical tradition, the ‫כְ בֹוד‬ ‫ ְיהוָה‬refers to “God himself insofar as he makes himself visible in the history of salvation; it is the gift of his personal presence.”80 Houtman points out,

am the LORD, when I have gained glory for myself over Pharaoh, his chariots, and his chariot drivers” (NRSV). From this Ruprecht infers that the goal of the manna-event in Ex 16 is that YHWH proves himself glorious through his powerful saving intervention. Cf. E. RUPRECHT, “Stellung und Bedeutung”, 292. 77 The verb ‫ ידע‬occurs 45x in Exodus (3x in chap. 16: vv. 6.12.15). The first occurrence is in 1,8 where Pharaoh is characterised as one who “did not know” Joseph. Pharaoh himself would go on to declare that he “does not know” YHWH: ‫( ל ֹא יָדַ עְ ִתי אֶ ת־ ְיהוָה‬5,2). In the last occurrence of the verb (36,1), Bezalel, Oholiab, and collaborators are given skill and understanding by YHWH “to know” how to construct the Tabernacle as he has commanded – ‫ֲאשֶ ר‬ ‫ּותבּונָה בָ הֵ מָ ה לָדַ ַעת‬ ְ ‫ נָתַ ן ְיהוָה חָ כְ מָ ה‬. We thus see in Exodus the dynamics of the shift from “not knowing” YHWH which leads to destruction, to that of “knowing” him which manifests itself in positive productivity and obedience. But it is YHWH himself who brings people to the knowledge of him. For the arrogant, represented by Pharaoh and the Egyptians, this comes via negativa (cf. Ex 7,5; 8,6.18; 9,14.29; 14.4.17–18), while to his people, it comes via positiva, such as through this Manna-Erfahrung (16,6.12). 78 In fact, the statement in v. 30 – And the people rested on the seventh day – depicts a realisation, an acknowledgement of the power of the Lord. The people have come to know that it is YHWH who provides, and only by obedience to him they can survive. This corroborates the earlier assertion that when God tests his people, he means to bring them to a closer knowledge of him. 79 ‫ ידע‬and ‫ ראה‬function here as coordinates of perception (cp. Gen 18,21; Ex 2,25). Cf. W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 594. 80 M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 305. Also pertinent to note is that this is the first occurrence of the term ‫( כָבֹוד‬as a noun) in the Hebrew Bible. And, as Priotto rightly points out, the ‫כְ בֹוד‬

112

Chapter III: The Bread from Heaven

however, that though the divine glory generally signifies the “terrifying, glorious and powerful, real personal presence of YHWH,” in this instance, it must be connected to the appearance of the manna, as the ‫ כְ בֹוד ְיהוָה‬could also refer to an incident brought about by YHWH (cf. Num 14,22; Isa 6,3; Ps 19,2).81 The both notions of the concept of the ‫ כְ בֹוד ְיהוָה‬are reflected in our text. The appearance of the ‫ כְ בֹוד יְ הוָה‬as “God’s gift of his personal presence” occurs in v. 10. On the other hand, God manifests his glory in the sending of manna through which he further reveals his saving presence. Again, this address is markedly YHWH-centred.82 It has been noted above that the murmuring was only implicitly directed at YHWH. This rejoinder transfers the target of people’s grumbling squarely to the divine sphere: ‫בְ שָ ְמעֹו אֶ ת־‬ ‫ ְתלֻּנֹ תֵ יכֶם ַעל־יְ הוָה‬. Moses and Aaron make it plainly clear that the feedback being communicated originates from YHWH who has heard the complaint directed against him. Also, this statement underscores the contrast between the action of the people and reaction of YHWH. The people’s action consists in ‫ְת ֻל ֹּנת ַעל־‬ ‫( ְיהוָה‬thus rebellion), while YHWH’s reaction consists in his gracious, salvific ‫( שמע‬cf. Ex 2,24; 3,7). The divine implication of the people’s murmuring is further elaborated in the concluding statement: ‫וְ נַחְ נּו מָ ה כִ י תַ ּלִ ינּו ָעלֵינּו‬. (“for what are we, that you murmur against us?”). The self-abnegation of Moses and Aaron is highlighted by the use of the rhetorical question ‫וְ נַחְ נּו מָ ה‬. And the second part of the statement ‫ כִ י תַ ּלִ ינּו ָעלֵינּו‬reiterates what has been said in the preceding statement. Taken together then, Moses and Aaron strongly declare their role as secondary. YHWH is the one at the centre-stage of all the events. In v. 8, there occurs a change in the subject of the address – from Moses and Aaron to Moses alone – introduced by ‫( וַי ֹאמֶ ר מֹ שֶ ה‬And Moses said).83 Moses takes up the issues raised in the idiomatic address of vv. 6–7, and elucidates them.84 A table of the correspondence between the former and the latter addresses makes this connection evident:

‫ ְיהוָה‬progressively assumes greater significance as the Pentateuch unfolds (cf. Ex 24,16–17; 40,34–35; Lv 9,23; etc.). A deeper study of this concept will be taken in v. 10. 81 C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 333; so also J. VAN SETERS, The Life of Moses, 183–184. 82 The divine name ‫ ְיהוָה‬occurs 3x in this short speech. 83 Kupfer remarkably interprets this shift to Moses alone in the continuation of the address as a narrative technique which redirects focus on the authority of Moses. For him also, the seeming redundancy in the speech of Moses here is advertent – meant to create an emphasis. Cf. C.D. KUPFER, Mit Israel, 62. 84 Maiberger observes here that it is fitting that Moses would be the person who elucidates and concretises the earlier speech because it is he alone who received YHWH’s promise in vv. 4–5. Cf. P. MAIBERGER, Das Manna, I, 111.

2. The People’s Complaint and the Divine Promise

113

Moses and Aaron (vv. 6–7)

Moses (v. 8)

By evening, you shall know that YHWH brought you out of the land of Egypt and by morning, you shall see the glory of

When the YHWH gives you meat to eat in the evening and bread to satiety in the morning

YHWH

because he has heard your murmuring against YHWH for what are we, that you murmur against us?

because YHWH has heard your murmurings which you murmur against him now what are we? Your murmuring is not against us but against YHWH

Moses’ address gives concretisation to the coded events of evening/morning: from “you shall know” to “eating meat” in the evening; from “you shall see” to “eating bread” in the morning. Noticeably, however, one particularity of this Moserede in v. 8 is that, with the verb ‫נתן‬, he highlights YHWH as the subject – the giver – of the gifts which the people are to receive, and thus underscores the point that the people will have to appreciate the bread/meat as a divine gift. Again, Moses’ reiteration at this point that the murmuring of the Israelites is against YHWH, not against him and Aaron, pitches the gracious gift of God against the rebellion of the people. Also, the use of the verb ‫ ׂשבע‬here harks back to the people’s murmuring in v. 3, and thus counters it. Further to be noted here is that, in explicating the events of morning and evening, Moses uses fewer words than in the previous idiomatic expression: 13//9 words. But in the part that makes explicit that the complaint is against YHWH, he uses much more words than the previous speech: 10//16 words. This indicates that though Moses’ own address clarifies the earlier address, the emphasis of his speech lies more in the people’s contro-YHWH rebellion. As such, it exposes the narrator’s objective to bring to light the deep consequences of the murmuring of the Israelites – characterisation. Again, because v. 8 repeats many motifs of the earlier speech (vv. 6–7), it is adjudged by source-critical analysts an added gloss to the original flow of the story.85 But more fundamental here is to consider the functionality of this verse in the unfolding of the narrative plot. The first address is primarily figurative, but still performs the function of communicating the intervention of YHWH to the people. The second address takes the further step of breaking down the message of the divine in literal terms, using the same structure and many lexicons of the previous address.86 Without the second address, the significance of

85 For e.g., H. GRESSMANN, Mose und seine Zeit, 124, M. NOTH, Exodus, 134; E. RUPRECHT, “Stellung”, 280; D. FRANKEL, The Murmurming Stories, 71. 86 C. Houtman (Exodus, II, 334) also arrives at similar considerations on the relationship between vv. 6–7 and v. 8.

114

Chapter III: The Bread from Heaven

the previous one would remain hanging.87 Also, this two-step approach becomes a technique of accentuating twice the divine dimension of the rebellion of the Israelites, an important point in the plot of this narrative.88 Most likely then, the narrator advertently applies this two-step address in order to achieve specific purposes. At this point, a matter of curiosity props up: Does the address of Moses and Aaron actually represent YHWH’s intervention in vv. 4–5?89 If not exactly,90 have Moses and Aaron expanded the message of the divine arbitrarily?91 Again, how will YHWH act – according to his “original plan” in vv. 4–5 or according to the exposition of the human mediators? More suspense mounts. 2.4 Appearance of God’s Glory and Confirmation of Promise (vv. 9–12) Another shift in scenario takes place at this point. Having addressed the people, Moses turns to Aaron 92 and asks him to instruct all the Israelites ( ‫כָל־עֲדַ ת בְ נֵי‬ 87 Note the transition from ‫ ֹבקֶ ר‬/‫ ֶע ֶרב‬to ‫בַ ֹבקֶ ר‬/‫ בָ ֶע ֶרב‬. As already noted, the use of ‫ ֶע ֶרב‬and ‫ ֹבקֶ ר‬is figurative in the first address: a merismus for the “day” (harking back to the creation account in Genesis). In the second address, the use becomes literal. 88 The root ‫ לון‬appears 5x in vv. 6–8, while the divine name ‫ ְיהוָה‬occurs 6x therein. Furthermore, to highlight the divine dimension of the murmuring, the question ‫ נַחְ נּו מָ ה‬appears in both addresses, aptly described by Sarna as “a self-deprecating rhetorical question that is intensified by the use of Hebrew mah, literally ‘what,’ employed of things rather than persons.” N.M. SARNA, Exodus, 87. 89 Schmidt captures this curiosity well in his observation, “Es stellt sich die Frage, woher Mose und Aaron eingentlich wissen, dass Jahwe am Abend und am Morgen helfen wird.” L. SCHMIDT, Studien zur Priesterschrift, 39. Van Seters observes, however, that such considerable difference could also be observed in the divine speeches and what is reported of them in Ex 10,1–6 and 11,1–8. Cf. J. VAN SETERS, Life of Moses, 186. Such phenomenon is thus not strange in the macronarrative of Exodus. 90 Kupfer submits that one can see a continuation between vv. 4–5 and 6–8, especially through the promised bread. However, vv. 6–8 represents an expansion of the preceding verses. The reader, convinced of Moses and Aaron’s legitimacy, understands their address as a result of YHWH’s speech to Moses. Still, this conclusion is not certain, subject to confirmation or refutation. Cf. C.D. KUPFER, Mit Israel, 65. 91 In such case, Sternberg points out the importance of analysing the structural framework of reported speech so as to discover the speaker’s point of view. Cf. M. STERNBERG, “Point of View”, 68–75. And, as Invernizzi rightly points out, in comparing the source and its citation, an examination of the subtle variations between them are useful indicators for exegesis. Cf. L. INVERNIZZI, «Perchè mi hai inviato?», 116; for a detailed treatment, see G.W. SAVRAN, Telling and Retelling, 37–76. 92 The task of Aaron here is also interpreted as “priestly” in some quarters. It has to be Aaron, not Moses, who makes this summon because of the cultic character of the gathering. Cf. C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 335; M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 306. However, the priestly function of Aaron is not evident here. It appears more probable that Aaron is only continuing here his duty as the mouthpiece and collaborator of Moses (cf. Ex 4,16; 7,1). So D. FRANKEL, The Murmuring Stories, 101.

2. The People’s Complaint and the Divine Promise

115

‫) ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬93 to draw near before YHWH. Though it is clear that to draw near here is

a “specifically cultic language, referring to acts of obeisance and worship,”94 the exact significance of drawing near ‫ לִ פְ נֵי ְיהוָה‬at this point is difficult to determine precisely. Up to this point in the Hebrew Bible, the expression ‫ לִ פְ נֵי ְיהוָה‬is used metaphorically for the presence of God.95 But its use here appears concrete, referring to the cloud that is to appear.96 As such, the use of ‫ לִ פְ נֵי ְיהוָה‬here, which would subsequently become a fixed expression in reference to the Tabernacle, presents this Erscheinung of YHWH as prefiguring the function of the Tabernacle – the special cultic presence of YHWH among his people. The reason for this convocation is made explicit: ‫“( כִ י שָ מַ ע אֵ ת ְת ֻל ֹּנתֵ יכֶם‬for he has heard your murmurings”). It is instructive here is that the salvific ‫ שמע‬of YHWH is the most developed element of his character so far in this narrative (repeated 3x). The Israelites had been repeatedly told that their murmuring was against YHWH. And now, they are notified that their murmuring is the reason for their being convoked before the divine majesty.97 The people who murmured against YHWH are to present themselves before him.98 Though the ‫שמע‬ of YHWH is salvific as pointed out above, and though the promise of YHWH has been communicated to the people, the outcome of this encounter remains dicey – What will be the consequence of the people’s murmuring? Again, suspense mounts.

93

Here, the cultic underpinnings of the ‫ ֵעדָ ה‬expression are more manifest. However, interpreted in line with the occurrences in vv. 1–2 (this is the third occurrence in the pericope), the use of the phrase ‫ כָל־עֲדַ ת בְ נֵי ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬here continues to underscore the involvement of all the Israelites in this crucial Erscheinung episode. 94 S.A. GELLER, “Manna and Sabbath”, 11. Maiberger’s interpretation of this “drawing near” as directing attention solely to the divine word is not convincing. Cf. P. MAIBERGER, Das Manna, I, 155–156. 95 Before this point, this expression occurs 6x in the Hebrew Bible – Gen 10,9 (2x); 18,22; 27,7; Ex 6,12; 6,30 – used symbolically to refer to the presence of God. It is only after the Sinaitic encounter that it is used concretely to refer to the Tabernacle (and later the Temple/Sanctuary). Its usage here portrays a concrete meaning, and, for this reason, is often considered anachronism by scholars. But, as Priotto aptly observes, in the usage of the expression ‫ )קרב( לִ פְ נֵי ְיהוָה‬in Exodus, “si tratta in ogni caso di entrare alla presenza di YHWH, senza per questo presuppore necessariamente già la presenza di un santuario.” M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 306 (contra Childs who asserts that here, “the tent of meeting is undoubtedly meant.” B.S. CHILDS, The Book of Exodus, 287). 96 So W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 595; U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 193–194. It is understood then that Moses had a foreknowledge of this apparition. 97 Also noteworthy here is that, considering the magnitude of this message, Moses’ directive to Aaron is most likely a divine instruction which the narrator did not to report – another gap, producing the effect of curiosity. 98 In line with his position that the complaint of the Israelites has no negative connotation, Ruprecht interprets this convocation as a Klagefeier. Cf. E. RUPRECHT, “Stellung”, 280. Considering the address in vv. 6–8, this is hardly convincing.

116

Chapter III: The Bread from Heaven

Aaron turns right away to the task assigned to him. But as he was still addressing ‫ ָכל־עֲדַ ת בְ נֵי ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬, a remarkable apparition happens.99 They turn “toward the wilderness” and behold the glory of YHWH. But the Israelites are already in the wilderness (vv. 1.2). How is it then that they turn “towards the wilderness”? There is a diversity of scholarly opinions here which can be grouped into three: a. those who suggest that the MT text has been redactionally corrected and thus propose an emendation;100 b. those who interpret the phrase in a metaphorical/theological sense, as the Israelites are already physically in the wilderness;101 c. those who adopt a literal interpretation.102 Of the three positions, the emendation option is the least tenable. We do not amend a text simply because it is difficult. The metaphorical/theological option is tenable, but it belongs to the second level of interpretation. From the context, the expression appears literal. However, as Childs points out, it presents “a somewhat clumsy indication of direction and should not be pressed for greater precision.”103 In all, evaluating the whole scenario, and considering the simultaneity of the events, it appears very probable that Aaron was addressing the people at a locus around their tents (the presence of tents is evidenced in v. 16).104 And then, at a locus a bit removed from their position, the apparition of the cloud begins to happen.105 This invariably attracts their attention and they turn towards it.106 The perception of the Israelites as they turn “towards the wilderness” is introduced by the particle ‫וְ הִ ּנֵה‬, an expression often (not always) used as a marker of “free indirect perception.”107 Functioning in this way, the particle is used in 99 Houtman’s contention that the expression ‫ כְ דַ בֵ ר אַ הֲרֹ ן‬here means “as soon as Aaron has conveyed the request” is not quite convincing. Cf. C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 335; so P. MAIBERGER, Das Manna, I, 156–157. Both grammatically (‫ כ‬+ infinitive) and within the context, the simultaneity of the events appears more ad rem. Again, note the repeated use of ‫כָל־עֲדַ ת‬ ‫( בְ נֵי ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬vv. 9.10), denoting this event as remarkable for Israel as a people. 100 So A. DILLMANN, Exodus und Leviticus, 156: ‫ ;אהל מֹועד‬B. BAENTSCH, Exodus–Leviticus, 148: ‫משכן‬. 101 So B. JACOB, The Second Book, 442; M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 307. 102 So A. SCHART, Mose und Israel, 127; C. DOHMEN, Exodus 1–18, 387–388; J.I. Durham (Exodus, 220) interprets it as directional – towards Sinai; and U. CASSUTO, (Exodus, 194): towards the pillar of cloud at the heart of the desert. 103 B.S. CHILDS, The Book of Exodus, 287. 104 The idea of “going out” to gather the manna (vv. 4.27.29) also supports this idea of the presence of tents. 105 So M. NOTH, Exodus, 134. 106 On the use of the term ‫ ִמ ְדבָ ר‬here, Priotto aptly observes that the wilderness which represented the realm of death in the people’s complaint (v. 3) now becomes the place encounter with YHWH. Cf. M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 307. 107 On this function of ‫וְ הִ ּנֵה‬, see D. MCCARTHY, “The Use of wehinneh”, 330–342; M. STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 51–53; A. GIANTO, “Some Notes on Evidentiality”, 145–149; J.-P. SONNET, “L’analisi narrativa”, 73–76; B.K. WALTKE / M. O’CONNOR, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 676.

2. The People’s Complaint and the Divine Promise

117

biblical narratives to introduce the reader to the point of view of biblical characters, allowing the reader to “take part” in their direct sensory experience. As Sonnet rightly points out, when the narrator adopts an internal perspective, it is often because he wants to associate the reader with the experience of biblical characters in key moments of action.108 Such phenomenon applies here. The appearance of the ‫ כְ בֹוד ְיהוָה‬at this point is a key moment, not just in the narrative, but in the history of Israel.109 It conveys the reassurance of divine presence at this perilous time,110 and confirms the promise of something vital to the survival of Israel as a people – manna in the wilderness. Introducing this epic event with the particle ‫וְ הִ ּנֵה‬, the audience (primarily the exilic/post-exilic Israelites) are thus brought to re-live this crucial experience in their present circumstances, with the concomitant reassurance of divine presence 111 (and they can re-live it after having turned their gaze to “the wilderness”, presented from the very beginning as the place of testing). The Israelites behold the divine glory ‫ – בֶ ָענָן‬in the cloud. The mode of this manifestation is open to different interpretations. Because of the definite article in the term ‫בֶ ָענָן‬, it could be interpreted as a reference to an already existing cloud – the guiding pillar of cloud of chapters 13–14,112 On the other hand, it 108 J.-P. SONNET, “L’analisi narrativa”, 75. D.J. McCarthy corroborates this in his assertion that this particle “is used primarily when there is something dramatic or emotionally telling about the cause or the time or the condition or whatever it is expressing.” D.J. MCCARTHY, “The Use of wehinneh”, 342. 109 The apparition of the ‫ כְ בֹוד ְיהוָה‬in the cloud happens in prime moments in the history of Israel: at the ratification of the covenant at Sinai (Ex 24,16–17); at the erection of the Tabernacle (Ex 40,34–35); at the inauguration of the cultic priesthood (Lev 9,23); at the dedication of the Temple (1Kgs 8,10–11). Such apparition here underscores the importance of the manna-event in the history of the people. 110 Rendtorff describes the ‫ כְ בֹוד ְיהוָה‬as “that aspect of the activity of Jahweh that could be perceived by men and in which he himself is revealed in power.” R. RENDTORFF, “The Concept of Revelation”, 37. And Weinfeld explains that such divine manifestation, rooted in the ANE notion of gods (and kings) being surrounded with glory, reveals divine majesty and evokes fear and reverence. In the biblical tradition, during Israel’s period of wilderness wandering, YHWH’s glory is manifested at the revelation of important messages, “usually immediately after their revolt or rebellion against their leaders (Ex 16,10; Num 14,10; 16,19; 17,7[16,42]; 20,6).” These messages come usually from the Tent of Meeting, “understood as the central sanctuary from which God addresses Moses (cf. Ex. 40,34 – Lev 1,1).” M. WEINFELD, “‫” ָכ ֹבד‬, TDOT, II, 29–38; see also G. von RAD, “‫ ָכ ֹבד‬in the OT”, TDNT, II, 238– 242. In our pericope, however, the Tent of Meeting has not been set up, and this manifestation is thus “extraordinary.” 111 R. Hendel terms this phenomenon “rhetoric of memory” through which the narrator makes the reader a witness to a crucial past event, “reviving the past with pragmatic effects of ‘presentative’ language.” R. HENDEL, “Cultural Memory”, 35. 112 So N.D. OSBORN / H.A. HATTON, A Handbook on Exodus, 391; M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 307; C.D. KUPFER, Mit Israel, 66. U. CASSUTO, A Commentary, 194; D. FRANKEL, The Murmuring Stories, 68.

118

Chapter III: The Bread from Heaven

has been understood by some scholars as a new cloud of special manifestation of the glory of God,113 akin to the apparition in 24,15–18 and 40,34–35.114 The first option, which argues that ‫ בֶ ָענָן‬refers to the guiding cloud, appears tenable here. But it is to be noted that, after crossing the Sea of Reeds, the guiding cloud is not mentioned again, and Moses is presented as assuming the task of guiding the Israelites in their Wüstenwanderung. Ex 15,22a specifies: ‫“( ַויַסַ ע מֹ שֶ ה אֶ ת־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל ִמיַם־סּוף ַויֵצְ אּו‬Then Moses made Israel set out from the Sea of Reeds”). It is difficult to imagine that the pillar of cloud would not be mentioned here at all if it were to be present (cp. 13, 20–22). Again, the accusation against Moses and Aaron that they “brought us into this wilderness” with murderous intent is more likely to have happened in the absence of the guiding pillar of cloud.115 The second option is more difficult to sustain grammatically if one retains the MT reading.116 However, a close study of the term ‫ ָענָן‬in the MT of Exodus (occurs 20x) reveals that in all its uses to refer to the appearance of the ‫כְ בֹוד ְיהוָה‬ (in this second sense), it is always expressed with a definite article, even when an indefinite article would be expected (such as in 19,9; 24,15; 40,34; also Lev 16,2). This implies that at the time of the composition of Exodus, the cloud that manifests the glory of YHWH had become an important fixed concept in the collective memory of the people. It is therefore referred to in concrete terms, as something already known. From the cloud, YHWH speaks to Moses (v. 11).117 By performing this act before the people, YHWH reconfirms Moses as his mediator and lends credence to the words he has pronounced in his name (cf. Ex 19,9). Here, the words spoken to Moses by YHWH are accentuated by the direct-speech marker (‫)ּלֵאמֹ ר‬,118 drawing attention to the words that are to be spoken to Moses. The address of YHWH begins by reasserting the words: “I have heard (‫ )שָ מַ עְ ִתי‬the

113 So W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 595; T.B. DOZEMAN, Exodus, 384; S.A. GELLER, “Manna and Sabbath”, 11. 114 In both cases, the Erscheinung performs “confirmatory” functions. In 24,15–18, for e.g., the terms of the covenant, which are originally words of YHWH communicated by Moses to the people in chs. 19–24, are solemnly confirmed. 115 Contra L.R. KASS, Founding God’s Nation, 226. 116 The LXX circumvents this difficulty by dropping the definite article: ἐν νεφέλῃ, “in a cloud.” 117 Because the content of the following message has already been delivered to the Israelites, a few scholars interpret ‫ ַו ְידַ בֵ ר‬here as pluperfect: “had spoken” (for e.g., J. CALVIN, Commentaries on the Last Four Books, I, 273–274). But there are no grammatical grounds for this interpretation. 118 Direct speeches are introduced 15x in this narrative, but this term is only used 2x among them: vv. 11.12. This indicates of the highlighted importance of this speech.

2. The People’s Complaint and the Divine Promise

119

murmurings of the Israelites.”119 Prior to this narrative, YHWH had declared by himself that he has heard (…‫ )שָ מַ עְ ִתי‬the plight of the Israelites twice in Exodus: Ex 3,7; 6,5 (cf. Ex 2,24). In these cases, he went on to roll out a salvific plan for the people. And so, the following declaration of the divine is to be understood in the light of God’s salvific plan for his people.120 This underscores all the more the importance of the manna-event in Israel’s history of salvation. Going further, YHWH declares his salvific plan for the Israelites which Moses is to make known to the Israelites.121 And the plan is that they will eat meat in the evening ( ‫)בֵ ין הָ ַע ְרבַ ִים‬122 and bread to satiety in the morning. The salvific value of this plan lies in its constituting an intervention to the bemoaned danger of death ‫ בָ ָר ָעב‬in the midst of the wilderness. The declaration addresses definitively the complaint of the people. They wished for Egypt where they claimed to sit ‫ ַעל־סִ יר הַ בָ ׂשָ ר‬and eat ‫לֶחֶ ם ָלׂשֹבַ ע‬. Now YHWH is freely providing meat and abundance of bread. This is to say: What is claimed (!) to be the allure of Egypt is now to be found in abundance in YHWH. At this point, also, the reader infers that the communication of Moses in v. 8 that the people will eat meat in the morning and bread in the evening actually represents the message of YHWH in vv. 4–5, though not explicitly stated there. We thus find here a good example of what Sternberg describes as the evolvement “from the truth to the whole truth” in the poetics of biblical narratives. This divine speech is concluded with the declaration of the purpose of the salvific intervention: ‫“( וִ ידַ עְ תֶ ם כִ י ֲא ִני ְיהוָה ֱאֹלהֵ יכֶם‬Then you shall know that I am 119 Though already relayed by Moses and Aaron, this is the first time that this strong assertion is coming directly from YHWH in this narrative, the third mention of the ‫ שמע‬of YHWH in this narrative – characterisation! 120 Also to be noted is that in the address of Moses and Aaron in vv. 6–8, this statement appears condemnatory – the people have murmured against YHWH. Here, it is salvific! 121 The functionality of this command – ‫ – דַ בֵ ר ֲאלֵהֶ ם לֵאמֹ ר‬which apparently is already carried out in v. 8, is discussed below. 122 There has not been a consensus regarding the precise meaning of this expression. Grammatically, it has been interpreted both as a real dual (JM § 91g) and as an apparent dual (GK § 88c; HebSyn § 18b). Houtman identifies four different interpretations of the expression: a. the time period between sunset and nightfall, as held by the Samaritans, Sadducees and Karaites (so BDB; HALOT; R. de VAUX, Histoire, I, 323); b. the period of time before and after sunset (so A. DILLMANN, Exodus und Leviticus, 115; B. BAENTSCH, Exodus–Leviticus, 94); c. the time from 3pm to sundown (6pm), as held by the Pharisees (cf. Josephus, AJ, XIV, 65; Jub 49,1.10.12); d. [regarding the Passover] the time between both settings (= of sun and moon), i.e. as long as the moon is in the sky. Cf. C. HOUTMAN, Exodus II, 175. This work goes with Propp who posits that it refers to the “twi-light” between sunset and dark, synonymous with ‫“ ערב‬evening.” Among other instances, he points out that while Ex 12,6 prescribes that the ‫ פסח‬should take place “between the two evenings”, Dt 16,4.6 stipulates that the paschal victim be slaughtered “at evening… at the sun’s entering (setting).” Cf. W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 390–391. Considering v. 8 vis-à-vis v. 12 in our pericope, ‫( בֵ ין הָ ַע ְרבַ ִים‬v. 12) corresponds to ‫( ֶע ֶרב‬v. 8).

120

Chapter III: The Bread from Heaven

YHWH your God”). This is the culminating point of the divine speech. The

provision of food in abundance, which saves the people from the danger of extermination by hunger, is aimed at bringing them the realisation that salvation is found only in YHWH (i.e., not in Egypt or anywhere else). The salvific acts of YHWH in Exodus demonstrate his powers as supreme. And, as already noted, it is his intent that this power be acknowledged by all, especially by his people. In addition, the striking link between this divine speech and YHWH’s declaration of his salvific plan in Ex 6 is worth exploring: a.

b. c.

d.

Ex 6,5–7

Ex 16,12

I have also heard the groaning of the Israelites whom the Egyptians are holding in bondage, and I have remembered my covenant. Say therefore to the Israelites, “I am YHWH, and I will free you from the burdens of the Egyptians and deliver you from their bondage. I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgment. And I will take you as my people, and I will be your God. Then you shall know that I am the YHWH your God, [‫ ]וִ ידַ עְ תֶ ם כִ י ֲא ִני ְיהוָה ֱאֹלהֵ יכֶם‬who has freed you from the burdens of the Egyptians.”

I have heard the murmurings of the Israelites.

Speak to them saying, “At twilight you will eat meat, and in the morning you have you shall be sated with bread.

Then you shall know that I am YHWH your God” [‫]וִ ידַ עְ תֶ ם כִ י ֲא ִני ְיהוָה ֱאֹלהֵ יכֶם‬.

The correlation between these two passages, both in structure and in content, is inescapable.123 From the table, it is remarkable that eating meat/bread to satiety is placed at the same functional level as being freed from the oppression of the Egyptians. Both are decisive acts by which YHWH intends to bring the people to a closer knowledge of him. This corroborates the earlier inference that YHWH’s provision of food in the wilderness is considered a major salvific act in the cultural memory of the Israelites.124 Also, Ruprecht notes the significance of the ‫ כְ בֹוד ְיהוָה‬in Ex 16 as a connecting link between the salvific manifestation of YHWH at the departure from Egypt and at the Sinai. In v. 7, the ‫ כְ בֹוד ְיהוָה‬refers to YHWH’s salvific power made 123

It is important to note, however, that though these two divine speeches have many similarities in content, their immediate contexts are different. And each speech has to be understood primarily from the Standpunkt of its context. For our purposes here, this comparison brings to light the profound salvific value of YHWH’s provision of food. 124 The statement ‫ וִ ידַ עְ תֶ ם כִ י־ ֲא ִני ְיהוָה‬by YHWH is also found in Ex 10,2, made in reference to the plagues meted out to the Egyptians, and in Ex 29,46, in reference to his consecration of the Tabernacle and dwelling among the Israelites therein. Again, in both cases, YHWH demonstrates the salvific power.

2. The People’s Complaint and the Divine Promise

121

visible through the deliverance of the people from Egypt. In v. 10, it refers to the “beeindruckende Theophanie” in which the saving power of God is made manifest though his glorious presence among the people, akin to his special cultic presence at the Tabernacle (cf. 40,34–35). The manna-event thus brings together these two aspects of YHWH’s glory: the manifestation of the divine salvific power through his deeds and through his presence.125 And both of these are special phenomena through which YHWH brings the people to a closer knowledge of him.126 Furthermore, this divine speech is clearly connected to the address of Moses and Aaron in vv. 6–8, especially that of Moses in v. 8. The following table makes this evident: YHWH to Moses (v. 12)

Moses/Aaron to the People (vv. 6–8)

I have heard the murmurings of the Israelites Speak to them saying

v.8 because YHWH has heard your murmurings v.6 Then Moses and Aaron said to all the Israelites v.8 When the YHWH gives you meat to eat in the evening v.8 and bread to satiety in the morning

At twilight you will eat meat and in the morning you have you will be sated with bread Then you shall know that I am YHWH your God

v.6 you shall know that YHWH brought you out of the land of Egypt

In fact, regarded as repetitive of vv. 6–8 by many scholars, v. 12 is often deemed redundant in the flow of the narrative.1 And the instruction contained herein appears retroactive, and already carried out. But the divine speech is introduced by a wayyiqtol - ‫ ַו ְידַ בֵ ר‬, indicating a continuation in the narrative sequence.2 And as there are no antecedents in the build-up to this narrative to suggest that Moses and Aaron were acting on their own authority, it is most 125 Cf. E. RUPRECHT, “Stellung”, 291–293. Schmidt also expresses a similar thought, adjudging Ex 16 a bridge between the deliverance at the Sea of Reeds and the stay at Sinai. Cf. L. SCHMIDT, “Die Priesterschrift”, 490. 126 Note again the interference between resolution and realisation. Cf. Chap. II § 3.2.2. 1 Fit to note here is that a subtle difference plays out in this repetition (for a good example of the functionality of such subtle differences in repetition in biblical poetics, see L. INVERNIZZI, «Perchè mi hai inviato», 340–349). In both instances, the Israelites are to be brought to knowledge. However, while in v. 6, they are to be brought to the knowledge of a divine act: “you shall know that YHWH brought you out of the land of Egypt”, in v. 12, they are to be brought to the knowledge of YHWH himself: “you shall know that I am YHWH your God.” Thus, though repetitive, the reader perceives in the divine speech a shift to a deeper level of perception. 2 Contra the opinion that this should be translated: “Now, the Lord has spoken to Moses saying...” (for e.g., B. JACOB, The Second Book, 442). For this, we would expect a qatal construction: ‫וַיהוָה דַ בֵ ר אֶ ל־מֹ שֶ ה ּלֵאמֹ ר‬.

122

Chapter III: The Bread from Heaven

probable that these had earlier been instructed by YHWH (passed over in silence by the narrator). Now, if they were acting according to divine instructions, the question becomes: Why would the declaration be made again? What purpose does this “redundant repetition” serve?3 To explain this, B.S. Childs applies a form-critical solution.4 His approach is laudable inasmuch as it argues for the interpretation of the text as it appears, and detects the crucial function of the theophany in this narrative. But a more fundamental task is to uncover the purpose of this seeming redundancy in the evolvement of the narrative plot. Now, the intervention of YHWH to the people’s murmuring in vv. 4–5 is strategic in the plot of this narrative, and triggers a series of events. But the words spoken to the people by Moses and Aaron reveal more than those disclosed in the first divine address. The reader fills this “gap” by imagining that the Moses and Aaron were acting according to divine directives. In filling this gap however, the reader is not sure of treading on secure grounds until his supposition is confirmed by the narrator.5 To disperse every element of doubt, therefore, these very words are solemnly confirmed in the theophany scene.6 What YHWH commands Moses to tell the people is already announced to them. But it was not explicitly disclosed that Moses received these very words. The evolving narrative thus reaches its crescendo in the theophany event. The speech of YHWH at this apparition does not replace the earlier one, passed over in silence, but rather confirms it.7 This not only confirms the authenticity of the mediating role of Moses (and Aaron), but also calls the people to faith in their God, and solemnly reiterates the purpose of the salvific plan: a closer knowledge of YHWH.8 In sum, the message that was passed over in silence (curiosity gap!), is divulged idiomatically by 3 Evaluating the sequence of events in vv. 6–12, Propp concludes that “the Priestly Writer was simply confused.” W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 594. This represents the initial impression one tends to get in reading this narrative. But an in-depth analysis reveals otherwise. Rather than confusion, the narrator has purposely arranged this text in this manner. And it is the task of the exegete to uncover this purpose. 4 Childs finds a “traditional pattern” in three complaint narratives which are attributed to P: Ex 16; Num 14; 16. This pattern evolves in a regular sequence: People’s murmuring – Disputation – Theophany – Divine instruction to Moses (for the people). For him, it is in trying to keep to this “traditional pattern” that these verses appear sequentially illogical. Cf. B.S. CHILDS, The Book of Exodus, 279–280. 5 Cf. M. STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 235–236. 6 The significance of YHWH speaking to Moses in the context of a theophany scene cannot be overemphasised. It confers on the message a mark of solemnity. Moses’ encounter with YHWH in Ex 3 provides a good example here. 7 So C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 336. Cf. also C. DOHMEN, Exodus 1–18, 388. 8 Ruprecht also points out here that YHWH’s confirmation of his saving intervention from the cloud legitimates, in anticipation, the function of the Heiligstum among the people as the locus from where YHWH would save the community from different dangers and difficulties. Cf. E. RUPRECHT, “Stellung und Bedeutung”, 298.

3. Fulfilment of Promise

123

Moses and Aaron (vv. 6–7), becomes clarified by Moses (v. 8), and is solemnly confirmed by YHWH in this apparition (vv. 9–12). It is pertinent to point out here that the regulation concerning the gathering of the food does not appear in this divine speech. The regulation is thus assumed as remaining as was given ab initio. But one observes a significant difference between the purpose of the divine intervention as stated in the first and the second divine addresses. In v. 4, the reason for the divine intervention is “in order that I may test them, whether they will walk according to my instruction or not”; while in v. 12, it is so that “you shall know that I am YHWH your God”1. However, subjected to a critical analysis, both statements are not mutually exclusive. They rather signal a relationship between the divine test and the people’s knowledge of their God. This relationship will become clearer as the Manna-Erzählung evolves.

3. Fulfilment of Promise, Instructions and Reactions (vv. 13–21) This section is comprised of the appearance of the promised food (vv. 13–14); the clarification of the food and the first instruction (on the quantity to be gathered) and the people’s reaction (vv. 15–18); the second instruction (on the preservation of the food) and the people’s reaction (vv. 19–20); and the resolution of the episode: the people’s compliance (v. 21). 3.1 Appearance of the Food (vv. 13–14) The episode is introduced by ‫ ַו ְיהִ י בָ ֶע ֶרב‬, which presents a remarkable Wendepunkt in the unfolding of the narrative plot. By this expression, the important motif of the fulfilment of the divine promise is introduced, and this triggers a series of events subsequently. It is to be observed that the fulfilment of the divine promise follows immediately after the significant theophanic encounter in which the promise was solemnly confirmed. This immediacy impresses upon the reader the fidelity of YHWH to his word. This fulfilment of the given promise in vv. 13–14 follows the evening-morning sequence indicated in the foregoing speeches (cf. vv. 6–7.8.12; the term ‫ֶע ֶרב‬ occurs specifically in vv. 6.8.12). And this happens, beginning from the very evening of the Erscheinung: ‫“( ַו ְיהִ י בָ ֶע ֶרב וַתַ ַעל הַ ְשלָו ו ְַתכַס אֶ ת־הַ מַ ֲחנֶה‬In the evening, quail came up and covered the camp”). With the construction ‫ ַו ְיהִ י בָ ֶע ֶרב‬, the reader is signalled that the awaited, decisive moment has come.2 In fulfilment of the promise of meat, YHWH sends quails which come up and cover the camp. On this, many studies have convincingly demonstrated that the mention of 1 Many scholars locate the solution to this in different sources of the narrative. But this is interpreted here from a narrative-critical point of view. 2 Cf. C.D. KUPFER, Mit Israel, 67.

124

Chapter III: The Bread from Heaven

quails here is an allusion to the memory of these birds which migrate over the Sinai Peninsula twice a year. Quail (coturnix communis) is “a brown speckled migratory bird that reaches a length of about 20 cm and resembles a small partridge”3. Every spring, quails migrate from Africa and Asia to warmer areas in southern Europe, flying over the Sinai Peninsula. And in autumn, they make the reverse movement. Because of their body-weight and the stretch of the journey, many of them fall to the ground exhausted and become easy preys. It is reported that the quails appear in great quantity at the Mediterranean coast of the Sinai Peninsula in these seasons, and constitute a significant source of nourishment for the people.4 In this narrative, however, important to the narrator is not the historical exactitude of the quail event, but the point that YHWH satisfied the people’s desire for meat, in accordance with his words of promise.5 As Durham rightly observes, “The preface to these narratives in vv. 1–12 is alone enough to establish their theological intention, but the narratives themselves underscore that intention repeatedly.”6 The narrative recounts that quails came up (‫)וַתַ ַעל הַ ְשלָו‬.7 If quails are birds that fall from the sky, as explained above, it appears contradictory that they are said to have come up, as if arising from the ground. But as Noth and Cassuto explain, the quails come up not from the ground but “from the horizon.”8 All the more, a comparative analysis with the occurrence of a similar construction in Ex 8,2[8,6] elucidates this statement further. Just as quails come up ( ‫)וַתַ ַעל‬ and cover (‫ )ו ְַתכַס‬the camp here, in 8,2, as Aaron stretched his hands over Egyptian waters, frogs came up ( ‫ )וַתַ ַעל‬and covered (‫ )ו ְַתכַס‬the land. Though the frogs 3

C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, I, 144. Cf. P. MAIBERGER, “‫”ׂשלָו‬, ְ TDOT, XIV, 135–137; J. GRAY, “The Desert Sojourn”, 148– 149; F.S. BODENHEIMER, Animal and Man, 59. A. DILLMANN, Exodus und Leviticus, 186– 187; J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 224. Also, with this understanding, Cassuto infers that the appearance of quails in Ex 16,13 and Num 11,31–34 are two separate incidents that occurred at the same season of the year, one year apart. While in Exodus it occurs on the fifteenth day of the second month after the Israelites left Egypt (16,1), in Numbers, it happens on twentieth day of the second month, in the second year (10,11). Cf. U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 194–195. 5 Cf. C. DOHMEN, Exodus 1–18, 389; M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 307. 6 J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 225. 7 The term ‫ הַ ְשלָו‬functions here as a collective noun. In its 4x in the Hebrew Bible, the plural form occurs only once (Num 11,31). In the other 3x (Ex 16,13; Num 11,32; Ps 105,40), the singular form is used in the collective sense. On the accompanying definite article, Cassuto (Exodus, 195) posits that its use here is because the quail is “something generally known and clear.” This appears unlikely because, at the time of composing this, the Israelites were centuries away from the experience at the Sinai Peninsula. More likely is the observation of Propp (Exodus 1–18, 595) that, often in the Hebrew Bible, animal names are used in the collective sense with the definite article. Cf. Gen 40,17; Ex 8,2; 10,12; Lev 1,14; Deut 28,38; Jdg 7,12. 8 Cf. M. NOTH, Exodus, 134; U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 194. 4

3. Fulfilment of Promise

125

in 8,2 clearly come up from the waters, it is still deducible that in both cases, the verb ‫ עלה‬refers to the suddenness of the appearance of the animals, while ‫ כסה‬indicates the large quantity of the animals that appear.9 The combination of these two verbs signals the supernatural character of these events.10 They are indeed divine acts. Beyond this point, there is no more reference to the quails in the narrative (in fact, until Num 11). It is not explicitly indicated whether the quails appeared only once or continued to appear every evening. In spite of this ambiguity, considering the non-mention of the quail again, and evaluated in connection with the complaint in Num 11,4–6 where the Israelites grumbled about of the monotony of eating only manna, it seems more likely that the appearance of the quail was a sole event.11 The sequence of the fulfilment of promise is completed in the morning. And the parallel construction in v. 13a//b, which harks back to the two-step promise of intervention, catches the eyes immediately: v. 13a v. 13b

‫ַו ְיהִ י בָ ֶע ֶרב וַתַ ַעל הַ ְשלָו ו ְַת ַכס אֶ ת־הַ מַ ֲחנֶה‬ In the evening, quail came up and covered the camp ‫ּובַ בֹ קֶ ר הָ ְיתָ ה ִשכְ בַ ת הַ טַ ל סָ בִ יב לַמַ ֲחנֶה‬ and in the morning, there was a layer of dew around the camp.

In this parallel relationship, however, it is to be observed that in v. 13a, the object that constitutes the promised food – quail – is immediately mentioned. But in v. 13b, corresponding to the quail, the narrative only presents a layer of dew. And this forms the basis of the gradual evolvement of a story which will eventually turn out to be of key significance in the memory of Israel as a people. Also to be noted is that just as the quails “covered the camp”, so also does the layer of dew appear “around the camp.” And the reader cannot but wonder how the layer of dew constitutes the fulfilment of the promise to the people that they will be satiated with bread – another point of suspense. The resolution of this suspense begins right away. The next statement starts by stating: “When the layer of dew went up (…‫)וַתַ ַעל‬.”12 The layer of dew does not constitute the awaited fulfilment. It is only an ephemeral phenomenon that “introduces” the bleibende reality. But it also plays an important role. In v. 4, 9

Also, in flood account in Genesis, the verb ‫ כסה‬is used for the water in the flood account indicate an overflowing fullness (Gen 7,19–20). Furthermore, on the quantity of quails that came up, see the description in Num 11,31–32. 10 Hamilton however detects a contrast in the functionality of these two events, both occasioned by YHWH. In 8,2, the “coming up and covering” denotes judgment, while in 16,3, it denotes blessing. Cf. V.P. HAMILTON, Exodus, 254–255 11 So B.S. CHILDS, Exodus, 288; M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 308; C. MEYERS, Exodus, 130. 12 The same verb ‫ ַעלָה‬is used to describe the coming up of quails in v. 13 and the lifting up of the dew. It is so employed “a sottolineare letterariamente l’unicità del dono divino.” M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 308, n. 43.

126

Chapter III: The Bread from Heaven

YHWH promised to rain down bread from heaven. Now, this bread appears with

the dew, and dews are generally acknowledged to come from heaven (cf. Gen 27,28.39; Dt 33,13.28).13 Also, in the Hebrew Bible, the dew is associated with the fruitfulness of the earth (cf. Zec 8,12; Hag 1,10; Hos 14,6). The dew thus fittingly functions here as the “agent” through which the promise of the bread from heaven comes to fulfilment. The gradual exposition continues: ‫וְ הִ ּנֵה ַעל־פְ נֵי הַ ִמדְ בָ ר דַ ק ְמח ְֻס ָפס דַ ק ַכ כְ ֹפר ַעל־הָ אָ ֶרץ‬ (“behold, on the surface of the wilderness was a fine flaky thing, fine as frost, on the earth”). The natural dispersal of the morning dew at sunrise reveals something remarkable, introduced by the term ‫וְ הִ ּנֵה‬. As already noted above, this term which introduces the reader to the point of view of biblical characters, is adopted by the narrator in key moments of action.14 The use of ‫ וְ הִ ּנֵה‬here thus signals the reader of the importance of this unfolding event, comparable to the theophanic apparition in v. 10 where it also occurred.15 But what constitutes this crucial experience of the people, introduced by ‫ ?וְ הִ ּנֵה‬The substance which they beheld is described16 as ‫“( דַ ק ְמחֻסְ ָפס דַ ק כַכְ ֹפר‬a fine flaky thing, fine as frost”). The repetition of ‫ דַ ק‬is obviously catchy, denoting emphasis on the “fineness” of the beheld substance.17 The difficult term ‫ ְמחֻסְ פָס‬, a hapax legomenon in the Hebrew Bible, is interpreted to mean “scale-like” (BDB) or “flaky” (Targums: TNf and TO).18 This use of the hapax appears 13

Contra S. Germany (The Exodus-Conquest Narrative, 98) who argues that “in 16,4, speaks of raining down bread from heaven while 16,14 reports that a layer of dew arose, presumably from the ground.” For him, this implies that the two verses are not of the same compositional level. But biblically, dews fall from heaven. The figurative statement that the dew “arose” thus refers to its natural dispersal as morning advances. Also, in Num 11,9, the fall of manna is explicitly associated with the fall of the dew. 14 For this function of ‫וְ הִ ּנֵה‬, see comments on v. 10 above. 15 One recalls here the observation of Ruprecht that Ex 16 brings together the two modes in which YHWH displays his glory among his people: by cultic presence (cf. Ex 40,34–38) and by his deeds (cf. Ex 13–14). Cf. E. RUPRECHT, “Stellung”, 290–293. These two modes of manifestation are identified in this narrative by the two occurrences of ‫וְ הִ ּנֵה‬. 16 Describing what is observed, rather than naming it outright, is the narrator’s technique of incorporating the reader into the gradual process of realising what the food is. 17 The term ‫ – דַ ק‬thin, small, fine – is an adjective that derives from the root ‫דקק‬. As a verb, it means “to crush, to pulverise, to make fine through grinding” (HALOT). It can thus be inferred that this term refers to a finely crushed substance which the people beheld, spread out on the ground as the dews evaporated. 18 That the term ‫ ְמחֻסְ ָפס‬has presented problems to translators from ancient times is indicated by the LXX avoidance of its translation. U. Cassuto (Exodus,195) translates: “a finely formed substance revealing itself”, arguing that the Ugaritic verb ḥsp is used in the sense of the biblical root ‫( חׂשק‬to uncover, reveal). But this does not actually fit the context. Also, the HALOT translation “crackling” is not very convincing. The BDB correlation of the word with the Arabic ḫašifa and the Ethiopic ḫaśafa to derive the meaning “scale-like” appears more convincing. Cf. also P. MAIBERGER, Das Manna, 320–323; W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1– 18, 595–596; C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 337–338. YHWH

3. Fulfilment of Promise

127

purposeful. It is probably employed to signal the astonishment of the people, whose point of view the narrator adopts here. What they see cannot be described except through extraordinary and unique words. Further, the fineness of this substance is compared to that of hoarfrost, the fine deposit of small white ice crystals formed on the ground or other surfaces during low temperature periods, usually seen in cold mornings.19 Such description offers the reader an idea of the form of the promised food. Fit to note here, also, is that explorations in the Sinai Peninsula have revealed the existence (till date) of a substance that has semblances with the descriptions of the biblical manna. Earlier publications describe this substance as secretions from the tamarisk tree (esp. tamarisk mannifera). These secretions, caused by the sting of tree lice, fall to the ground and harden due to the cool weather of the night.20 But more recent explorations report that these secretions are actually excretions of scale insects and plant lice (such as Trabutina mannipara and Naiacoccus serpentina) which live on the tamarisk tree. These insects suck the sap of the tree and excrete yellowish white, sugary droplets onto the branches. These droplets crystallise and fall to the ground, and have to be harvested by morning, else they are carted away by ants. This substance melts at the midday heat, and is used as a sweetener by the local Bedouins who call it mann.21 Also, it is reported that the Israelites behold this substance ‫ַעל־פְ נֵי הַ ִמדְ בָ ר‬ (which corresponds to ‫ ַעל־הָ אָ ֶרץ‬at the end of the sentence).22 The term ‫( ִמדְ בָ ר‬the 5th use in the narrative) is evocative of its occurrences in vv. 1–3 where it depicts the difficult situation of the Israelites, especially v. 3 in which it is linked to death by hunger. As such, its mention at this point, in the context of the appearance of food, brings into focus the divine provision of an antithesis to the dangers which the wilderness represents,23 especially the bemoaned danger of death by hunger for ‫כָל־הַ קָ הָ ל הַ זֶה‬. We find here, therefore, the resolution of the first complication in the narrative – the complaint of hunger. 19 It is to be noted here, as Frankel observes, that v. 14 describes the manna “from the perspective of the Israelites who suddenly saw it on the desert floor.” It does not describe its nature, texture and properties (see v. 31). Cf. D. FRANKEL, The Murmuring Stories, 77. 20 Cf. Dictionary of the Bible, III, 236; M. NOTH, Exodus, 132. 21 Cf. F.S. BODENHEIMER, “The Manna of Sinai”, 2–6; A. KAISER, “Neue”, 63–75; C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, I, 143–144; B.S. CHILDS, The Book of Exodus, 282; V.P. HAMILTON, Exodus, 255. Also to be noted is that the tamarisk manna is seasonal, usually gathered between the end of May and July. 22 Ex 14b presents a clear chiastic structure (cf. M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 308, n. 44): A ‫ַעל־פְ נֵי הַ ִמ ְדבָ ר‬ B ‫דַ ק ְמח ְֻס ָפס‬ B' ‫דַ ק כַכְ פֹ ר‬ A' ‫ַעל־הָ אָ ֶרץ‬ 23 This also applies to the occurrence of the term ‫ ִמ ְדבָ ר‬at the theophany scene (v. 10).

128

Chapter III: The Bread from Heaven

3.2 Clarification of the Food and First Instruction – Quantity (vv. 15–16) The appearance of this substance ‫ ַעל־פְ נֵי הַ ִמדְ בָ ר‬is an unusual phenomenon for the Israelites. This is quite discernible from their reaction: ‫ֹאמרּו ִאיש‬ ְ ‫ַו ִי ְראּו בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל וַי‬ ‫“( אֶ ל־אָ חִ יו מָ ן הּוא‬When the Israelites saw it, they said to one another, ‘What is this?’”). Again, through the verb ‫ראה‬, the story that is presented from the punto di vista of the characters, highlighting their lack of knowledge. God surprises them with something incomprehensible.24 In their bewilderment at this strange occurrence, the Israelites ask one another: ‫מָ ן הּוא‬. First of all, the mutual inquiry – ‫ – ִאיש אֶ ל־אָ חִ יו‬underscores the point that the entire community is at a loss.25 Non-surprisingly, the employment of the unusual interrogatory statement – ‫מָ ן‬ ‫ – הּוא‬has elicited much interest in the biblical scholarship world. It is recognised that, grammatically, the statement can be understood as declarative: It is manna. And this line of interpretation has been towed by some exegetes right from ancient times.26 This view is supported by the fact that there is no other use of ‫ מָ ן‬as an interrogative in the entire Hebrew Bible. The proponents of this stand hold that the people interpret the strange food they saw on the ground as the natural mann with which they have become acquainted in the wilderness. This depicts their ignorance of YHWH’s providence here. Hence, Moses’ explanation in v. 15b comes as a correction to their misguided assumption.27 The majority of scholars, on the other hand, interpret this statement as interrogative. This position is supported by the clause that follows directly – for

24

Cf. Dt 8,3: “…and he fed you with manna which you did not know.” On the use of ‫ ִאיש אֶ ל־אָ חִ יו‬to express reciprocity, see GK § 139e; JM § 147c. 26 This view is attested in Mek II, 114, 123, and is followed by Rashi and Ibn Ezra. J. Calvin (The Four last Books, I, 277) also adopts this view, arguing that the word ‫ מָ ן‬signifies “something prepared”, from the root ‫( מנן‬He admits however that in Syriac and Chaldee, the term means “what”). Lately this view has been promoted by H. Schult, E. Ruprecht, A. Schart and G.I. Davies. Schult (“Mān hū'”, 5) and Davies (Exodus 1–18, II, 442, 459) doubt the evidences given by scholars of the use of ‫ מָ ן‬as an interrogative in other Semitic languages. Schult argues further that the regular structure of etymological aetiologies in the Bible is that only the name is first mentioned, and then a justification sentence with an echoing word follows. He asserts: “Ein Fall, wo die Anspielung schon bei der Namengebung im ersten Glied gemacht und dann im zweiten zusätzlich erklärt wird, ist nicht bekannt.” Ruprecht (“Stellung”, 286–288) follows basically the arguments of Schult, positing that this verse does not present an actual aetiology, but the mention of something known. Along the same line, Schart (Mose und Israel, 127) points out that in regarding the new phenomenon as the natural mann, the Israelites hold on to their basic attitude of murmuring. Furthermore, as regards biblical versions, the KJV translates “It is manna” (though the NKJV has “What is it”). Other versions – NRSV; NJPS – recognise the possibility of “It is manna” in their footnotes. 27 Cf. J. CALVIN, The Four, I, 277; H. SCHULT, “Mānhū'”, 5; E. RUPRECHT, “Stellung”, 286–287; A. SCHART, Mose, 127; B. JACOB, Exodus, 454; G.I. DAVIES, Ex 1–18, II, 459. 25

3. Fulfilment of Promise

129

they did not know what it was (‫)כִ י ל ֹא י ְָדעּו מַ ה־הּוא‬28 – which undermines the tenability of the argument that the Israelites named the new phenomenon mann from their foreknowledge of it. Within the described context, it appears more natural and more convincing that the statement ‫ מָ ן הּוא‬is a question that the Israelites ask one another out of wonder, as they behold this astonishing appearance.29 Again, though the term ‫ מָ ן‬is not used anywhere else as an interrogative in biblical Hebrew, scholars have discovered such use in other Semitic languages.30 Also, it is not to be forgotten that the Israelites have begun experiencing the realisation of the divine promise. Having eaten quails (which they knew) in the previous evening as the fulfilment of the promise of meat, it is conceivable that they also looked forward to the fulfilment of the morning promise. But the morning event comes with the shock of something unknown, which the omniscient-but-not-omnicommunicative narrator does not name ab initio, but describes with the perplexing words: ‫ דַ ק ְמח ְֻס ָפס דַ ק כַכְ ֹפר‬in order to bring the reader into this puzzling experience of the people. To clarify this unfamiliar appearance, the people ask: “What is this?” (‫)מָ ן הּוא‬.31 In this way, the reader is incorporated into the process of the search for knowledge which Israel undertakes. However, the demonstration of the possibility of the use of ‫ מָ ן‬as an interrogative does not take away the fact that such use is unusual in biblical Hebrew. Hence, one cannot but wonder why the narrator chooses to use this expression at this point. It is broadly observed that the expression provides an etymology for the manna. This is obviously tenable. However, it is also to be observed that this use of the abnormal ‫ מָ ן‬is meant to create an effect. It brings out the depth of the people’s astonishment. An “abnormal” occurrence produces an 28 In view of the preceding question: ‫מָ ן הּוא‬, Houtman rightly observes that the words ‫מַ ה־‬ ‫ הּוא‬in this clause “make it likely that there is a play on words, and that assonantally (similarity in sound) a connection is made between ‫ מָ ן‬and ‫מַ ה‬: manna is something that evokes the question ‘What’s that?’.” C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 339. 29 Cf. inter alia A. DILLMANN, Exodus, 188–189; B.S. CHILDS, Exodus, 289. That the Israelites had no pre-knowledge of this food is strongly highlighted in Dt 8,3.16. 30 For BDB, the question ‫ מָ ן הּוא‬is intended as a popular etymology of manna, derived from the late Aramaic mon – “what” (cf. also GK § 37b). HALOT simply deems ‫ מָ ן‬as equivalent to ‫מַ ה‬. But Propp (Exodus 1–18, 596) has argued convincingly that ‫ מָ ן‬is a primitive form of the Hebrew ‫מַ ה‬. He buttresses this argument with references to the Amarna letters: manna - “what” (EA 286:5); Ugaritic mn - “who”, “what”; Syriac mān - “who”, “what.” That ‫ מָ ן‬is used as an interrogative in the second millenium B.C. is also attested in the work of C.H. Gordon who lists several occurrences of the Ugaritic mn(m) that means both the personal “who” and impersonal “what” (UT 19:1504). It appears then that, over and above a “popular etymology”, the use of ‫ מָ ן‬as an interrogative has a long history in the evolvement of the NW Semitic languages. 31 D. Frankel (The Murmuring Stories, 85–86), in reconstructing the “early P” story, adjudges ‫ מָ ן הּוא‬a rhetorical question. This is very unlikely. It was a question that came from the depths of perplexity, and as such needed clarification.

130

Chapter III: The Bread from Heaven

“abnormal” reaction. The people thus go beyond the normal to express their perplexity, and this deep bewilderment is preserved in the name given to the food. All the more, as it has been attested that the use of ‫ מָ ן‬as an interrogative is ancient in the evolution of the NW Semitic languages,32 one can also infer that the use of the term in this sense here argues for the antiquity of the kernel of the manna tradition. The manna-event is “remembered” as one of the crucial constitutive events of Israel as a nation.33 Further to be noted is that, just as in the Moses/Aaron speech of vv. 6–7, the verbs ‫ ראה‬and ‫ ידע‬occur together here (v. 15a). The verb ‫( ַו ִי ְראּו‬v. 15a) correlates with ‫ ְּור ִאיתֶ ם‬in v. 7a34: ‫ ּו ֹבקֶ ר ְּור ִאיתֶ ם אֶ ת־כְ בֹוד יְ הוָה‬. And the present event happens in the morning! As already indicated, seeing the glory of YHWH (v. 7) is cognate with knowing YHWH in his salvific deeds (v. 6). But here, the Israelites see physically but do not understand ( ‫)כִ י ל ֹא י ְָדעּו מַ ה־הּוא‬.35 It is only through the subsequent enlightening that the people will come to know that what they see at present is a manifestation of the glory of YHWH who brought them out of Egypt (vv. 6–7). In addition, the “ignorance” of the Israelites is laid bare in the statement: ‫כִ י ל ֹא יָדְ עּו מַ ה־הּוא‬. It is through the realisation of what the manna actually is that they will come to know YHWH their God (cf. v. 12). Noteworthy here is that this enlightenment process casts the episode in the light of a revelation plot. To the question ‫ מָ ן הּוא‬Moses responds that it is the bread promised by YHWH36: ‫“( הּוא הַ ּלֶחֶ ם ֲאשֶ ר נָתַ ן ְיהוָה ָלכֶם לְ אָ כְ לָה‬This is the bread which YHWH has given to you to eat”; v. 15b).37 Immediately striking is the correlation between this response and YHWH’s initial reaction to the people’s murmuring: v. 4a: ‫וַי ֹאמֶ ר ְיהוָה אֶ ל־מֹ שֶ ה הִ ְנ ִני מַ ְמטִ יר ָלכֶם לֶחֶ ם ִמן־הַ שָ מָ ִים‬ v. 15b: ‫וַי ֹאמֶ ר מֹ שֶ ה ֲאלֵהֶ ם הּוא הַ ּלֶחֶ ם ֲאשֶ ר נָתַ ן ְיהוָה ָלכֶם לְ אָ כְ לָה‬

Noteworthy here is that though Moses faithfully conveys YHWH’s message, he does not replicate his words verbatim. Rather, he adapts the message to the 32 Added to the literary considerations on this term already noted above, Young argues that in “writing and rewriting” the biblical texts, the scribes consciously retained some archaic literary forms in order create certain effects. Cf. I. YOUNG, “Starting at the Beginning”, 103–118. On the use of archaic forms in the Hebrew Bible and its relation with the older NWS languages, see A. GIANTO, “Ancient Biblical Hebrew”, 19–29. 33 The preservation of archaic biblical Hebrew in the Song of the Sea (Ex 15,1–18) performs a similar function. 34 Cf. A. SCHART, Mose und Israel, 127. 35 Cf. C. DOHMEN, Exodus 1–18, 389; A. SCHART, Mose und Israel, 127–128.This also corroborates the above submission that the address in vv. 6–7 is not literal but figurative. 36 Note the play on the word ‫הּוא‬, which culminates in the identification of the ‫ – לֶחֶ ם‬The people ask ‫ ;מָ ן הּוא‬for they do not know ‫ ;מַ ה־הּוא‬and Moses clarifies ‫הּוא הַ ּלֶחֶ ם‬. 37 The difference in narrative time of the appearance of the quail and that of the ‫ לֶחֶ ם‬is instructive. While the quail event in the evening is described in 7 words, the ‫ לֶחֶ ם‬event in the morning is illustrated in 43 words. The tilt of the narrative is very clear.

3. Fulfilment of Promise

131

present context,38 to clarify the enigmatic phenomenon. In this way, Moses acts as a true mediator. Also, his clarification of the food portrays him as a man of profound insight. And the succession of speeches in the above illustration brings to light that the enlightening answer of Moses comes actually from YHWH. As such, the deep insight of Moses derives from his relationship with YHWH. While the people do not know because they have chosen the path of rebellion against God, Moses is full of sight because of his affiliation with God.39 In describing the strange substance as ‫הַ ּלֶחֶ ם ֲאשֶ ר נָתַ ן ְיהוָה‬, Moses clarifies it as the fulfilment of the divine promise of ‫( לֶחֶ ם‬vv. 4.12; cf. v. 8), thus linking the divine promises in vv. 4.12: ‫( הַ ּלֶחֶ ם ֲאשֶ ר נָתַ ן ְיהוָה‬v. 15) = ‫( לֶחֶ ם ִמן־הַ שָ מָ ִים‬v. 4) // ‫( ִת ְׂשבְ עּו־לָחֶ ם‬v. 12). Also, with the words ‫לֶחֶ ם לְ אָ כְ לָה‬, Moses addresses the concern about hunger – a central reason for grumbling in v. 3. As Schart observes, contrary to the wish of the Israelites who could only imagine the elimination of hunger by returning to Egypt ( ‫)בְ אָ כְ לֵנּו לֶחֶ ם ָלׂשֹבַ ע‬, YHWH through his gift enables them to continue through the wilderness.40 It is pertinent to point out at this juncture that, for some scholars, the giving of the food and its clarification marks the end of the (first) story.41 But, as observed by Kupfer, the story does not fittingly end here. Rather, it is not yet very clear to the reader at this point what this found substance actually is. And he is eager to see how the Israelites would use this “fine layer.”42 As such, vv. 13– 15 mark both the resolution of the first conflict and a subtle transition between the murmuring/divine promise episode (vv. 2–12) and the fulfilment of promise/people’s reaction episode (vv. 13–21). The use of the ‫ לֶחֶ ם‬is not left at the discretion of the Israelites. The special gift demands a special conduct.43 As such, having clarified the food as a divine gift, Moses commences right away to give instructions on its use.44 These

38

On the influence of context on reported speech, see M. STERNBERG, “Proteus”, 152. As such, while the murmuring Israelites lack knowledge, the listening Moses possesses deep insight! 40 A. SCHART, Mose und Israel, 128. 41 So E. RUPRECHT, “Stellung”, 287–288; A. SCHART, Mose und Israel, 128. For Ruprecht, the Moses’ clarification brings the Israelites to a full understanding of the divine gift. But Schart observes that, though the conflict of lack of food is resolved here, “Moses Erklärung des Manna bleibt auf seiten des Volkes ohne entsprechende Gegenreaktion. Israel erkennt nicht, dass das Manna das Brot ist, das Jahwe gibt.” 42 C.D. KUPFER, Mit Israel auf dem Weg, 68. 43 As aptly pointed out by L.R. Kass (Founding God’s Nation, 228), Moses’ answer to the people’s question – ‫ – מָ ן הּוא‬both explains and directs. 44 N. Pham (“The Image of YHWH”, 30) notes that apart from God, Moses is the only person who gives commands in this narrative (cf. vv. 9.19.25–26.33). The authority of Moses is, however, not an independent authority. Rather, he shares in the divine authority. It is observable that all the commands of Moses are rooted in YHWH’s directives. 39

132

Chapter III: The Bread from Heaven

directives and the people’s reactions to them run from this point till v. 30, linking the present episode to the following one (Sabbath; v. 22–30).45 The instructions begin with the formula: ‫זֶה הַ דָ בָ ר ֲאשֶ ר צִ ּוָה ְיהוָה‬, (“This is what YHWH has commanded”) a formula used 9 times by Moses (and Aaron) in the course of the Wüstenwanderung to underscore the importance of particular divine commands.46 The following directives concerning the ‫ לֶחֶ ם‬are therefore of particular importance. Again, this formula is used mostly in reference to already stated divine commands. An example here is Moses’ directives in Ex 35,4–9 which refers to 25,1–9. The following table illustrates this: Divine Instruction Ex 25,1–4 (NRSV)

Instruction Relayed Ex 35,4–6 (NRSV)

The LORD said to Moses: Tell the Israelites to take for me an offering; from all whose hearts prompt them to give you shall receive the offering for me. This is the offering that you shall receive from them: gold, silver, and bronze, blue, purple, and crimson yarns and fine linen, goats’ hair….

Moses said to all the congregation of the Israelites: This is the thing that the LORD has commanded: Take from among you an offering to the LORD; let whoever is of a generous heart bring the LORD’S offering: gold, silver, and bronze; blue, purple, and crimson yarns, and fine linen; goats’ hair….

Ex 16,4

Ex 16,16

Then YHWH said to Moses, “I myself will rain down bread from heaven for you, and the people shall go out and gather the portion of a day for each day; in order that I may test them, whether they will walk according to my instruction or not.

[Moses said to them:] This is what YHWH has commanded: Gather from it what each person can eat, an omer per head, according to your number of persons; each man shall gather for those in his tent.

It is thus inferable that the use of the formula ‫ זֶה הַ דָ בָ ר ֲאשֶ ר צִ ּוָה ְיהוָה‬here is in reference to the Jahwerede in vv. 4–5, though the subsequent directives present an expansion of the divine instructions therein.47 The first instruction is ‫“( לִ קְ טּו ִממֶ ּנּו ִאיש לְ פִ י אָ כְ לֹו ֹעמֶ ר ַלגֻלְ ֹגלֶת‬Gather from it what each person can eat, an omer per head”). The verb ‫לקט‬, a Leitmotiv in this narrative,48 connects this directive to the divine instruction in v. 4: ‫וְ לָקְ טּו דְ בַ ר־יֹום‬

45

For Schart, five instructions concerning the food and Israel’s reactions to them make up the second part of the story (vv. 16–31). Cf. A. SCHART, Mose und Israel, 128–130. 46 Cf. Ex 16,16.23.32; 35,1.4; Lev 8,5; 17,2; Num 19,2; 30,1. Once recalls here the formula – ‫ – כֹ ה־אָ מַ ר ְיהוָה‬used extensively (over 400x) in the Hebrew Bible, especially by the prophets, to call attention to specific messages and statements from God. 47 Cf. J. VAN SETERS, The Life of Moses, 184; P. MAIBERGER, Das Manna, 123–124. 48 The verb ‫ לקט‬occurs 9x in this narrative – a Leitmotiv, and appears only in this chapter in Exodus: vv. 4.5.16.17.18.21.22.26.27.

3. Fulfilment of Promise

133

‫“( בְ יֹומֹו‬and gather the portion of a day for each day”). Thus, the phrase ‫דְ בַ ר־יֹום‬ ‫ בְ יֹומֹו‬has been specified by Moses to imply what each person can eat ( ‫ִאיש לְ פִ י‬ ‫)אָ כְ לֹו‬,49 that is, an omer per head (‫) ֹעמֶ ר ַלגֻלְ ֹגלֶת‬.50 This two-step specification has elicited scholarly interests. Some scholars observe that ‫ ִאיש לְ פִ י אָ כְ לֹו‬, which im-

plies that one should freely collect according to one’s eating capacity, does not match with ‫ עֹ מֶ ר ַלגֻלְ גֹ לֶת‬which imposes a definite limit of one omer for each person.51 But the two expressions are not mutually exclusive. As Childs aptly notes, “the discrepancy is only apparent, and both expressions function in the same way in designating a given quantity.”52 The second phrase, in apposition to the first, provides a specification to it. The omer represents the daily Essbedarf of each person, the measure that will eventually be symbolically preserved for an everlasting memory (vv. 32–34).53 The omer as a measure, which occurs only in this narrative in the Hebrew Bible, is mentioned for the first time at this point.54 The exact capacity of the omer is not quite certain. As Marvin Powell pertinently points out, the postexilic writers faced the challenge of interpreting pre-exilic measures with which they were not acquainted, and about which there were no clear information.55 The clarification of the omer in v. 36 indicates that the even the real audience was not conversant with this measure. And to the modern reader, this clarification does not actually resolve the uncertainty. For modern scholars, the capacity of an omer ranges from ca. 2 litres to ca. 4 litres.56 From the narrative, however, it is apparent that the omer refers to the quantity of the food that

49 The phrase ‫ ִאיש לְ פִ י אָ כְ לֹו‬occurs only in Ex 12,4 and 16,16.18, indicating a link between the first Passover narrative and the Manna-Erzählung – two crucial memories in Israel. 50 The use of the term ‫ ַלגֻלְ גֹ לֶת‬to imply “per person” (lit. per skull/head) is evident from Ex 38,26; Num 3,47 (cf. Num 1,2.18.20.22). Cf. also HALOT. 51 Cf. J. WELLHAUSEN, Die Composition, 328; H. GRESSMANN, Mose und seine Zeit, 132; B. BAENTSCH, Exodus – Leviticus, 151; L. SCHMIDT, “Die Priesterschrift”, 491. 52 B.S. CHILDS, The Book of Exodus, 289. 53 Cf. C. DOHMEN, Exodus, 390. 54 The substantive ‫ ֹעמֶ ר‬occurs 8x in Hebrew Bible with the meaning “sheaf”: Lev 23,10.11.12.15; Dt 24,19; Rut 2,7.15; Job 24,10. 55 M.A. POWELL, “Weights and Measures”, 903. 56 There is no agreement among scholars here. Some hold that the ephah is about 40 litres (thus, an omer = ca. 4 litres). So HALOT; A.G. BARROIS, Manuel, II, 250; R. de VAUX; Les institutions, I, 306. M.A. Powell (“Weights”, 903–904) acknowledges that in the post-exilic system, one-tenth of an ephah is ca. 3.6 litres, but opines that the omer as a dry measure in the OT is about 1–2 litres. O.R. Sellers (“Weights”, IDB, IV, 835 § h) holds that the omer amounts to about 2.3 litres. For M. Noth (Exodus, 135), an omer is ca. 6.5 pints, which is about 3.1 litres. Holladay (Lexicon) deems an omer to be about 2 litres. In the modern International System of measurement units, the biblical omer is regarded as equivalent to 2.2 litres.

134

Chapter III: The Bread from Heaven

would be enough for a person per day (vv. 16.18) – a person’s daily ration.57 The message that the narrator intends to pass does not revolve around the exactitude of an omer, but that YHWH provides enough food daily for the people throughout their Wüstenwanderung. The bread is to be collected an omer per head ‫“( ִמסְ ַפר נַפְ ֹשתֵ יכֶם‬according to your number of persons”). This raises a bit of ambiguity. If the food is meant to be collected according to what each person can eat ( ‫) ִאיש לְ פִ י אָ כְ לֹו‬, what does it imply that it is to be collected “according to the number of your persons”? The ambiguity is clarified in the next statement: ‫“( ִאיש ַל ֲאשֶ ר בְ אָ הֳלֹו ִתקָ חּו‬each man shall gather for those in his tent”), which brings the reader to reassess the entire instruction. Though it seemed so ab initio, the directive to gather is not meant for everybody. Rather, the capifamiglia are the ones to go out and collect the food according to the number of persons in their tents. In this way, the capifamiglia are called upon to exercise their freedom as well as their responsibility towards their family members. This clarification is strategic for grasping the dynamics of the present episode. 3.3 Reaction to First Instruction (vv. 17–18) The compliance of the Israelites to Moses’ instruction is explicitly stated: ‫ַו ַיעֲׂשּו־‬ ‫“( כֵן בְ נֵי ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬and the Israelites did so”; v. 17a).58 In the Hebrew Bible, the combination of the particle ‫ כֵן‬with the verb ‫ עׂשה‬in the perfect or wayyiqtol, in relation to a given directive, indicates a strict compliance to such directive .59 This plays out here. However, it is also immediately reported that in collecting the food, some gather more while others gather less: ‫( ַו ִילְ קְ טּו הַ מַ ְרבֶ ה וְ הַ מַ ְמעִ יט‬v. 17b). And this seems to imply some sort of disobedience.60 But this is unlikely, as it is distinctly stated that the act of the Israelites is in strict compliance with the given instruction. The statement implies, most probably, that the capifamiglia collect the food in estimation of the number of persons in their tents. While those with large families collect large quantities for their households, those with small family members collect a smaller quantity.61 57

Powell corroborates this, observing also that the preservation of “precisely one omer of manna (Ex 16,32–34) probably reflects the character of this capacity measure as a daily food ration.” M.A. POWELL, “Weights and Measures”, 904. 58 The explicit mention of the ‫ בְ נֵי ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬in this act of obedience is significant. It marks the beginning of their step-by-step journey from “non-knowledge” to the “knowledge” of YHWH in this narrative through the gift of manna. 59 Cf. Gen 45,21; 50,12; Ex 7,10.20; 8,13; 39,32.42.43; 40,16; etc. 60 A. Schart (Mose und Israel, 129) holds that the Gleichheit that would be discovered of the collected food was not intended by the gatherers. Cf. also J. CALVIN, The Last Four, I, 278. Furthermore, Calvin postulates that the family heads gather the food to one place, from where it is shared equitably to all. From the context, this appears very unlikely. 61 The interpretation of Dillmann (Exodus – Leviticus, 189) that the omer was used to measure the quantity of food at the point of collection does not flow from the narrative.

3. Fulfilment of Promise

135

Having gathered the food, something enigmatic happens. As they measure what they have gathered ‫בָ עֹ מֶ ר‬, those who have collected much find out that they do not have surplus while those have collected little find out that they are not in lack. It is discovered that the quantity gathered by each corresponds exactly to the Essbedarf of the persons in his household: ‫ ִאיש לְ פִ י־אָ כְ לֹו לָקָ טּו‬. Here, by the use of identical words in the instruction and in the act ( ‫; לִ קְ טּו ִממֶ ּנּו ִאיש לְ פִ י אָ כְ לֹו‬ v. 16a // ‫ ; ִאיש לְ פִ י־אָ כְ לֹו לָקָ טּו‬v. 18b), the Israelites are depicted as compliant to the divine directive – positive characterisation of the people. But what does it actually signify to measure the bread ‫ ?בָ עֹ מֶ ר‬It is often held to imply that, as the capifamiglia reached their tents, the collected food was measured using the omer vessel, and everyone in the house got exactly an omer of it.62 This stems from the interpretation of the preposition ‫( ב‬functioning as instrumental/means) in the clause ‫ ַויָמֹ דּו בָ עֹ מֶ ר‬as implying “with the omer” (as an utensil; cf. 2Sam 8,2; Ezk 42,16a).63 However, subjected to further critical analysis, another interpretation is possible. The preposition ‫ ב‬in the clause could also be understood as implying “by the omer” (as a measure/quantity; cf. Ezk 42.16b.17.18.19; 47,13).64 Within the present context, it seems unlikely that the Israelites came readily into the wilderness with this utensil of measurement. This is corroborated by the fact that the omer utensil is not used at the prime moment of preservation of the food in v. 34. If it were available, symbolic as it is, it is reasonable to imagine that it would have been appropriately used for this very symbolic act. Rather, what is preserved is the measure of an omer, which represents the Essbedarf of each person. It is therefore more likely that measuring the food ‫ בָ עֹ מֶ ר‬here implies measuring it according to what each person can eat.65 And this is where the miracle lies.66 What is collected matches each person’s eating need.67 Hence, as von Rad observes, this event is of 62

So RASHI; E. RUPRECHT, “Stellung”, 288; B.S. CHILDS, Exodus, 289; D. FRANKEL, The Murmuring, 109; G.I. DAVIES, Exodus 1–18, 443. M. Noth (Exodus, 135) explains that the omer is a dry clay vessel (cf. Arabic: ‘umarun – a drinking cup or small bowl; BDB). 63 The translation “with an omer” is given in: C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 342; U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 197; M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 300 (con il ‘ōmer); NRSV; NASB. The locative translation “in the omer” by W.H.C. Propp (Exodus 1–18, 583) and T.B. Dozeman (Exodus, 375) is unlikely within the context. 64 So translated in: J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 222; N.M. SARNA, Exodus, 89; C. DOHMEN, Exodus 1–18, 373 (nach dem Omer); NJPS; NKJV (by omers). 65 This also resolves the concern that the stipulation of a definite measure, an omer per head, does not take into account that the eating capacity of every person is not the same. 66 Contra Houtman (Exodus, II, 342–343) who sees no miracle in this event. For him, the measurement of the food is only employed to ensure an equitable distribution. This position misses the point of the story. From its first mention in the narrative, the food has been characterised by specialness. It is introduced as ‫( לֶחֶ ם ִמן־הַ שָ מָ ִים‬v. 4), and described by YHWH as a gift through which “you shall know that I am YHWH your God” (v. 12). 67 To be reckoned here also is the framing function of the expression ‫( ִאיש לְ פִ י־אָ כְ לֹו‬vv. 16.18), which provides an interpretative key for this scene.

136

Chapter III: The Bread from Heaven

typological significance: God gives to each according to his need.68 It was significant for Israel to remember, in the difficult period of the Exile, that God cares for the particular need of each individual! A remarkable observation by Dohmen on the omer corroborates the above submission. According to him, the omer, as depicted in this narrative, is not an ordinary measure. It is rather an extraordinary measure of a supernatural character, which specifies a person’s eating need. It is, in fact, a size sui generis.69 This narrative recounts the story of an unusual food provided by God, which when collected, is found to amount mysteriously to what each person needs to eat to satiety for the day. This special quantity is memorialised by the special term omer, a term used exclusively in this narrative: a special measure for a special food! 3.4 Second Instruction (Preservation) and People’s Reaction (vv. 19–20) After the first instruction which was generally kept, Moses gives a second one which builds on the first, forbidding the preservation of the collected food till the following day: ‫“( ִאיש אַ ל־יֹותֵ ר ִממֶ ּנּו ַעד־ ֹבקֶ ר‬Let no one leave any of it until morning”; v. 19).70 This instruction derives also from the divine directive in v. 4 that the people should gather enough for each day ( ‫)וְ לָקְ טּו דְ בַ ר־יֹום בְ יֹומֹו‬.71 Having responded positively to the first directive and having witnessed the miracle in the distribution of the collected bread, the reader expects further compliance from the Israelites, in their progressive movement towards “knowing YHWH.” But he is disappointed. Immediately after stating the instruction, it is reported: ‫וְ ל ֹא־‬ ‫“( שָ ְמעּו אֶ ל־מֹ שֶ ה‬but they did not listen to Moses”). This is in sharp contrast to their response to the first instruction, as was reported: ‫“( ַו ַיעֲׂשּו־כֵן בְ נֵי ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬and the Israelites did so”). And the following statement, which describes the action of the Israelites in terms that directly negates the given directive, highlights the disobedience of the people 72: 68

Cf. G. von RAD, Theology of the Old Testament, 282. In his own words: “Das außergewöhnliche Maß ‘Omer’ (ein Omer pro Kopf), das den ‘Essbedarf’ angibt, ist folglich eine übernaturliche Größe, eine Größe sui generis, die offensichtlich wie von selbst zustande kommt.” C. DOHMEN, Exodus 1–18, 390. Kass also tows this line of thought in his submission: “The size of an ‘omer seems to vary from person to person. For all other peoples, an ‘omer may simply be a mathematical unit of volume, but the biblical ‘omer becomes a unit of satisfaction…, a unit of human equality.” L.R. KASS, Founding God’s Nation, 229. 70 Again, similar to the Pesach instruction: ‫ֹא־תֹותירּו ִממֶ ּנּו ַעד־ ֹבקֶ ר‬ ִ ‫( וְ ל‬Ex 12,10). 71 Because the formula ‫ זֶה הַ דָ בָ ר ֲאשֶ ר צִ ּוָה ְיהוָה‬which introduced the first instruction does not appear here, D. Frankel (The Murmuring Stories, 103–104) argues surprisingly that this second instruction is not made in God’s name but in that of Moses. But from the narrative, it is clear that Moses is gradually communicating divine directives. Again, this second instruction is in line the divine directive in v. 4. 72 Cf. C.D. KUPFER, Mit Israel, 69. 69

3. Fulfilment of Promise

137

v. 19: ‫ – ִאיש אַ ל־יֹותֵ ר ִממֶ ּנּו ַעד־ ֹבקֶ ר‬Let no one leave any of it until morning v. 20: ‫ַיֹותרּו ֲאנ ִָשים ִממֶ ּנּו ַעד־ ֹבקֶ ר‬ ִ ‫ – ו‬But some people left some of it until morning

Being conscious that they are in the desert, and thus not sure of the availability of this food again, some of the people preserve part of the bread for the following day. The instinct of self-preservation plays out here. But also at play is an attempt at self-sufficiency, a move not to be dependent always on the divine goodwill. This implies a breach of trust. Incidentally, in this narrative, dependence on him constitutes the test to which YHWH subjects the Israelites! Now, by moving to secure their future by themselves, they display their not being sure that YHWH will continually provide for them, and therefore fail the divine test. A new complication thus arises. By this act in which the Israelites display lack of trust in divine providence,73 they exhibit a continued “ignorance” of YHWH despite the enlightenment that has come to them in words and deeds. If their murmuring was excused due to the harsh realities of the desert, the present attitude appears inexcusable. And within this state of affairs, the reader cannot but wonder what would be the consequence of this defiance. This suspense does not linger long. As a consequence of the disobedience, the preserved food breeds worms ( ‫) ַויָרֻ ם תֹולָעִ ים‬74 and stinks. Thus, the disobedient ones, rather than gaining the advantage of “sure food” for the new day, beget the extra task of clearing the worm-infested and stinking food from their tents. This exposes to the people the futility of human labour that does not correspond to God’s will. For this act of insolence, Moses got annoyed with the people: ‫ ַו ִיקְ ֹצף ֲעלֵהֶ ם מֹ שֶ ה‬. Most probably, Moses’ annoyance stems from his awareness that YHWH stipulated these instructions as a means of testing the people (v. 4), a fact not known to them.75 And now, by their disobedience they have failed the test. To be noted, however, is that it is Moses, not YHWH, who gets angry.76 One perceives here the subtle characterisation of Moses as quick-tempered.77 The reader expects YHWH’s reaction to the people’s failing the test. But nothing of such is reported. Hence, YHWH is indirectly presented as patient to the people, in spite of their disobedience.78

73

As Schart observes, though it is reported that only some of the Israelites disobeyed (v. 20), the culpability is shared by all. Cf. A. SCHART, Mose und Israel, 129. 74 The verb ‫ ַויָרֻ ם‬, from the root ‫( רמם‬for the verb form, see GK § 67n), is related to the noun ‫ ִרמָ ה‬in v. 24. Cf. C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 343. The noun ‫ תֹולָעִ ים‬functions as accusative of result (cf. GK § 121d; JM § 125d; KöSyn § 338w). 75 Contra L.R. Kass (Founding God’s, 643, n. 19) who holds that Moses getting angry here implies that the rule against overnight storage came from him, not from YHWH. 76 The mention of Moses’ name in the statement ‫ ַו ִיקְ צֹ ף ֲעלֵהֶ ם מֹ שֶ ה‬also underlines this. 77 This character of Moses plays out clearly in the Golden Calf episode: Ex 32,19–20. 78 So A. SCHART, Mose und Israel, 129; see also G.W. COATS, Rebellion, 95.

138

Chapter III: The Bread from Heaven

As earlier stated, the manna-experience in the wilderness of Sin is a training experience for the Israelites in their journey towards nationhood. The outcome of the above two instructions corroborate this. From these incidents, as Noth observes, the Israelites learn that God always provides what is required for the needs of the moment.79 In the attempt of some of them “to live outside the divine order in order to establish independent security,” Frankel points out, “they implicitly challenged the intrinsic relation between the manna and divine providence.”80 Again, the people come to realise that success in human labour does not depend ultimately on personal efforts but on abiding by the will of God (cf. Dt 8,3).81 The training has a communal lesson too. This special gift of God does not at all allow for differences in ownership, inequality or selfishness among the Israelites.82 That the Israelites assimilate these lessons is evidenced in their conduct as reported in v. 21. 3.5 Resolution – Compliance to Instructions (v. 21) After the negative characterisation of the Israelites in vv. 19–20, their compliance is reported: ֹ‫“( ַו ִילְ קְ טּו אֹ תֹו בַ בֹ קֶ ר בַ ֹבקֶ ר ִאיש כְ פִ י אָ כְ לו‬Now, they gathered it morning by morning, each person according to what he can eat”). The transformation of the Israelites appears abrupt. However, though not linear, the movement from disobedience to acquiescence indicates that a process of learning has taken place.83 This realisation comes first of all from their direct experience of the special character of the food – the miraculous redistribution (v. 18) and the decay of the preserved portion (v. 20). Also, it is stated that the disobedience of the people drew the anger of Moses. But the actions he took in his anger are not reported – a case of narrative ellipsis.84 The sudden change in the attitude of the people suggests an encounter between Moses and the people, passed over in silence. And the narrator applies this narrative technique here to direct attention to the suddenness of the people’s metanoia. The conduct of the people, as portrayed in v. 21, denotes compliance to the both instructions given on the food. The statement – ‫– ַו ִילְ קְ טּו אֹ תֹו בַ ֹבקֶ ר בַ ֹבקֶ ר‬ depicts obedience to the second instruction: ‫( ִאיש אַ ל־יֹותֵ ר ִממֶ ּנּו ַעד־בֹ קֶ ר‬v. 19)

79

M. NOTH, Exodus, 135. D. FRANKEL, “The Priestly Conception”, 226–227. 81 Cf. C. DOHMEN, Exodus, 390. 82 Cf. A. SCHART, Mose und Israel, 129; M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 309. L.R. KASS (Founding God’s, 233–235) underlines the human-equality implication of the manna. 83 For D. Frankel (The Murmuring Stories, 104), the compliance of the Israelites here depicts their negative character as it is only when they discover that the food cannot be observed that they obey. Though this is tenable, it appears more probable that, following the plot of the narrative, this shift from a negative to a positive attitude is meant to indicate a learning process. 84 On narrative ellipsis, see J.-P. SONNET, “L’analisi narrativa”, 60–62. 80

3. Fulfilment of Promise

139

lexically connected by the term ‫ ֹבקֶ ר‬. The Israelites do not store up the food ‫ַעד־‬ ‫ בֹ קֶ ר‬anymore. Rather, in line with the given command, they come out to gather it morning by morning ( ‫)בַ בֹ קֶ ר בַ בֹ קֶ ר‬.85 Again, the phrase – ‫ – ִאיש כְ פִ י אָ כְ לֹו‬links up with the first instruction (v. 16) and its observance (v. 18),86 and thus resonates the people’s compliance to this instruction. The verse continues with a shift in focus from the conduct of the Israelites to the characteristics of the food. In the statement ‫“( וְ חַ ם הַ שֶ מֶ ש וְ נָמָ ס‬But when the sun became hot, it would melt”; v. 21b), the term ‫ וְ נָמָ ס‬connects with the pronoun ‫( אֹ תֹו‬v. 21a), which refers to the bread from heaven. To be noted also is the shift in the verb-form from wayyiqtol (‫ ) ַו ִילְ קְ טּו‬to the weqatal (‫וְ חַ ם‬, ‫)וְ נָמָ ס‬. The wayyiqtol serves to set the verse within the flow of the narrative sequence. However, in the wayyiqtol statement, the iterative value of the people’s conduct is depicted by the repetitive ‫בַ ֹבקֶ ר בַ בֹ קֶ ר‬. In the later part of the verse, such iteration is depicted by the use of two weqatal verbs.87 The special bread melts at the heat of the sun.88 It is thus to be collected in the morning before the sun grows hot. This description of manna has triggered a discussion among scholars, especially in relation to the nature of the mann discovered in the Sinai Peninsula. For some scholars, the bread from heaven described in this narrative is none other than this natural mann. This school of thought is represented by Bodenheimer who, after his expedition at the Sinai peninsula, strongly asserts: Accordingly, we find that manna production is a biological phenomenon of the dry deserts and steppes. The liquid honeydew excretion of a number of cicadas, plant lice, and scale insects speedily solidifies by rapid evaporation. From remote times the resulting sticky and often times granular masses have been collected and called manna.89

For the proponents of this position, the discrepancies that are found between the nature of the mann discovered at the expedition at the Sinai Peninsula and 85

Jacob’s position that the repetitive expression ‫ בַ ֹבקֶ ר בַ ֹבקֶ ר‬means “in the earliest morning” is not convincing. Cf. B. JACOB, Exodus, 456. In Ex 36,3, for e.g., the iterative function of the phrase is clear in the statement: ‫וְ הֵ ם הֵ בִ יאּו אֵ לָיו עֹוד ְנדָ בָ ה בַ ֹבקֶ ר בַ ֹבקֶ ר‬, where it is indicated that the people continued to bring freewill offerings to Moses every morning (cf. also Ex 30,7; 2 Sam 13,4; 2 Chr 13,11: ‫)בַ בֹ קֶ ר־בַ ֹבקֶ ר ּובָ ֶע ֶרב־בָ ֶע ֶרב‬. Again, the expression ‫ יֹום יֹום‬in v. 5 is clearly means day-by-day. Cf. also GK § 123c; JM § 135d. Thus, the repetitive construction ‫ בַ ֹבקֶ ר בַ ֹבקֶ ר‬is rhetorically used here to denote the repetition of the act of collection each morning. 86 Note the change in the preposition here from ‫ לְ פִ י‬to ‫כְ פִ י‬. 87 For the modal use of the weqatal to express the iteration in the past, see H. GZELLER, “Northwest Semitic in General”, 441–443. For verbal modality in biblical Hebrew generally, see A. GIANTO, “Mood and Modality”, 183–194. 88 Cassuto’s contention that the term ‫ וְ נָמָ ס‬should be translated “it became loathsome” is very unlikely. Cf. U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 197. The usual meaning of the verb ‫“ מסס‬to melt” fits the context perfectly. 89 F.S. BODENHEIMER, “The Manna of Sinai”, 6.

140

Chapter III: The Bread from Heaven

the biblical description of the manna 90 stems from the fact that the biblical narrator does not have a first-hand experience of the mann.91 Appraising this position however, one has to reckon with the fact that, following the narrative critically, the biblical narrator does not set out to present a depiction of the natural mann of the Sinai Peninsula. The manna is fundamentally presented as a supernatural gift of God. Some other scholars, on the other hand, adjudge the biblical manna as a supernatural phenomenon which should not be equated with the natural mann of the Sinai area. Among such scholars is C. Meyers who asserts strongly that there is no naturalistic explanation for the manna. According to her, the biblical description of the manna does not match anything found at the Sinai area. As such, this divine provision of food for the people in the barren wilderness portrays “a miraculous aspect of the arduous journey. The powerful God who can perform the miracle of the sea is also a nurturing deity who can provide sweet water and now delectable food where neither exists.”92 For A. Schart, the Manna-Erfahrung of the Israelites, as recounted, does not present this food as a natural phenomenon, but rather brings into expression YHWH’s special order within creation.93 From the biblical text, this position is quite tenable. But it is not quite convincing that the narrator, in presenting this supernatural phenomenon, is totally oblivious of the existence of the mann, the characteristics of which likely influenced his work. A middle position is taken by yet other scholars who while accepting that that the manna is a natural phenomenon, hold that its biblical depiction arises from a theological viewpoint. In line with this view, M. Priotto explains that the biblical narrator here rereads a natural phenomenon in the light of faith, drawing therefrom Israel’s need of confident abandonment to divine providence.94 The position appears the very tenable. It is most likely that the biblical narrator built into a grand theological project, the people’s collective memory about a supernatural food with which YHWH fed “our fathers” in the wilderness. Though it is reported that the manna ceased to fall at arrival in Canaan, the reality of the mann found today at the Sinai does not negate this memory. It is rather taken to represent vestiges of the wonders of old, and thus lends credibility to the story as remembered.95 90

For these scholars, the assertion that when stored overnight, the manna breeds worms is not correct. The Mann does not breed worms. Rather, ants appear and carry them off. For them also, that the stored manna stinks by the next day portrays a later misinterpretation. Cf. F.S. BODENHEIMER, “The Manna of Sinai”, 5; U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 197. 91 See, for e.g., E. RUPRECHT, “Stellung”, 289, n. 47. 92 C. MEYERS, Exodus, 131. 93 Cf. A. SCHART, Mose und Israel, 128. 94 Cf. M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 309. 95 The Mann found at the Sinai area therefore functions as a “mediator of memory”, an expression used by Hendel to depict a historical kernel which has become “so interwoven

3. Fulfilment of Promise

141

In this regard, as described by Propp, the Manna-Erzählung functions to provide a supernatural origin to a natural phenomenon.96 The description of the supernatural origin of “present” realities is not unusual in the Hebrew Bible (cf. Gen 17,11; 28,19; 32,32; Jdg 6,24; etc.). These instances, widely regarded by scholars as folk etymologies, portray rather the dynamics of social memory in the composition of the biblical narratives. To provide explanations for present realities or to resolve current existential problems, the people’s collective memories of their constitutive past provide the basis for theological discourses set out in the form of narratives. In sum therefore, the manna, as presented in this episode, is not just an ordinary, everyday alimentation. It represents rather an extraordinary experience to be remembered. Furthermore, in the unfolding of the narrative plot, as noted by Noth, the above episode “certainly makes sense by itself, but it nevertheless reaches its climax in the story of the following Sabbath.”97 And to the Sabbath implications of the Manna-Erfahrung we now turn.

with narrative motifs and religious ideology that it is impossible to disengage the history from the tradition.” R. HENDEL, Remembering Abraham, Chap. IV, “The Exodus”, 67. 96 Cf. W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 600. 97 M. NOTH, Exodus, 135. Cf. also C. DOHMEN, Exodus, 391.

CHAPTER IV

The Sabbath and the Memorialisation The two instructions on the collection and preservation of the food, discussed in the last chapter, set the stage for the following experience of the Sabbath in the evolvement of the narrative plot. This chapter undertakes a close reading of the connection between the manna and institution of the Sabbath rest (vv. 22–30), observing how YHWH patiently brings the people to a closer knowledge of him through their sixth and seventh day experiences; and the narrative epilogue which consists of the memorialisation of the special food from heaven by naming and by cultic preservation, including some notes of clarification which serve as postscripts (vv. 31–36).

1. Sabbath Instructions and People’s Reactions (vv. 22–30) This section is comprised of the events of the sixth and the seventh days. The sixth day consists of the preparation for the Sabbath (vv. 22–23); while the seventh day is devoted to the Sabbath observance proper (vv. 24–30). 1.1 The Sixth Day: Preparation for the Sabbath (vv. 22–23) Just as in v. 13, the new episode is introduced by ‫ ַו ְיהִ י‬, a term used 4 times in the pericope (vv. 10.13.22.27) to call attention to certain significant developments in the evolvement of the narrative plot. At this point, it directs attention to the remarkable occurrences on the sixth day: ‫ ַו ְיהִ י בַ יֹום הַ ִש ִשי‬. The previous episode ended on the positive note that the Israelites had found a rhythm in the day-to-day collection of the food – ‫בַ בֹ קֶ ר בַ ֹבקֶ ר‬. This episode recounts the interruption of this rhythm ‫בַ יֹום הַ ִש ִשי‬. Immediately striking here is the link between v. 22 and v. 5, both of which begin with a similar expression: v. 5:

‫וְ הָ יָה בַ יֹום הַ ִש ִשי וְ הֵ כִ ינּו אֵ ת ֲאשֶ ר־יָבִ יאּו וְ הָ יָה ִמ ְשנֶה ַעל ֲאשֶ ר־ ִילְ קְ טּו יֹום יֹום‬ But on the sixth day, when they prepare what they bring in, it shall be twice as much as they gather day by day v. 221: ‫ַו ְיהִ י בַ יֹום הַ ִש ִשי לָקְ טּו לֶחֶ ם ִמ ְשנֶה ְשנֵי הָ עֹ מֶ ר לָאֶ חָ ד‬ And on the sixth day, they gathered bread twice as much, two omers for each

1

Note that the waw of apodosis is missing in ‫לָקְ טּו‬, but this does not change the meaning of the temporal clause. Cf. JM § 176f; KöSyn § 370b.

1. Sabbath Instructions and People’s Reactions

143

Analysing the above, v. 22 appears the fulfilment of the divine instruction in v. 5. Though it is not reported that Moses handed over such instruction to the people, the striking semblance in the two statements suggests this. However, as this gap is not definitely closed by the narrator, the reader holds this inference as probable. On the sixth day, the Israelites gather a double quantity of the food: ‫ְשנֵי הָ ֹעמֶ ר‬ ‫“( לָאֶ חָ ד‬two omers for each”). There is no scholarly consensus here regarding the point at which this “double quantity” happened – at the field (the point of collection), or at home (the point of measurement). For some scholars, just as on the other days, the Israelites – precisely the capifamiglia – collect the usual amount of the bread from the fields. But when they get to their tents and measure it, they discover that it is double the usual quantity. It is in their astonishment to this that the leaders of the people seek clarification from Moses.2 These scholars are mostly of the opinion that Moses did not relate the divine directive in v. 5 to the people. This position is obviously tenable from the text. However, as noted above, it appears that in connecting v. 22 to v. 5, the narrator indicates the keeping of the divine directive in v. 5, though not explicitly stating that the instruction was handed down. Some other scholars are of the opinion that, going out to gather on the sixth day, the Israelites discover that the quantity of manna on the ground is greater than the usual quantity on the other days. And they see it as an indication to gather more than they did on the other days. The miracle here lies in the doubling of the quantity of food that falls on the sixth day.3 While some of these scholars hold that the Israelites reacted spontaneously to finding a surplus amount of the food at the field, others hold that, though it is not distinctly stated, Moses had made known to them the divine directive on this special sixth-day collection. An objection to the latter interpretation is the apparent surprise of the leaders at this incident (v. 22b).4 To take a position here, a close analysis of v. 22a, in connection with v. 5, is instructive. V. 22a states unequivocally that, on the sixth day, the people collected a double portion of the food: ‫ ַו ְיהִ י בַ יֹום הַ ִש ִשי לָקְ טּו לֶחֶ ם ִמ ְשנֶה‬. As such, the narrator sets the people – the capifamiglia – as the (virtual) subjects of the act 2 So RASHI; B. BAENTSCH, Exodus – Leviticus, 153; H. GRESSMANN, Mose und seine Zeit, 127.B.S. CHILDS, The Book of Exodus, 290; M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 309–310; C. DOHMEN, Exodus 1–18, 391; V.P. HAMILTON, Exodus, 258. For S.R. Driver (The Book of Exodus, 146), the doubling of the quantity is only discovered when the collected food has been prepared. Driver’s view, however, does not align with the following instruction of Moses about the preparation of the food (v. 23). 3 So RASHBAM; U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 197; E. RUPRECHT, “Stellung”, 289; P. MAIBERGER, Das Manna, 109; C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 346–347; D. FRANKEL, The Murmuring Stories, 104–105. C.D. KUPFER, Mit Israel, 70; L.R. KASS, Founding, 230. 4 On this element of surprise, see inter alia B.S. CHILDS, The Book of Exodus, 290; J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 225; W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 597.

144

Chapter IV: The Sabbath and the Memorialisation

of collection. A conscious act is thus inferable here: the people go out and collect double the usual amount on the sixth day. This inference stands against the position that this doubling only happened at home. However, this interpretation does not preclude the miracle of measurement at home. It could be envisaged that the people gather an estimated double portion of the food, and measuring it at home, it amounts exactly to the double of each person’s Essbedarf (‫) ְשנֵי הָ עֹ מֶ ר לָאֶ חָ ד‬.5 This inference is in line with the original divine instruction in v. 5. In the expression ...‫ וְ הָ יָה בַ יֹום הַ ִש ִשי וְ הֵ כִ ינּו אֵ ת ֲאשֶ ר־יָבִ יאּו‬, the preparation (‫ )וְ הֵ כִ ינּו‬does not refer to preparing the food for eating, but arranging the food to be brought ( ‫ֲאשֶ ר־‬ ‫ )יָבִ יאּו‬from the field.6 That what is meant here is the quantity to be brought in from the field is specified in the second part of the statement: “it shall be twice as much as they gather day by day.”7 Taken together then, it appears most probable that, going to the field on the sixth day to collect, the capifamiglia discover a double of the usual amount manna, and they instinctively collect double of what they usually did. And measuring it at home, it is a double of each person’s Essbedarf. It is in the surprise of this that all8 the ‫ – ְנ ִׂשיאֵ י הָ ֵעדָ ה‬the leaders/representatives of the congregation 9 – come to Moses to ascertain how to manage the unusual situation: ‫ ַו ָי ֹבאּו כָל־ ְנ ִׂשיאֵ י הָ ֵעדָ ה ַויַגִ ידּו לְ מֹ שֶ ה‬. The incident of the leftover food which bred worms by morning is still fresh in their minds! A pertinent question that remains to be asked here is: as Moses clearly received the instruction about the double collection in v. 5, why does he withhold it from the people? In fact, does it not amount to an oversight on his part that he did not inform the people of this strategic directive? Important to remember here is that the experience of the wilderness of Sin is a Lernprozess, and Moses acts in accordance with the divine design to bring the Israelites to a closer knowledge of him. In their gradual appreciation of the ‫לֶחֶ ם ִמן־הַ שָ מָ ִים‬, it could be observed that it is the modus operandi of Moses to allow the people experience the surprise of encountering certain aspects of it, and then relay the 5

On the functional meaning of this phrase in this narrative, see comments on v. 16. Cf. P. MAIBERGER, Das Manna, 109; contra L.R. KASS, Founding God’s Nation, 226. 7 Heb: ‫ – וְ הָ יָה ִמ ְשנֶה ַעל ֲאשֶ ר־ ִילְ קְ טּו יֹום יֹום‬Note the waw of apodosis here. 8 To be noted is the emphasis implied by ‫כָל‬. That this matter is referred to Moses by all the capifamiglia is a mark of its seriousness. 9 The term ‫ נ ִָׂשיא‬is derived from the verb ‫ נׂשא‬- “to lift up; raise, carry.” Niehr detects four notions of this term in the Hebrew Bible: It refers to a tribal leader (Num 1,4; 7,3.10.12); the chief of a clan (Num 3,24.30.35; 4,34; 1Kgs 8,1); a military leader (Num 10,4); and generally a respected or exalted person (Gen 23,6; 34,2; Ex 35,27; Num 16,2; 27,2; Jsh 22,30). Cf. H. NIEHR, “‫”נ ִָׂשיא‬, TDOT, X, 50. See also C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 346; BDB, HALOT. M. Noth traces the history of the ‫יאים‬ ִ ‫ ְנ ִׂש‬in Israel to the period of the Judges. At the amphictyony, each tribe was represented by a ‫נ ִָׂשיא‬. Cf. M. NOTH, Das System, 151–152. In Ex 16,22, the term refers to “the representatives of the congregation [who] function as their spokespersons before Moses. Ex 34,31 also presupposes this.” H. NIEHR, “‫”נ ִָׂשיא‬, TDOT, X, 48. 6

1. Sabbath Instructions and People’s Reactions

145

corresponding directives. It is this method, which appears more impactful for learning, that applies here. And the visit of ‫ כָל־ ְנ ִׂשיאֵ י הָ ֵעדָ ה‬to Moses attests that the method is functional. All the more, in the evolvement of the narrative plot, not handing down of this instruction sharpens the focus on Moses’ reaction to the ‫נְ ִׂשיאֵ י הָ ֵעדָ ה‬, which introduces the all-important motif of the Sabbath. In fact, right from the instruction in v. 5, the narrator skilfully avoids providing the reason for the double collection on the sixth day, building up the suspense towards the declaration of the Sabbath in v. 23.10 Moses’ response to the ‫ ְנ ִׂשיאֵ י הָ ֵעדָ ה‬begins with the formula: ‫הּוא ֲאשֶ ר דִ בֶ ר ְיהוָה‬, the second use of such in the narrative.11 This formula obviously highlights attention to the following pronouncement 12: ‫ שַ בָ תֹון שַ בַ ת־ ֹקדֶ ש לַיה ָוה מָ חָ ר‬, a particularly solemn pronouncement that introduces the Sabbath motif in the history of Israel as a nation.13 As aptly observed by Priotto, in this proclamation (which literary translates: “A day of solemn rest, a Sabbath of holiness to YHWH is tomorrow”), the emphatic form ‫ שַ בָ תֹון‬and the qualification ‫ ֹקדֶ ש‬underscore the extraordinary sanctity of the Sabbath, a sanctity anchored in YHWH himself (‫)לַיהוָה‬.14 Again, though Moses declares the Sabbath applying the formula that affirms it as coming from YHWH, the fact that it is not reported beforehand that he received such instruction from YHWH characterises Moses as a man of extraordinary freedom and great authority. This is, however, not an indication of independence. Rather, Moses’ freedom and authority are exercised within the ambience of the divine will. At this juncture, it is opportune to consider the position of H. Gressmann that because the Sabbath is not mentioned in YHWH’s directive to Moses in vv. 4–5, it was Moses who by his Klugheit discovered the Sabbath. For him, Moses 10

The observation of M. Sternberg (The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 98) that though omniscient, “the narrator varies his techniques of presentation – sometimes revealing, sometimes concealing, most often taking a middle course – in order to cast the reader in the role of participant as well as spectator” applies here. 11 In vv. 16.32, however, the wording is a bit different: ‫ זֶה הַ דָ בָ ר ֲאשֶ ר צִ ּוָה ְיהוָה‬. Particularly noteworthy is the use of the verb ‫ ִדבֶ ר‬here as against ‫ צִ ּוָה‬in vv. 16.32. But it is to be observed that here, what follows immediately is a declaration, while in vv. 16.31, the formula is immediately followed by explicit commands. However, as evident in v. 28, the regulations concerning the Sabbath constitute part of the divine ‫מצְ ֹות וְ תֹו ֹרת‬. ִ 12 Contra Propp (Exodus 1–18, 597) who holds that, because of the use of the term ‫הּוא‬, this formula does not refer to the following pronouncement but to the divine instruction in v. 5 which Moses did not relate to the people because did not quite understand it. But there is no indication in the narrative that Moses did not understand this instruction. 13 The only allusion to the Sabbath up till this point is the seventh day rest of God a t creation. The command in Ex 13,6 that the seventh day shall be a day of festival to YHWH does not contain any allusion to Sabbath observance. All the more, in these precedents, the substantive ‫ שַ בַ ת‬is not employed. 14 M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 310. See also C.D. KUPFER, Mit Israel auf dem Weg, 70–71.

146

Chapter IV: The Sabbath and the Memorialisation

only indirectly deduces the Sabbath as God’s will from the double yield on the sixth day.15 First of all, in the macronarrative of the Pentateuch, it is clear that the Sabbath motif here links back to the divine rest in the first creation account (cf. Gen 2,2–3). It is thus not an “invention” of Moses. Again, in the poetics at play here, the narrator purposely creates this gap. But, introduced with the introductory formula – ‫הּוא ֲאשֶ ר דִ בֶ ר ְיהוָה‬, the reader is not in doubt whether the Sabbath declaration actually originates from YHWH (though passed over in silence). He would however look back to ascertain at which point this information was relayed – the technique of curiosity. Notably, the ordering of the words of the declaration of the Sabbath is quite instructive. Though “tomorrow” is the object of description here, it comes last in the sentence. The catchy beginning of the statement: ‫ – שַ בָ תֹון שַ בַ ת־קֹ דֶ ש‬rather than beginning with the term ‫“ מָ חָ ר‬tomorrow” – indicates clearly that the stress of the proclamation is on the Sabbath. With this construction, this emphasis on the Sabbath cannot escape the reader’s eyes. Again, the pattern of this statement is carefully woven. The proclamation presents an evolving description of “tomorrow.” It is a ‫ ;שַ בָ תֹון‬it is a ‫ ;שַ בַ ת־ ֹקדֶ ש‬and it is a holy Sabbath ‫ – לַיהוָה‬a rising order of significance! One notes here the explicit use of ‫ לַיהוָה‬to reinforce the notion of ‫ קדש‬which already connotes the sense of something set apart for YHWH (cf. BDB). The Sabbath is thus introduced, ab initio, as a day “set apart from the ordinary and dedicated to God.”16 As such, the specialness of this day derives from the special relationship with God that it entails. Such introduction prepares the ground for the elaborate Sabbath commandments that will come later, in the context of the Sinaitic covenant. This solemn pronouncement, as hinted above, introduces the substantive ‫שַ בַ ת‬ for the first time not only in the narrative but in the entire Hebrew Bible.17 And 15

Cf. H. GRESSMANN, Mose und seine Zeit, 128–129. B.S. CHILDS, The Book of Exodus, 290. 17 The attempt by scholars to trace the origin of the term ‫ שַ בַ ת‬has not been conclusive. The suggestion that the term stems from the Akkadian term šab/pattu(m) which also means “day of rest” (so W. LOTZ, Quaestiones, 5–49) has been abandoned at the discovery that šab/pattu(m) referred to the 15th day of the month, the day of the full moon. Also the suggestion that the Sabbath has a linguistic link with the Akkadian šabattu and the Arabic verb tabat “sit” (so D. NIELSEN, Die altarabische Mondreligion, 52–88) has been countered by scholars. In all, there appears to be a link between the substantive ‫ שַ בַ ת‬and the verb ‫שבת‬. However, it is disputed among scholars whether the substantive is derived from the verb (so R. de VAUX, Ancient Israel, 475–476) or vice versa (so R. NORTH, “The Derivation”, 185– 187). As Haag submits, “A case can be made that at a very early period, Israel designated the seventh day, in accordance with its unique expression, the noun šabbāṯ deriving it from the verb šāḇaṯ used in the ancient Israelite commandment concerning the day of rest (Ex 32,21) and then developing its content with reference to the specific meaning of that verb.” E. HAAG, “‫”שַ בַ ת‬, TDOT, XIV, 387. See also G.F. HASEL, “Sabbath”, ABD, V, 849–850. Further considerations on the significance of the Sabbath in the life of Israel as a people will be taken in the next chapter. 16

1. Sabbath Instructions and People’s Reactions

147

the Sabbath will progressively acquire greater significance in biblical history, to the extent that keeping the Sabbath would become synonymous with keeping YHWH’s Torah generally (cf. Is 56,6; Jer 17,19–27). In fact, the Sabbath would turn out to become an identity-marking motif for the Israelites. On another note, it is often held that the term ‫ שַ בָ תֹון‬indicates a special Sabbath.18 But its use in Ex 31,15 to describe every seventh day counters this position. A common denominator in the 11 occurrences of this term in the Hebrew Bible 19 is that it portrays the sense of the observance of the Sabbath rest. Furthermore, as noted by different scholars, the holiness of the Sabbath falls back to creation. The seventh day is made holy ( ‫ )קדש‬at creation because God rested (‫ )שבת‬from work on this day (Gen 2,1–3). We therefore find in this narrative “a quest to reclaim the lost origin of creation from Genesis 1.”20 Dozeman expatiates further: The revelation of manna brings the ideal structure of creation into focus for the Israelites, because God does not provide food on the day of divine rest. The six-day rhythm of manna reveals that the seventh day, the Sabbath, is holy to Yahweh, set apart from the other days of the week…. As a result, the location for the recovery of Sabbath is memorialised at the specific setting, the wilderness of Sin.21

The proclamation of the Sabbath, in fact, invites the Israelites to align themselves to the order established by YHWH himself at creation.22 Hence, as Frankel observes, “When the Israelite works in the field for six days and refrains from activity every seventh day, he aligns his work cycle with the work cycle of God and becomes, so to speak, God’s partner or co-worker.”23 Therefore, the call to Sabbath observance, just as the wondrous provision of the manna in the wilderness, is an indicator of Israel’s chosenness among the nations. In all, it is remarkable that the Sabbath is introduced to Israel in the context of the manna experience. Bringing these two motifs together here is instructive as it underscores the importance of observing YHWH’s instructions so as to 18 Cf. for e.g., HALOT. For V.P. Hamilton (Exodus, 249), compared with other words that end in –ôn such as ‫“ ִזכָרֹון‬memorial, remembrance” or ‫“ הֵ ָריֹון‬pregnancy”, it seems that this term carries an abstract sense, something like “restfulness.” Cf. also B. LEVINE, Leviticus, 110. In the Hebrew Bible, however, the term does not portray an abstract sense. 19 Ex 16,23; 31,15; 35,2; Lev 16,31; 23,3; 23,24.32.39(2x); 25,4.5. 20 T.B. DOZEMAN, Exodus, 385. 21 T.B. DOZEMAN, Exodus, 385. And, for the purposes of this work, Dozeman’s observation on the memorialisation of “the recovery of Sabbath” is quite instructive. 22 Noteworthy here is that cessation from work is already prescribed for the first and the seventh days of the Passover (Ex 12,16). But this important annual event performs another function. It keeps alive the memory of the wondrous deliverance from Egypt. 23 D. FRANKEL, “The Priestly Conception”, 226; cf. also L.R. KASS, Founding God’s Nation, 232. For A. Schart (Mose und Israel, 129), this is one of the many instances of P’s connection of history.

148

Chapter IV: The Sabbath and the Memorialisation

remain in his favour. The manna represents God’s gracious providence for the people. The Sabbath calls for observance, hinged on the people’s relationship with their God. The manna is thus a special food that ushers in a new phase of relationship between YHWH and the nation of Israel, who learns to align herself to living according to divine instructions through the observation of the Sabbath. Again, the motif of gift binds the manna closely with the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a special day in which the gift of manna is no longer to be received, but already received. It is therefore a day in which the gift of manna is appreciated in an extraordinary way!24 Having provided the reason for the double portion, Moses offers guidelines on how to proceed with the collected food in view of the Sabbath. The people should bake/boil what they would ( ‫ר־תבַ ְשלּו בַ שֵ לּו‬ ְ ֶ‫)אֵ ת ֲאשֶ ר־ת ֹאפּו אֵ פּו וְ אֵ ת ֲאש‬,25 and then keep the rest for the next day ( ‫) וְ אֵ ת כָל־הָ ֹעדֵ ף הַ ִּניחּו ָלכֶם לְ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת ַעד־הַ ֹבקֶ ר‬. “In this construction,” Beuken aptly observes, “indeterminacy is consciously created (cf. Gen 49,28; Ex 3,14; 4,13; 33,19; etc.).”26 Hence, a scholarly debate has arisen on whether the people are to bake/boil all the collected food on the sixth day, or prepare only the amount they were to eat for the day. For the scholars who hold that all the food is to be cooked on the sixth day, the Sabbath is meant to be a solemn rest that forbids even food preparation. The construction ‫אֵ ת ֲאשֶ ר־‬ ‫ר־תבַ ְשלּו בַ שֵ לּו‬ ְ ֶ‫“ ת ֹאפּו אֵ פּו וְ אֵ ת ֲאש‬does not refer to the quantity one may prepare, but to the manner of preparation; in that respect one has full freedom: it does not matter how one prepares it.”27 For them also, the expression ‫ כָל־הָ ֹעדֵ ף‬refers to what is left of the prepared manna, when the portion for the sixth day has been taken.28 But a critical analysis of this instruction within the context suggests otherwise. It has been noted that the unusual idem per idem construction29 depicts

24

Cf. L.R. KASS, Founding God’s Nation, 232. A contradiction has been pointed out here by scholars with regard to the tenacity of the manna under heat: Here, it can be cooked or baked, while in v. 21, it melts under the heat of the sun. Cf. J. WELLHAUSEN, Die Composition, 78; L. SCHMIDT, “Die Priesterschrift”, 492; S.A. GELLER, “Manna and Sabbath”, 10. But, as Houtman notes, rather than pointing to a contradiction, this is an indication of the extraordinary nature of the manna. Cf. C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 349. 26 W.A.M. BEUKEN, “A Rule”, 9. 27 C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 348. 28 So RASHI; TgPsJ; B. BAENTSCH, Exodus, 154; J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 225; W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 597; M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 310; G.I. DAVIES, Exodus 1–18, II, 462. 29 The expression idem per idem – literally “the same for the same” – implies defining a thing by itself. According to S.R. Driver (Exodus, 363), the idem per idem construction is employed “where the means or desire to be more explicit does not exist.” For J.R. Lundbom (“God’s Use of the Idem per Idem”, 193–201), such construction precludes discussion by eradicating response alternatives. But it is the observation of Propp that applies most appropriately to our context: “The main function of this rhetorical device is to be vague, whether 25

1. Sabbath Instructions and People’s Reactions

149

freedom in the manner of food preparation. But this appears to be with regards to the quantity of the food to be prepared for the day. In response to the leaders’ request for clarification on the double portion gathered, Moses directs that the people should bake what would usually bake (i.e., for the day) and boil what they would usually boil,30 and then leave the rest ‫ ַעד־הַ ֹבקֶ ר‬. Hence, the expression ‫ ָכל־הָ עֹ דֵ ף‬refers not to the remaining prepared food, but to the remaining omer which is neither baked nor cooked.31 Beuken argues here that “the root ‫עדף‬ always refers to a part that exists in addition to another part but connected to it (cf. v. 18; also Ex 26,12–13; Lev 25,27; Num 3,46.48–49).”32 According to him, considered semantically, the undeclared objects of the three imperatives in v. 23b (‫ת ֹאפּו‬, ‫בַ שֵ לּו‬, ‫ )הַ ּנִ יחּו‬are connected to one another in such a manner that the object of the third ( ‫ )לְ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת‬entails what the first two are not. Situated within the context of the narrative plot, the weightiest argument for this interpretation is that it creates a sharp contrast with the decay of the unprepared food in v. 20. “The lack of rotting of the leftover manna,” Frankel observes, “forms a clear contrast to the rotting of the manna left over in disobedience after the first day of its appearance (v. 20). The lack of rotting confirms that the double portion was indeed sent by God because of the Sabbath.”33 Again, it appears that the interpretation that the food is not to be prepared on the Sabbath derives from the instruction in Ex 35,3 that no fire should be kindled on the Sabbath, an instruction that obviously influenced Sabbath regulations in later Judaism. But in the macronarrative plot of Exodus, this constitutes a later instruction about the Sabbath, which does not appear in this pericope that introduces the significance of the seventh day. It would be retroactive to apply such later prohibition to this narrative. To be noted also at this juncture is that the statement – ‫וְ אֵ ת כָל־הָ ֹעדֵ ף הַ ִּניחּו ָלכֶם‬ ‫ – לְ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת ַעד־הַ בֹ קֶ ר‬links back to the Pesach narrative of Ex 12 through the recurrence of the expression ‫( ָלכֶם לְ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת‬12,6),34 and by the motif of preserving the remaining special food ‫( ַעד־הַ בֹ קֶ ר‬12,10). However, in the Pesach pericope, the to convey infinite potentiality or to conceal information, by defining a thing as itself.” W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 225. 30 In this directive, the yiqtol forms ‫ ת ֹאפּו‬and ‫ ְתבַ ְשלּו‬function here to express iteration (JM § 113c; GK § 107g). Also to be observed is that if the directive had implied preparing all the collected food, there would be no need of such complicated construction. 31 So IBN EZRA, M. NOTH, Exodus, 136; U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 198; W.A.M. BEUKEN, “A Rule”, 9–11; D. FRANKEL, The Murmuring, 106; C. DOHMEN, Exodus 1–18, 392. 32 W.A.M. BEUKEN, “A Rule”, 9. 33 D. FRANKEL, The Murmuring Stories, 106. For Frankel however, the most decisive argument here is that this directive has to be seen as a test. According to him, “Only the command to leave over the next day’s portion uncooked constitutes a test since the cooking of the manna may be expected to slow down the usual process of spoiling.” 34 In 16,23, the term ‫ לְ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת‬occurs the second time in Exodus. It occurs altogether 5x in the book: Ex 12,6; 16,23.32.33.34.

150

Chapter IV: The Sabbath and the Memorialisation

food that remains till morning is meant to be burnt; while here, the remaining food should be preserved ( ‫)לְ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת‬35 for the next day – the Sabbath. This difference points all the more to the specialness of the Sabbath. Further to be noted is the play on the preposition ‫ ל‬in v. 23. While the Sabbath is dedicated ‫– לַיהוָה‬ to be kept by the people, the remaining food is designated ‫ – ָלכֶם‬to be provided by YHWH. In this play of prepositions, we have thus a manifestation of the greatness of the gift “for you” on one hand, and the reciprocity of the relationship “to YHWH” on the other. 1.2 The Seventh Day (vv. 24–30) The events of the seventh day are presented in the narrative in two steps: the positive reaction of the people to given instructions and Moses’ reiteration of the Sabbath instructions (vv. 24–26); and the negative reaction of the people to given instructions and the divine reprimand (vv. 27–29). It is then concluded by the climactic resolution of the complication of the episode – the people’s compliance (v. 30). 1.2.1 Positive Reaction and Reiteration of Instruction (vv. 24–26) The events of ‫ הַ יֹום הַ ְשבִ יעִ י‬build on those of ‫הַ יֹום הַ ִש ִשי‬. In obedience to Moses’ directives, the people keep the remaining half of the food till the next morning: ‫“( ַויַּנִ יחּו אֹ תֹו ַעד־הַ בֹ קֶ ר‬And they set it aside until morning”). The positive characterisation of the people is doubly expressed here. First, the people’s act – ‫ַו ַי ִּניחּו אֹ תֹו‬ ‫ – ַעד־הַ בֹ קֶ ר‬is depicted with the similar words as the instruction: ‫ ַעד־הַ ֹבקֶר‬...‫הַ ִּניחּו‬ (v. 23b), indicating that the act is in strict compliance with the directives of Moses. But the narrator goes further to make this explicit: “as Moses had commanded.”36 This accentuated characterisation casts Israel in the positive light as the events of the seventh day begin to unfold. And the reader would infer at this point that the people appear to have actually learnt compliance to divine instructions through the happenings of the previous days.

35

M. Priotto (Esodo, 310) argues that, in the P theology, as pointed out by Milgrom and Harper (“‫”מ ְשמֶ ֶרת‬, ִ TDOT, IX, 73–77), this term has a profound liturgical sense. Just like in Ex 12, he considers the preservation of the manna till the next day a liturgical act, “perchè si tratta di conservare, di custodire e di sorvegliare il cibo per il sabbato, così come si bisogna conservare una porzione di manna per le generazioni future (vv. 32–34).” Though this is tenable, there is nothing specifically liturgical in the preservation of the manna at this point. Here, the term retains its basic meaning: to guard/watch (cf. BDB; HALOT; J. MILGROM, Studies, 51). This act of preservation is only lexically connected to the liturgical preservation in vv. 32–34. 36 Cf. C.D. KUPFER, Mit Israel, 71.

1. Sabbath Instructions and People’s Reactions

151

The food kept till morning neither stinks nor breeds worms. The significance of this shines out clearly in comparison with v. 20. In both episodes, the same act is performed but different results are obtained:

v. 20

v. 24

Act

Result

‫ַיֹותרּו ֲאנ ִָשים ִממֶ ּנּו ַעד־בֹ קֶ ר‬ ִ ‫ו‬ Some people left some of it until morning ‫ַו ַי ִּניחּו אֹ תֹו ַעד־הַ ֹבקֶ ר‬ And they set it aside until morning

‫ַויָרֻ ם תֹולָעִ ים ַו ִיבְ אַ ש‬ and it bred worms and stank ‫וְ ל ֹא הִ בְ ִאיש וְ ִרמָ ה ל ֹא־הָ ְיתָ ה בֹו‬ and it did not stink and there was no worm in it

In fact, it could be observed that the narrator uses the lexical connection between the two verses to highlight the contrast between the two outcomes. And the sole reason for this positive variation is that, this time around, the food is left over in accordance with YHWH’s command37 mediated through Moses – ‫ ַכ ֲאשֶ ר צִ ּוָה מֹ שֶ ה‬. It is therefore obedience to YHWH’s instructions, not the people’s cleverness, that charts the right way forward – the way of sustenance; the way of survival.38 On the basis of this positive outcome, Moses continues his directives to the people (‫)וַי ֹאמֶ ר מֹ שֶ ה‬, clarifying that they should eat the leftover-yet-unspoilt food on this day (‫) ִאכְ לֻהּו הַ יֹום‬.39 At the background of this, one could sense the people’s reluctance to eating the residual food, still having fresh in their memory how such leftovers stank and bred worms a few mornings past. Also, the overwhelmingly gratuitous nature of this food on the Sabbath – they have to do absolutely nothing to get it! – makes it difficult for the people to accept the gift without hesitation. Moses’ words were thus reassuring. That the leftover food does not spoil by this morning implies that it is YHWH’s will that it be eaten today because it is a day different from other days 40 – it is a Sabbath to YHWH: ‫ !כִ י־שַ בָ ת הַ יֹום לַיהוָה‬Priotto observes here: “È proprio dal dono del sabato che

37 L.R. Kass (Founding God’s Nation, 231) observes here that the double portion of manna on the sixth day and the non-spoilage of the remaining portion on the seventh “reveal a philanthropically miraculous presence” of YHWH amidst the people. 38 Kupfer corroborates: “Jahwes Anordnungen und seine Gabe stehen im Einklang, so dass es sich bewährt, Jahwe zu hören.” C.D. KUPFER, Mit Israel, 71. 39 This instruction is interpreted in some quarters to imply that the food should only be eaten – and not prepared – on the seventh day. Cf., for e.g., B. BAENTSCH, Exodus – Leviticus, 154. Though this interpretation appears tenable, it is deducible from the context that the accent of Moses’ directive here is not on the mode of the usage of the food, but that the preserved portion is to be eaten for the day. That they are to prepare it for eating is assumed in the statement: ‫אכְ לֻהּו הַ יֹום‬. ִ 40 Cf. A. DILLMANN, Exodus und Leviticus, 191.

152

Chapter IV: The Sabbath and the Memorialisation

nasce la gioia di un cibo abbondante e gratuito, senza alcun pericolo di putrefazione.”41 Obviously, the statement – ‫“( כִ י־שַ בָ ת הַ יֹום לַיהוָה‬for today is a Sabbath to YHWH”) – links back to the solemn pronunciation in v. 23: ‫ שַ בַ ת־ ֹקדֶ ש לַיהוָה מָ חָ ר‬. As such, Moses reiterates what was proclaimed about “tomorrow” on the day before, which has come to fulfilment “today.” This reiteration is not fortuitous. Rather, in repeating this, the narrator accentuates (to the consciousness of the reader!) the point that the observance of the Sabbath, right from its inception in the life of Israel as a nation, derives from the people’s alignment to YHWH’s established order in creation. And because this is a rhythm “built into creation but never before enjoined upon humanity,”42 the repetition subtly emphasises Israel’s special relationship with YHWH through the Sabbath, an identity-marking characteristic of Israel as a chosen people. Moses goes further to clarify why the people should eat the bleibende food on this day: ‫“( הַ יֹום ל ֹא ִת ְמצָ ֻאהּו בַ שָ דֶ ה‬Today, you shall not find it in the field”).43 The people will not find it as usual in the field 44 because “just as the Lord abstained from work on the seventh day after the six days of Creation, so He will also abstain today, and will not rain for you bread from heaven.”45 The implication of this is that the observance of the Sabbath rest is not option al. “For the wilderness generation,” Propp remarks, “Sabbath observance was not optional or arbitrary. The seventh day differed intrinsically from the other six, since no Manna fell.”46 In this way, the people are made to learn to live the temporal rhythm set ab initio by the divine in creation. The people learn that they “must identify with God and partake in God’s secret rhythmic cycle of activity and cessation in order to secure God’s continuing, active provision in 41 M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 310. Priotto avers that the double portion of the manna on the sixth day portrays more clearly the sense of abundance – eating to satiety – promised by YHWH (vv. 8.12), in contrast to the people’s claim of satiety in Egypt (v. 3). 42 W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 597. 43 To be noted here is the 3x occurrences of the term ‫ הַ יֹום‬in v. 25. The emphasis of the statement lies clearly on today – the Sabbath day. 44 Priotto interprets the “strange” use of term ‫ ׂשָ דֶ ה‬here as an indication that this narrative is a theological reflection meant for the instruction of future generations. Cf. M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 310, n. 56. Indeed, there is no gainsaying the fact that the Manna-Erzählung articulates the people’s collective memory for the purposes of the present and the future. From the context of the narrative, however, the term appears akin to the use of ‫ אֶ ל־הַ ִמ ְדבָ ר‬in v. 10: the people went outside the camp (where they pitched their tents) to collect the manna (cf. also ‫ ַעל־הָ אָ ֶרץ‬in v. 14). This is also implied in the report that some people “went out to gather” in v. 27. 45 U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 198. Propp corroborates: “God anciently desisted from Creation on the Sabbath (Gen 2,2–3) and accordingly will not create any Manna on his day off. He instead produces a double share on Friday, rather like his double creation of man and beasts on the first Friday (Gen 1,24–31).” W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 597. 46 W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 597.

1. Sabbath Instructions and People’s Reactions

153

the field.”47 This forms a crucial part of the pre-Sinai Lernprozess. Before the all-important encounter at Sinai, YHWH ingeniously draws Israel to a closer relationship with him, through the discovery of the Sabbath.48 To conclude this reassurance speech, Moses recapitulates the guiding principle for gathering the food: ‫“( שֵ שֶ ת י ִָמים ִתלְ קְ טֻהּו ּובַ יֹום הַ ְשבִ יעִ י שַ בָ ת ל ֹא ִיהְ יֶה־בֹו‬Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, a Sabbath, there will be none in it”; v. 26). In this recapitulation, Moses succinctly summarises the already relayed Sabbath instruction, given at this point on the basis of the ascertained durability of the preserved food on the seventh day. All the more, in reiterating the directive, Moses advances from instructions for ‫ הַ יֹום‬to general instructions on the Sabbath.49 In this statement, the verbs ‫ ִתלְ קְ טֻהּו‬and ‫ ִיהְ יֶה‬are in the imperfect, denoting a continuous activity, a routine. In the first clause, the imperfect verb (+ suffix) ‫ ִתלְ קְ טֻהּו‬is used modally to express permission 50 – the continued permission to gather for six days. The second clause – semantically contrasted to the first – shifts attention to the seventh day, explicitly qualified as ‫שַ בָ ת‬: emphasis! Here, the statement is declarative but also iterative: ‫ל ֹא ִיהְ יֶה־בֹו‬. The (in)action of the Israelites is only implied: Because the bread will not be in the field on the seventh day, the people are not to go out to gather! Analysed theologically, the bread will not be there on the seventh day because YHWH himself keeps the Sabbath; and the people are required to follow suit. In all, the first week becomes an exemplar for the subsequent temporal rhythm. Pertinent to note at this point is that the cessation from activity required on the Sabbath also alludes to the value of work. As noted by Stackert, the Sabbath regulations are significantly human-centred. The “numerous biblical prohibitions against work on the Sabbath day” are based on the recognition that the human person needs respite after a tedious six-day cycle of work (cf. Ex 34,21).51 In fact, it is the regular engagement in work on the other days that makes cessation from it on the Sabbath special. Also, one gets rejuvenated from this rest in order to work again. All the more, in both working and resting, the people imitate YHWH. Also noteworthy here is that the Formulierung in v. 26 resounds in the Sabbath laws at the Sinai, remarkably in the Decalogue (Ex 20,9–10). One notable difference is that, at this point (v. 26), the instruction is descriptive. It contains no prohibition for the seventh day (the explicit prohibition comes later from

47

D. FRANKEL, “The Priestly Conception”, 226. One feels here, once more, the import of the emphasis at the beginning of the narrative that the events at the wilderness of Sin happened to whole congregation of the Israelites: ‫כָל־‬ ‫( עֲדַ ת בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬vv. 1–2). 49 Cf. E. RUPRECHT, “Stellung”, 289; C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 349. 50 On this modal use of the imperfect, see JM § 113l; A. GIANTO, “Mood and Modality”, 188–191. 51 Cf. J. STACKERT, “The Sabbath of the Land”, 239. 48

154

Chapter IV: The Sabbath and the Memorialisation

YHWH himself in v. 29). The first part recommends action for six days while

the second part only implicitly restricts it by indicating the non-availability of the manna on this day – the Sabbath52: Ex 16,26:

Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, a Sabbath, there will be none in it. Ex 20,9–10: Six days you shall labour… But the seventh day is a Sabbath to YHWH your God; you shall do no work.53

At the Sinai, therefore, we find an advancement of a course started here. In the narrative sequence of Exodus, the Sabbath laws at the Sinai become more meaningful for the people because they already have the concrete experience of the extraordinariness of the ‫יֹום הַ ְשבִ יעִ י‬. As such, the present experience of the manna provides the basis for the general law on the Sabbath. “The mannamiracle through which Israel discovers the Sabbath,” Dohmen aptly observes, “forms the crucial theological bridge between nature and revelation.”54 It is ad rem to point out at this juncture that analysed diachronically, it is inferable from the foregoing that in articulating this narrative, a present practice of the people is grounded in divine institution in a remembered event of the past. This, without doubt, does not arise out of the fictional imagination of the narrator. Rather, with the tool of narrative, he skilfully gives expression to what is accepted in the people’s collective memory. Besides, the collocation of this narrative in the wilderness-wandering period of Israel makes it all the more significant for the people. The Manna-Erfahrung also forms the basis of the directives on the jubilee year, given at the Sinai in Lev 25. Lev 25,3–4 presents a striking similarity in Formulierung and Motiv as Ex 16,26: ‫ת־תבּואָ תָ ּה׃ ּובַ שָ נָה הַ ְשבִ יעִ ת שַ בַ ת שַ בָ תֹון יִ הְ יֶה‬ ְ ֶ‫שֵ ש שָ ִנים ִתז ְַרע ׂשָ ֶ֔ ֶדָך וְ שֵ ש שָ ִנים ִתזְמֹ ר כ ְַרמֶ ָך וְ אָ סַ פְ תָ א‬ ‫לָאָ ֶרץ שַ בָ ת לַיהוָה ׂשָ דְ ָך ל ֹא ִתז ְָרע וְ כ ְַר ְמָך ל ֹא ִתזְמֹ ר‬ Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard, and gather in its yield; but in the seventh year there shall be a Sabbath of solemn rest for the land, a Sabbath for the Lord: you shall not sow your field or prune your vineyard (Lev 25,3–4).

Again, to the question in Lev 24,20: “What shall we eat in the seventh year, if we may not sow or gather in our crop?,” YHWH answers: “I will order my blessing for you in the sixth year, so that it will yield a crop for three years” (Lev 25,21). The bottom-line here is that, just as on the sixth day of Ex 16, YHWH provides abundance in the sixth year so that a ‫ שַ בָ תֹון‬may be observed on

52 Cf. A. SCHART, Mose und Israel, 130; U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 198; W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 597. 53 Ex 20,9–10 = Dt 5,13–14; see also Ex 31,15; Lev 23,3. 54 C. DOHMEN, Exodus 1–18, 396; translation mine.

1. Sabbath Instructions and People’s Reactions

155

the seventh year (the year of the ‫)שַ בָ ת‬.55 Analysing the relationship between the Sabbath day and the Jubilee year, Shead observes: At the top of the sabbatical pecking order is the jubilee, the “ultimate Sabbath” as expressed both by the seven sevens and by falling outside of the temporal cycles of seven…. Time and space are healed, setting the stage for the main action: the restoration of relationships.56

Hence, it is inferable that the rest occasioned by the divine provision of abundance on the sixth day/year is intended to avail the Israelites the time on the seventh day/year (and on the jubilee year) to turn more fully to YHWH. 57 On another note, in the flow of the narrative, the recapitulative instruction in v. 26 serves an additional purpose. It brings into focus the sharp contrast between this clearly spelt-out instruction and the reaction of some people in the following verse. This point is considered in the following section. 1.2.2 Negative Reaction and Divine Reprimand (vv. 27–29) The seventh day has already commenced in v. 24. But beginning with the phrase ‫“( וַ ְיהִ י בַ יֹום הַ ְשבִ יעִ י‬Now, on the seventh day”), v. 27 seems presented as the beginning of the seventh day, just as the expression ‫ ַו ְיהִ י בַ יֹום הַ ִש ִשי‬indicated the beginning of a new day in v. 22. This appears strange in the narrative sequence, and has been advanced by some scholars as a ground for the argument that v. 27 has a provenance different from the preceding verses.58 Or, as Houtman observes, it creates the impression that the instructions of vv. 25–26 were handed down prior to this day.59 However, as the seventh day has already begun in the narrative flow, it is decipherable that the narrator employs the use of this expression to direct particular attention on the following event in the unfolding episode of the seventh day60 – a significant change in the conduct of the people from positive to negative.

55 Cf. V.P. HAMILTON, Exodus, 258. Dohmen observes that at the divine revelation at the Sinai, God led the Israelites deeper into the mystery of the order of time. This came about not only through the Sabbath law in the Decalogue, but also by the fact that divine apparition happened on a seventh day (cf. Ex 24,16). Also, after the sin of the Golden Calf, the covenant was renewed on a Sabbath. Cf. C. DOHMEN, Exodus 1–18, 396. 56 A.G. SHEAD, “An Old Testament Theology”, 24. On the relationship between the Sabbath and the Jubilee year, see also G. SMYTH, “Sabbath and Jubilee”, 59–76; R. JOSPE, “Sabbath, Sabbatical and Jubilee”, 77–96. 57 And till date, reading the Torah constitutes an important part of keeping the Sabbath! 58 Cf. J. WELLHAUSEN, Die Composition, 78; D. FRANKEL, The Murmuring Stories, 74. 59 Cf. C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 350. 60 Cassuto corroborates this, arguing that although the seventh day has already been reached in the preceding verses, “yet since a new episode begins here, it was proper to employ an expression corresponding to the commencement of the previous narration… in v. 22.” U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 198.

156

Chapter IV: The Sabbath and the Memorialisation

In spite of the reassurances and reiterations of instruction, some people still went out on the seventh day to gather the food: ‫ַו ְיהִ י בַ יֹום הַ ְשבִ יעִ י יָצְ אּו ִמן־הָ ָעם לִ לְ ֹקט‬ ‫( וְ ל ֹא מָ צָ אּו‬v. 27). This is in complete disobedience to the instructions concerning the Sabbath.61 To ensure conformity to this instruction, Moses had repeated it in the morning of the seventh day. Still, the instruction is not heeded. And so, the narrator purposely introduces this act with the expression ‫ ַו ְיהִ י בַ יֹום הַ ְשבִ יעִ י‬to call the reader’s attention to the apparentness (and inexcusability) of the people’s disobedience. And the narrator makes this act of defiance all the more impressionable by bringing together Moses’ recapitulation of the Sabbath instruction in v. 26 and the people’s disobedience in v. 27: v. 26: Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day (‫)בַ יֹום הַ ְשבִ יעִ י‬, a Sabbath, there will be none in it. v. 27: Now, on the seventh day (‫)בַ יֹום הַ ְשבִ יעִ י‬, some of the people went out to gather, but they did not find anything.62

From this schema, the “disobedience pattern” is obvious. On the seventh day, the people go out to do what is only allowed for six days ( ‫)לקט‬,63 but prohibited for the seventh. And the consequence is clear: as preannounced, they do not find anything ( ‫ ;ל ֹא יִ הְ יֶה־בֹו‬v. 26 // ‫ ;ל ֹא מָ צָ או‬v. 27). The implications of this are profound. The people presumably have enough food in the house.64 What they have gathered extra did not become foul. Their going out to gather becomes an exercise of sheer greed and adventure. And this portrays how lightly they considered the significance of the whole unfolding manna-event. Frankel captures this aptly: Going out of the camp on the seventh day would constitute an expression of disbelief in the divine origin of the sixth day’s double provision. It would imply that the sixth day’s double portion was not provided for by God in anticipation of His Sabbath rest. Thus, the sin of the Israelites was not that they attempted to work on the Sabbath but that they expressed disbelief in the divine origin of the manna.65

Along the same line, going out on the seventh day to collect the food indicates that the people desired independence from God. It has been clearly announced

61 Interestingly, the people’s act here links back lexically the divine instruction in v. 4: ‫וְ יָצָ א הָ ָעם וְ לָקְ טּו דְ בַ ר־יֹום בְ יֹומֹו‬. In fact, it is only in these two verses that the verbs ‫ יצא‬and ‫לקט‬ occur together in the narrative. Ironically, however, this act constitutes a disobedience to divine instruction as it is forbidden to be carried out ‫בַ יֹום הַ ְשבִ יעִ י‬. 62 And so, the apparent redundancy of v. 26 is explained precisely by the intentional repetition of the expression ‫ בַ יֹום הַ ְשבִ יעִ י‬in vv. 26 and 27. 63 The explicit depiction of what the Israelites went out do – ‫ – לִ לְ קֹ ט‬goes further to characterise the Israelites negatively. 64 If they did not gather double as clearly instructed on the sixth day, then they were disobedient. However, the people with such tendency of going out to gather even on the seventh day do not seem likely not to have gathered double on the sixth day. 65 D. FRANKEL, The Murmuring Stories, 107.

1. Sabbath Instructions and People’s Reactions

157

that there will be no food in the field on the seventh day, because it is a ‫שַ בַ ת‬ ‫לַיהוָה‬. “Those who search for the manna do not find it,” Priotto notes, “because the Sabbath is first of all a day of God before being a day for humans.”66 The people’s access to the food is thus dependent on this divine rhythm. Hence, as Frankel aptly observes, going out to collect the manna on the seventh day – just like storing food for the next day in v. 20 – represents an attempt “to live outside the divine order in order to establish independent security.” By these acts, the Israelites “implicitly challenged the intrinsic relation between the manna and divine providence…. Their effort to live independent of God’s cycle, however, led to failure.”67 It is also deducible here that the Israelites go out in search of the manna because they are used to surviving through their own work. As such, free from the Egyptian slavery, they remain slaves to their work. By observing the Sabbath, on the other hand, the people move from the realm of slavery into the realm of freedom – the very realm of God whom they recognise as the Lord who continually feeds his people. The implication of this is that the refusal of the Sabbath precept amounts to a refusal of YHWH himself.68 Further to be noted is that this repeated relapse of the Israelites into disobedience signals the repeated infidelity that would mark the history of Israel in their relationship with YHWH. Twice in the narrative, the Israelites 69 disobey clear divine instructions. And the second relapse portrays them as not particularly capable of learning.70 However, the futility of these disobedient acts forms an important part of the Lernprozess. Nevertheless, subsequent events in Israel’s history show that the people did not actually learn! Durham remarks here that this belief-disbelief and obedience-disobedience pattern of the Israelites’ response to YHWH in the book of Exodus culminates in “the most important and incredible narrative of them all” – the Golden Calf event (chs. 32–34)71. 66

M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 311. D. FRANKEL, “The Priestly Conception”, 227. Cf. also T.B. DOZEMAN, Exodus, 386. Frankel reasons further that this principle applies also to Israel’s work in the fields when the people had occupied the Promised Land: “By continuing to participate in God’s weekly day of cessation from activity, Israel expresses her recognition that God is the one who is active together with her during the week to provide for her needs…. Working in the field on God’s day off is tantamount to a denial of God’s direct activity in the field during the week. This denial must lead to failure.” One can surmise from this that, at the land of Canaan, the Manna-Erzählung was among the sites of memory through which Israel was making meaning of the “present” by remembering their accepted constitutive past. 68 M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 311. 69 In both cases, it is stated that it is some of the Israelites who go against the given instructions (vv. 20.27). It is most probable, however, that this functions as pars pro toto. The implications of the disobedience redound on the whole assembly (cf. the divine address in vv. 28–29). 70 Cf. C.D. KUPFER, Mit Israel auf dem Weg, 72. 71 J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 226. 67

158

Chapter IV: The Sabbath and the Memorialisation

Priotto, however, acknowledging that such temptation to infidelity accompanies the whole history of Israel, points out that the relapse here presents also a strong solicitation to faith, as is apparent from the “pregnant question” of v. 28.72 The disobedience of the Israelites in v. 20 evoked the anger of Moses. This time around, it is YHWH himself who reacts at the disobedience of Sabbath instructions.73 This points to the deep gravity of this particular act, though one does not take away the cumulative effect of preceding acts of disobedience. The non-keeping of the Sabbath instructions brings the insolence of the people to its crescendo in the narrative, such that YHWH has to personally intervene at this juncture.74 As such, YHWH’s interventions to the negative acts of the people frame the greater part of the narrative. At the murmuring of the people in vv. 2–3 (an implicit rejection of YHWH), he intervenes with the promise of food (vv. 4–5). And as the people disobey the Sabbath directives (v. 27), he intervenes with reassuring words of continued provision. Again, in both cases, YHWH addresses Moses ( ‫ – וַי ֹאמֶ ר ְיהוָה אֶ ל־מֹ שֶ ה‬vv. 4.28) as a representative of the people (cf. ‫ – ָלכֶם‬vv. 4.29; ‫ – מֵ אַ נְ תֶ ם‬v. 28).75 The reaction of YHWH begins with a rhetorical question which expresses his displeasure at the conduct of the Israelites, despite his continued graciousness: ‫“( ַעד־אָ נָה מֵ אַ ְנתֶ ם לִ ְשמֹ ר ִמצְ ֹותַ י וְ תֹורֹ תָ י‬Until when will you refuse to keep my commandments and my instructions”; v. 28).76 This question, directed to Moses, also categorises him within the group of the disobedient people: ...‫ ַעד־אָ נָה מֵ אַ ְנתֶ ם‬. In the narrative, it is clearly spelt out that it is some of the people who went out to gather on the Sabbath. But in YHWH’s reaction, he categorises the whole people as disobedient, including Moses!77 This is rather surprising, considering the pivotal role that Moses has played to represent YHWH’s interest before the people up to this point. But this also indicates that Moses, though specially called by God and granted special privileges, is still fundamentally a part of the people, sharing in their successes and failures. 72

M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 310. As Schart (Mose und Israel, 130) points out, the reader has for some time now awaited this reaction of YHWH to the people’s non-compliance to given instructions. 74 Cf. C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 350. 75 The lexical connection between these two sections has been used by scholars to illustrate the position that vv. 4–5 and 28–29 originate from the same source (JE or Dtr) in the process of the composition of this narrative. Cf., inter alia, J. WELLHAUSEN, Die Composition, 78–79; D. FRANKEL, The Murmuring Stories, 74. In the flow of the narrative, however, it seems very probable the narrator purposely applies a narrative technique here – the two scenes of divine intervention frame the Israelites’ Lernprozess in the evolvement of the story. 76 In this question, an implicit wordplay on the noun ‫ מָ ן‬and the root ‫ מאן‬is detectable. 77 Cf. C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 350–351. For some Jewish Rabbis, Moses is made to share the blame of the people because he didn’t adequately warn them beforehand (Rashi), or to make him more obliged to chastise the people (Ibn Ezra). 73

1. Sabbath Instructions and People’s Reactions

159

That this address begins with the expression ‫ ַעד־אָ נָה‬is quite instructive. This interrogative, which literally means “until when” (cf. HALOT) brings to expression the forbearance of YHWH to the attitude of the people. He shows them goodness without achieving the desired result – obedience which derives from their knowledge of him. This interrogative expression occurs again only in one other verse in the Pentateuch 78 – Num 14,11 – where it is used twice by YHWH to express his utter disappointment at the people’s reaction to the report about the land which he was about to give them 79: “How long (‫ ) ַעד־אָ נָה‬will this people spurn me? And how long ( ‫ ) ַעד־אָ נָה‬will they refuse to believe in me, despite all the signs that I have performed among them?.” It is clearly deducible from this that YHWH’s use of ‫ ַעד־אָ נָה‬is not in reference only to the ultimate act of the insolence. Rather, the ultimate act brings to culmination and to reminiscence a series of disregards to divine instructions, in spite of YHWH’s benevolences.80 The verb ‫ מֵ אַ ְנתֶ ם‬also deserves some attention. First of all, it occurs in the perfect. However, though not a static verb, it denotes here an action that starts in the past, continues to the present and tends towards the future (so also in Ex 10,3).81 This reaffirms the submission that YHWH’s reaction is against the successive acts of the people. Again, before this point, this verb ‫ מאן‬has occurred 6x in the book of Exodus, all in reference to Pharaoh’s stubborn refusal to let the Israelites go.82 Here, it is applied to the Israelites’ refusal to follow divine directives. Israel’s response to divine instructions is thus placed at the same operational level as Pharaoh’s repeated refusal of YHWH’s directives.83 Ironically, however, the two parties face different fates. While Pharaoh perishes because he does not know YHWH (cf. Ex 5,2), the Israelites are saved because

78 In the book of Exodus, there occurs a “synonym” of this expression in 10,3: ‫ ַעד־מָ תַ י‬, used by Moses and Aaron to address Pharaoh in the name of YHWH: “How long will you refuse to humble yourself before me?.” According to Houtman, both expressions “introduce an accusing outburst.” C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 350. 79 The expression occurs 13x in the entire Hebrew Bible, used both by God and by humans (esp. in prayer): Ex 16,28; Num 14,11(2x); Jsh 18,3; Job 18,2; 19,2; Ps 13,2–3(Heb; 4x); 62,4(Heb); Jer 47,6; Hab 1,2. In each case, it expresses a longing to a change in status quo, and has the tone of accusation against those who continue instead to maintain the same state of things. 80 As regards our pericope, the people had murmured (vv. 2–3), in spite all witnessing all the mighty acts of YHWH in saving them from Pharaoh’s iron grip (chs. 12–14), and his provision of water for them in this desert journey (15,22–27). Concerning this, YHWH simply intervened (vv. 4–5). To the instruction not to keep the bread till morning, they did not listen. At this point, it was Moses who got angry (v. 20). And now, the instruction about the Sabbath is not heeded. And so, YHWH is justified to ask: ‫? ַעד־אָ נָה‬ 81 Cf. JM § 112e; M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 311. 82 Cf. Ex 4,23; 7,14.27; 9,2; 10,3.4; 16,28. The verb also occurs twice in 22,16 in the context of laws concerning marriage. 83 Note especially similarity in construction in the statements of 10,3 and 16,28.

160

Chapter IV: The Sabbath and the Memorialisation

they are patiently brought by YHWH himself to this salvific knowledge. The chosenness of the Israelites plays at the background here.84 YHWH expresses his displeasure for the peoples’ continued refusal to keep his laws and commandments: ‫( לִ ְש ֹמר ִמצְ ֹותַ י וְ תֹורֹ תָ י‬v. 28). To be noted here, first of all, is that the term ‫תֹורֹ תָ י‬, forms an inclusio with ‫תֹור ִתי‬ ָ in v. 4 ( ‫לְ מַ ַען ֲאנַסֶ ּנּו ֲה ֵילְֵך‬ ‫תֹור ִתי ִאם־ל ֹא‬ ָ ְ‫)ב‬. The recurrence of this term at this point is thus a narrative technique that indicates quite clearly that the people have failed the test programmed for them by YHWH ab initio. His continued solicitude for them thus testifies to his unconditional love for his chosen people.85 Again, that the terms ‫ ִמצְ ֹותַ י וְ תֹורֹ תָ י‬appear in the plural here confirms the position that the concern of this Jahwerede is beyond just keeping the Sabbath. Also noteworthy is the use of the terms ‫ ִמצְ וָה‬and ‫תֹורה‬ ָ together here. The term ‫( ִמצְ וָה‬from the root ‫“ צוה‬to give an order/command”) refers to a commandment given either by humans (cf. 1Kgs 4,23; 2Kgs 18,6; Neh 11,23) or by God.86 In the Pentateuch, however, all the uses of this term are in reference to God’s commands. On the other hand, the term ‫תֹורה‬ ָ which has technically become used as a general term that denotes divine laws in the Hebrew Bible, basically means “instruction/teaching”, which can also be of humans (cf. Pr 1,8; 3,1; 13,14; Ps 78,1).87 In the present context, it clearly refers to divine instructions. As such, in their use here, the two terms are synonymous in denoting divine directives, and are used in apposition to accentuate emphasis on the implications of the disobedience of the Israelites to divine instructions. All the more, as Dohmen rightly points out, there is no question that the terms ‫ ִמצְ ֹותַ י וְ תֹורֹ תָ י‬allude to the subsequent events at Sinai.88 The events at the wilderness of Sin are preparatory to the all-important events at the Sinai. The subsequent elaborations on the Sabbath at the Sinai present a case in point here. Dohmen pertinently elucidates: Through these regulations with regard to manna and how to deal with it, the Israelites are not only examined (or better tested) on their attitude towards YHWH’s instructions, but they also learn more about what Sabbath is all about, which is later to become the visible outer

84

Such chosenness also plays out clearly in 15,26 where, in YHWH’s own description, he is the one who brought diseases upon the Egyptians but, on the other hand, the one who heals the people. 85 This is a major point for the exilic/post-exilic Israelites in remembering this narrative. In the time of difficulty, the people build up hope by reinforcing the image of God who is benevolent to his people even when they have failed his test. 86 B. LEVINE, “‫”מצְ וָה‬, ִ TDOT, VIII, 506–511; BDB; HALOT. 87 Cf. F. GARCÍA LÓPEZ / H.-J. FABRY, “‫”תֹורה‬, ָ TDOT, XV, 611–621. Meyers observes that the term ‫תֹורה‬ ָ “is not specifically a legal term but rather more broadly signifies teaching, a concept that underlies the body of instructions, both stories and rules, that comes to be known as the Torah.” C. MEYERS, Exodus, 130–131. 88 Cf. C. DOHMEN, Exodus 1–18, 393. The use of the expression ‫ ִמצְ ֹותַ י וְ תֹורֹ תָ י‬here is therefore both analeptic and proleptic.

1. Sabbath Instructions and People’s Reactions

161

bond between YHWH and Israel (cf. Ex 31,13.17)... and finally also be called the “eternal covenant” (‫ ;בְ ִרית עֹולָם‬cf. Ex 31,16). The basis for this is laid in Ex 16, since the manna with all its peculiarities allows Israel to discover the Sabbath.89 YHWH continues his address, shifting from the expression of dismay to a reit-

eration and an encouragement to keep the Sabbath law: ‫ְראּו כִ י־ ְי הוָה נָתַ ן ָלכֶם הַ שַ בָ ת‬ ‫“( ַעל־כֵן הּוא נֹ תֵ ן ָלכֶם בַ יֹום הַ ִש ִשי לֶחֶ ם יֹומָ ִים‬See that YHWH has given you the Sabbath, therefore, on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days”; v. 29). To be observed here, first of all, is the shift in this divine speech from the first person (‫ ;מִצְ ֹותַ י וְ תֹורֹ תָ י‬v. 28) to the third person (…‫ ;כִ י־ ְיהוָה נָתַ ן ָלכֶם‬v. 29). This shift has been identified by some source-oriented scholars as an indication that vv. 28 and 29 were not originally a unit of speech, but rather an amalgamation of different texts brought together by a redactor in the course of the composition of the narrative.90 But a critical look at the poetics of biblical narratives suggests otherwise. First of all, it is not unusual for YHWH to address himself in the third person ( ‫) ְיהוָה‬, especially in the Pentateuch.91 Again, in the instances in which YHWH shifts from the first to the third person in an address, it could be observed that attention is drawn to an emphasis. Ex 34,24 provides an example here: “For I will drive out (‫י־אֹוריש‬ ִ ִ‫ )כ‬nations before you, and enlarge your borders; and no one shall covet your land when you go up to appear before YHWH your God (‫ )אֶ ת־פְ נֵי ְיהוָה ֱאֹלהֶ יָך‬three times a year.”92 In this case, by mentioning his name (in the third person), YHWH directs emphasis not on his casting out nations, but on the people’s three-time appearance before him, a directive that calls for careful observation (see context: vv. 21 – 24). In fact, it could be detected that whenever the narrator depicts YHWH as shifting from speaking of himself from the first person to the third person (mentioning his name) in a speech, the proclamation becomes more “solemn.” In our pericope, YHWH’s mention of his name at this point calls particular attention to the solemnity of observing the Sabbath rest.93

89

C. DOHMEN, Exodus 1–18, 393; translation mine. Coats, for e.g., regards v. 28 as a Dtr expansion, attributing v. 27 to P and vv. 29–32 to J. For him, v. 29 is a continuation of Moses’ speech in vv. 25–26. Cf. G.W. COATS, Rebellion, 86–87; ID, Exodus 1–18, 128–132. For D. Frankel (The Murmuring Stories, 74), v. 28 does not fit into the narrative flow, but belongs rather to a P editor “who juxtaposed the materials.” 91 Instances of this are spread throughout the Pentateuch, even when such are not expected. For e.g., in Ex 24,1, YHWH tells Moses: ‫“ – ֲעלֵה אֶ ל־ ְיהוָה‬Come up to YHWH.” Here, one would simply expect: “Come up to me.” 92 See also Ex 12,11–14; 15,26; 20,2–7. 93 B. Jacob (Exodus, 461) corroborates this in his assertion that YHWH spoke of himself in the third person here “in order to provide the greatest dignity to the Sabbath as HIS day.” 90

162

Chapter IV: The Sabbath and the Memorialisation

The continued Jahwerede in v. 29 begins with the imperative ‫ ְראּו‬. This verb is used here not in its usual meaning: “to see” with the natural eyes,94 but in its metaphoric meaning: to perceive/observe so as to understand (cf. Gen 42,1; Jer 33,24; Hab 2,1).95 It implies being attentive to grasp the general picture and draw the right meaning out of it. As Fuhs explains, “Close, careful seeing results in observation. The reflection that takes place in the very act of perception results in knowledge.”96 And so, this verb links back to v. 10 where the Israelites saw the ‫כְ בֹוד יְ הוָה‬, in the context of which they were told that by eating meat and bread to satiety, they shall come to know YHWH. It also recalls v. 15 where the Israelites saw the food on the ground but did not know what it was. Thus, its use in the imperative here constitutes a call on the Israelites to undertake a deep reflection on the dynamics of this gift vis-à-vis the Sabbath so as recognise therein the intent of the giver. It is, in effect, a call to faith in YHWH through the acknowledgment of his marvellous deeds. The evolvement sequence of the divine speech in v. 29 is both interesting and instructive. The speech begins with a call to the people to appreciate the Sabbath as a (solemn) divine gift: ‫“( ְראּו כִ י־ ְי הוָה נָתַ ן ָלכֶם הַ שַ בָ ת‬See that YHWH has given you the Sabbath”).97 YHWH explicitly owns up the Sabbath as coming from him. And it is a gift – a gift that brings Israel into the divine rhythm, thus marking the people as special to YHWH among the nations of the earth (cf. Ex 19,3–6; Dt 7,6). Again, just as the divine speech in v. 12 came as a confirmation of the promise of food (already announced), so here YHWH solemnly confirms the obligation of the Sabbath rest (already announced) as his own design. The speech continues by presenting the double portion of food on the sixth day as purposely ( ‫ ) ַעל־כֵן‬programmed by YHWH himself so as to render the keeping of the Sabbath feasible: “Therefore (‫) ַעל־כֵן‬,98 on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days.” The Sabbath rest is therefore a reasonable demand, leaving the people no grounds for disobeying it. To be noted here is the second occurrence of the verb ‫ נתן‬in this speech, both with YHWH as the subject and 94 Contra U. Cassuto (Exodus, 198–199) who holds that the verb implies the people’s seeing that there is no manna on the ground on the seventh day. 95 Cf. H.F. FUHS, “‫”ראה‬, TDOT, XIII, 214–220. See also HALOT; I.L. SEELIGMANN, “Erkenntnis Gottes”, 420–421. For B. Jacob (Exodus, 461), the imperative is used here as a tool of emphasis (cf. Ex 31,2; 35,30; Dt 32,39). Though this appears tenable, the idea of observing so as to understand fits better into the context. 96 H.F. FUHS, “‫”ראה‬, TDOT, XIII, 217; emphasis original. 97 It is interesting to note that the words ‫ כִ י־ ְיהוָה נָתַ ן ָלכֶם‬have occurred together in this narrative in v. 15 at the appearance of the manna – ‫הּוא הַ ּלֶחֶ ם ֲאשֶ ר נָתַ ן ְיהוָה ָלכֶם‬. They appear here together again at the “appearance” of the Sabbath. This lexical connection points to the close connection between the manna and the Sabbath. Both are gifts of YHWH which bring the people to a closer knowledge of him. 98 Jacob notes that the term ‫ ַעל־כֵן‬here buttresses the point that God makes no request of the people without providing the means of its execution. B. JACOB, Exodus, 461.

1. Sabbath Instructions and People’s Reactions

163

the people as the recipients ( ‫)נתן ָלכֶם‬.99 Remarkably, the first occurrence is in the perfect (‫)נָתַ ן‬, indicating an already given gift in the past with relevance to the present,100 while the second occurrence is as a participle ( ‫) ֹנתֵ ן‬, indicating an ongoing gift.101 YHWH will continue giving the double portion ‫!בַ יֹום הַ ִש ִשי‬ But this divine act demands a corresponding reaction from the people. The speech now moves from the deeds of YHWH to the expected response of the people: ‫“( ְשבּו ִאיש תַ חְ תָ יו‬Let each person remain in his place”), a catchy statement that says it all. Each person is required to stay at his post. Forbidden by this is going out from one’s place, a characteristic activity of every other day (cf. v. 4). This point is made explicit in the following clause: ‫אַ ל־יֵצֵ א ִאיש ִמ ְמ ֹקמֹו בַ יֹום הַ ְשבִ יעִ י‬ (“let no person leave his place on the seventh day”),102 parallel to the first.103 In this quasi-poetic construction, the “second line” brings further clarification to the directive of the “first line.”104 Analysing the structure of Jahwerede in v. 29, one observes that just as divine action is expressed in two clauses, so also is the expected human response presented in two clauses: Divine: See that YHWH has given (‫ )נָתַ ן‬you the Sabbath; therefore on the sixth day he gives (‫ )נֹ תֵ ן‬you bread for two days. Human: Let each person remain (‫)שבּו‬ ְ in his place; let no person leave (‫ )אַ ל־יֵצֵ א‬his place on the seventh day.

A paradoxical relationship could be observed between the two parts of the above scheme. In the two “divine” clauses, God actively provides ( ‫;)נתן‬ whereas in the following two clauses, the people are barred from activity ( ‫ ְשבּו‬, ‫)אַ ל־יֵצֵ א‬. However, it is in refraining from activity that the people fulfil the purpose of the divine activity. From this structure also, it could be seen that the

99

Note again the play on the preposition ‫ל‬. The stress here on the divine gift of the manna ‫ ָלכֶם‬recalls the emphasis that the seventh day is a Sabbath ‫( לַיהוָה‬vv. 23–25). The provision for the people on the sixth day entails keeping the seventh day for YHWH. 100 For this function of the perfect tense in Biblical Hebrew, see GK, § 106h.k; A. GIANTO, “Mood and Modality”, 194. 101 Cf. C.D. KUPFER, Mit Israel auf dem Weg, 72. 102 The verb ‫ יצא‬here links back immediately to v. 27. Disobediently, some Israelites went out (‫ )יָצְ אּו‬to gather. As a corrective counter, YHWH instructs in clear terms that no one should go out (‫ )אַ ל־יֵצֵ א‬on this day. Also, it is instructive that this is the first explicit prohibitive instruction on the Sabbath in the narrative, coming from YHWH himself. 103 For a succinct exposé on dynamics of parallelism in biblical poetics, see A. BERLIN, “Parallelism”, ABD, V, 155–162. 104 For Priotto (Esodo, 311), the term ‫ מָ קֹום‬used here alludes more to an inhabited house than to a camping tent. For him, this is a further sign that the horizon of this narrative is that of a catechesis on the Sabbath. This is quite tenable, and argues for the basic position of this work that this narrative is fundamentally a product of the social memory of the people on their constitutive past. However, in the poetics of the narrative, it is observable the term ‫ ִמ ְמקֹ מֹו‬is used as a synonymic parallel to ‫תַ חְ תָ יו‬.

164

Chapter IV: The Sabbath and the Memorialisation

admonition speech of v. 29 is framed by the terms: Sabbath // seventh day.105 YHWH’s purpose in this speech centres on the Sabbath. He guides the people into appreciating the Sabbath as his gift by comprehending the dynamics of the provision of the manna. By such guidance, he brings them to a closer knowledge of him (cf. v. 12). Considered together therefore, the Jahwerede in vv. 28–29 moves from reprimand for not keeping ‫ ִמצְ ֹותַ י וְ תֹורֹ תָ י‬to admonition on keeping the Sabbath. It is inferable from this that in learning to keep the Sabbath, the people learn to keep the divine ‫ ִמצְ ֹות‬and ‫תֹורֹ ת‬, which necessarily entails trusting in divine providence. It therefore becomes all the more obvious that the experiences of wilderness of Sin constitute a Lernprozess, especially with regard to the upcoming Sinai encounter. The people discover here the nexus between keeping divine instructions and trusting in divine providence. And it is in continually keeping these two aspects in view that the Israelites will be able to live as the covenant people of God, in fulfilment of the divine design concisely captured in the words: You shall be my people, and I shall be your God 106 (cf. Ex 6,7; see also Lev 26,12; Jer 11,4; Ezk 36,28; etc.). Furthermore, the characterisation of God as benevolent plays out again here. Even after the two-time disobedience to given instructions, YHWH does not despair of bringing the Israelites to the knowledge of him. Though he expresses his dismay at their insolence, he does not reject them. He rather charts the way for a better future. This is the image of God portrayed and remembered in this narrative. “This is a very forceful proof of the divine compassionate love for their ancestors,” Pham notes with regard to future generations, “serving as a persuasive argument for their own trust in the Lord, especially in moments of crises they may face in their own times.”107 At the time of the (final) composition of this narrative – the difficult time of the exile and immediate post-exilic period – the people look back at our history and draw hope from this image of God. Though we have disobeyed YHWH just as our ancestors did – and also seen the futility of it – the ever-unchanging God will, in spite of this, show us his fatherly disposition!108

105

U. Cassuto (Exodus, 199) also points out the assonance ‫ ְשבִ יעִ י – ְשבּו – שַ בָ ת‬here. “You shall be my people” demands keeping divine instructions, while “I will be your God” entails trusting in divine providence. 107 N. PHAM, “The Image of YHWH”, 30. 108 In a recent publication, P. Bovati points out that that though the word “father” is not often applied to God in the OT, it is “the most important of the metaphors of the covenant between YHWH and Israel.” YHWH’s reactions at different occasions of the people’s transgressions attest to this. The divine complaints addressed to the “son” Israel are always open to the possibility of pardon. P. BOVATI, “La Paternità”, 80–82. 106

1. Sabbath Instructions and People’s Reactions

165

1.2.3 Resolution – Compliance to Sabbath Rest (v. 30) The solemn reiteration of Sabbath obligations in vv. 28–29 anticipates a response, and here it comes: ‫“( ַו ִי ְשבְ תּו הָ ָעם בַ יֹום הַ ְשבִ עִ י‬And the people rested on the seventh day”; v. 30).109 It strikes the eyes right away that immediately after YHWH’s intervention, it is reported that the people observe the Sabbath rest. Certainly, a narrative ellipsis happens here. What transpired between the divine address to Moses and the obedience of the people is left untold by the narrator.110 The reader necessarily fills the gap that Moses went back to his people, divulged to them the dismay of YHWH and repeated his solemn instruction on keeping the Sabbath. On the basis of this, the people change their ways and rest on the seventh day. But the narrator skips these details in order to produce an effect. Placing the report of the obedience of the people directly after the Jahwerede makes the cause-effect link between this divine intervention and the people’s reaction more impressionable: their response is absolutely immediate! Remarkably, the statement of v. 30 strongly links back to the rest of God at creation (Gen 2,2). The lexical connection between these two verses makes obvious the relationship between the divine seventh-day rest at creation and the Israel’s seventh-day rest into which the people are initiated here 111: Gen 2,2: ‫ – וַיִ ְשבֹ ת בַ יֹום הַ ְשבִ יעִ י‬And he rested on the seventh day Ex 16,30: ‫ – וַיִ ְשבְ תּו הָ ָעם בַ יֹום הַ ְשבִ עִ י‬And the people rested on the seventh day

Hence, the people’s observance of the Sabbath rest means doing exactly what God has been doing ab initio. This marks a major step in the building up of the YHWH-Israel relationship. As already stated above, that the people enter into the divine temporal rhythm is a gift (cf. v. 29) that marks of Israel’s privileged chosenness. Grund expatiates: This meaning of the seventh day is only revealed to Israel; and beyond Israel, no other people gets to know and preserve the seventh day that was established in the creation. In this respect Israel differs from the other peoples.... It differs from the other peoples in that it knows the creator of the world by name, and that it learns the rhythm registered in the world by God himself.112

109

This movement to resolution is structurally similar to that of the previous episode: Food availability (vv. 13–14//22); First instruction (vv. 15–16//23); Compliance (vv. 17– 18//24); Second Instruction (vv. 19//25–26); Non-compliance (vv. 20a//27); Reaction to disobedience (vv. 20b//28–29); Compliance (vv. 21//30). Taken together, God patiently but consistently brings the people to the knowledge of him, and this ultimately manifests itself in obedience. 110 Here again, in the system of gaps, an event is not communicated at all by the narrator. Cf. M. STERNBERG, The Poetics, 235; J.-P. SONNET, “L’analisi narrativa”, 60–62. 111 Cf. A. GRUND, “Und das Volk ruhte”, 61–62. 112 A. GRUND, “Und das Volk ruhte”, 62; translation mine.

166

Chapter IV: The Sabbath and the Memorialisation

One thus discerns here a new beginning (cf. comments on v. 1) – the beginning of a pre-covenant commitment to YHWH through the observance of the Sabbath, occasioned by the Manna-Erfahrung. Also, the statement ‫ ַו ִי ְשבְ תּו הָ ָעם בַ יֹום הַ ְשבִ עִ י‬is climactic for the entire narrative. It comes as a resolution to the complications that have mounted in this narrative, not only as regards the Sabbath but also about the entire behaviour of the people in their relationship with the divine and their response to his directives. In fact, the obedience to the Sabbath instruction codifies the people’s compliance to the will of YHWH. Again, though introduced by a wayyiqtol, v. 30 does not portray an action that happens just once, but a repeated, enduring action.1The Israelites have learnt obedience! Taken together then, the murmuring of the people (vv. 2–3) was a clear indication that though they had witnessed the mighty works through which they were brought out of Egypt, they had not come to the knowledge of YHWH. And YHWH’s response to this was that through his gift of abundant food, “you shall know that I am YHWH your God” (v. 12; cf. also v. 6). Through a painstaking Lernprozess, mediated through the gift of the manna, YHWH leads the people to this knowledge. And though their progress has not been linear – punctuated by occasions of defiance, the assertive statement of v. 30 2 brings a resolution to the conflict occasioned by people’s ignorance. It attests that the people have come to know YHWH. Ultimately, therefore, we have in this narrative a revelation plot: ἀναγνώρισις.3 The story ends here “chronologically”, on this note of obedience.4 And one can, at this point, look back and discern that the narrator purposely highlighted the verb ‫ לון‬at the beginning of the narrative so as to provide a foil upon which to build the major dynamic of the narrative – the transformation of the Israelites from a murmuring to an obedient people. But also, this emphatic resolution of the complications in the narrative also sets the stage for the epilogue of the story – the memorialisation of the food from heaven. And to the close reading of this section we now turn.

1

Cf. C.D. KUPFER, Mit Israel auf dem Weg, 73. Note that the act of the people on the ‫ שַ בַ ת‬is decisively described using the verb ‫שבת‬. This play on words depicts the people as doing exactly what is required of them ‫בַ יֹום הַ ְשבִ עִ י‬. 3 In the build up to this climax, however, there is a conspicuous reversal of situation – the shift from the bemoaned situation of hunger to that of abundance: περιπέτεια. On these concepts, see J.-P. SONNET, “L’analisi narrativa”, 56–57. 4 As Ruprecht observes, the statement in v. 30 brings the story to an end, such that one hardly expects any continuation in the narrative. Cf. E. Ruprecht, “Stellung”, 273. Contra A. Schart (Mose und Israel, 130) who finds the conclusion in v. 31. 2

2. Epilogue

167

2. Epilogue (vv. 31–36) Chronologically, as noted above, the seven-day events that constitute the Manna-Erzählung end in v. 30. “Attached to it incidentally,” Cassuto points out, “are several notes on matters connected with the manna, which belong mainly to a period subsequent to the episode related above.”5 The narrative thus presents an expanded epilogue, the greater part of which recounts the memorialisation of the “bread from heaven” (vv. 31–34), followed by two explanatory verses that serve as postscript (vv. 35–36). And it is to be noted right away that the events reported in this epilogue present a shift in the narrated time from seven days (vv. 1–30) to forty years (cf. v. 35). 2.1 Food Memorialisation (vv. 31–34) Narratives – both oral and written – are tools of memorialisation.6 As such, penning down the manna-event into a comprehensive story serves to keep the memory of this important incident alive through the successive ages of Israel’s history. Within this narrative, however, the memorialisation motif for this significant food is explicitly highlighted. This section takes a close reading of the memorialisation of the ‫לֶחֶ ם ִמן־הַ שָ מָ ִים‬, by naming (v. 31) and by cultic preservation (vv. 32–34). 2.1.1 Memorialisation by Name (v. 31) The climactic compliance reported in v. 30 indicates the Israelites began to observe the rhythm revealed through the food from heaven. However, they have to gradually come to terms with living the reality of this special gift. One important step in this direction consists in giving the food a name.7 And the name they give the food is quite significant: ‫ת־שמֹו מָ ן‬ ְ ֶ‫“( ַו ִיקְ ְראּו בֵ ית־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל א‬And the house of Israel named it manna”).

5 U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 199. Cf. C. MEYERS, Exodus, 131; L.R. KASS, Founding God’s Nation, 233. Along the same line, Ruprecht describes vv. 31–34 as “ein weiterer späterer Zusatz, der am Ende der Erzählung deutlich nachgeklappt und mühsam angefügt ist.” E. RUPRECHT, “Stellung”, 274. 6 Cf. R. HENDEL, “Cultural Memory”, 33; J.H. LIU / J. LÁSZLÓ, “Narrative Theory”, 87– 88. 7 Giving something a name brings one into a (deeper) relationship with it. This is attested in the Bible right from the beginning (cf. Gen 2,19–20). Obviously, in the biblical tradition, naming is also a tool of memorialisation (cf. Gen 25,25–26; 26,20; 29–30). Thus, in naming this salvific food, the people display certain acquaintance with it and, more importantly, they also memorialise it.

168

Chapter IV: The Sabbath and the Memorialisation

It is to be noted, first of all, that the occurrence of ‫בֵ ית־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬, a seldom-used expression,8 has been considered surprising by some scholars 9 (the LXX and some Targums stick to the usual expression in the narrative: ‫)בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬. However, the use of the collective noun ‫ בֵ ית־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬here appears purposeful. First of all, there is no gainsaying the fact that the description of the ‫ בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬as a house evokes the sense of communality.10 Again, the use of this collective noun (singular in form) with the plural wayyiqtol verb ‫ ַו ִיקְ ְראּו‬creates an effect.11 The plural verb (functionally distributive) alludes to the involvement of the individual Israelites in this act of naming,12 while the collective noun highlights it as a joint act of the people: an act of the whole house of Israel.13 All the more, the sudden shift in terminology from ‫ בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬to ‫ בֵ ית־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬appears purposely employed by the narrator to capture the attention of the reader at this prime moment of naming. And looking back at the whole story, it could be deciphered that this expression is used as a synonymous variant of ‫( כָל־עֲדַ ת בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬vv. 1.2.9). Hence, the Israelites who earlier were united in murmuring against divine design because of hunger, are now united in appreciating this divine gift of food – a subtle indication of the people’s positive transformation. Furthermore, the point of reference of the suffix in the term ‫ ְשמֹו‬has also generated considerable interest. It is clear from the context that the pronoun refers to the food graciously given by YHWH in the narrative. But because there is no reference to the food in v. 30, some scholars argue that vv. 30 and 31 originate from different sources.14 But, analysed as a narrative, there is no inconsistency here. The Manna-Erzählung builds up gradually into the Sabbath episode, and climaxes in the people’s keeping of the Sabbath rest. With the conflict resolved, the narrator understandably turns attention once more to the heavenly food, the major motif around which the narrative revolves. The 8

This expression occurs only 4x in the entire Pentateuch: Ex 16,31; 40,38; Lev 10,6; Num 20,29. 9 Cf., for e.g., B. JACOB, Exodus, 463; 473–474. He reasons however that the Sabbath, which the people discovered through the manna, “united all Israel into a bet yis-ra-el and provided a common bond in both sorrow and joy.” 10 Contra U. Cassuto (Exodus, 199) who holds that the expression ‫ בֵ ית־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬depicts “not only the children of Israel living at the time, but the whole house of Israel throughout the generations.” From the narrative context, this appears unconvincing. 11 Grammatically, the combination of a collective noun with a plural verb is not strange in biblical Hebrew (cf. JM § 150e). However, it is employed here as a narrative technique meant to create an effect. 12 The active participation of the Israelites in naming the food also indicates its exalted value for the generality of the people. 13 As Houtman points out, ‫ בֵ ית־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬is one of the expressions “used to refer to Israel as an entity or a community.” C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, I, 111. 14 These scholars argue mostly that this pronoun-suffix connects with the reference to the ‫ לֶחֶ ם‬in the Moserede of vv. 25–26. Cf. J. WELLHAUSEN, Die Composition, 78; L. SCHMIDT, “Die Priesterschrift”, 493.

2. Epilogue

169

narrator has meticulously avoided providing the name of the food up till this point (referring to it as ‫ לֶחֶ ם‬or simply the pronoun “it”).15 so as to draw attention to the significance of this act of naming. The house of Israel names the food ‫מָ ן‬. The name obviously links back to the question: ‫( מָ ן הּוא‬v. 15). As already noted, the use of the abnormal term ‫ מָ ן‬is employed here to bring out the depth of the people’s astonishment at this gift. This significant reaction of the people is perpetuated in memory through history by the name ‫ מָ ן‬given to the food, a name borne out of surprise. The logic is clear: memorialised by this name, when called by it in the future, people will turn to ask what the unusual name implies. And in the bid to explain it, the marvellous circumstances of giving this special food will be told. More still, it has already been noted that the term ‫ מָ ן‬is traced back to an ancient usage. Now, the more the origin of a thing is located in the distant past, the more it is shrouded in mystery. As such, over and above the narrative clarification of this appellation, the name itself confers on this food a sense of mystery. It is fitting to note at this juncture that because of this pronounced naming of the heavenly food, some scholars adjudge this narrative to be basically an aetiology of the manna.16 But an in-depth analysis of the pericope suggests otherwise. Certainly, the clarification of the origin and import of the name ‫מָ ן‬ constitutes a major motif in the narrative, but is not the main point of the story. The “aetiology” serves here as a tool employed by the narrator to communicate the profundity of the people’s surprise at the gift of the manna, which discloses the immensity of God’s graciousness in granting this salvific gift. As such, the story is not so much an “aetiology” as a memorialisation of YHWH’s benevolent graciousness that came despite the people’s rebellion. The story unfolds further. After the disclosure of the name of the food comes the description of its qualities: ‫“( וְ הּוא כְ ז ֶַרע גַד לָבָ ן וְ טַ עְ מֹו כְ צַ פִ יחִ ת בִ דְ בָ ש‬Now, it was like a coriander seed, white, and its taste was like wafer in honey”; cp. Num 11,7: ‫“ – וְ הַ מָ ן כִ ז ְַרע־גַד הּוא וְ ֵעינֹו כְ ֵעין הַ בְ דֹ לַח‬Now the manna was like a coriander seed, and its colour like the colour of bdellium”). To be noted right away is that this descriptive clause is connected to the preceding statement by a loose waw. There is thus no causal relationship between them (for such, one would expect the conjunction ‫)כִ י‬. As such, the name does not derive from this description. Rather, the narrator deems it fit to describe the physical qualities of the food so as to bring the reader to a closer experience of the food, as such cannot be gleaned from the disclosed name. 15

Cf. M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 311. C. Levin sees the narrative as an expansion of an older aetiology of the manna. Cf. C. LEVIN, Der Jahwist, 77, 352–355. T.C. Römer (“Israel’s Sojourn”, 431–433) adopts this same line of thought. S.A. Geller (“Manna and Sabbath”, 7) finds here a desert aetiology for the bread of presence. For J.S. Baden (“The Original Place”, 494) and Van Seters (The Life of Moses, 187–188), the major part of the narrative (J) is an aetiology of the Sabbath. 16

170

Chapter IV: The Sabbath and the Memorialisation

The description depicts the size/shape of the food: coriander seed; its colour: white; and its taste: wafer in honey.17 Priotto notes here that the narrator probably used materials available at the time of the narration to explain this distant phenomenon,18 a technique of memorialisation. The manna is like the seed of a coriander plant – coriandrum sativum – “an annual plant, 1 to 3 feet in height, with leaves deeply incised and umbels of pale mauve flowers.”19 Its seed is described as a “small, globular, grayish, aromatic seed with ridges.”20 Houtman explains further, “The ball-shaped seed, the size of a small pea, a pepper corn, is finely grooved and was already used in ancient times for seasoning and for medicinal purposes.”21 As aptly noted by Zohary, this descriptive reference to the coriander seed is only with regards to the shape and size of the manna.22 As such, the reader gleans from this reference an idea of the texture of the ‫לֶחֶ ם ִמן־‬ ‫הַ שָ מָ ִים‬. The manna is white in colour, an affirmation in consonance with the initial description in v. 14.23 And the assertion that it tastes like wafer in honey is an attestation that it is a delicacy.24 God gives his people a good treat in the desert! Again, the land to which YHWH is leading the Israelites is frequently described as a land “flowing with milk and honey” (cf. Ex 3,8.17; 13,5; 33,3; etc.). As such, provided here with the gift of a food that tastes like honey, the Israelites have in the wilderness a foretaste of the blessings of the Promised Land. Thus, the grace and sweetness of the Promised Land is anticipated in the manna.25 In addition, because of the “further” description of the manna given here, some scholars, applying source-critical analysis, hold that v. 31 constitutes

17

T.B. Dozeman (Exodus, 386) also detects this unfolding sequence of clarification. Cf. M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 311. According to him, the coriander plant is well known in the Mediterranean area. 19 I. JACOB / W. JACOB, “Flora”, ABD, II, 811. C. Houtman (Exodus, I, 164) succinctly describes it as “an annual, pungent, umbelliferous plant.” For further descriptions, see G. DALMAN, Arbeit, VI, 86; M. ZOHARY, Plants, 88; R.H. HARRISON, Healing Herbs, 39. 20 J.C. TREVER, “Coriander Seed”, IDB, I, 681. 21 C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, I, 164. 22 M. ZOHARY, “Flora”, IDB, II, 289. 23 In Num 11,7, the manna is said to have the appearance/colour of bdellium: ‫וְ ֵעינֹו כְ ֵעין‬ ‫הַ בְ דֹ לַח‬. The bdellium is described as “a resinous substance, transparent, gelatinous, and commonly yellowish in colour.” G.B. GRAY, Numbers, 105. Though not exactly the same, the descriptions in the two passages are not mutually exclusive. 24 Cf. A. SCHART, Mose und Israel, 130. Propp’s observation here that the sweetness of the honey “betokens its heavenly origin, but also its fragility in this world, since honey was considered liable to fermentation and hence unacceptable upon the altar” (W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 598) seems reading too much meaning into this taste description. 25 To be noted here is that, for some scholars, this Namenserklärung concludes the story (so A. SCHART, Mose und Israel, 130; W. RUDOLPH, Der “Elohist”, 34–36). But as noted above, the story climaxes in v. 30. This clarification introduces the epilogue. 18

2. Epilogue

171

“another explanation of the manna and thus a doublet of vv. 14–15.”26 For these scholars, the descriptions are of different provenance, a further indicator of the composite nature of the narrative. This position has been faulted by some other scholars. Frankel, for e.g, observes that vv. 14–15a represents “only the first half” of the naming process. Hence, v. 31 “provides the needed conclusion to the name aetiology: because the people said to one another ‫מָ ן הּוא‬, they called it ‫…מָ ן‬. The question ‫ מָ ן הּוא‬is not asked to elicit an answer but to explain how the Israelites came to call the provision ‫מָ ן‬.”27 All the more, it has been pointed out above that in the description of the manna in v. 14, the narrator adopts the punto di vista of the characters – the Israelites. As the narrative unfolds, he guides the reader into the people’s gradual better appreciation of this divine gift. In v. 14, the people were stunned at the sight of this new phenomenon. And the manna was presented at that point from that perspective. At this juncture, when the people have got more familiar with the manna, the narrator also brings the reader to a better acquaintance of it by providing a more concrete depiction. Thus, we have in this case the narrator’s point of view. This change of perspective, compared to v. 14, confers more force to this description. Frankel elucidates further: Verse 14 describes the view of the manna from the perspective of the Israelites who suddenly saw it on the desert floor…. This sight was similar to the sight of frost covering the ground. Verse 14 thus describes what the manna-covered desert floor looked like, and not the texture of the manna itself. The description of the manna’s texture is first given in verse 31. The texture and appearance of the manna itself was that of white coriander seed and its taste was that of ‫ – צפיחת בדבש‬wafers in honey.28

Again, in the plot of the narrative, the recount of the memorialisation of the heavenly food by a special name and the provision of the general picture of its nature prepares the ground for the description of its special cultic memorialisation, meant to recall this might deed of YHWH “throughout your generations.”

26 G.W. COATS, Rebellion, 87; see also E. RUPRECHT, “Stellung”, 275; M. NOTH, Exodus,131; B.S. CHILDS, Exodus, 291; W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 589; G.I. DAVIES, Exodus 1–18, II, 462. 27 D. FRANKEL, The Murmuring Stories, 86–87; so also H. GRESSMANN, Mose, 124–125. Frankel however uses this to argue that both vv. 14–15a and 31 belong to P. 28 D. FRANKEL, The Murmuring Stories, 77–78. Cf. also C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 352. On the basis of this clarification, the submission of some scholars that v. 31 constitutes the original direct continuation of v. 15a (and therefore from the same source) appears not quite convincing. Following the logic of the narrative sequence, the more concrete description of the manna in v. 31 is quite fitting. At this point in the evolvement of the story, the people have got better acquainted with this new phenomenon.

172

Chapter IV: The Sabbath and the Memorialisation

2.1.1 Memorialisation by Cultic Preservation (vv. 32–34) Though deriving from the clarification in v. 31, a new aspect of the story commences in v. 32.29 After the people had given the food a name, Moses reveals – ‫ – וַי ֹאמֶ ר מֹ שֶ ה‬the command of YHWH as regards preserving the memory of the manna for the ages to come. Here again, the reader necessarily fills a gap. The narrator does not present any encounter between Moses and YHWH in this regard.30 But Moses is depicted as quoting the very words of YHWH: ‫זֶה הַ דָ בָ ר‬ ‫ ֲאשֶ ר צִ ּוָה ְיהוָה‬. The reader would look back to ascertain at which point this command was given (curiosity!). At this point in the narrative, however, one does not doubt the divine origin of such commands of Moses. The precedence proves his reliability in relaying YHWH’s directives. Hence, it is not difficult to close the gap: between the people’s obedience to YHWH’s command and this declaration, there has been an encounter between Moses and YHWH,31 purposely passed over in silence by the narrator to draw attention to the subsequent announcement. The use of the solemn formula – ‫ – זֶה הַ דָ בָ ר ֲאשֶ ר צִ ּוָה ְיהוָה‬would make it the third time in the narrative that Moses would use such to introduce the directives of YHWH.32 The other instances of this – v. 16: at the appearance of manna; and v. 23 (with some variation): at the pronouncement of the instruction concerning the Sabbath – are both prime moments in the narrative plot. Hence, the ritual memorialisation of the manna constitutes also a prime moment in the plot of this narrative. The emphasis is clear: the command comes from YHWH, not from Moses,33 and is thus to be kept solemnly. But also, this solemn formula evokes in the reader’s mind the memories of the two former episodes of Moses’ communicating of divine ordinances in the narrative and the people’s reactions. And so, he looks forward to the next command, and to see how the people would react to it, whether they have indeed come to know YHWH. A bit of suspense is thus detectable here. 29 For Schart, for whom v. 31 concludes the story, this is an entirely new development in the narrative: “Mit Vers 32 wird eine neue Perspektive der Erzählung eröffnet: die künftige Generationen.” A. SCHART, Mose und Israel, 130. 30 Houtman (Exodus, II, 352) infers that this instruction was part of the directives given to Moses in the Jahwerede of vv. 4–5. But there is no hint thereof in that divine address. It appears more probable that this comes in a later encounter, after the Sabbath episode. 31 This also provides the first hint that the events been recounted here took place at a later time, not immediately after the seventh-day event of vv. 24–30. 32 To be noted is that in using this formula, Moses is depicted as undertaking a prophetic role. He cites the words entrusted to him by YHWH. 33 Contra B. Jacob (Exodus, 464) who infers that because this particular ordinance of Moses, unlike the former ones, finds no derivation in the divine address of vv. 4 –5, the command arises out of Moses’ initiative. Considering the technique of gaps in biblical poetics, this interpretation appears not quite tenable. Also, the divine origin of this instruction is clearly highlighted in vv. 32 and 34.

2. Epilogue

173

And the instruction comes: ‫“( ְמל ֹא הָ עֹ מֶ ר ִממֶ ּנּו לְ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת לְ ֹדרֹ תֵ יכֶם‬Let an omer of it be kept throughout your generations”; v. 32a). Remarkably, this directive is not specifically directed to any particular person.34 As Priotto notes, referring back to vv. 16.23, the reader would reasonably assume that the instruction is addressed to the capifamiglia.35 The 2nd person pronoun suffix in the term ‫לְ ֹדרֹ תֵ יכֶם‬ lends support to this supposition. It therefore appears tenable that the message, meant for the whole assembly, is handed down to them as usual through the ‫נְ ִׂש ִאים‬. Again, Moses is portrayed as having received these exact words from YHWH. As such, the word ‫ לְ ֹדרֹ תֵ יכֶם‬depicts him once more as a representative of the people. The instruction directs a perennial preservation of ‫ ְמל ֹא הָ עֹ מֶ ר ִממֶ ּנּו‬. The pronoun ‫ ִממֶ ּנּו‬undoubtedly refers to the manna described in v. 30. And the phrase ‫ְמל ֹא‬ ‫ הָ עֹ מֶ ר‬refers to the measure of an omer,36 which harks back to vv. 16.18.22. It has been argued above that in its previous occurrences in the narrative, the omer as a measure is used symbolically to refer to the Essbedarf of each person, miraculously provided by God (see comments on v. 16). Here, on the other hand, a concrete measure is to the preserved. It is instructive to observe, however, that in this section, the two occurrences of the omer (vv. 32.34) appear in the construct-expression: ‫ ְמל ֹא הָ עֹ מֶ ר‬. This specification appears purposeful. In the former occurrences, the ‫ עֹ מֶ ר‬was used as a symbolic measure; at present, the ‫ ְמל ֹא הָ עֹ מֶ ר‬depicts a definite quantity. The preservation of the latter thus keeps memory of the former. Being the quantity instructed to be consumed in a day, the reference to the omer here calls to memory that God provided day by day for his people through the desert. The ‫ ְמל ֹא הָ עֹ מֶ ר‬is meant to be perpetually preserved ( ‫)לְ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת לְ דֹ ֹרתֵ יכֶם‬.37 In its biblical use, there are two senses of the term ‫לְ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת‬: general and cultic.38 In general terms, the term (deriving from the root ‫שמר‬: to keep, guard watch) portrays the sense of keeping/guarding something carefully. In this sense, the omer of manna is to be carefully preserved (so in v. 23). In cultic terms, the keeping of the manna is akin to the duties of Levites whose task is to keep “guard duty” (NRSV) of the Tabernacle of the Testimony: ‫ת־מ ְשמֶ ֶרת ִמ ְשכַן הָ ֵעדּות‬ ִ ֶ‫וְ שָ ְמרּו הַ לְ וִ ִים א‬ (Num 1,53).39 In this sense, therefore, the omer of manna will form part of the objects of this cultic “guard duty.” At this point in the narrative flow, however, it has not been stipulated where and how the omer of manna is to be preserved 34 L.R. Kass (Founding God’s Nation, 233) notably describes this instruction (v. 32) as “a significant community-forming directive.” 35 Cf. M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 311–312. For B. Baentsch (Exodus–Leviticus, 156), the instruction is simply directed to all the Israelites. 36 See clarification at the translation of the text in Chap. II § 1.2. 37 Note the catchy construction with double ‫ל‬-beginning – ‫ – לְ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬which succinctly summarises the instructions on the cultic preservation of the omer of manna. 38 Cf. BDB; HALOT; J. MILGROM / L. HARPER, “‫”מ ְשמֶ ֶרת‬, ִ TDOT, IX, 73–77. 39 This task is also given to the priests in Num 18,1–7.

174

Chapter IV: The Sabbath and the Memorialisation

(this will happen at the further clarification in vv. 33–34). The reader would only be able to deduce with certainty that required here is a careful preservation of the manna. The omer of manna is to be safely preserved “throughout your generations”40 (‫)לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬.41 While the earlier ‫ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת‬of the manna was meant for the good of the present people – to be eaten on the seventh day when there will be no supply, this special ‫ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת‬of the manna is for the benefit all of future generations. The instruction is remarkable but also challenging. Though clear, it is terse.42 The reader cannot but wonder how such perpetual preservation is to be realised.43 It is to be recalled here, however, that the bread did not become foul when preserved (‫ )לְ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת‬till the next morning according to divine directives in the Sabbath episode (vv. 23–34). This provides the people the grounds to believe that, complying with the divine directives at this point, the omer of manna will remain intact ‫ – לְ ֹד ֹרתֵ יכֶם‬another evidence that YHWH gradually brings the people to a closer knowledge of him through step-by-step training. Still, one reckons that there exists a significant difference between the manna remaining intact overnight and its remaining so perpetually. Hence, the reader would eagerly read on to find out how this omer of manna is to be kept, so as to be preserved intact “throughout your generations.” This suspense is not addressed immediately. Rather, the reason for the perpetual preservation of the manna is given in clear terms: ‫לְ מַ ַען ִי ְראּו אֶ ת־הַ ּלֶחֶ ם ֲאשֶ ר‬ ‫יאי אֶ ְתכֶם מֵ אֶ ֶרץ ִמצְ ָר ִים‬ ִ ִ‫“( הֶ ֱאכַלְ ִתי אֶ ְתכֶם בַ ִמ ְד בָ ר בְ הֹוצ‬in order that they may see the bread which I fed you in the wilderness, when I brought you out of the land of Egypt”; v. 32b). The purpose is quite explicit: that the future generations may see this special food with which YHWH graciously saved his people from the bemoaned 40 As Childs rightly points out, the term ‫ לְ דֹ ֹרתֵ יכֶם‬simply means forever. “The Hebrews measured time in terms of unbroken generations.” B.S. CHILDS, Exodus, 291. 41 The root ‫ דֹור‬appears 19x in Exodus, spreading from the first chapter to the last. This indicates that “generation” constitutes a Leitmotiv in this book. The form ‫ לְ דֹ ֹרתֵ יכֶם‬occurs 9x in the book: 12,14.17; 16,32.33; 29,42; 30,8.21.31; 31,13 (and ‫ לְ ֹד ֹרתָ ם‬occurs 5x: 12,42; 27,21; 30,21; 31,16; 40,15). Before our pericope, ‫ לְ ֹד ֹרתֵ יכֶם‬appears only in the Pesach narrative (ch. 12) – a further evidence of the link between the two passages. An analytic consideration of all the occurrences of this term in the book of Exodus will be embarked upon in the next chapter. 42 The narrator’s use of this verbless, terse command at this prime moment suggests that this line has become fixed in the social memory of the people at the time of the composition of the narrative. 43 Noth (Exodus, 137) notes here that the narrator “does not make the obvious remark” that this preserved omer of manna will not rot away. And for Priotto (Esodo, 312), “È difficile pensare a una conservazione prolungata della manna, si tratta infatti di un gesto liturgico: Israele deve imparare a fare memoria della manna.” But that the manna is meant to be preserved perpetually is clear from the context. The link created by the term ‫ לְ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת‬between the preservation here and such in vv. 23–24 also attests to this. Furthermore (contra Priotto), the Bible does not record any recurrent liturgical memorial of the manna.

2. Epilogue

175

death by hunger in the desert. The significance of this food is so profound that it is not only to be memorialised by narrative, but also by physical evidence. “The [future] Israelites must not only hear about the gift of manna, they must also see it.”44 And, as pointed out by Priotto, through this perennial conservation, not only the Israelites of the Exodus generation but also all the future generations, would pass from the false idealisation of the food in Egypt to the memory of the food graciously given by YHWH.45 Also, Kupfer rightly notes that the reader, who should be part of the addressed generations, is encouraged by this to visualise his own relation to the manna and Exodus events.46 The preserved food is therefore meant to be a “site of memory” 47 for the future generations, so desired and directed by YHWH himself.48 As the Israelites enjoy the ‫ לֶחֶ ם ִמן־הַ שָ מָ ִים‬at the moment, YHWH looks beyond the present in his design to keep the memory of this unique experience alive for the Israelites of the coming ages. There would surely be stories of this in the future, but the omniscient divinity knows that the concrete presence of the food will be more impressionable, and will lend total credence to the narrative. All the more, the memory is a faculty that forgets. Without the tools of commemoration, this salvific act of YHWH may be forgotten as ages elapse.49 The preserved omer of manna serves to preclude this. In Houtman’s elucidation, Also the generations which themselves did not experience how YHWH even in the wilderness gave food to his people must be made aware of their dependence on YHWH. The past must be made visible. That history is to remain a living reality. Not only the Israel that trekked through the desert is to be mindful that YHWH, Israel’s God, is almighty (16,12). The same is to be true of their descendants.50

In the narrative, the verb ‫ ראה‬occurs for the last time here, linking back to its earlier occurrences.51 In v. 7, the Israelites are told that they will see the glory of God. As already clarified, the ‫ כְ בֹוד ְיהוָה‬which the Israelites will see consists of the manna through which YHWH reveals his saving presence to the people (see comments on v. 7). It is also noted above that ‫ ראה‬in v.7 is cognate with 44 T.B. DOZEMAN, Exodus, 387. Also, as observed by Jacob, the importance of the manna is highlighted by the fact that in Moses’ review of the Wüstenwanderung in Deuteronomy, “no other event aside from the revelation at Sinai was discussed as extensively as the manna. The entire eighth chapter of Deuteronomy was devoted to it.” B. JACOB, Exodus, 469–470. 45 Cf. M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 312. 46 Cf. C.D. KUPFER, Mit Israel auf dem Weg, 74. 47 On the import of the technical expression “site of memory”, see Chap. I, § 1.1.3. 48 It is instructive to note the point that it is YHWH himself who instructs this preservation of the manna for the future generations. 49 On the dynamics of commemoration in social memory, see Chap. 1, § 1.1.2; cf. also M. HALBWACHS, On Collective Memory, 43–59; J. ASSMANN, Religion and Cultural Memory, 24–31. 50 C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 319. 51 The verb occurs 5x in the narrative: vv. 7.10.15.29.32.

176

Chapter IV: The Sabbath and the Memorialisation

‫ ידע‬in v. 6. Hence, seeing the ‫ כְ בֹוד ְיהוָה‬is directed to bringing the Israelites to a

closer knowledge of YHWH. In vv. 10–12, in the context of the appearance of the ‫ כְ בֹוד יְ הוָה‬in a cloud, YHWH reveals that that the people will come know him through the gift of the manna. In v. 16, they see the manna but do not know it; and in v. 29, they are called upon to observe the manna closely and recognise therefrom the design of God. And the rest of the people in v. 30 indicates that they have come to this recognition. As such, by seeing the preserved omer of manna, the future Israelites will be made to participate in this unique experience of the wilderness generation. By beholding the glory of God made manifest in the manna, they too are to be brought to recognise the design of God, not only for their wilderness ancestors but also for themselves at present. Dohmen corroborates: Das „Sehen“ der kommenden Generationen, von dem v. 32 spricht, bezieht sich folglich auf Israels JHWH-Beziehung und JHWHs Israel Beziehung, wie sie im Schabbat erscheinen, was die Anspielungen, durch das Stichwort „Sehen“ an grundlegende Offenbarungsaussagen in 16,6–7 und 16,10 unterstreichen.52

The purpose clause goes further to draw out the significance of the preserved food. It is the ‫ לֶחֶ ם‬with which YHWH fed the people in the wilderness: ‫ֲאשֶ ר‬ ‫ הֶ ֱא ַכלְ ִתי אֶ ְתכֶם בַ ִמ ְדבָ ר‬. One observes here a subtle but remarkable shift in emphasis from the reality of the ‫ לֶחֶ ם‬to God as its giver. The preserved food redirects ultimately to YHWH! The noticeable paradox in bringing together the verb ‫אכל‬ and the noun ‫ ִמדְ בָ ר‬also underscores this point.53 Amidst the difficult conditions of the desert, YHWH makes eating possible (note the hiphil: ‫)הֶ ֱאכַלְ ִתי‬. It is this salvific divine act that is to be perpetuated in memory through the perennial presence of the manna. The clarification goes on: “when I brought you out ( ‫ )בְ הֹוצִ ִיאי‬of the land of Egypt.”54 The preserved omer of manna will in fact redirect the memory of the future generations back to the entire Egypt-Promised Land salvific event: the deliverance from Egypt; the long walk through the desert, till the entrance into the Promised Land (cf. v. 35). The motif of bringing the people out of Egypt links back to v. 3 where the people regretted their being brought out of Egypt (by Moses and Aaron) into the wilderness, “to kill this whole assembly with hunger.”55 And, in v. 6, as a counter to the people’s expressed wish for Egypt,

52

C. DOHMEN, Exodus 1–18, 398. This is the sixth occurrence of the term ‫ ִמ ְדבָ ר‬in the narrative: vv. 1.2.3.10.14.32. In the first three verses, the repeated occurrence was meant to highlight the reality of the harsh conditions of the wilderness. Now, the preserved omer of manna would testify that YHWH overcame the wilderness by providing food for his people therein (cf. v. 14). 54 Note again the emphasis on the deed of YHWH: ‫יאי‬ ִ ִ‫בְ הֹוצ‬. 55 It has been frequently recognised that the wish for Egypt is a revolt against the whole event of the Exodus. “The cause of the complaint”, Coats asserts, “is not simply a matter of 53

2. Epilogue

177

YHWH declares through Moses and Aaron: “By evening, you shall know that YHWH brought you out of the land of Egypt.”56 The present generation have

come to this knowledge through the manna. The preserved omer will be a concrete source of this knowledge to the future generations – that YHWH indeed brought their ancestors out of Egypt, and also executed his design of feeding them to satiety in the wilderness with this special food that tastes ‫!כְ צַ פִ יחִ ת בִ דְ בָ ש‬ The manna would therefore act as a silent “witness” to the salvific event. Furthermore, from the book of Exodus onwards, YHWH identifies himself to his people often with these (or similar) words: I am YHWH your God, who freed you from the burdens of the Egyptians (cf. Ex 6,7; 20,2; Lev 19,36; 22,33; 25,38; 26,13; Num 15,41; Dt 5,6; etc.). This represents both the identity of YHWH before the people and the grounds of his claim on the Israelites as his people (cf. Ex 19,3–6). In the Pentateuch, YHWH identifies himself with this formula at crucial moments in the Aufbau of his relationship with Israel. A glaring example is found in Ex 20,2 (= Dt 5,6) where the assertion is presented as the basis of his handing down the Decalogue to the people. As such, applying this motif here substantiates once more the submission that the MannaErfahrung constitutes a prime moment in the YHWH-Israel relationship. All the more, it is inferable that by employing such motif here, YHWH subtly makes a claim on all the future Israelites through the “sacramental” presence of the preserved manna. At this point, the question props up: Will the Israelites obey this command unconditionally, at this instance? Or will some of them refuse again to comply as in the former episodes? But still, Moses has not declared exactly how the manna is to be preserved. And so, suspense is again created. The building suspense is addressed in v. 33. Moses turns to Aaron and instructs him (‫ )וַי ֹאמֶ ר ֹמשֶ ה אֶ ל־אַ הֲרֹ ן‬on how exactly the manna is to be preserved: ‫קַ ח‬ ‫“( צִ ְנצֶ נֶת אַ חַ ת וְ תֶ ן־שָ מָ ה ְמל ֹא־הָ ֹעמֶ ר מָ ן וְ הַ ּנַח אֹ תֹו לִ פְ נֵי ְיהוָה לְ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬Take a jar and put an omer of manna in it; and set it before YHWH, to be kept throughout your generations”). This instruction, carefully spelt out, evolves in three successive imperatives: …‫קַ ח… וְ תֶ ן… וְ הַ ּנַח‬, an indication that it requires strict observance. Again, the three imperatives are in the 2nd person singular. The instruction earlier given to the Israelites in general is now narrowed down to Aaron. And the modus operandi for the perpetual preservation is clarified. Aaron is to take a container ( ‫)צִ ְנצֶ נֶת‬, put a ‫ ְמל ֹא־הָ ֹעמֶ ר‬of manna in it, and set it ‫לִ פְ נֵי ְיהוָה‬. The term ‫ צִ ְנצֶ נֶת‬is a hapax legomenon, and has understandably elicited interpretations as regards its precise meaning. From the context, it is clear that a sort of container is intended. For some scholars, it derives from the Aramaic

remembering food that has been left behind in Egypt but the fact that they left Egypt at all.” G.W. COATS, Rebellion, 90; see also comments on v. 3. 56 On the relationship between these verses, see also C.D. KUPFER, Mit Israel, 73.

178

Chapter IV: The Sabbath and the Memorialisation

‫ צִ ּנָא‬or the Arabic ṣann, ṣinn which means “basket.”57 But the majority of schol-

ars interpret it as meaning a jar.58 This is also supported by the LXX rendering – στάμνον χρυσοῦν: golden jar.59 In all, the use of this hapax to describe the container of preservation illustrates further the “mysterious” nature of the manna. This unusual food is preserved in an unusual container. Further, Aaron is to set the jar containing the omer of manna ‫לִ פְ נֵי ְיהוָה‬. This is mind-boggling: What exactly does the expression ‫ לִ פְ נֵי ְיהוָה‬imply here? Where exactly is Aaron expected to place this jar? The expression ‫ לִ פְ נֵי ְיהוָה‬has occurred in v. 9, where it referred to the cloud that was to appear. After the erection of the Tabernacle, it will become a fixed expression in reference to the cultic presence of YHWH among his people therein.60 At this point in the narrative sequence of Exodus, however, the Tabernacle is yet to be erected. And here, the use of the expression leaves no doubt that a concrete location is intended. Both curiosity and suspense apply here. The reader would look back at the whole narrative, and even beyond, to see if something has escaped him (especially as regards the Tabernacle, as this would have been a fixed expression at the time of composing this narrative).61 And not finding any clue to a clear understanding of this expression up to this point, he will keenly read ahead in the hope of finding a clarification. Moses concludes the instruction to Aaron by repeating the expression ‫( לְ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬v. 33).62 For some historical critics, this repetition is an evidence that vv. 32 and 33 originate from different sources. Frankel, for instance, argues that while v. 33 belongs to “an early priestly story”, v. 32 is the work of a later editor. He expounds his considerations: The structure of this material is surprising. The command to preserve the manna is given twice; first by God to the people, with an explanation, and then by Moses to Aaron without an explanation. It is unclear why the command need be repeated. Also, the command and explanation to the people are strange since it is Aaron alone who will carry out the command. Aaron, to whom the command is repeated, and who alone carries it out, is given no explanation for it. He is not even informed, as are the people, that it is a divine command.63

57

So KöWb; SSWb. For Propp, the term “must be related to Arabic ṣwn ‘save, store, keep’.” W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 598. 58 So G. DALMAN, Arbeit, VII, 243; BDB; HALOT; NRSV; NJPS; and most major English commentaries. The NKJV translates “pot.” C. Houtman, (Exodus, II, 353) also gives a succinct discussion on this term. 59 As aptly pointed out by J. Wevers (Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus, 258), the LXX addition of the qualification χρυσοῦν “golden” is most probably influenced by the golden vessels of the Tabernacle (Ex 35–37). 60 On the expression ‫לִ פְ נֵי ְיהוָה‬, see comments on v. 9 above. 61 This is also a sign that this section of the narrative is especially directed to the reader, a contemporary to the author who knows quite well the structure of the Temple. 62 At this point, there is no doubt that the term ‫ לְ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת‬has cultic implications here. 63 D. FRANKEL, The Murmuring Stories, 84.

2. Epilogue

179

Frankel goes on to argue that the expression ‫ לְ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת לְ ֹדרֹ תֵ יכֶם‬in v. 33 is late, influenced by the “editorial expansion” in v. 32. According to him, in the “original priestly story”, Moses’ command to preserve the manna does not derive from YHWH, but comes out of Moses’ own initiative. It is at the later editorial expansion of the text that this directive of Moses is transformed into a divine instruction.64 Ruprecht also detects the “unsuitability” of Moses’ use of ‫לְ ֹדרֹ תֵ יכֶם‬ (2nd pers. plu.) in addressing Aaron alone. For him, this is one of the indications that vv. 33–34 are a later addition to the original text.65 A critical study of the poetics at play in the evolvement of these verses suggests otherwise. After the naming of the food in v. 31, Moses announces to the Israelites the command of YHWH concerning the perpetual preservation of a portion of the ‫( לֶחֶ ם ִמן־הַ שָ מָ ִים‬v. 32). It was a general, terse instruction – ‫ְמל ֹא הָ ֹעמֶ ר‬ ‫ ִממֶ ּנּו לְ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬, the exact application of which was not quite clear. The narrator purposely raises this ambiguity that leads to the clarification in v. 33. Here, Moses not only clarifies the instruction, but by the repetition of the expression ‫( לְ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬conveyed as YHWH’s exact words in v. 32), raises the instruction to Aaron to the same level as that of YHWH. The directive is thus sacrosanct, meant be carried out to the letter. Besides, in the use of the term ‫( לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬and not ‫לְ ֹדרֹ תֵ ינּו‬: “throughout our generations”) here, Moses plays the divine role as regards his relationship with Aaron, in accordance with the charge given to him by God in Ex 4,16: “You shall be as God to him.” As such, in this communication, just as Moses plays a representative role in the divine addresses to him (vv. 4.28.32), so also Aaron serves as a representative of the people in this command, rendered to him by Moses in the name of YHWH. Also to be noted here is that this repetition provides another sign that the narrator is in dialogue especially with an audience who form part of the group – “your generations.” Again, Frankel’s finding it problematic that Aaron, who is to carry out the command, does not receive the purpose of the instruction, does not actually add up. The instruction and its purpose are already announced to the general public (probably the ‫)נְ ִׂשיאֵ י הָ ֵעדָ ה‬, to which Aaron prominently belongs. That the instruction is now directed specifically to Aaron does not take away the fact that he is already armed with this information given publicly. What is

64 Cf. D. FRANKEL, The Murmuring Stories, 87. As regards “the late tendency to bestow divine authorisation to originally independent Mosaic commands and statements”, Frankel finds reference in A. GEIGER, Urschrift und Übersetzungen, 329–330; S.E. LOEWENSTAMM, From Babylon to Canaan, 438. 65 Cf. E. RUPRECHT, “Stellung”, 276. Baentsch observes here that the LXX translates ‫ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת‬as ἀποθήκη in vv. 23.32, but translates it as διατήρησις in vv. 33.34. For him, this could hardly have been done by the same translator. It appears then that the Vorlage used by the first translator did not contain vv. 33–34, an indicator that it is a later addition. Cf. B. BAENTSCH, Exodus–Leviticus, 156.

180

Chapter IV: The Sabbath and the Memorialisation

emphasised in v. 33 is his specific (priestly) duty in the cultic preservation of the omer of manna.66 All the more, it is to be observed here that, in its nine occurrences in the book of Exodus, the term ‫ לְ דֹ ֹרתֵ יכֶם‬performs a specific function. It serves as a formula that conveys the preservation of the memory of something strategic in the YHWH-Israel relationship.67 It also provides the grounds for the re-enactment of such significant events for the future generations that have not experienced it first-hand. It is collocated to the moment of the event (thus lending it credibility), but it is proleptic in function. Already used in the previous verse, applying the term again here – at this crucial point – underlines the memorypurposes of this act. Through this assertion, the reader (nay the people of the future ages)68 understands clearly that it is YHWH himself who commanded that the omer of manna be conserved at this very special place ( ‫)לִ פְ נֵי ְיהוָה‬, instituting thereby the link that keeps the memory of its significance alive for our benefit. It is thus expressly meant to be a tangible “site of memory” through which we align ourselves to the constitutive events of our past. An analysis of all the occurrences of this term in Exodus in the next chapter will throw more light on this. The beginning of v. 34 is atypical: ‫“( ַכ ֲאשֶ ר צִ ּוָה ְיהוָה אֶ ל־מֹ שֶ ה‬According as YHWH commanded Moses”). Because ‫ ַכ ֲאשֶ ר‬is a conjunctive used mostly as a connective in-between sentences or clauses,69 and because the clause ‫ ַכ ֲאשֶ ר צִ ּוָה ְיהוָה‬is used mostly in the Hebrew Bible (occurs 22x in Exodus) as a commentary that qualifies an action already reported, some scholars posit that the beginning of this sentence is missing. Baentsch, for e.g., holds that the statement “And Aaron took a jar and put an omer of manna in it” should be added to the beginning of v. 34.70 But a close analysis reveals that a narrative technique is at play here. 66

In all, taking a narrative-critical approach, one finds the source-critics’ division of vv. 32–34 into different provenances not actually convincing. This micro-unit appears closely knit, meant to serve specific memory functions. Cf. C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 354. 67 The memorialisation of the Exodus through the Passover comes readily in mind here (see next chapter). Here, L.R. Kass (Founding God’s Nation, 233) observes: “To the obligation to commemorate the Passover night – the divine gift of liberation – is added here the obligation to commemorate the manna, the divine gift of sustenance. The Lord both feeds and frees his people, and one should never forget it.” 68 On the “response” of the implied reader as he engages the narrative, see inter alia M.A. POWELL, What is Narrative Criticism, 19; W. ISER, The Implied Reader, 274–294. 69 Cf. GK § 104a–b. 70 Cf. B. BAENTSCH, Exodus–Leviticus, 156; so also A. DILLMANN, Die Bücher, 192. For Ehrlich (Randglossen, I, 328), it seems that the statement – And the Israelites did so – “ausgefallen oder richtiger absichtlich beseitigt worden zu sein.” Houtman (Exodus, II, 353) simply notes that “one would have expected a statement to the effect that Aaron carried out the order” before ‫ ; ַכ ֲאשֶ ר‬while Propp (Exodus 1–18, 598) points out the possibility that the words ‫ ַכ ֲאשֶ ר צִ ּוָה ְיהוָה אֶ ל־מֹ שֶ ה‬may originally be the conclusion of Moses’ speech in v. 33, notwithstanding the reference to Moses in the third person therein.

2. Epilogue

181

As noted above, the instruction in v. 33, by its presentation, demands strict observance. And to report such compliance, v. 34 begins with the clause ‫ַכ ֲאשֶ ר‬ ‫צִ ּוָה ְיהוָה אֶ ל־מֹ שֶ ה‬. And its coming immediately after the instruction in v. 33 creates an obvious effect. It draws attention to Aaron’s full compliance to the given directive. Again, a positive characterisation of the Israelites subtly plays out here. In v. 33, by the word ‫לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬, Aaron is addressed as a representative of the people. In attesting to his total compliance to instruction here, Israel is also indirectly depicted as compliant to the divine directives. The obligation to keep the manna holds for all of Israel. “The charge to deposit it – on behalf of Israel – in the sanctuary is given to Aaron,” Houtman rightly observes, “because only he – the priest – may enter there.”71 As such, the positive characterisation of the people in v. 30 is extended. Also to be observed is that stated here is that Aaron acted, not according as Moses commanded him, but according as YHWH commanded Moses. Attention is thus drawn to the fact that what Aaron carried out was according to YHWH’s command. But this command came from Moses, and notably goes beyond the command of YHWH reported by Moses in v. 32. This assertion thus reaffirms Moses as one who correctly interprets the will of God and faithfully hands down his instructions. This also goes on to correct the people’s wrong impression expressed at the murmuring in v. 3 that bringing them into the wilderness is the design of Moses (and Aaron), meant to annihilate them. Conversely, the directives of Moses derive indeed from YHWH. All the more, redirecting this command to YHWH calls the reader’s mind back to him as the ultimate designer of all the events of the narrative. As Pham aptly remarks, the most important presence in the story is none other than YHWH himself, “who powerfully actualises the entire dynamic of the story, which witnesses a real change in the positive direction from the beginning to the end of the narrative.”72 Aaron’s act which constitutes this compliance is now stipulated: ‫ַו ַי ִּניחֵ הּו אַ הֲרֹ ן‬ ‫“( לִ פְ נֵי הָ ֵעדֻת לְ ִמ ְשמָ ֶרת‬Aaron set it before the Testimony, to be kept”; v. 34).73 Quite notable here is the narrator’s technique in gradually divulging information. Houtman observes: “Remarkable is how the text talks about the storage place. Initially it is not mentioned (16,32); next the holy place is pointed out (16,33), followed by a more specific place designation (16,34).”74 The “double attestation” of Aaron’s compliance underlines the profound significance of this act. It is a prime moment in the establishment of YHWH-Israel relationship, a 71

C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 353. N. PHAM, “The Image of YHWH”, 34. 73 Note the waw of apodosis at the beginning of this statement, linking up with ‫ ַכ ֲאשֶ ר‬at the beginning of the verse. Cf. JM § 176a–c. 74 C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 353. M. Sternberg (The Poetics, 51–52) describes this as the dynamics of the manoeuvre from the truth to the whole truth. 72

182

Chapter IV: The Sabbath and the Memorialisation

testimony of the unique chosenness of Israel. Aaron’s strict compliance to instruction is further underscored by the lexical correspondence between vv. 33 and 34: v. 33b: ‫וְ הַ ּנַח אֹ תֹו לִ פְ נֵי ְיהוָה לְ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬ v. 34b: ‫ַו ַי ִּניחֵ הּו אַ הֲרֹ ן לִ פְ נֵי הָ ֵעדֻת לְ ִמ ְשמָ ֶרת‬

More still, the triple occurrence of the term ‫ לְ ִמ ְשמָ ֶרת‬in vv. 32–34 point to the same direction. These successive appearances perform narrative functions here. The triple repetition of the root ‫ שמר‬conveys a sense of special “care” for the preservation of manna – the sign of God’s unique intervention in the life of the Israelites. Also, they impress upon the reader that the command of YHWH, transmitted faithfully by Moses, is also devotedly carried by Aaron, underscoring meticulousness in this key moment. As Houtman aptly remarks here, “Command of YHWH (16,32), command of Moses (16,33) and account of the execution (16,34) complement one another.”75 Furthermore, the occurrences of the verb ‫( נוח‬hiphil) and the term ‫לְ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת‬ here link back to vv. 23–24, where Moses instructed the people to keep a part of the manna (‫ )הַ ּנִ יחּו… לְ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת‬till the next morning.76 At their compliance, the food did not deteriorate. Using the same terminology to describe the cultic conservation of manna here is instructive. In vv. 23–24, kept in accordance with divine instructions, the manna did not become foul the next morning as it would normally do (cf. v. 20). Here also, conserved in accordance with divine instructions, the manna will not get bad “throughout your generations.”77 In addition, the “enigmatic” expression ‫ לִ פְ נֵי ְיהוָה‬in v. 33 becomes concretised and definitively clarified in v. 34: Aaron sets the ‫ צִ ְנצֶ נֶת‬of manna before the Testimony (‫)לִ פְ נֵי הָ ֵעדֻת‬.78 However, because the term ‫ ֵעדֻת‬is used with two meanings in Exodus, it is fitting to clarify the exact location of this placement. On the one hand, the term ‫ ֵעדֻת‬denotes the stone tablets inscribed by the finger of God (cf. 25,16.17; 40,20).79 In this case, setting the jar ‫ לִ פְ נֵי הָ ֵעדֻת‬would possibly mean placing it in the Ark, before (i.e. near) the tablets.80 On the other hand, 75

C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 354. Cf. U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 200. 77 The manna perpetually remains fresh within the sacred space of the Tabernacle. It is to be recalled that the manna comes “from heaven” (v. 4), the abode of God. As such, setting the manna in the Tabernacle is akin to taking it back to its original place of provenance. Hence, it maintains its original state. 78 This is the first occurrence of the term ‫ ֵעדֻת‬in the entire Hebrew Bible. In its 83 occurrences, it has different shades of meaning. Generally, it refers to a testimony/witness (of an act/agreement/covenant) or to a body of legal provisions. Cf. HALOT. 79 These tablets are also described in the book as ‫ ֻל ֹחת הָ ֵעדֻת‬: 31,18; 32,15; 34,29. 80 This notion is popularised by the NT letter to the Hebrews 9,4. The interpretation is however followed by only a few scholars in Pentateuchal criticism such as M. Priotto, (Esodo, 312) for whom the term ‫ ֵעדֻת‬here refers specifically to the stone tablets; and V.P. 76

2. Epilogue

183

the term refers to the Ark that contains these tablets (cf. 27,21; 30,6) .81 In this sense, the jar is placed outside the Ark, but close to it. The former interpretation appears unlikely. At the unique instance of putting something (the tablets) into the ark, the narrator uses the expression ‫( אֶ ל־הָ אָ ֹרן‬40,20; cf. 25,16). Again, in its other three occurrences in the Hebrew Bible (Ex 30,36, Num 17,21.25[6.10]), the expression ‫ לִ פְ נֵי הָ ֵעדֻת‬clearly implies a locus outside the Ark but within the Tent of Meeting.82 Furthermore, in 1Kgs 8,9, it is explicitly stated that the only content of the Ark of the Testimony are the two stone tablets. Taken together then, it can be surmised that Aaron placed the ‫ צִ ְנצֶ נֶת‬before the Ark of the Testimony in the Tabernacle,83 most probably within the ‫קֹ דֶ ש הַ קֳ דָ ִשים‬. It appears perplexing that, though the explicit reason for the perpetual preservation of the manna is that the people may see it (v. 32), the instruction here is to keep it in the inner chamber of the Tabernacle, where it will be out of view for the most of the Israelites.84 In fact, it is only the High Priests who enter there to perform stipulated liturgical functions (cf., for e.g., Lev 16,2 – 19). As such, the purpose of keeping the manna appears defeated. But, just as the act of Aaron in placing the jar of manna ‫ ֻל ֹחת הָ ֵע ֻדת‬is carried out on behalf of the people, so also the priests’ gaze on the jar would be done on their behalf. The supposition that the people’s not seeing the manna would raise doubt on its existence is countered by the fact that the people do not doubt the existence of the Ark of the Testimony because they do not have access to it. They rely trustfully on the testimony of their priests who perform their sacerdotal duties on their behalf. Corroborating this, Houtman remarks: “Apparently it was the priest’s duty, not only to deposit it on behalf of the people (16,33.34), but also to look at it on their behalf…. As a cult object it passes from view in the OT (cf. e.g., 1Kgs 8,6ff.).”85 The placing of the jar of manna close to the Ark that contains the ‫ ֻל ֹחת הָ ֵעדֻת‬is significant. The manna signifies divine providence, while on the tablets are

Hamilton (Exodus, 259) who, though acknowledging the double implications of the term, comments that “before the Ark receives the tablets, it receives the jar.” 81 More frequently in the book, however, the Ark of the Covenant/Testimony is described by the compound term ‫אֲרֹ ן הָ ֵעדֻת‬: 25,22; 26,33.34; 30,6; 39,35; 40,3.5.21.35. 82 In Ex 30,36, we read: ‫“( וְ נָתַ תָ ה ִממֶ ּנָה לִ פְ נֵי הָ ֵעדֻת בְ אֹ הֶ ל מֹו ֵעד‬and put some of it before the Testimony in the Tent of Meeting”). It is also noteworthy here that in Num 17,19–25[Heb], the budded staff of Aaron, also counted among the contents of the Ark in Heb 9,4, is clearly placed outside the Ark: ‫( בְ אֹ הֶ ל מֹו ֵעד לִ פְ נֵי ָ ָֽה ֵעדּות‬17,19; cf. v. 25). 83 This is actually the position of the greater majority of scholars. Propp, for e.g., affirms: “ʿĒdût is often, as here, an elliptical or metonymic reference to ʾărôn hāʿēdût ‘the Covenant Ark’. The Manna pot is stored in the Tabernacle’s inner chamber, along with Aaron’s budding rod (Num 17,25).” W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 599. 84 Observing this, Dohmen (Exodus 1–18, 398) notes that v. 32 “denkt bei der Zielangabe für die Aufbewahrung (noch) nicht an den Ort im Heiligstum.” 85 C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 354.

184

Chapter IV: The Sabbath and the Memorialisation

inscribed the terms of the covenant to be kept by the people. Bringing the two items together in this most holy place underscores the point that enjoying divine providence necessarily goes with the responsibility of keeping his commandments. Along this line, Propp remarks that “the preservation of a pot beside the Covenant is also a warning: Yahweh’s promise to sustain Israel is conditional.”86 And Priotto deduces here that this placing-together unites the gift of the manna with the gift of the Word, without which the event of the manna would not be understood.87 Hamilton detects a chronological significance here. Scripture reveals “a God of manna” before “a God of mandates”, that is, “a God who graciously provides before a God who lays down the law; or to put it in the most familiar terms, a God of grace, then a God of law.”88 Though Hamilton’s observation is plausible, it is not to be forgotten that even at the gracious provision of the manna, keeping divine instructions manifestly plays a decisive role.89 The repeated use of the term ‫ לְ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת‬here also buttresses this point. Deriving from the root ‫שמר‬ “to keep, watch, observe”, a verb frequently used to denote obedience to divine directives (cf. v. 28!),90 the emphasised use of the term in this context also highlights the relationship between the gratuitous provision of the manna and the people’s obligation to keep God’s commandments. Setting the jar of the omer of manna ‫ לִ פְ נֵי הָ ֵעדֻת‬at this point presents an obvious problem that has been frequently recognised by scholars right from the rabbinic period.91 In the narrative sequence of Exodus, the ‫ לֻחֹ ת הָ ֵעדֻת‬has not been received by Moses (cf. 31,18; 34,1–9), the ‫ ֲארֹון הָ ֵעדֻת‬has not been constructed (cf. 25,10–22; 37,1–9), nor has the Tabernacle been set up (cf. 40,1– 33) – in the macronarraive of Exodus, a clear case of “anachronism”! This is one of the prominent problems in the narrative for which historical critics deem it to have been “cobbled together” from different sources. For this reason also, some scholars hold that the narrative belongs originally to the period after the

86

W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 599. M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 312. However, the suggestion of Maiberger (Das Manna, I, 214– 215) that the manna was kept in the Tabernacle because it symbolises the word of God leaves much to be desired. 88 Cf. V.P. HAMILTON, Exodus, 259. B.S. Childs (Exodus, 292) also expresses this chronological mode of reasoning in his remark that “the sign of divine grace preceded the giving of the law of Sinai.” He acknowledges, however, that the point of the text here is to indicate that the manna and the tablets belong together ‫לִ פְ נֵי ְיהוָה‬. 89 Houtman (Exodus, II, 354) also submits that the manna is kept in the Tabernacle because, “equally as important as its being seen by Israel is its being seen by YHWH; it reminds him of his care for Israel; so he can be moved to once again act on behalf of his people.” But one can imagine that God does not need to see the manna in the holy place to be reminded of his solicitude for Israel. 90 See also Ex 20,6; Lev 22,31; 26,3; Dt 5,10.29; 1Kgs 2,3; 3,14; 2Kgs 17,13.19; etc. 91 Cf., for e.g., RASHI; IBN EZRA. 87

2. Epilogue

185

erection of the Tabernacle in Ex 40.92 According to Baden, the story was originally collocated between the pronouncement of the forty-year itinerary in the wilderness (Num 14) and the time of Aaron’s death (Num 22). A pertinent criticism of this position, already expressed by different scholars.93 is the wonder what the Israelites were eating from the time of their deliverance from Egypt till this point in Numbers. But if this “anachronism” is obvious, the question becomes: Why has the narrator chosen to recount the placement of the jar of manna at this point? First of all, it has to be kept in mind that this section serves as the epilogue of the narrative. As Ska explicates, The denouement and conclusion may have different functions: they can summarise the outcome of the narrative or the fate of the main characters after the events recounted. The conclusion can also direct a special message to the reader: a moral lesson, an aetiology connecting the world of the narrative with the world of the reader, information about the origin of the story or its relevance, or a reflection of the narrator.94

It is deducible from this elucidation that it is characteristic of the epilogue to be proleptic. And this is what plays out here. A critical consideration of the function of the wayyiqtol in the poetics of biblical narratives is also instructive at this juncture. It is frequently held that the wayyiqtol in biblical narratives generally indicates succession in the narrative sequence. However, as Jan Joosten submits as regards the wayyiqtol, “In certain cases, the sequential nuance may be present even though the processes are not strictly successive in the temporal sense.”95 This submission applies here. Though the placing of the jar ‫ לֻחֹ ת הָ ֵעדֻת‬follows sequentially preceding story, the wayyiqtol (‫ – ַו ַי ִּניחֵ הּו‬and he set it) does not necessarily imply that this action followed immediately.96 Rather, the narrator deems it fit to wrap up the issues concerning the manna at this point, as that would be more impressive upon the reader.97 Scholars also find a theological purpose for this proleptic collocation .98 Durham, for example, remarks that through the manna, “Yahweh has proved 92 So A. DILLMANN, Die Bücher Exodus, 184–185; H. HOLZINGER, Exodus, 54; J.P. HYATT, Exodus,174; J.S. BADEN, “The Original Place”, 496–500, ID., “The Structure and Sub-

stance”, 354–357. 93 Cf. W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 590; D. FRANKEL, “The Priestly”, 213–214. 94 J.L. SKA, Our Fathers Have Told Us, 28. 95 J. JOOSTEN, The Verbal System, 166. Cf. also J.A. COOK, Time, 289–298. 96 This verse can thus be translated: “According as YHWH commanded Moses, Aaron set it [later on] before the Testimony, to be kept.” Cf. also 1Sam 17,54: ‫ַו ִּיקַ ח דָּ וִּ ד אֶ ת־ר ֹאׁש הַ פְּ לִּ ְּׁש ִּתי‬ ‫“ – ַו ְּיבִּ אֵ הּו ְּירּוׁשָּ ִּלָּם‬And David took the head of the Philistine and [later on] brought it to Jerusalem.” Taken together, it appears more fitting then to talk here of proleptic sequence rather than “anacronismo cosciente.” 97 Cf. V.P. HAMILTON, Exodus, 259. 98 Childs remarks here that in biblical narratives, “chronological inconsistencies usually reflect definite theological concerns.” B.S. CHILDS, Exodus, 291.

186

Chapter IV: The Sabbath and the Memorialisation

his Presence in his provision for a complaining and disobedient people. That proof, miraculously wrought, must be made plain to the descendants of Israel who have yet to face the struggle of belief.” As such, the narrator is at this juncture “more interested in the proof and its transmission to the generations than in preserving a chronological and consistent sequence.”99 Taken together, it is quite deducible that playing strongly at the background of this proleptic sequence (in which the narrator demonstrates his omniscience) is its memory function. As stated above, recounting this narrative is a tool of commemoration. At this epilogue, to reinforce the memory of the manna-event in the real audience, the narrator brings forward the significant event of preserving it within the ‫ ֹקדֶ ש הַ קֳ דָ ִשים‬, which though proleptic in the narrative sequence, is well-known to this audience. One can imagine the magnitude of the impression it would create in the mind of the reading/listening audience that an omer of this salvific food is placed in no less a place than within the holy of holies! All the more, whenever the story of the Ark of the Testimony – whether extant or not – is told, the people would visualise close to it the jar of the manna through which YHWH saved our ancestors. Hence, by this proleptic epilogue, the carefully stored omer of manna, kept from the public view, functions as a perpetual site of memory through Israel’s history, of YHWH’s gracious providence. Again, the clear inclination of this epilogue argues against the position of some scholars that the main theological point of this narrative “does not lie in the manna provision itself, but in the Sabbath institution that it introduces .”100 Obviously, the Sabbath constitutes a major motif in the story. But the narrator’s emphasis on the perpetual preservation of the manna points to another direction. The Schwerpunkt of the narrative lies in YHWH’s gracious providence for his people in the wilderness. 2.2 Postscript (vv. 35 and 36) The epilogue is wrapped up by two non-sequential explanatory notes, linked together only by their explaining issues concerning the manna. The first gives the duration of this gift while the other clarifies the volume of the omer. Immediately noteworthy here is that these verses do not begin with the wayyiqtol (v. 35: ‫ ;ּובְ נֵי יִ ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬v. 36: ‫)וְ הָ ֹעמֶ ר‬,101 indicating that they do not follow the successive narrative chain of the preceding story. They serve rather as concluding remarks. Also to be noted is that, at this point, the omniscient narrator presents his authoritative punto di vista on the story just told. 99

J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 226–227; see also M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 312. D. FRANKEL, “The Priestly Conception”, 208; cf. also T.C. RÖMER, “Israel’s Sojourn”, 432. 101 Up till this point, the narrative has been successively connected with the wayyiqtol. On this function of the wayyiqtol, see A. GIANTO, “Mechanisms of Change”, 613. 100

2. Epilogue

187

2.2.1 Duration of Manna-Sustenance (v. 35) The first note of the postscript avers that the Israelites ate the manna for forty years in the wilderness, until they reached an inhabited land. This report is given in a quasi-poetic form: v. 35 a

v. 35b

Now, the Israelites ate the manna forty years until they came to an inhabited land

They ate the manna until they came to the border of the land of Canaan

It is fit to observe immediately that this declaration that the ‫ בְ נֵי ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬ate the manna for forty years contrasts their situation at the beginning of the narrative, bemoaned in their murmuring (vv. 2–3). Also, the statement indirectly affirms that the Israelites continued keeping the instructions associated with the manna within this time-frame,102 a further extension of the people’s positive characterisation.103 On the other hand, we also find here a strong affirmation of YHWH’s faithfulness – for forty years he fed them!104 They ate the manna for forty years.105 In the Hebrew Bible, forty years signify a generation.106 In fact, in Num 14,26–38, the punishment meted out on the people for their revolt is that none of them up to twenty years at that time will enter the Promised Land. This implies that the generation of their adults were to perish in the wilderness. Connected to this, in the Weltanschauung of Israel, the number forty “comes to represent completeness. It is this meaning that is likely intended when the number forty returns to describe the time required for Moses to receive the revelation of law (Ex 24,18) or the length of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness (Mk 1,13).”107 As such, the assertion that YHWH fed the Israelites for forty years in the wilderness also evokes the idea

102

Contra A. Schart (Mose und Israel, 130–131) and C. Kupfer (Mit Israel, 77) who hold that there is no firm indication in the text that the people have come to know YHWH, made manifest in their firm observance of divine directives. Such observation seems influenced by analysing the narrative within the macronarrative of Exodus. 103 Propp (Exodus 1–18, 599) however makes an interesting observation at this point: “In the rest of the Torah, whenever the people rebel against Moses and God, we must imagine them rising in the morning, collecting their daily Manna and – incredibly! – complaining. Their wonder and gratitude grow dull by familiarity (cf. Num 11,6; 21,5).” 104 According to Ibn Ezra, the miracle of the manna was the greatest miracle of all, as most miracles are one-time events, but the manna-experience lasted 40 years. 105 In the narrative sequence of the Pentateuch, this assertion is also anachronistic. The announcement that the people will spend forty years in the wilderness (as a punishment) comes only in Num 14,32–34. Cf. J.S. BADEN, “The Original Place”, 497. 106 Cf. Jsh 5,6 where it is stated that the Israelites sojourned forty years in the wilderness so that the entire rebellious generation would perish therein. 107 T.B. DOZEMAN, Exodus, 386–387.

188

Chapter IV: The Sabbath and the Memorialisation

that he fed them fully through their desert wandering.108 And this submission is supported by the clause: ‫ ַעד־ ֹבאָ ם אֶ ל־אֶ ֶרץ נֹושָ בֶת‬. That the Israelites ate the manna till they entered Canaan is emphatically echoed in Jsh 5,12, forming a frame for the people’s wilderness journey 109: Ex 16,35

Jsh 5,12

‫ּובְ נֵי ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל אָ כְ לּו אֶ ת־הַ מָ ן אַ ְרבָ עִ ים שָ נָה ַעד־בֹ אָ ם‬ ‫אֶ ל־אֶ ֶרץ נֹושָ בֶ ת אֶ ת־הַ מָ ן אָ כְ לּו ַעד־בֹ אָ ם אֶ ל־קְ צֵ ה‬ ‫אֶ ֶרץ כְ ָנ ַען‬ Now, the Israelites ate the manna forty years until they came to an inhabited land. They ate the manna until they came to the border of the land of Canaan.

‫ַו ִי ְשבֹ ת הַ מָ ן ִממָ ח ֳָרת בְ אָ כְ לָם מֵ עֲבּור הָ אָ ֶרץ וְ ל ֹא־הָ יָה‬ ‫עֹוד לִ בְ נֵי ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל מָ ן וַי ֹאכְ לּו ִמ ְתבּואַ ת אֶ ֶרץ כְ ַנ ַען‬ ‫בַ שָ נָה הַ הִ יא‬ The manna ceased on the day after, when they ate the produce of the land, and the Israelites no longer had manna. That year, they ate of the yield of the land of Canaan.

Noteworthy here is that the eating of the fruit of the land in Jsh 5 happens within the context of the Passover. Hence, as Priotto observes, the forty-year journey unfolds from one Passover to another, and the eating of the new fruits which signals the fulfilment of the promise of the land appears inseparable from the preceding food: the manna – both being signs of YHWH’s caring presence for his people.110 Schart excavates connections here further: Just as the mention of the ‫ ֵעדֻת‬anticipates the Sinai, so the mention of the forty years anticipates Num 14, and the mention of the land anticipates Jos 5,12. With the keyword ‫אֶ ֶרץ נֹושָ בֶ ת‬ there is also a lexical reference to the murmuring of the Israelites (Ex 16,3). Israel’s wish for permanent residence will be fulfilled, but not by returning to slavery, but by entrance into the land of Canaan. This also shows another trait of the manna. It is a foretaste of the future cultivated land.111

The second part of v. 35 – ‫“( אֶ ת־הַ מָ ן אָ כְ לּו ַעד־ ֹבאָ ם אֶ ל־קְ צֵ ה אֶ ֶרץ כְ ָנ ַען‬They ate the manna until they came to the border of the land of Canaan”) – clarifies the information already given in the first part. The inhabited land becomes clarified as the land of Canaan.112 However, because of this perceived repetition, historical-critical scholars adjudge this verse as composite. Wagenaar succinctly captures such considerations: The repetition may indicate that these sentences are not the work of one and the same author. In the history of research, they were often attributed to two different sources. Wellhausen

108

Also, L.R. Kass (Founding, 235) points out that being fed for these forty years, “economic matters are set aside so that moral and spiritual ones may come to the fore.” 109 On this, see J.A. WAGENAAR, “The Cessation of Manna”, 192–209; C. BREKELMANS, “Joshua V 10–12”, 89–95. 110 M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 313; cf. also J.A. WAGENAAR, “The Cessation of Manna”, 208. 111 A. SCHART, Mose und Israel, 130; translation mine. 112 To be observed is the chiasmus in the order of the occurrence of ‫ אָ כְ לּו‬and ‫ הַ מָ ן‬in the both parts. Cf., inter alia, A. SCHART, Mose und Israel, 130; M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 312–313.

2. Epilogue

189

assigned v. 35a to P and v. 35b to JE, Noth attributed v. 35a to P and v. 35b to J.113 Though a number of scholars since Wellhausen (for e.g., B. Baentsch) proposed the opposite source division: v. 35a to J and v. 35b to P, the main tendency in recent research 114 has been to assign v. 35a to P and v. 35b to a secondary Priestly writer.115

But, as rightly observed by Houtman, this parallelism “adds a poetic touch” to this verse.116 This narrative technique is not strange in the poetics of biblical narratives, used often to draw attention to an important point to remember. Even a cursory reader cannot miss this emphasis, so superbly crafted. Another example of such is found in Ex 12,3: ‫בֶ ָעׂשֹר ַל ֹחדֶ ש הַ זֶה‬ ‫וְ ִיקְ חּו לָהֶ ם ִאיש‬ ‫ׂשֶ ה לְ בֵ ית־אָ בֹ ת‬ ‫ׂשֶ ה לַבָ ִית‬

On the tenth of this month, they shall each take for themselves, a lamb for a family; a lamb for a household.

There is certainly no need to repeat the line on the lamb here. But this repetition is a narrative technique purposely employed to underline this important point of the instruction, and also to impress it more forcefully in the mind of the reader. Such purposes apply also to Ex 16,35. Furthermore, the indication that the Israelites ate the manna until they reached Canaan “shows that the chapter in its present form was written after the Israelites had entered a settled country.”117 And the fact that certain terms employed in the narrative are not quite clear to the real audience indicates that the present story is told long after the Israelites had settled in the land. One of such terms – ‫ – עֹ מֶ ר‬is explained in the following verse. 2.2.2 Size of the Omer (v. 36) In this narrative, the instructions on the collection of the manna and its ritual preservation revolve around the omer. And, as the last note of the narrative, the volume of this omer is clarified as one-tenth of an ephah118: ‫וְ הָ עֹ מֶ ר ע ֲִׂש ִרית הָ אֵ י ָפה‬ ‫( הּוא‬v. 36).119 Obviously, employing the reference to an ephah in describing the

113

So also E. ZENGER, Die Sinaitheophanie, 137; E. OTTO, Das Mazzotfest, 96. Cf. E. RUPRECHT, “Stellung”, 278–279; P. MAIBERGER, Das Manna, 136–140. 115 J.A. WAGENAAR, “The Cessation of Manna”, 193–194. 116 C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 355. 117 U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 187. 118 For a discussion on the size of the omer, see comments on v. 16 (Chap. III, § 3.2). 119 This is first occurrence of the term ‫ אֵ י ָפה‬in the Hebrew Bible, believed to stem from the Egyptian word: ỉpt / ypt. Cf. HALOT; T.O. LAMBDIN, “Egyptian Loan Words”, 147; W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 599. 114

190

Chapter IV: The Sabbath and the Memorialisation

omer indicates that while the ephah was a current measure at the time of narration, the omer was no more known.120 However, behind this description lies a theological motive. Dohmen and Jacob observe that the description of the omer in terms of the ephah here form the basis for a theological understanding of later sacrifice-statements in the Bible.121 This becomes manifest in the instances where “one-tenth of an ephah” is mentioned (cf. Lev 5,11; 6,13; Num 5,15; 28,5), all in sacrificial contexts.122 As such, the quantity of the respective sacrificial materials is ultimately orientated towards the daily amount of food provided by YHWH per person in the wilderness. In this way, the Israelites continue to re-live this epic desert experience, in gratitude before God from age to age. Taken together then, the postscript indicates clearly that the MannaErzählung recalls the event at the wilderness of Sin after the Israelites had entered the Promised Land. It is therefore an effort to preserve the memory of this pivotal event in writing. And one can imagine that this event was told recounted orally for a long time until it was committed into writing. As expressed in Ps 44,2[Heb], “We have heard with our ears, O God, our fathers have told us, the deeds you did in their days, in the days of old” (cf. also Ps 78,3). Thus, the Manna-Erzählung recounts what “our fathers have told us.” But then, why is the memory of this event held precious, and what factors contributed to its remembrance and accentuation? When was it committed to writing? These questions we shall go ahead to answer by applying the dynamics of the social memory theory to the above exegetical findings. Before embarking on that, however, it has been observed above that the expression ‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬plays a strategic role in the cultic memorialisation of the manna. It is also noted that the narrator employs this term at strategic points in the macronarrative of Exodus. It is thus instructive, at this point, to survey the import of this term in all its occurrences throughout this book, so as to draw out more clearly the function it performs in our narrative. To this task we now turn.

120

In the Hebrew Bible, while the ‫ ֹעמֶ ר‬as a measure appears only in this narrative (6x), the ‫ אֵ י ָפה‬as a measure occurs 44x, spread through the Tanakh. 121 Cf. C. DOHMEN, Exodus 1–18, 399; B. JACOB, Exodus, 474–475. 122 Also, the measures “two-tenths” (Lev 23,13.17; Num 15,16; 28,9) and “three-tenths” (Num 15,19; 28,12.20.28; 29,3.8), presumably of an ephah, occur within sacrificial contexts.

CHAPTER V

“Throughout Your Generations” At the concluding section of the Manna-Erzählung in Ex 16, it is emphatically instructed that an omer of manna is to be preserved ‫“ לְ ֹדרֹ תֵ יכֶם‬throughout your generations.” And it is made clear that the reason for this perennial preservation is to keep alive in the memory of the subsequent generations, YHWH’s gracious provision of food for the ancestors in the wilderness, in that significant movement from slavery in Egypt to the possession of the Promised Land. Interestingly, this term ( ‫ )לְ ֹדרֹ תֵ יכֶם‬recurs 9x in Exodus. And it is observed that in all its occurrences therein, it is employed in divine speeches – in prime moments of the people’s constitutive past – to recount the institution of important practices in Israel. This chapter studies the import of the term ‫ לְ ֹד ֹרתֵ יכֶם‬in Exodus. It moves to establish that this term became used in the exilic/early post-exilic period as a formula that expresses the people’s collective memory of such institutions which highlight their status as a chosen people, charting the way forward in a period of crisis. The considerations in this chapter will be both synchronic and diachronic. It engages in an analysis of all the occurrences of this term within their contexts, and undertakes a concise historical survey of these practices in Israel. It will be shown that though these practices are rooted in pre-exilic traditions, the descriptions in Exodus correspond more to the practices of the post-exilic era, when they have been reconstructed to serve determined theological purposes. These practices are not only important in the communal life of the people, they are also distinguishing practices that mark them out as a special people among their neighbours – a holy people. Also considered here briefly, because of its central significance in the cult of Israel, is the Ark of the Testimony. It is argued in this chapter therefore, that during and immediately after the Exile, Israel had to reinforce its identity by resorting to the (selective) memory of its constitutive past to create a theology that emphasises its status as God’s specially chosen people (cf. Ex 19,6; Dt 7,6).

192

Chapter V: “Throughout Your Generations”

1. The term ‫ לְ דֹ ֹרתֵ יכֶם‬in Exodus In Exodus, the term ‫ לְ ֹדרֹ תֵ יכֶם‬occurs 9x1 in six different contexts – 12,14.17: the Passover; 16,32.33: the manna; 29,42: daily offerings/sacrifices; 30,8.10: rituals on the altar of incense; 30,31: the anointing oil; 31,13: the Sabbath. In the Hebrew Bible, the term ‫דֹור‬, used in a few cases to refer to “assembly” or “congregation” (for e.g., Ps 14,5; 73,15),2 is most commonly used to depict “generation.” In this sense, as Freedman and Lundbom remark, the term “becomes a measure of time or a period of time…. Like other ancient peoples, the early Hebrews dated long periods by lifetimes.”3 The term ‫ לְ ֹדרֹ תֵ יכֶם‬implies then a perennial continuity, a continued handing down of a practice from generation to generation. As Childs notes, it simply means “forever.”4 J.-P. Sonnet, distinguishing between the diachronic/vertical sense of generation in the Hebrew Bible (mostly represented by the term ‫תֹולְ דֹות‬: “genealogy”) and its synchronic/horizontal sense (mostly represented by the term ‫)דֹור‬, remarks that in the term ‫לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬, the two axes are combined.5 He observes further: The transmission and observance “from generation to generation” is found at the heart of the biblical faith. The handing-down is not only vertical, diachronic, from father and mother to child; it also involves the successive contemporary groups, to which its re-actualisation is entrusted. Inherited, like life, from the parents and ancestors, the revelation awaits in each generation a new actuality in its original experience of God.6

The function of this term as an institution formula is studied here within the respective contexts, and the evolvement of the involved practices is succinctly traced through Israel’s history, with particular attention on the exilic/early post-exilic period.

1 The term ‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬occurs 27x in the Hebrew Bible, all in the Pentateuch. Outside Exodus, it occurs Ix in Gen (17,12), 9x in Lev (3,17; 6,11; 10,9; 22,3; 23,14.21.31.41; 24,3), and 8x in Num (9,10; 10,8; 15,14.15.21.23; 18,23; 35,29). Quite noteworthy is that in all these occurrences, this term performs the same function as in Exodus – recounting the divine institution of an important practice in Israel. Also pertinent to note here is that the statement: ‫(“ – חֻקַ ת עֹולָם לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ י ֶכם‬it shall be for you) a perpetual statute throughout your generations” recurs in these passages. These practices/rites are remembered as having been handed down by YHWH as an ordinance to be kept in all the subsequent ages. 2 Cf. A. WEISER, Psalms, 511. 3 D.N. FREEDMAN / J. LUNDBOM, “‫”דֹור‬, TDOT, III, 174. 4 B.S. CHILDS, Exodus, 291. 5 J.-P. SONNET, “Generare, perchè?”, 145–153. 6 J.-P. SONNET, “Generare, perchè?”, 153; translation mine. It is noteworthy here that Sonnet’s observation that ‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬implies the action of the entire horizontal group points also to its social cohesion functions. Again, the “re-actualisation” of the received faith in each generation mirrors a fundamental tenet of the social memory theory – making the past meaningful and relevant at present.

1. The term ‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬in Exodus

193

1.1 The Institution of the pesaḥ-maṣṣôṯ (12,1–13,16) Ex 12,1–13,16 recounts the institution of the Passover, one of the most crucial constitutive events of Israel as a nation according to the Hebrew Bible. In this pericope, the term ‫ לְ דֹ ֹרתֵ יכֶם‬occurs twice: vv. 14.17. To study the import of this term here, it is pertinent to analyse the whole pericope (albeit succinctly) on the institution of the pesaḥ-maṣṣôṯ (12,1–13,16). The analysis, not meant to be exhaustive, focuses more on the memory function of the narrative. Because of the volume of the text, its translation is not offered here. The relevant textual issues will be discussed within the analysis. 1.1.1 Ex 12,1–13,16 – A Concise Analysis This relatively long narrative unit can be broadly subdivided as follows: YHWH’s instruction on the pesaḥ-maṣṣôṯ (vv. 1–20); relay of instruction and the people’s reaction (vv. 21–28); the tenth plague and the people’s departure (vv. 29–42); further directives on the Passover (vv. 43–51); the consecration of the firstborn and further on the feast of the Unleavened Bread (13,1–16). The pericope is discussed here under these sub-units. a. YHWH’s Instruction on the pesaḥ-maṣṣôṯ (vv. 1–20) It is fit to note here, ab initio, that the divine speech which makes up this section consists of two major parts. After the introductory note (v. 1), vv. 2–13 stipulate how the Passover meal is to be prepared and eaten, providing also the reason for such directive, while vv. 14–20 dwell on the memorialisation of the feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread for the ages to come. Hence, while the first part (vv. 2–13) focuses on the present, the second part (vv. 14–20) is orientated towards the future – “throughout your generations.” After the summative note in 11,10 that Pharaoh has refused to let the Israelites go even after Moses and Aaron had performed “all these wonders” before him, ch. 12 begins with the report that YHWH spoke to Moses and Aaron “in the land of Egypt.” This statement raises suspense in that, the reader eagerly looks forward to finding out how YHWH would bring about his threat of the smiting the Egyptian firstborns, as recounted in 11,4–8. Rather than this, instructions on the pesaḥ-maṣṣôṯ are given. However, one reads on to realise that “the Passover celebration is necessary to shield Israel from the impending plague (12,12–13.23) and that the eating of unleavened bread is the necessary bridge toward a new existence.”7 In fact, the event narrated at this juncture, important for the deliverance of the people at that moment, will go on to become a very vital “site of memory” for the exodus-event for all future ages.

7

C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 141.

194

Chapter V: “Throughout Your Generations”

In v. 1, it is remarkably stipulated that YHWH is addressing Moses and Aaron ‫בְ אֶ ֶרץ ִמצְ ַר ִים‬. As there is no doubt that the people are still in Egypt, one wonders

why this emphasis. Propp surmises that the reason is to distinguish this directive from the others given to Moses at the Sinai or elsewhere.8 This appears a bit superfluous, as it is clear that this occurs in Egypt. It appears more probable that this localisation, as observed by Houtman, “means that from the outset the regulations that follow, the first to be given by YHWH through Moses to Israel, are emphatically linked with Israel’s sojourn in and exodus out of Egypt.”9 Along the same line, Priotto finds in this localisation in Egypt, the uniqueness of the first Passover which comes before the Sinai covenant. “It is in fact the liberation from Egypt that introduces Israel into the covenant and into the gift of the divine laws.”10 The divine address begins by the declarative instruction that the present month is to be for the Israelites the first month of the year. To underline its importance, the instruction is repeated in two parallel nominal clauses, in a quasi-poetic form (v. 2): v. 2a

v. 2b

‫הַ ֹחדֶ ש הַ זֶה ָלכֶם ר ֹאש חֳדָ ִשים‬ This month shall be the beginning of months for you

‫ִראשֹון הּוא ָלכֶם לְ חָ ְדשֵ י הַ שָ נָה‬ It shall be the first of the months of the year for you

“For the first time in Exodus,” Hamilton rightly observes, “God speaks to his people about the importance of certain days and certain months.”11 This statement has however elicited varied discussions among scholars. Cassuto, for instance, posits that because the statement contains only nominal clauses, it “is not a positive precept to commence the year with the month of Nisan,” but rather an assertion of an existing fact.12 This view, though grammatically possible, has been countered by other scholars who note that the repetition of the terms ‫ חֹ דֶ ש‬and ‫ ראש‬serves most probably to underscore the fact “that the divine decree is an innovation, a change in how the Israelites reckon time.”13 Houtman expounds further: 8

Cf. W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 355; so also RAMBAN; RASHBAM. C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 166. 10 M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 215; translation mine. Cassuto’s view (Exodus, 136) that the locus is specified “in order to make it clear that the directives given at first (vv. 2–13) were only of a temporary character, valid only in Egypt, at that particular time, and not for later generations” is not quite convincing. 11 V.P. HAMILTON, Exodus, 179. 12 U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 137. This view appears supported by Childs’ comment that though there is evidence to suggest a historical change from an earlier practice, “the stipulation is given as a straightforward description of policy without emphasis on the element of innovation.” B.S. CHILDS, Exodus, 197. 13 T.B. DOZEMAN, Exodus, 262; see also M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 215–216. 9

1. The term ‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬in Exodus

195

It is evidently presumed that prior to that, another month formed the beginning of the year (cf. 23,16; 34,22). YHWH’s deliverance of Israel is such an impressive event, a turnaround, that it is to be the start of a new time reckoning. The turn in Israel’s fortune is given concrete shape in the change of the year.14

This submission elicits further discussion on how Israel reckoned time through its history. Though the range of this discussion is beyond the scope this work, it is fit to point out here that it is the opinion of many historians that in the ANE, there operated two calendars: autumnal calendar (in which the year begins in autumn) and spring calendar (in which the year begins in the Spring).15 And many biblical scholars infer from this that the Israelites, influenced by the Mesopotamian system, changed from the earlier observed autumn calendar to the spring calendar, probably between 8th–6th centuries BCE.16 This pericope therefore “provides a cultic justification for this by placing Passover and Mazzoth in what is now the first month of the year.”17 Also noteworthy here is Mckay’s submission that before the exilic period, there was no fixed date for the Passover festival, celebrated in the “spring month.” According to him, the eve of the 14th day of Nisan was adopted in correspondence to the eve of the spring equinox in the Babylonian calendar.18 As such, Israel gives a new interpretation to an already existent reality, tracing its origin to a unique experience of its constituent past. But over and above these historical considerations, it is obvious that the narrator has a theological purpose here. As Durham remarks, the primacy of the Passover month over other months does not derive primarily from its being “the first month of the year in a calendar, either a ‘civil’ calendar or a ‘religious’ calendar, but because it is the month during which the Israelites remembered and so actualised their redemption.”19 It marks the beginning of Israel as a free people, freed by YHWH. “Therefore, the month of the Passover is the first month,” Priotto corroborates, “not necessarily because it is the first in the list, but because it is the month that signals the birth of Israel as the people of YHWH, redeemed by him and called by him to the covenant.”20 He expounds further:

14

C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 167. See R. de VAUX, Ancient Israel, 178–179; 190–191; N. SARNA, Exploring Exodus, 84– 85; M.E. COHEN, The Cultic Calendars, 6–7; 14–20. 16 Cf., inter alia, M. Noth (Exodus, 94–95) who holds that this happened before the Exile (8th–7th century BC); and J.C. Rylaarsdam, (“Passover”, 666) who opines that it took place during the Exile. For more discussions here, see W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 384–388; T.B. DOZEMAN, Exodus, 263–265. 17 M. NOTH, Exodus, 95. 18 J.C. MCKAY, “The Date of Passover”, 438–446. 19 J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 153. Note the social memory implications of this remark. 20 M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 216; translation mine. 15

196

Chapter V: “Throughout Your Generations”

Thus the Paschal event founds the beginning of time for Israel. This is no more conceived as a cyclic time tied to the alternation of seasons, but as time that has a sense and a direction: a salvific time to be welcomed and to be lived consciously and actively (cf. the double “for you”) by virtue of the founding event of the Paschal liberation.21

The memory function of the stipulation in v. 2 is thus deducible. As Childs aptly notes, Israel’s new beginning of life is perpetuated in memory by marking it as the beginning of the New Year.22 And this perpetuation in memory is given very deep theological undertones. The Jahwerede continues with a clear stipulation of the Reihenfolge of the Passover feast for the people: ‫“( דַ בְ רּו אֶ ל־כָל־עֲדַ ת ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל לֵא ֹמר‬Speak to the whole congregation of the Israelites saying”; v. 3a).23 To be noted is that the Israelites are addressed as ‫ ֵעדָ ה‬for the first time here.24 The term which connotes “a group of individuals united by a common bond” is specifically used in Exodus “as designation for the people of Israel as a juridical and cultic community held together by a common bond with YHWH.”25 Though this bond becomes ratified only at the Sinai, the events of the Passover night constitute a major step to it. Hence, the use of this term here depicts Israel’s belongingness to YHWH as a people, the basis of his mighty acts in this all-important night. And as a community, the people are required to cooperate to the divine acts by observing the certain directives. Such requirements will become an essential component of the YHWH-Israel relationship. The instruction unfolds in vv. 3b–11 in very clear terms. Regulations are given on the choice of the lamb, the number of the people and manner of gathering (family), the date/time of slaughter, the smearing of the doorposts with blood, the manner of preparing and eating the lamb, and the management of the leftover portion. This section of the divine instruction concludes with the statement: ‫“( ֶפסַ ח הּוא לַיהוָה‬It is a Passover to YHWH”) – a nominal clause that introduces the term ‫ ֶפסַ ח‬in the Hebrew Bible.26 As Dillmann explains, this declaration implies that it is a Passover ordained by YHWH, holy to him, and to be kept for him (as in the similar cases found in v. 27; 20,10; 32,5).27

21

M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 216; translation mine. B.S. CHILDS, Exodus, 197. 23 Note the use of ‫ כָל־עֲדַ ת ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬to stress the point that the following instructions are meant for all the Israelites; and also the use of the term ‫ לֵאמֹ ר‬to highlight the instructions as verba ipsissima of YHWH, thus to be strictly observed. 24 On the term ‫ ֵעדָ ה‬, see comments on 16,1 in Chap. III, § 1. 25 C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 167; see also M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 216, n. 45; H. UTZSCHNEIDER / W. OSWALD, Exodus 1–15, 239–240. 26 To be recalled here is the similar use of a nominal clause – ‫– שַ בָ תֹון שַ בַ ת־ ֹקדֶ ש לַיהוָה מָ חָ ר‬ to introduce the Sabbath in 16,23. These nominal clauses, appearing at prime moments in history, seem to have become fixed formulas at the time of the composition of Exodus. 27 Cf. A. DILLMANN, Die Bücher Exodus, 118. 22

1. The term ‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬in Exodus

197

The term ‫ ֶפסַ ח‬is used in the Bible to imply both the Paschal ritual (cf. 12,27.48; 34,25) and the sacrificial animal (cf. 12,21). Its etymological origin has been a subject of scholarly discussion, the purview of which is beyond the scope of this work.28 In the pericope, however, the term is related to YHWH’s passing over (‫ )ּו ָפסַ חְ ִתי‬the houses where the Israelites are staying, identified by the blood smeared on the doorposts, as he passes through the land of Egypt striking down every firstborn – human and animal (vv. 12–13; cf. vv. 23.27).29 For the Israelites therefore, the origin of the Passover lies in this mighty act of YHWH through which they became a free people.30 And this is commemorated annually at the Passover feast. From vv. 14–20, the focus of the instruction shifts from the present to the future, to the memorialisation of the exodus-event in the celebration of the pesaḥ-maṣṣôṯ in all the coming ages. In v. 14, as regards the statement – ‫וְ הָ יָה הַ יֹום‬ ‫“( הַ זֶה ָלכֶם לְ ִזכָרֹון‬This day shall be for you [a day] of remembrance”), the question has been raised among scholars whether the expression ‫ הַ יֹום הַ זֶה‬is in reference to the pesaḥ or the maṣṣôṯ. Some scholars posit that there is nothing in vv. 1–13 to which “this day” can refer to, and that the term ‫ חַ ג‬is hardly used to qualify the Pesach.31 It is thus a reference to the Mazzotfest. But other scholars, acknowledging this difficulty, explain that the day to be remembered begins from the previous evening in which the Passover lamb is immolated and eaten (cf. v. 6). In Childs’ words, “‘This day’ of v. 14 is 15 Nisan, the day of exodus, but it includes the night of Passover.”32 Hence, as this day is also the first day of the Mazzotfest, v. 14 both concludes the first part of the speech on Passover preparations and introduces the second part on the memorial of the pesaḥmaṣṣôṯ.33 Along the same line, v. 18 brings these two feasts together in its directive that the unleavened bread is to be eaten from the evening of the fourteenth day to the evening of the twenty-first day.34 Eating the unleavened bread 28 For a discussion on the etymology/meaning of the term ‫ ֶפסַ ח‬, see P. LAAF, Die PaschaFeier Israels, 135–147; G. GERLEMAN, “Was heisst ‫”? ֶפסַ ח‬, 409–413; O. KEEL, “Erwägungen”, 414–434; H.-J. KRAUS, Worship in Israel, 45–47; W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 398–401; M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 219–220. 29 Note the emphatic assertion in v. 12b: “On all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments; I am YHWH.” By the act of smiting the firstborns, YHWH displays his dominion not only on the human king Pharaoh, but also on the divinities of Egypt. YHWH is the God of gods. Cf. D. DAUBE, The Exodus Pattern, 36–37. 30 A brief summary of the study on the history of the Israelite Passover is taken below. 31 So A. DILLMANN, Die Bücher Exodus, 122; B. BAENTSCH, Exodus – Leviticus, 97; S.R. DRIVER, Exodus, 93. 32 B.S. CHILDS, Exodus, 197; so also W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 402; C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, I, 185–186; M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 221. 33 Cf. R. de VAUX, Ancient Israel, 181–182; S. BAR-ON, “Zur literarkritischen”, 25–26; J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 157–158. 34 The link between the pesaḥ and the maṣṣôṯ is already found in v. 8 where YHWH directs that the Passover lamb is to be eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. The seven-day

198

Chapter V: “Throughout Your Generations”

thus forms part of the pesaḥ, and the Passover feast forms the introduction of the Mazzotfest. In effect, v. 14 stipulates that the Passover described in vv. 2–13, with the Exodus it occasioned, is to be memorialised in an annual festival “throughout your generations.” This annual celebration stands as a perpetual ordinance: ‫חֻקַ ת‬ ‫עֹולָם‬. Then, in vv. 15–16, attention is shifted squarely to the Mazzotfest, beginning with the stipulation: ‫“( ִשבְ ַעת י ִָמים מַ ּצֹות ת ֹאכֵלּו‬Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread”), with ostracism stipulated as punishment for any offender.35 A solemn gathering and a solemn rest are prescribed for the first and the seventh days. And v. 17 provides, in unambiguous terms, the reason for this memorial: “for on this very36 day I brought your troops out of the land of Egypt.” The event of this day is so important that it has to be commemorated for seven days! This verse concludes with the injunction to observe this day as a perpetual ordinance throughout your generations. Quite observable here is that the expression ‫ לְ ֹדרֹ תֵ יכֶם חֻקַ ת עֹולָם‬frames the instructions in vv. 14–17 which institute the festival of the pesaḥ-maṣṣôṯ, highlighting by this repetition the profound significance of this commemorative festival for the Israelites of all ages. Going further, the following verses (vv. 18–20) reiterate the instructions for the Mazzotfest.37 As hinted above, the time-arc in v. 18 shows that the feasts of the Passover and the Unleavened Bread are brought together into one festival that commemorates one reality: YHWH’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt. b. Relay of Instruction and the People’s Compliance (vv. 21–28) From v. 21, Moses begins to relay the instructions on the Passover “to all the elders of Israel” (‫)לְ ָכל־זִקְ נֵי ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬. These elders function here as representatives of the people (cp. ‫ כָל־נְ ִׂשיאֵ י הָ ֵעדָ ה‬in 16,22), but also the guarantors of the transmission of the Passover praxis and catechesis.38 Just like the preceding divine address, this Moserede evolves in two steps: instructions for the present (vv. 21–23), and directives for future commemoration (vv. 24–27). Obviously, therefore, the memorialisation of the Exodus event constitutes a major motif here. maṣṣôṯ festival commemorates the outcome of this meal – the deliverance of Israel from Egypt (cf. v. 17). 35 The meaning of the expression that the offender is to be cut off from Israel, which occurs in four instances of violations in Exodus: 12,15.19; 30,33; 30,38; 31,14 (and 19 instances in the Pentateuch), is subject to various interpretations. It could also to imply childlessness, or premature death, or extirpation of descendants. Cf. J. MILGROM, Leviticus 1–16, 457–460; W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 403–404; V.P. HAMILTON, Exodus, 516. 36 Note the description ‫“ – בְ ֶעצֶ ם הַ יֹום הַ זֶה‬this very day.” This event is so important that its commemoration has to begin on the very day it happened (cf. v. 2). And the seven-day celebration points to its profound significance in the people’s collective memory. 37 Note the parallel repetition of the injunction not to eat leaven in v. 20 – Emphasis! 38 Cf. M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 101; 225–226.

1. The term ‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬in Exodus

199

Moses instructs the elders to go, select the lambs for the families and “slaughter the Passover lamb” (‫ ;וְ שַ חֲטּו הַ ָפסַ ח‬v. 21). It is frequently observed by scholars that the use of the definite article in ‫ הַ ָפסַ ח‬here seems to indicate that this ritual is already known to the people, whereas it is presented in the narrative as being handed down for the first time.39 It is to be noted, however, that this Moserede does not delve into the details of YHWH’s instructions in vv. 1– 13, but highlights its major points. It is deducible here that, for the narrator, “there was no need to repeat all the details, since the reader is already familiar with the whole subject.”40 Also in this speech, one finds directives not actually contained in YHWH’s address, though deriving from them. In this, the narrator depicts Moses’ “implied freedom in his interpretation of the commands.”41 The simple instruction in v. 7 that the people should put some of the blood of the Paschal lamb on the doorpost is expanded with the details of its procedure (a mark of emphasis!). The people are to “take a bunch of hyssop and dip it in the blood which is in the basin, and apply some of the blood that is in the basin to the lintel and the two doorposts” (v. 22a). And the directive in v. 22b that the people are not to go out of the door the whole night is not contained in the Jahwerede of vv. 2–13. The reason for this blood-smearing is clearly pointed out in v. 23, in correspondence to vv. 12–13 (and 11,4–5). Functionally apotropaic, it will be a sign of salvation for the Israelites as “the destroyer”42 goes round to smite all the firstborns of Egypt. To be noted here is that being an Israelite does not automatically qualify one to be saved. One has to be obedient to the command of YHWH to enjoy his gift of salvation. From v. 24, the focus of the instructions shifts to the future. Moses stipulates to the elders that this event ( ‫ )הַ דָ בָ ר הַ זֶה‬is to be celebrated “as a perpetual ordinance for you and your children” (‫) לְ חָ ק־לְ ָך ּולְ בָ נֶיָך ַעד־עֹולָם‬.43 The Israelites are to keep this observance ( ‫ )הָ עֲבֹ דָ ה הַ ז ֹאת‬in “the land which YHWH will give you” (v. 25). By this, therefore, they will continually recognise the gift of the land as the “end point” of the process of salvation initiated at the first Passover. Again, the use of the term ‫ עֲבֹ דָ ה‬here (and in v. 26) – a term used to describe the people’s servitude under Pharaoh (cf. 1,14) – indicates that by the events occasioned by 39

Cf., inter alia, S.R. DRIVER, Exodus, 96; C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 192. U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 143. Again, analysed critically, it is deducible that the speech in vv. 21–27 appears given on the day of the slaughter of the lamb. As such, the reader fills the gap that Moses has earlier communicated YHWH’s instructions in details to them, and now highlights the important points in this recapitulation. Hence, the use of the definite article in the directive: “Go… slaughter the Passover lamb” (v. 21). 41 B.S. CHILDS, Exodus, 199. 42 In 12,12, YHWH states that he will go around to strike down the Egyptian firstborns. Here, the smiting is to be carried out by “the destroyer” (‫)הַ מַ ְשחִ ית‬. Rather than stressing the diversity of sources here, this has to be understood as the angel of YHWH at his service. It is thus YHWH that destroys and saves. Cf. M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 226–227. 43 This statement is akin to the directive that ritual is to be observed ‫לְ ֹד ֹרתֵ יכֶם‬. 40

200

Chapter V: “Throughout Your Generations”

this ritual, Israel is to pass from the bitter servitude of Pharaoh to the rewarding service of YHWH .44 “This clever rhetorical touch,” Durham adds, “makes graphic the difference between what is done in slavery by force and what is done in freedom by commitment.”45 In vv. 26–27a, Moses underlines the fact that this ritual is not to be just an external affair. “The meaning of the feast, the reason for celebrating it, must be kept in mind.”46 Performing the Passover rituals will prompt children to ask questions on its meaning, and the elders will explain clearly that it is a memorial of the divine act of salvation that delivered the people from Egypt. Indeed, this question-and-answer catechesis forms part of the Passover Seder till date, a technique of both commemoration and Überlieferung (cf. 13,14–15; Dt 6,20– 25, Jsh 4,6–7.21–22).47 As Durham aptly explains, “it amounts to an attempt to make the past present, to teach through a repetition that aims to create experience rather than simply transmit information.”48 Furthermore, in this context, Sonnet finds a close connection between engendering and narrating. According to him, such questions as this compel parents to recount to the children what has kept them alive, and has given soul to their days. As such, they are not parents only according to the flesh, but also according to the word.49 That this Moserede culminates in highlighting the continued ritual commemoration of the Exodus indicates focus on memorialisation. As Moses concludes his speech, the people bow down and worship (v. 27b; cf. 4,31). To be presupposed here is that the elders passed the information to the people,50 and they bow down to worship in thanksgiving and adoration to YHWH for the coming salvation, and in obedience to his command. The people’s obedience is doubly reiterated in v. 28. And it is also indicated that the obedience of the Israelites is not just to Moses and Aaron but ultimately to God. In fact, the obedience expressed here is in reference to all the instructions handed down from the beginning of the chapter. As such, in celebrating the pesaḥ-maṣṣôṯ, the Israelites of every generation re-live too this obedience of our fathers, and align themselves to the chosenness it entails.

44

Cf. E. FOX, Now these are the Names, 67; M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 101. J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 163. 46 C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 167. 47 Because this question-and-answer method of teaching is frequently found in Dtr and DtrH, some scholars deem such occurrences in Exodus as Dtr interpolations (cf., for e.g., S.R. DRIVER, Exodus, 98). But, as Lohfink points out, it more probably belongs to a style of teaching inherited and applied by the Deuteronomists, and found also in wisdom literature. Cf. N. LOHFINK, Das Hauptgebot, 116–119; see also J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 163. 48 J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 163. Noth hence terms this practice Vergegenwärtigung, in the sense of “actualisation/making present.” Cf. M. NOTH, “Die Vergegenwärtigung”, 9–10. 49 J.-P. SONNET, Generare è narrare, 37–68. 50 Cf. inter alia, M. NOTH, Exodus, 96; M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 228. 45

1. The term ‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬in Exodus

201

c. The Tenth Plague and the People’s Departure (vv. 29–42) Ex 12,1–28 presents an interlude to the flow of the story from Ex 11, an interlude with a clear purpose – the deep import of the following act of deliverance is to be ritually commemorated ‫לְ ֹד ֹרתֵ יכֶם‬. With the grounds now fully cleared, the definitive act of deliverance (already outlined in 11,4–8) is pointedly recounted: At midnight, YHWH strikes all the firstborns in Israel, from that of Pharaoh to that of the prisoner and livestock (v. 29; cf. 11,5). The effect is so great and widespread that Pharaoh has to “rise in the night” 51 to send for Moses and Aaron to grant the request of letting the people go (vv. 30–31). He even asks for a blessing from the Israelites! (v. 32).52 We find here a reversal of the first encounter of Moses and Aaron with Pharaoh (5,1–2). As they brought to him YHWH’s request that he should let the people go, he bluntly retorted: “Who is the YHWH that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I do not know YHWH, nor will I let Israel go” (see also Pharaoh’s arrogance in 10,28). Now, he does not only let the people go with all their possessions (contrast 10,24), he also requests a blessing – a recognition of YHWH’s superior power. In vv. 33–42, the departure of the people from Egypt is described. Not only Pharaoh but the Egyptians too urge the people to leave, for fear they would all die. The people actually leave in a haste, but not without despoiling the Egyptians, an act which “adds the final evidence of the utter defeat of the Egyptians. The Israelites do not slink out of the country, but go as a victorious army who has plundered their oppressors.”53 It is then stated that the Israelites “journeyed from Rameses to Succoth” (v. 37), a statement which portrays the immediate result of the final plague – the beginning of freedom for Israel.54 It is a journey that will culminate in their entering the Promised Land (Jsh 4). The number that departed is estimated to about 600,000 men, besides children.55 That Israel has this multitude, in spite of Pharaoh’s evil plan against them in Ex 1,8–16, 51

Note the threefold occurrence of the term ‫ ַל ְילָה‬in vv. 29–31, “stressing the terror of that wonder-frought moment.” U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 145. 52 A string of 7 imperatives are contained in Pharaoh’s address to Moses/Aaron in vv. 31–32: ‫קּומּו‬, ‫ּצְ אּו‬, ‫לְ כּו‬, ‫עִ בְ דּו‬, ‫קחּו‬, ‫לֵכּו‬, ‫( ּובֵ ַרכְ תֶ ם‬imperative in meaning), which “marvelously depicts a Pharaoh whose reserve of pride is gone, who must do everything necessary to have done with Moses and Israel and the Yahweh who wants them for his own.” J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 167; Cf. M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 230. 53 B.S. CHILDS, Exodus, 201. On the Israelites’ despoiling of the Egyptians, see further: G.W. COATS, “Despoiling the Egyptians”, 450–457; J. MORGENSTERN, “The Despoiling of the Egyptians”, 1–28. 54 Archaeologists have tried to identify the exact locations of Rameses and Succoth in Egypt, but there is no certainty thereof (on this, see S. HERMANN, Israel in Egypt, 23–28). Again, the town Succoth is often linked to the Israelite festival of booths (‫)חַ ג הַ ֻס ֹכת‬. Though probable, this is only a speculation. Cf., inter alia, M. HARRIS, Exodus and Exile, 65; W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 413. 55 In Ex 38,26 and Num 3,39, an exact number is given: 625,550. See also Num 11,21.

202

Chapter V: “Throughout Your Generations”

confirms the statement that “the more they are oppressed, the more they multiply and spread” (1,12). To be noted also is that a mixed multitude (‫ ) ֵע ֶרב ַרב‬also went with the Israelites (v. 38), a term which denotes “those people who do not belong to the autochthonous population of a country (Jer 25,20; 50,37; Ezk 30,5); here: non-Israelites (cf. Neh 13,3).”56 It appears then that some of the Egyptians (or other slaves) came to recognise also the superior power of YHWH and followed the Israelites unto freedom. This section concludes with the remark that Israel lived exactly 430 years in Egypt, and left from there exactly on the day that this period elapsed (vv. 40 – 41). And v. 42 specifies the perennial consequence of this: “That was for YHWH a night of vigil, to bring them out of the land of Egypt. That same night is a vigil to be kept for YHWH by all the Israelites throughout their generations (‫)לְ דֹ רֹ תָ ם‬.”57 This implies, as Durham comments, What Yahweh did in Egypt he did for all Israel, in every generation. That each generation might know that, the confession of what he did is here extended by the requirement of what they are to do, once yearly, on a night that is different from all other nights.58

Hence, this section culminates again in the note of commemoration. And this goes ahead to demonstrate that depicting the pesaḥ-maṣṣôṯ as a perennial memorial of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt plays a key role in the composition of this narrative. This deliverance, it has to be underlined, constitutes a very essential mark of the people’s chosenness (cf. 19,4). d. Further Directives on the Passover (vv. 43–51) The narrative appears concluded with the statement in v. 42 (see above). But it resumes again with further directives on the Passover, especially as regards its participants. For this reason, some scholars adjudge 12,43–13,16 an addendum to the narrative.59 Analysing the narrative sequence, however, it appears that these directives are collocated here with regard to the future celebrations, triggered by the mention of the mixed multitude in v. 38.60 Excluded from the Passover meal are foreigners (v. 43), that is, those “who are not interested in integration into the Israelite community,”61 while slaves and aliens may partake of it, provided they are circumcised (vv. 44.48). The circumcision serves thus as a manifestation of their aligning themselves with the covenant community. For the Israelites, however, the Passover is a mandatory celebration (v. 47). 56

C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 202. Noteworthy here is that it is YHWH who first kept the vigil for Israel. In eternal memorial and gratitude, Israel is to keep the Passover vigil for YHWH ‫לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬. 58 J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 167; emphases original. 59 See, for e.g., U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 149. 60 So A. DILLMANN, Die Bücher Exodus, 136; B.S. CHILDS, Exodus, 202; J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 173. 61 C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 205. 57

1. The term ‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬in Exodus

203

The statement in v. 50 that the Israelites did just as YHWH commanded Moses and Aaron has understandably generated considerable interest. Following the narrative sequence, the directives in vv. 43–49 are taken to be meant for the future Passover observances. Again, the first Passover is already celebrated (v. 28). For some scholars, the solution lies in admitting that the statement has been moved from its original place.62 But more fundamental is uncovering the narrator’s intention here. Houtman observes that the narrator, addressing later generations, underlines the obedience of the fathers: Evidently with 12,28.50, the writer wants to present the fathers to them as an example: the fathers in Egypt strictly followed the religious duties, and in doing so were blessed. It is of utmost importance to the writer that the celebration of the exodus will be continued.63

As such, the conclusive statement in vv. 50–51 serves a memory function. The Israelites are to remember the absolute obedience of their fathers to the Passover injunctions, and are challenged to follow this example. Again, the statement in v. 51 that ‫בְ ֶעצֶ ם הַ יֹום הַ זֶה‬, YHWH brought the Israelites out of Egypt, reiterates the intrinsic nexus between the Passover and the Exodus. e. The Consecration of the Firstborn and Further on the Mazzotfest (13,1–16) Once again, a divine address to Moses is announced (13,1; cf. 12,1.43), and presented in v. 2. YHWH instructs him that every firstborn ( ‫)כָל־בְ כֹור‬64 among the Israelites, the first issue of every womb – human and animal, is to be consecrated to him. To be noted immediately is that the expression ‫ כָל־בְ כֹור‬links this Jahwerede to the divine threat to smite ‫ כָל־בְ כֹור‬of humans and animals in Egypt in 11,5 and 12,12, and the execution of that threat in 12,39. In the flow of this narrative, therefore, the injunction to consecrate ‫ כָל־בְ כֹור‬in Israel is rooted in the Passover-Exodus event. The collocation of this divine directive here has attracted scholarly discussion. B.S. Childs, for e.g., opines that 13,1–2 serves as a superscription for vv. 3–16.65 But this has been refuted by other scholars who observe that “vv. 1–2 refer not at all to the concern of the first eight of the fourteen verses that follow.”66 Analysing the entire narrative unit, one could infer the general scheme

62

So A. DILLMANN, Die Bücher, 137–138; S.R. DRIVER, Exodus, 105. C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 150. To be noted is the reinforcement of v. 28 in v. 50. In v. 28, the ‫ בְ נֵי ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬did just as YHWH commanded Moses/Aaron. In v. 50, this is carried out by ‫כָל־בְ נֵי ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬. The reinforced repetition presents a model for all the Israelites of the future to celebrate the Passover ‫ ַכ ֲאשֶ ר צִ ּוָה ְיהוָה אֶ ת־מֹ שֶ ה וְ אַ ֲה ֹרן‬. 64 It is understood that what is meant here are firstborn males (cf. 13,12–13). Propp also clarifies: “Usually, bəkôr connotes a man’s eldest son, his principal heir (e.g., Dt 21,15).” W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 421. 65 B.S. CHILDS, Exodus, 202–204. 66 J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 177. 63

204

Chapter V: “Throughout Your Generations”

of the narrator as regards divine ordinances on the pesaḥ-maṣṣôṯ and the ‫בְ כֹור‬, and the relay of such to the people: pesaḥ maṣṣôṯ bəkôr

Divine Instruction

Relay to Israel

12, 1–14 12,15–20 13,1–2

12,21–27; 43–49 13,3–10 13,11–16

As such, the narrator specifically grounds these three observances linked to the Exodus in divine injunctions, which were transmitted to Israel by Moses at this prime moment. To achieve this, the sequence of the narrative appears difficult. “The reason for the strange order,” Durham corroborates, “is the redactor’s desire to bring together a variety of ritual devices rooted in a common purpose: the actualisation of the exodus-deliverance.”67 From v. 3, Moses begins to divulge YHWH’s directives to the people (not through the elders as in v. 21). The address is, surprisingly, not centred on the consecration of the firstborns but on the Mazzotfest. In the narrative plot, however, it represents the conveyance of the divine directives in 12,15–20 to Israel (see table above). Moses had earlier relayed the instruction on the Passover to them, as it was imminent. It is now time to describe other feasts. The instructions on the maṣṣôṯ begin with the imperative “Remember,”68 a Leitmotiv in the entire narrative unit.69 As Priotto aptly explains, this verb has strong theological connotations. It indicates not only the historical remembrance of salvific events but the participation of the believers in them, such that, though spatio-temporally distant from the original events, they still participate fully in their salvific effects.70 The evolvement of v. 3 is quite instructive. It begins with the directive to remember “this day (‫)הַ יֹום הַ זֶה‬71 on which you came out of Egypt.” As such, the link between memorial, time (day), and the Exodus is programmatic here. Further, Egypt is described as ‫בֵ ית עֲבָ ִדים‬, linking to the description of the observance of the Passover as ‫( ֲע ֹבדָ ה‬12,25). On this day, therefore, YHWH delivers Israel from ‫ בֵ ית עֲבָ דִ ים‬to his own ‫ ֲע ֹבדָ ה‬. The verse goes on to state pointedly the reason for this memorial: “because YHWH brought you out from there with a mighty hand.” To commemorate this divine act, the people are not to eat anything leavened.

67

J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 177. The infinitive absolute ‫ זָכֹור‬performs an imperative function here (see Ex 20,8). Cf. GK § 113 bb; KöSyn § 217a; J.D.W. WATTS, “Infinitive Absolute”, 141–145. 69 Though the verb ‫“ זכר‬to remember” occurs only here in the pericope, remembrance is a major motif that runs through this narrative unit (cf. the substantive ‫ – ִזכָרֹ ן‬12,14; 13,9). 70 Cf. M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 240; see also B.S. CHILDS, Memory and Tradition, 74–85. 71 The expression ‫ הַ יֹום הַ זֶה‬occurs 6x in this narrative: 12,14.17(2x).41.51; 13,3, denoting an emphasis on “this day” – the day of Exodus – to be remembered. 68

1. The term ‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬in Exodus

205

The emphasis on this day is strengthened in v. 4 by the assertion ‫הַ יֹום אַ תֶ ם‬ ‫“( יֹ צְ ִאים בְ חֹ דֶ ש הָ אָ בִ יב‬Today72 you are going out, in the month of Abib”). The participle ‫ אַ תֶ ם יֹ צְ ִאים‬raises concerns on the sequence of this narrative, as Israel has already departed from Egypt. However, the use of this iterative conceivably depicts the continual participation of the Israelites of later ages (in the Promised Land; cf. v. 5) in the same experience of the ancestors of who actually went out of Egypt. This participation happens in the liturgical setting, through the celebration of the pesaḥ-maṣṣôṯ (vv. 6–7; cf. 12,14–16). Further, with the mention of the month of Abib, a definite name is given to “the first month of the year” (v. 2; cf. 23,15; 34,18). In v. 8, Moses hints again on the catechetical system of handing down this tradition (cf. 12,26–27). In the recurrent annual celebration, children are to be told of “what YHWH did for me when I came out of Egypt.”73 Thus, the handing down of this tradition in every generation is ensured. This ritual shall then serve “as a sign (‫ )אֹות‬for you on your hand and as a memorial ( ‫ ) ִזכָרֹון‬on your forehead (lit: between your eyes; v. 9).” In this way, Israel is constantly reminded of the duty it owes to God in gratitude for this deliverance.74 On the much-discussed use of the terms ‫ אֹות‬and ‫ ִזכָרֹון‬here, Propp aptly remarks: “Whether the language is literal or metaphorical, 13,9 stipulates that the law of Unleavened Bread should be a constant part of one’s identity and consciousness, like a signet or a circlet. It is a Covenant sign for the individual and his children.”75 This Moserede concludes with the relay of the directives on consecrating the firstborns (vv. 11–16). In vv. 11–13, Moses explicates the divine directive on the ‫ בְ כֹור‬in v. 2, to be strictly observed “when YHWH brings you into the land of the Canaanites” (v. 11). This ritual of memorial is thus to be observed in the land, the gift of which is the culmination of the process of deliverance initiated from the Exodus in Egypt, which in turn was brought about by YHWH’s striking of the Egyptian firstborns. And so, in perpetual acknowledgement of the deliverance occasioned by YHWH’s striking of the firstborn of both humans and animals (12,12.29), the people are to consecrate the ‫ בְ כֹור‬of both humans and animals. The verb ‫“ עבר‬hiph: make (sth) pass over/send over,” used in v. 12, “indicates transfer of ownership from the profane to the sacred in this context.”76 However, while the firstborn of humans is to be redeemed (on the price, see Num 3,46–48), that of donkeys is either redeemed or its neck is broken (v. 13). 72 The SamP presents the term ‫ הַ יֹום‬as the last word of v. 3: “nothing leavened shall be eaten today.” However, this appears to be in a bid to avoid the difficulty of situating v. 4 in the narrative sequence of the pericope. It is already stated that the Israelites have left Egypt (12,41). But v. 4 seems to state that they are in the process of leaving (participle). 73 Note the personalisation of the act of deliverance in this statement. The father inducts the child into the great event of the Exodus as a participant in this epic experience. 74 Cf. S.R. DRIVER, Exodus, 107. 75 W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 424. 76 T.B. DOZEMAN, Exodus, 298.

206

Chapter V: “Throughout Your Generations”

Again, Israel’s consecration of the firstborn also implies celebrating the nation as YHWH’s firstborn (cf. Jer 31,9) – YHWH struck down the firstborn of the Egyptians so as to bring up his firstborn (Israel) from slavery to freedom, in fulfilment of his words to Moses in Ex 4,22–23: “Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says YHWH: Israel is my firstborn son. I said to you, ‘Let my son go that he may worship me’. But you refused to let him go; now I will kill your firstborn son’.” Once more, the speech turns attention to the catechetical style of inter-generational teaching.77 When the child asks why the firstborn is set aside, the reason is to be thoroughly explained: With a mighty hand YHWH brought us out of Egypt, from the house of slavery. When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, YHWH killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of humans to the firstborn of animals. Therefore, I sacrifice to YHWH every first male that opens the womb, but every firstborn of my sons I redeem (vv. 14b–15).

It is thus stressed that the memory of YHWH’s mighty act in the Exodus is to be kept alive by this ritual! Just like the maṣṣôṯ, this observance will recurrently serve as a sign ( ‫ )אֹות‬of the crucial deliverance from Egypt (cf. v. 9). On the import of the continual, on-the-spot clarification of these rituals through the ages, Houtman elucidates: The people and following generations are to be instructed in the meaning of the customs rooted in the exodus. Observance of the customs is to permanently focus every Israelite’s mind (13,3.9ff.16) on the deliverance wrought by YHWH (13,3.9.14.16; cf. 13,8; 12,17.27a.42), in order that they acknowledge YHWH and remain faithful to him. In the future, the past is to remain constitutive for the relationship to YHWH. The intended goal is that the later Israel feel itself one with the Israel of the exodus and will re-live it as an event they were personally involved in (cf. Dt. 5,2ff.23ff.; 9,1; 26,17; 27,9ff.; 29,10ff.; 30,15; Jsh 24,5; Ps 95,7b–9a et al.).78

At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the directives in 13,2.11–16 have raised scholarly questions about the connection between the practice of consecrating firstborns to YHWH and the child sacrifice in pre-exilic Israel. For some scholars, the sacrifice of human firstborns was likely practiced in the history of Israel. For these scholars, certain biblical passages as Gen 22; Jdg 11,34–40; 2Kgs 16,3; 21,6; 23,10 are indicators of such in Israelite history.79 In Dozeman’s view, the condemnation of child sacrifice in late prophetic literature (cf. Ezk 16,20–21; Jer 7,31; 19,5; 32,35) suggests that this practice had a role in the Israelite cult; and the story of Abraham’s binding of Isaac (Gen 22) “may also be a polemic against child sacrifice, advocating the substitution of a 77

On the memory function of this catechetical method, see J.A. SOGGIN, “Kultätiologische Sagen”, 341–347; H.J. BOSMAN, “‘What does this mean?’”, 31–44. 78 C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 143. Cf. J.M. SCHMIDT, “Vergegenwärtigung”, 169–200. 79 See, for e.g., A. GREEN, The Role of Human Sacrifice,156–187. J.D. LEVENSON, The Death and Resurrection, 3–52.

1. The term ‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬in Exodus

207

ram for the child.”80 Again, YHWH’s injunction in Num 3,41 that the Levites are to serve as substitutes to all the firstborns of the Israelites point to an ancient rite of consecrating firstborns to the deity. Furthermore, some scholars submit that child sacrifice represents the primitive form of the pesaḥ in Israel, a practice which was later substituted with the sacrifice of animals.81 But this position has been contested by other scholars generally on the ground that it appears impossible that a human sacrifice could be performed by each family annually. Wellhausen and his followers posit instead that the pesaḥ arose out of the ANE practice of sacrificing animal firstborns to deities.82 The position is also contested on the grounds that, going by Ex 12–13, the pesaḥ victim cannot be a firstborn, as the Israelite firstborns are not immolated but destined to survive the Passover night.83 Actually, till date, there is no scholarly consensus on this issue. As Propp observes, “The true connection between pesaḥ and various Israelite beliefs and practices surrounding the firstborn is probably more complex.”84 Nonetheless, that the directive in 13,11–16 was kept long after the Exile is clearly evidenced in the presentation of Jesus in the Temple (Lk 2,23). Altogether, one observes in Ex 12,1–13,11, four precepts directed to be kept as perpetual ordinances, all connected to the memorial of the Exodus from Egypt: the new calendar (12,2); the pesaḥ (12,1–14.21–23.43–49); the maṣṣôṯ (12,15–20; 13,3–10); consecration of the firstborn (13,1–2; 11–16). This implies that “at a variety of occasions Israel must afresh be made aware of the exodus, the hour of the nations’ birth, the event which to Israel is what creation is to the world.”85 These observances perform a memory function among the people. Anchored in the people’s history of salvation, they call to mind a central constitutive event of the past and insert the Israelites of every generation into the continuum of this reality. Hence, they continually remind Israel of its special status, a holy people, chosen and set apart by YHWH as his firstborn. As such, these observances have their deep theological imports. As obviously underlined in the narrative, they are not human innovations, but derive rather from explicit divine commands. Houtman reiterates: The ordinances derive their authority from the fact that they were promulgated by God at the exodus out of Egypt (12,1.43; cf. 12,21) and carried out by Israel (12,28.50); or from the fact that they were laid down by God at the exodus (13,1.3ff.) as permanent statutes for life to come in the promised land (13,5.11ff.; cf. 12,25).86 80

T.B. DOZEMAN, Exodus, 297. So J.G. FRAZER, The Golden Bough, IV, 174–179; S.H. HOOKE, The Origins, 49. 82 Cf., inter alia, J. WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena to the History, 88; J. PEDERSEN, Israel. Its Life and Culture, III–IV, 398–402. 83 Cf. S.A. LOEWENSTAMM, The Evolution, 194–197. 84 W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 455. 85 C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 151. 86 C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 151. 81

208

Chapter V: “Throughout Your Generations”

1.1.2 The pesaḥ-maṣṣôṯ in Israel The bringing together of the pesaḥ and the maṣṣôṯ in this pericope has evoked diachronic questions in biblical scholarship. Durham notes that the Passover as a hurried evening meal fits the narrative setting, while the seven-day feast of the Unleavened Bread does not. “Quite clearly,” he deduces, “a ritual observance from another context has been placed here by the Priestly redactors into a narrative sequence where it is an illogical element.” And he notes among the scholarly explanations given for this “illogicality,” Welch’s submission that Ex 12,1-28 and 13,1–16 link three duplicate sets of laws, all connected with “Yahweh’s dealings with Israel at the Exodus,” including one from the Northern Kingdom and one from the Southern Kingdom.87 However, the “illogicality” detected by Durham in the narrative seems to be borne out of the misconception of the sequence of the pericope. In 12,14–20 (and 24–27), the narrator finds it opportune to recount within the context of the deliverance from Egypt, the divine institution of its memorial, given as a perpetual ordinance. Again, these instructions actually presuppose the people’s dwelling in the Promised Land. As Dozeman observes, The instructions for the Feast of Unleavened Bread actually presuppose the Israelite possession of the land of Canaan. Both the alien and the native-born Israelite are required to observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread (12,19) upon penalty of being “cut off” from the congregation of the Israelites. These social categories presuppose the Israelites’ residency in Canaan.88

Thus, the narrative, as presented, is a look-back at our history. It is an effort to make meaning of the present by finding its explanation in the past – a basic tenet of the social memory theory. Again, the unification of these two feasts in the narrative points to the fact that they were being celebrated together at the time of its composition. It is then apposite to ask historical questions: Were they originally different festivals celebrated separately? If so, what did each originally signify? When were they combined? And how did they come to commemorate the Exodus? The response of scholars to this has been divergent. Durham succinctly presents some of them: a. The festival of unleavened bread cakes was the earlier of the two ritual commemorations – the Exodus was remembered in pre-exilic Israel by the sacrifice and redemption of the first born as “an occasional ceremony”; and Ex 12,1–28 belongs wholly to P, is postexilic, and perhaps composed with the diaspora in view.89 b. The pesaḥ and the maṣṣôṯ festival were from the beginning “a single festival” (at the New Year); pesaḥ opening the week brought to conclusion by 87

J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 158; cf. A.C. WELCH, “On the Method”, 27–29. T.B. DOZEMAN, Exodus, 271. 89 Cf. H.G. MAY, “The Relation of the Passover”, 65–74. 88

1. The term ‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬in Exodus

209

maṣṣôṯ, a week beginning and ending with a “holy convocation” at the local sanctuary.90 c. The festival of unleavened bread cakes and the “archaic Passover practices” were combined in pre-exilic Israel and linked to both the Exodus and the crossing of the Jordan in worship at the sanctuary at Gilgal, so Jsh 5,1–12.91 d. The festival of unleavened bread cakes and Passover were joined for the first time during the Exile, from which period also Jsh 5,10–12 dates (thus providing no support for the view of Kraus).92 To take a position here, a concise study of the history of these feasts in Israel up to the exilic/early post-exilic period is pertinent. Since the contribution of Wellhausen,93 most scholars submit that these feasts were of different origins. However, as could be inferred from the above, “scholars differ in their analysis of the festivals’ prehistory and the processes behind the combination and historicisation of the festivals.”94 Wellhausen sought to reconstruct the cultic history of Israel from source analysis, and deduced that the maṣṣôṯ was an agricultural festival akin to the Canaanite practices, while the sacrifice of the firstborn belonged to the primitive Passover rites. For him, it was at the time of the Dtr centralisation of cult that these two formerly distinct feasts were combined into one festival (cf. Dt 16,1–8), and transformed into a commemoration of the Exodus. For Pederson, however, this unification came quite earlier in Israel’s cultic history.95 Subsequently, there has been, by and large, an agreement on the agricultural background of the Mazzotfest, but less agreement is recorded on the origin of the pesaḥ. One of the more accepted views on the origin of the Hebrew Passover is provided by Rost,96 according to whom the Passover derives from a seminomadic culture of migration for survival in the different seasons. The Passover rites served to protect against the dangers connected to the annual migration from the desert to a cultivable land during the spring. The blood of this sacrifice which was believed to ward off evil is akin to the blood smeared at the doorpost in Exodus, while the rites of this Passover were historicised into the people’s departure from Egypt to the Promised Land. To be noted here is that scholarly reactions to these views have been diverse. In all, the analysis of different scholarly inquiries here “confirms the view that Passover and also the Unleavened Bread had a long history as cult forms before being adopted as such by Israel to serve in the celebration of Israel’s

90

Cf. J.B. SEGAL, The Hebrew Passover, 174–180. Cf. H.-J. KRAUS, “Zur Geschichte”, 65–67. 92 Cf. E. KUTSCH, “Erwägungen zur Geschichte”, 34–35; see J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 158. 93 Cf. J. WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena to the History, 83–120. 94 B.M. BOKSER, “Unleavened Bread – Passover”, 756. 95 Cf. J. PEDERSEN, “Passahfest und Passahlegende”, 161–175. 96 Cf. L. ROST, “Weidewechsel”, 205–215. 91

210

Chapter V: “Throughout Your Generations”

historic deliverance from Egypt.”97 More recently, scholars tend towards the conclusion that, from available data, it seems impossible to trace the process of the historicisation of these pre-Israelite rites with certainty. Childs remarks: In sum, although it seems increasingly clear that both the Passover and maṣṣôṯ traditions stemmed from pre-Israelite cultic practices and were later adapted by Israel for her own needs, the process by which this historicisation took place is not evident. Nor is the dating of the various stages at all settled.98

Though the dating is not sure, an analysis of the biblical data shows that these feasts were known at the time of the composition of the Pentateuch. Going by Rylaarsdam’s assertion on Ex 12–13 that “the compilation of the most of this section, as we now have it, probably occurred in the Exile or in the post-exilic period,”99 it is deducible that these feasts have been both historicised and combined before the Exile, as part of Israel’s religious rites. However, one cannot discount “the possibility that more ‘primitive’ interpretations of the rites survived alongside the ‘official’ understanding of the biblical authors.”100 An example here is the smearing of blood on the doorposts which seems a reinterpretation of the pre-Israelite apotropaic rites. As such, the memorialisation of the Exodus through the festival of the pesaḥ-maṣṣôṯ in Ex 12 did not arise from a fictional creation of the biblical narrator, but a selection and reinterpretation of existing cultic rites in a way that highlights the Exodus from Egypt as an identity-defining, constitutive event for Israel. One can imagine that during the Exile and the immediate postexilic periods, when Israel faced a deep crisis of identity, drawing attention to this salvific event which depicts Israel’s chosenness served as a tool of social survival.101 To achieve this, Israel developed from the people’s collective memory, a theology that reinforced their special status in which the Exodus plays a key role. Highlighting the commemorative festival of pesaḥ-maṣṣôṯ as a divine injunction to be kept ‫ לְ ֹד ֹרתֵ יכֶם חֻקַ ת עֹולָם‬demonstrates the profound importance of keeping the memory of the Exodus alive continually. 1.1.3 Between Ex 12 and Ex 16 The obvious lexical connection between the Ex 12 and Manna-Erzählung in Ex 16 is worth a brief comment here. These two narratives are connected by the use of certain motifs such as date specifications (12,2–3.6; 16,1), the 97

J.C. RYLAARSDAM, “Passover”, 664. B.S. CHILDS, Exodus, 187. In corroboration, Houtman asserts: “What is plausible is that Israel adapted existing religious customs and symbols for the commemoration of th e great events in its redemptive history and used them to shape its own feasts. How all this precisely happened cannot be traced.” C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 157. 99 J.C. RYLAARSDAM, “Passover”, 665. 100 W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 429; see also E. OTTO, “‫” ֶפסַ ח‬, TDOT, XII, 12–13. 101 Cf. R. HENDEL, “Remembering the Exodus”, 330–332. 98

1. The term ‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬in Exodus

211

instruction not keeping food till morning (12,10; 16,19–20), keeping some days work-free (12,16; 16,23.25), keeping the past alive for the future (12,14– 17.24–27; 16,32–34); and certain terms such as ‫( בֵ ין הָ ַע ְרבַ ִים‬12,6; 16,12), ‫לְ פִ י אָ כְ לֹו‬ (12,4; 16,16.18.21), ‫( מעט‬12,4; 16,17), ‫ יתר‬+ ‫( ַעד־בֹ קֶ ר‬12,10; 16,19.20), ‫לְ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת‬ (12,6; 16,23.32–34), ‫( לְ ֹדרֹ תֵ יכֶם‬12,14.17; 16,33.34).102 Such connectedness, it could be inferred, is not fortuitous. The employment of these similar motifs/lexicons indicates that the two narratives operate at the same level of functionality. First of all, both narratives recount very crucial events in the history of the people before the covenant at Sinai, events which strongly depict their chosenness. In these two narratives, the motif of food/ eating plays a vital role, and is of symbolic significance. Here, eating is not meant merely for the satisfaction of human hunger, but serves to demonstrate the salvific power of God. And from the reality of the food arises, in the both narratives, injunctions about practices that are to be kept ‫לְ ֹד ֹרתֵ יכֶם‬. These practices, which are programmed to recur, keep the memory of the divine salvific acts connected to them alive from age to age. Again, viewed diachronically, both narratives function to ground present ritual practices in explicit divine injunctions of the past. They are narratives specifically meant to establish a continuum between the past and the present, while charting the way for the future (see below). In this way, they (re)define the identity of the people – their divine chosenness – by highlighting key constitutive realities that make this evident. Interestingly, the realities recounted in these two narratives occur even before the Sinaitic covenant. The divine choice of the people does not begin at the Sinai. It is only ratified there. 1.2 On Daily Offerings (Ex 29,38–46) In Ex 29,38–46, at the Sinai, we find instructions on the daily offerings to be presented at the Tabernacle ‫לִ פְ נֵי ְיהוָה‬. This comes within the context of YHWH’s instructions to Moses on the erection of the Tabernacle and other connected issues in chs. 25–31. In this pericope, the term ‫ לְ ֹדרֹ תֵ יכֶם‬occurs in v. 42. As in the previous section, a concise analysis of the pericope reveals the import of this term here. 1.2.1 Ex 29,38–46 – A Translation103 38

Now this is what you shall offer on the altar: two one-year-old lambs each day, continually. 39One lamb you shall offer in the morning, and the second lamb you shall offer at twilight.104 40With the first lamb shall be one-tenth [of an ephah] of fine flour mixed with one-fourth of a hin of beaten oil, and one102

Cf. C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 324. The translations in this chapter are based on the MT, as presented in the BHS. 104 Heb: ‫בֵ ין הָ ַע ְרבַ ִים‬. See the comments on the translation of 16,12 in Chap. II. 103

212

Chapter V: “Throughout Your Generations”

fourth of a hin of wine for a drink offering. 41And the second lamb you shall offer at twilight. As in the morning, you shall offer it with grain offering and its drink offering, for a pleasing odour, an offering by fire to YHWH – 42a continual burnt offering throughout your generations ( ‫ )לְ ֹד ֹרתֵ יכֶם‬at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting before YHWH,105 where I will meet with you, to speak with you there. 43And I will meet106 with the Israelites there, and it shall be sanctified107 by my glory. 44I will consecrate the Tent of Meeting and the altar; I will also consecrate Aaron and his sons to serve me as priests. 45I will dwell among the Israelites, and I will be their God. 46And they shall know that I am YHWH their God, who brought them out of the land of Egypt that I might dwell among them; I am YHWH their God. 1.2.2 Ex 29,38–46 – A Concise Analysis This pericope comes immediately after the instruction on the consecration of Aaron and his sons as priests (29,1–37), which concludes with the directives on the consecration of the altar of burnt offering (the construction of which is instructed in 27,1–8). For its consecration, a seven-day rite of atonement is prescribed for the altar (vv. 36–37), that it may be “most holy” ( ‫וְ הָ יָה הַ ִמזְבֵ חַ ֹקדֶ ש‬ ‫ ; ָ ָֽק דָ ִשים‬v. 37b). As holiness implies a sense of separation (for YHWH; cf. BDB), by its consecration, the altar is strictly set apart for offering sacrifice to YHWH.108 This tract concludes with the statement: “Whatever touches the altar shall be holy” (v. 37c). And this sets the stage for the instructions on the daily burnt offering,109 which begins with the assertion: “Now this is what you shall

105 Note that the statement ‫ ֹעלַת תָ ִמיד לְ דֹ ֹרתֵ יכֶם ֶפתַ ח אֹ הֶ ל־מֹו ֵעד לִ פְ נֵי ְיהוָה‬is a nominal clause. It appears that at prime moments, the narrator employs nominal clauses to express divine instructions (cf. 12,2.11b.27a; 16,23a.32b). As already noted, it seems that these have perhaps become fixed formulas at the time of the composition of Exodus. 106 To the MT ‫“ וְ ֹנ ַעדְ ִתי‬I will meet”, SamP has ‫“ ונדרשתי‬I will present myself to be sought”, and the LXX has καὶ τάξομαι “I will command” (= Vulgate: praecipiam “I will instruct”). The LXX and the Vulgate appear an avoidance of anthropomorphism implied in humans meeting YHWH. For Propp (Exodus 19–40, 355), SamP is the most probable reading here (lectio difficilior), as the MT appears to align the text with the preceding verse. But there is no other occurrence of the verb ‫ ְדרֹ ש‬in the sanctuary texts. Its only occurrence in Exodus is in 18,15 where Moses replies Jethro: “Because the people come to me to inquire of God”; whereas the motif of YHWH meeting with Moses/the people in the Tabernacle context occurs in 25,22; 29,42.43; 30,6.36. Again, except Propp, other major commentaries and biblical translations go with the MT. 107 The LXX, Syriac Peshitta, and some Targums read “and I will be made holy.” This reading is however hardly followed by any major commentary or biblical translation. 108 Obviously, “setting apart” (= making holy) is a Leitmotiv in Exodus (the root ‫קדש‬ occurs 98x in Exodus). In the final analysis, however, the consecration of humans and objects serves to maintain the relationship of YHWH with Israel as his holy nation (19,6). 109 Cf. A. DILLMANN, Die Bücher, 348; C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, III, 550.

1. The term ‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬in Exodus

213

offer on the altar” (v. 38a).110 Fit to note here, as has been widely observed, is that the instructions in Ex 29,38–42a finds a parallel in Num 28,3–8, both formulated with similar wordings.111 As such, references to the latter will be useful in analysing our text. Within this introduction comes the enumeration of the sacrificial items to be offered continually on the altar of burnt offering on a daily basis: ‫לַיֹום תָ ִמיד‬. This actually forms the heart of the sacrificial cult of Israel. The major sacrificial victims are two yearling lambs: ‫( כְ בָ ִׂשים בְ נֵי־שָ נָה ְש ַנ ִים‬v. 38b), which are to be sacrificed one in the morning and the other at twilight ( ‫ ;בֵ ין הָ ַע ְרבַ ִים‬v. 39). Thus, as Durham observes, “the day was opened and closed with gifts to Yahweh, from whom all gifts were believed to come.”112 The use of the year-old lamb here links back to ch. 12 where such is instructed for the Passover meal (v. 5). As such, in its use here, Israel re-lives continually its deliverance from Egypt before YHWH in gratitude and obeisance. To be offered with each lamb is onetenth of an ephah113 of fine flour,114 mixed with one-fourth of a hin115 of beaten 110 Noteworthy is that some scholars that apply the source-critical method (for e.g., B. BAENTSCH, Exodus–Leviticus, 257) argue, however, that 29,39–42a does not actually fit in here. But the requirements for daily offerings do not appear out of place in this context. As Noth aptly remarks, the daily burnt offerings “are regarded as having been enjoined for the first time on the occasion of the priestly ordination.” M. NOTH, Exodus, 233. 111 The suggestion of S.R. Driver (Exodus, 326) that Ex 29,38–42 “has been introduced here from Num 28 with some abridgments and adjustments” by a later hand does not appear actually so. First of all, scholars adjudge the two pericopes as relatively late, as regards stipulations on burnt offerings (cf. M. NOTH, Exodus, 23; G.B. GRAY, Numbers 403–409). Now, analysing the two pericopes, Num 28,3–8 appears an elaboration of Ex 29,38–42. In fact, Num 28–29 brings together and re-elaborates different sacrifices, prescribed in different circumstances. This argues against its antiquity. Applying the principle of lectio brevior potior therefore, the tract in Exodus appears more original. 112 J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 396. 113 In Ex 29,40, the measure is simply given as “one-tenth.” In Num 28,5, it is made explicit: ‫ע ֲִׂש ִירית הָ אֵ י ָפה‬. 114 In v. 41, this offering of grains is termed ‫מ ְנחָ ה‬: ִ “tribute, gift.” And Propp, observing that “in non-sacral contexts, minḥâ denotes a politically motivated gift, often symbolising submission”, avers that the term is applied here “because YHWH is Israel’s covenanted suzerain, to whom sacrifice combines aspects of taxation and gift.” W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 19– 40, 472. 115 The term ‫ הִ ין‬occurs for the first time here in the Hebrew Bible. It occurs 22x in all – 3x in Ex; 2x in Lev; 11x in Num; 6x in Ezk; almost exclusively in sacrificial/cultic contexts. Just like the omer in Ex 16, there is no agreement on the actual volume of a hin. For M.A. Powell (“Weights and Measures”, 904), it amounts to 6 litres; for O.R. Sellers, (“Weights and Measures”, 834–835), it is a quart [a quart is approximately a litre]; for Propp (Exodus 19–40, 472), it is about 3.6 litres; for Houtman (Exodus, II, 551), it varies from about 3.5– 7.5 litres. However, that no explanation is given on it (as in 16,36) and that it is employed in Ezekiel shows that the hin is known at the time of the composition of Exodus. The use of the definite article here – ‫ – הַ הִ ין‬lends support to this submission.

214

Chapter V: “Throughout Your Generations”

oil (described by Propp as “pure, crushed olive oil”)116 and one-fourth of a hin of wine. Burning these materials mornings and evenings, these items are turned into ‫ – ִאשֶ ה לַיהוָה‬offering by fire to YHWH, the smoke of which goes up to him as a sweet aroma. This smoke, as Levine indicates, reaches to the antique heavens and attracts divine attention 117. Noteworthy at this point is that the mention of one-tenth of an ephah links back to the omer in Ex 16. In offering this measure daily to God therefore, the Israelites continually relive their Wüstenwanderung experience before YHWH, in gratitude to him, and in supplication for continued providence. At this point comes the assertion that the above offering shall be “a continual burnt offering throughout your generations” (‫)עֹ לַת תָ ִמיד לְ ֹד ֹרתֵ יכֶם‬.118 By this statement, the daily burnt offering to YHWH in the Tabernacle (nay in the Temple) is founded in divine institution at this prime moment of the ratification of the covenant at the Sinai. All the more, the injunction that this is to be a regular offering implies that this “sweet aroma” is to be offered to YHWH unceasingly. This idea of the continued burnt offering is also elaborated in Lev 6,2–6[9–13]: 2[9]

This is the ritual of the burnt offering. The burnt offering itself shall remain on the hearth upon the altar all night until the morning, while the fire on the altar shall be kept burning…. 5[12] The fire on the altar shall be kept burning; it shall not go out. Every morning the priest shall add wood to it, lay out the burnt offering on it, and turn into smoke the fat pieces of the offerings of well-being. 6[13]A perpetual fire shall be kept burning on the altar; it shall not go out (NRSV).

The recurrent sacrifice serves as a continual worship of the people to YHWH. The sacrificial gifts symbolise the people. The lamb, cereal, oil and wine stand for the totality of the produce of the land (graciously given to them by YHWH), hence their means of livelihood. In recognition of this, the people gratefully pay obeisance to God by presenting these offerings. The regularity of this act demonstrates the people’s continual acknowledgment that it is by divine will, not by their own making, that they are in possession of the land – a central symbol of their chosenness. The directive in the complex statement of v. 42 is somewhat complicated: ‫“( ֹעלַת תָ ִמיד לְ ֹד ֹרתֵ יכֶם ֶפתַ ח אֹ הֶ ל־מֹו ֵעד לִ פְ נֵי ְיהוָה ֲאשֶ ר ִא ָּו ֵעד ָלכֶם שָ מָ ה לְ דַ בֵ ר אֵ לֶיָך שָ ם‬a regular burnt offering throughout your generations at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting before YHWH, where I will meet with you, to speak with you there”). For Durham, this statement implies that the offerings are “to be made, again, at the opening of the Tabernacle, the place where Yahweh had promised to meet his 116

W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 19–40, 471. Cf. B.A. LEVINE, “Ritual as symbol”, 134–135. 118 Noteworthy is that the term ‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬does not occur in Num 28. Stated there rather is: ‫“ – ֹעלַת תָ ִמיד הָ עֲׂשֻ יָה בְ הַ ר סִ ינַי‬a regular offering ordained at Mount Sinai” (28,6). The narrator takes cognisance of the fact that what is being recounted at this point is not an institution but a reiteration. 117

1. The term ‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬in Exodus

215

people.”119 This is not likely. It appears more probable that the reference is on the daily burnt offering already described, though the location – ‫– ֶפתַ ח אֹ הֶ ל־מֹו ֵעד‬ presents a challenge to taking this position. However, Cassuto’s clarification of this verse is illustrative at this point: After the statement that the continual burnt offering shall be offered up at the door of the tent of meeting, that is, on the altar in front of the door of the Tabernacle, before the Lord, the Divine communication, addressed to Moses, continues and confirms to him that the tent of meeting is the place where I will meet with you.120

Remarkably, the encounter in v. 42 is presented as a speech event: “I will meet with you, to speak with you there.” From this place, therefore, YHWH will continuously reveal himself to the people through his words (cf. 25,22). Also, the motif of meeting you in v. 42121 brings about “a smooth transition from the description of the function of the altar of burnt offering to that of the function of the sanctuary itself”122 (vv. 43–46) – verses often deemed by scholars as the conclusion of chs. 25–29.123 In vv. 42b–45, YHWH outlines the acts he will (continually) perform at the Tent of Meeting: – – – – – –

I will meet with you, to speak with you there (v. 42b) I will meet with the Israelites there (v. 43) I will consecrate the Tent of Meeting and the altar (v. 44a) I will consecrate Aaron and his sons to serve me as priests (v. 44b) I will dwell among the Israelites (v. 45a) I will be their God (v. 45b).124

The bottom-line of these acts is the continued presence of YHWH in the midst of the people – by dwelling in the sanctuary – if they follow the given instructions on cult. Notably, the statement “I will be their God” (v. 45b) recalls the covenant formula: “You shall be my people, and I will be your God” (cf. 6,7; Lev 26,12; Jer 11,4; Ezk 36,28). Through the daily offerings therefore, the people continually demonstrate their commitment to the covenant with YHWH who dwells among them. As such, the directives in vv. 38–46 do not hand over to the subsequent generations a cold, empty ritual, but a daily opportunity to consolidate their relationship with YHWH. Also worthy of note is that among the prescribed functions of the people in cult participation, it is in the offering of

119

J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 396. U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 388; emphasis original. 121 The root ‫ יעד‬occurs 3x in vv. 42–43, highlighting the function of the Tabernacle as a place of encounter between YHWH and the people. 122 C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, III, 551. 123 Cf. B. BAENTSCH, Exodus – Leviticus, 258; S.R. DRIVER, Exodus, 327. 124 Note the modal use of the imperfect (niphal) ‫ ִא ָּו ֵעד‬in v. 42b and in vv. 43–45 to express iteration. The encounter with YHWH at this place is to be continual. 120

216

Chapter V: “Throughout Your Generations”

the daily sacrifices that the generality of the ‫ בְ נֵי ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬participate more fully (albeit symbolically) and regularly. Propp expatiates: As we learn indirectly from the prophets’ condemnations of empty worship (e.g., Isa 1,11– 14; Amos 5,21–23; Mic 6,6–7), sacrifice was supremely important to the common Israelite. Few could minister directly to Yahweh as priests; few could commune directly with him as prophets. But any man or woman could “nourish” God with the prescribed offerings in hopes of a good return.125

In all, the bringing together of the daily offerings and the divine-human meeting here is very instructive. The major purpose of erecting the Tabernacle is that YHWH may dwell among the people (29,45; cf. 40,34–35). As such, the Tabernacle serves as a meeting point between God and the people (29,42b–43; cf. 25,22). From this pericope, it is deducible that offering the daily sacrifices facilitates this sanctifying encounter. In Hamilton’s words, these daily sacrificial rituals “are hallowed and hallowing moments.”126 The last verse of the chapter (v. 46) summarises the goal of the instructions on the side of the people: “And they shall know that I am YHWH their God, who brought them out of the land of Egypt that I might dwell among them.” It is YHWH’s intent that through his encounters with the Israelites as he dwells in the sanctuary, the people will continually be brought to the knowledge of him,127 and also come to understand their salvation history. As Houtman explains, “When YHWH dwells in the midst of Israel (29,45) and takes up contact with the Israelites (29,42b.43a), then they will understand that the purpose of the Exodus was YHWH’s fellowship with Israel (cf. 19,5; see also Lev 26,11.12).”128 This fellowship is to be facilitated “throughout your generations” by the offering of the prescribed twice-daily sacrifices. It is apposite to note, at this juncture, that the motif of the people coming to know that “I am YHWH their God” connects Ex 29,46 with 16,12. In the latter, through the Erscheinung of the ‫כְ בֹוד ְיהוָה‬, YHWH meets the people and speaks with them, solemnly declaring that the people will come to know him by his feeding them to satiety. And the sustained gift of manna was a continual manifestation of YHWH’s glory in their midst. In 29,46, through the performance of the prescribed cultic rites, YHWH promises to meet the people and speak with them, and as such, dwell with them continually. Thus, both the forty-year daily manna experience (to be remembered ‫ )לְ ֹדרֹ תֵ יכֶם‬and the offering of the daily sacrifices (to be performed ‫ )לְ ֹדרֹ תֵ יכֶם‬constitute occasions of special encounter between YHWH and his chosen people.

125

W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 19–40, 500. V.P. HAMILTON, Exodus, 505. 127 On the motif of knowing YHWH in Exodus, see Chap. III, § 2.3, 2.4. 128 C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, III, 553. 126

1. The term ‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬in Exodus

217

1.2.3 The Daily Offerings in Israel Social anthropologists are generally in agreement that sacrifices constitute a part of every religion,129 and the religion of Israel is not an exception. But there is less agreement among anthropologists on the function of sacrifices in the different religions. A pertinent description of the significance of sacrificial materials, provided by Valerio Valeri and applicable to the Israelite cult, is that “the gift ceases to be a commodity, a mere utilitarian object: it is the subject in an objective form.”130 This implies that the sacrificial victim becomes “identified with the sacrificer at the time of consecration.”131 From the above analysis, this description aligns with the role of the sacrificial materials in the daily offerings enjoined on Israel. The practice of burnt offerings was obviously not unique to the Israelites. “Fire sacrifice was universal in the ancient Near East,” Propp explains, “and the Israelites shared with their neighbours common techniques and terminology.”132 On sacrifices in the ANE generally, Propp submits: There are three basic ways to feed a god: by libations, by symbolic food presentations and by burnt offerings. When one burns cereal, meat or liquid on the Altar, the food ascends directly to Heaven as smoke. As the corrupt is to the pure, as matter is to spirit, so food is to smoke.133

In Ex 26,37–42, however, daily burnt offerings in Israel are given a unique status. And this uniqueness arises basically from its association with YHWH, specifically directed by him to be carried out by his chosen people ‫לְ ֹדרֹ תֵ יכֶם‬. The practice of the daily burnt offering, described by Houtman as “the most important function on the altar,”134 is attested in the Hebrew Bible, from the pre-exilic to the post-exilic period (cf. 1Kgs 18,29.36; 2Kgs 3,20; 16,15; Ezk 46,13–15; Ezra 3,3; 9,4; Neh 10,34[35]). It is however argued by scholars that, on the basis of textual evidence, it seems that in the pre-exilic period, animal sacrifices were performed only in the mornings while evening sacrifices consisted of only grain offerings.135 These scholars point out that, first of all, in Num 28–29, the daily offerings are regularly described as ‫“( עֹ לַת הַ תָ ִמיד‬regular 129 See, for e.g., E.B. TAYLOR, Primitive Culture, II, 375–410; H. HUBERT / M. MAUSS, Sacrifice, 1–35. 130 V. VALERI, Kinship and Sacrifice, 65. 131 G.A. ANDERSON, “Sacrifice”, ABD, VI, 871. 132 W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 19–40, 499–500. 133 W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 19–40, 499. 134 C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, III, 550. Fit to note here is that in Num 28–29 (on sacrifices at the different festivals), it is repeatedly emphasised that the prescribed sacrifices for the different feasts come in addition to the continual daily sacrifices (cf. 28,10.15.23–24.31; 29,6.11.16.19.22.25.28.31.34.38.39). 135 The arguments of these scholars are succinctly articulated by D. KELLERMANN, “‫ ֹעלָה‬/‫”עֹולָה‬, TDOT, XI, 102.

218

Chapter V: “Throughout Your Generations”

burnt offering”), except in 28,23 where it is depicted as ‫“( עֹ לַת הַ ֹבקֶ ר‬burnt offering of the morning”), with a qualification: ‫ ֲאשֶ ר לְ ֹעלַת הַ תָ ִמיד‬. Hence, ‫ עֹ לַת הַ ֹבקֶ ר‬seems the earlier expression. Again, in 1Kgs 18,29.36, the evening sacrifice is described as ‫“( עֲלֹות הַ ִמ ְנחָ ה‬grain offering”); in 2Kgs 16,15, the ‫ עֹ לַת־הַ ֹבקֶ ר‬is distinguished from the ‫ ; ִמ ְנחַ ת הָ ֶע ֶרב‬and in Ezk 46,13–15, the instruction is to offer a yearling lamb ‫בַ בֹ קֶ ר בַ בֹ קֶ ר‬. In the post-exilic texts, on the other hand, the animal sacrifices are directed to be performed twice daily (cf. Ezra 3,3). And Kellermann remarks here: “That in a period of economic distress the offerings given to God were not reduced… but were rather increased, as Ezra 3,3 attests, illustrates the devotion of the returning exiles. This devotion left its mark on the sacrificial cult.”136 Though the above argument is clearly tenable, it is important to point out also that in 2Kgs 3,20 (pre-exilic), the ‫ ִמ ְנחָ ה‬is associated with the morning: …‫“( וַיְ הִ י בַ ֹבקֶ ר ַכעֲלֹות הַ ִמ ְנחָ ה‬And in the morning, at the time of the grain offering…”). And in Ezra 9,4 (post-exilic), the evening ritual is described as ‫מִ ְנחַ ת‬ ‫הָ ֶע ֶרב‬. It could therefore be possibly deduced that the term ‫ ִמ ְנחָ ה‬became used to depict the daily offerings, both morning and evening, as both involve the offering of grains. In any case, important for our purposes here is that by the postexilic period, this ritual was being performed as stipulated in Ex 29,38–42. It is thus discernible that, in the immediate period after the exile, in the bid to reassert their decimated identity, the Israelites remembered and reaffirmed (and possibly augmented) the ritual of the daily sacrifice, one of the important continual practices that mark them out as the chosen people of God, and nurture their relationship with him. In recalling that this ritual was specifically directed by YHWH to our fathers be performed ‫לְ ֹדרֹ תֵ יכֶם‬, they both recast their chosenness on a strong theological foundation and insert themselves in the continuum of the practices handed down to the nation at that crucial constitutive moment at the Sinai. 1.3 Rituals on the Altar of Incense (30,1–10) The instructions on the construction of the altar of incense are recounted in Ex 30,1–6. This is followed by directives on the rituals to be performed on it – daily: the burning of incense (vv. 7–9), and annually: on the Day of Atonement (v. 10). The term ‫ לְ ֹדרֹ תֵ יכֶם‬occurs in both rituals (vv. 8 and 10). 1.3.1 Ex 30,1–10 – A Translation 1

You shall make an altar for burning incense; you shall make it of acacia wood. Its length shall be a cubit, its width a cubit – it shall be square – and its height shall be two cubits. Its horns shall be of one piece with it. 3You shall overlay it 2

136

D. KELLERMANN, “‫ ֹעלָה‬/‫”עֹולָה‬, TDOT, XI, 102.

1. The term ‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬in Exodus

219

with pure gold: its top, and its sides 137 all around and its horns; and you shall make for it a moulding of gold all around. 4And you shall make two golden rings for it; under its moulding on the two sides of it you shall make them, on the opposite sides. And they 138 shall serve as holders to the poles with which to carry it. 5You shall make the poles of acacia wood, and overlay them with gold. 6You shall place it in front of the curtain that is over the Ark of the Testimony, in front of the mercy seat 139 that is over the Testimony, where I will meet with you. 7And Aaron shall burn fragrant incense 140 on it; every morning when he tends141 the lamps, he shall burn it. 8And when Aaron lights the lamps at twilight, he shall burn incense on it, a continual incense before YHWH throughout your generations ( ‫)לְ ֹד ֹרתֵ יכֶם‬. 9You shall not offer strange (prohibited)142 incense on it, or a burnt offering, or a grain offering; and you shall not pour a drink offering on it. 10And once a year, Aaron shall make atonement upon its horns with the blood of the sin offering of atonement; once a year he shall make atonement upon it throughout your generations ( ‫)לְ ֹד ֹרתֵ יכֶם‬. It is most holy to YHWH. 1.3.2 Ex 30,1–10 – A Concise Analysis In addition to the altar of the burnt offering (the bronze altar), there exists in the sanctuary also the altar of incense, described in 30,1–6. This altar is located right inside the Tabernacle, in the holy place (v. 6; cf. 40,5), and is accordingly overlaid with pure gold (hence the golden altar; cf. 30,3; 37,26) 143. Its dimensions are clearly stipulated (v. 2), and clear directives are given on the construction of its accompanying utensils (vv. 4–5). Quite noteworthy here is the similarity in motifs regarding the construction of this altar and of the Ark of the Testimony (25,10–22; discussed below).144 137

The term ‫ קִ יר‬primarily means wall (cf. BDB, HALOT). Here, its meaning as the sides of the altar is clear (cf. v. 4). 138 The MT has ‫( וְ הָ יָה‬3 pers. sg.) here. This does not fit the context grammatically. Other manuscripts have the plural. No biblical translation or major commentary follows the MT. 139 On this translation of the term ‫ כַפֹ ֶרת‬and its function, see § 2.1 below. 140 The construct expression ‫ קְ טֹ ֶרת סַ ִמים‬literary means “incense of spices” (cf. BDB). In the Hebrew Bible, however, the expression became used to denote the authorised incense to be used in the Israelite sacrificial cult (cf. 40,27; Lev 16,12; 2Chr 2,3). 141 The verb ‫ יטב‬in the hiphil could mean “to put something in order”, and here thus “to dress lamps” (cf. HALOT). 142 As aptly explained by Dozeman (Exodus, 654), the Hebrew term ‫“ זָר‬takes on a wide range of meanings in the Hebrew Bible, including ‘foreign’, ‘illegitimate’.” Here, the expression ‫ קְ טֹ ֶרת ז ָָרה‬implies unauthorised, prohibited incense. 143 To distinguish it from the altar of burnt offering (the bronze altar), the altar of incense is sometimes referred to as the golden altar ‫( ִמזְבַ ח הַ זָהָ ב‬cf. Ex 39,38; 40,5.26). 144 Because the motifs are similar, the import of the materials and utensils (rings and poles) associated with the altar of incense will be discussed below, on the construction of the Ark of the Testimony (see § 2.2). Emphasis is directed here to the rituals on this altar.

220

Chapter V: “Throughout Your Generations”

Two ritual functions are prescribed for this altar. The first ritual, described in vv. 7–9, is the twice-daily offering of incense on the altar. The instructions here are directed to Aaron who receives these roles in his capacity as the high priest, and also as “prototype for all his successors.”145 In v. 7–8, Aaron’s burning of incense on this altar is tied to his attending to the lamps in the holy place (on the lamps, cf. 25,37). He is to burn the fragrant incense in the mornings (‫ )בַ בֹ קֶ ר בַ בֹ קֶ ר‬as he trims the lamps (which have been burning through the night), and at twilight ( ‫ )בֵ ין הָ ַע ְרבַ יִ ם‬when he lights them up (to burn through the night; cf. 27,21; Lev 24,3).146 In the Tabernacle cult worship, the fragrant incense symbolises the presence of God (cf. 24,15–16). Propp elaborates: Its odoriferous clouds are a medium for God’s manifestation, housing and shielding his presence over the Chest (Lev 16,2.13). The billowing, scented fumes remind those who behold or smell them of Yahweh’s various sacred clouds: the guiding pillar of cloud and fire; the cloudy presence on Sinai; the fiery, nebulous Glory in which God appears to humanity – and, ultimately, the very clouds of Heaven among which Yahweh resides.147

This continual ritual, which celebrates the presence of YHWH among his people in the Tabernacle, is directed to be celebrated perpetually: ‫לְ ֹד ֹרתֵ יכֶם‬. This confirms the above assertion that the role of Aaron here is to be passed to successive high priests. In v. 9, stern prohibitions are given as regards the offerings on the golden altar. First of all, no other incense ( ‫ )קְ ֹט ֶרת ז ָָרה‬is to be burnt on it except the authorised one, the composition of which is carefully spelt out in 30,34–35. Scholars have indicated that burning incense to deities was a widespread practice in the ANE.148 But this incense to be used here is unique, holy, and is proscribed from being used for any other purpose (cf. 30,37–38).149 As such, it is discernible that the prohibition is meant to confer uniqueness on this ritual

145

C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, III, 560. The reckoning of Cassuto (Exodus, 391) that the sweet-smelling incense is burnt at the same time the lamps are put out so as to mitigate “the unpleasant odour of extinguished wicks and burnt oil” leaves much to be desired. It seems more likely that these daily ritual acts are brought together for the convenience of the minister, the high priest. 147 W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 19–40, 514; cf. T.B. DOZEMAN, Exodus, 662–663; K. NIELSEN, Incense, 83–84. Also, analysing Lev 16,12–13, K. Nielson (“Incense”, ABD, III, 406) avers that on the yom kippur, entering the ‫ ֹקדֶ ש הַ קֳ דָ ִשים‬, the cloud of incense “provides the high priest with cover against the divine wrath or the divine ‘radiation’.” For J.H. Hertz (Leviticus, 156), however, “the purpose of the incense-smoke was to create a screen which would prevent the High Priest from gazing upon the Holy Presence.” 148 Cf. K. NIELSEN, Incense, 3–5, 16–17. H. WEIPPERT, Palästina, 448, 623–624. 149 Related to this prohibition, in Lev 10, Nadab and Abihu use a wrong incense and are put to death. And in Num 16, Korah and his companions (unqualified people) burnt incense before YHWH and were annihilated. On the uniqueness of this incense and its Tabernacle function, see K. NIELSEN, Incense, 91; C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 583–584; W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 19–40, 512–515. 146

1. The term ‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬in Exodus

221

act, offered to YHWH – ‫ – ֱאֹלהֵ י ָ ָֽה ֱאֹלהִ ים‬by his specially chosen people. All the more, the sacrifices slated for the bronze altar – burnt offering, grain offering or drink offering – are forbidden from being offered on this altar. To be noted here is that in v. 9, there is a shift in the “recipient” of the directives. Rather than specifically Aaron, the prohibitions are directed to all the Israelites (cf. 2nd pers. plu: ‫) ִתסְ כּו ;תַ עֲלּו‬. As such, if the other instructions on the golden altar are meant to be remembered by the priestly circle, the prohibitions are to be remembered by all the Israelites. This implies that defiling this altar is to be avoided at all cost. It is most holy to YHWH (cf. v. 10). The only other ritual permitted to be performed on the ‫ ִמזְבַ ח הַ קְ ֹט ֶרת‬is the rite of atonement, which occurs once a year (v. 10). The instruction here simply indicates that Aaron should perform this ritual on the horns of the incense altar with the blood of the sin offering of atonement. The frequency of this is doubly stated in the verse: ‫אַ חַ ת בַ שָ נָה‬, and it is to be observed ‫לְ ֹדרֹ תֵ יכֶם‬. The rites of purification on the Day of Atonement are however elaborated in an entire chapter: Lev 16. Here, this ritual is slated for the tenth day of the seventh month (v. 29). And as part of the atonement rites, it is prescribed that Aaron is to purify “the altar that is before YHWH”150: 18

Then he shall go out to the altar that is before the LORD and make atonement on its behalf, and shall take some of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat, and put it on each of the horns of the altar. 19He shall sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it and hallow it from the uncleannesses of the people of Israel (NRSV).

Though the above may actually be in reference to the bronze altar, one can extract from it the likely rites of the atonement of the golden altar too. The mention of the horns of the altar in Ex 30,10 and Lev 16,18 suggests this. To be emphasised here is that these rites of atonement are necessitated by “the uncleannesses of the people of Israel, and because of their transgressions, all their sins” (Lev 16,16). The sanctuary is the meeting point of the most holy YHWH and his sinful people. For YHWH to remain in this sanctuary, it has to be periodically sanctified. David Wright explains: While throughout the year the impurity of individual or community sins may be purged as they arise (Lev 4), once a year a special rite must be performed that cleanses the sanctuary

150

Scholars are divided on which altar is referred to here. For some scholars, the verb ‫יצא‬ in Lev 16,18 implies Aaron’s coming out from the ‫ ֹקדֶ ש הַ קֳ דָ ִשים‬to the holy place. The reference is thus to the golden altar (so RASHI; D. HOFFMANN, Das Buch Leviticus, I, 450; R.K. HARRISON, Leviticus, 173). For others, the verb implies coming out from the Tabernacle tent to the sacred precinct where the altar of burnt offering is located (so J.E. HARTLEY, Leviticus, 240–241; S.R. DRIVER, Exodus, 331). Now, in the flow of Lev 16, immediately after this altar atonement comes the statement: “When he has finished atoning for the holy place and the Tent of Meeting and the altar…” (Lev 16,20; NRSV). Here, the altar is distinguished from the Tent of Meeting. It is thus deducible that this altar is outside the Tent of Meeting – the altar of burnt offering.

222

Chapter V: “Throughout Your Generations”

of impurity from deliberate sins and from any other lingering impurity not yet rectified. The implication following from this is that were the sanctuary left sullied by these impurities, God’s presence, which manifests itself in the tent, could not dwell there and would leave (Ezk 8–11).151

Underlined in our pericope is the purification of the altar from which incense is continually offered to YHWH. As such, the altar of incense has the purpose of recalling each year, on this very special occasion, a decisive aspect of the faith of Israel: YHWH who has entered into a covenant with the people is able, by his power, to reconstitute it through cultic rituals. And if the catastrophe of the Exile is understood as a consequence of breaking the covenant, one can imagine the impact of remembering the rituals of the Day of Atonement at this period. Also to be noted here is that a complete rest ( ‫ )שַ בַ ת שַ בָ תֹון‬is required on this day, as a ‫( חֻקַ ת עֹולָם‬Lev 16,29–31). Just like the Sabbath, the Yom Kippur is to be a day dedicated wholly to YHWH by the entire populace, as atonement is being made for them at the sanctuary (v. 30). 1.3.3 The Daily Incense and the Day of Atonement in Israel The description of the altar of incense appears improperly positioned, as other items within the Tabernacle are described in chs. 25–26. This provides part of the grounds for Wellhausen and his followers to conclude that the use of incense in the Israelite sanctuary is a post–exilic invention, an “innovation from a more luxuriously-developed foreign cultus.”152 Some of the scholarly arguments of against this position are aptly captured by Cassuto: a. If anyone had wished to make an interpolation of this nature, he would have inserted it in its proper place, not outside it. b. Archaeological research has proven the existence of incense altars with four horns in the Land of Israel (in the tenth century BCE, already in Megiddo), and although we attribute them to idolatrous shrines, it is inconceivable that such an altar should be lacking in the Israelite sanctuary; whereas in a later epoch, in the time of the Second Temple, it is out of the question that the Jews would have initiated a pagan custom.153

151 D.P. WRIGHT, “Day of Atonement”, 73. Dozeman corroborates this in his assertion: “Yom Kippur is a ritual of riddance intended to purge the sanctuary of impurity that accumulates during the year from the transgressions of the Israelites and, more importantly, from the priesthood who were responsible for maintaining the purity of the sanctuary. If the priests did not maintain the purity of the cult on a regular basis, God would be driven away from the sanctuary.” T.B. DOZEMAN, Exodus, 663. For an extensive discussion on the yom kippur, see J. MILGROM, Leviticus 1–16, 1009–1084. 152 J. WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena, 64–65. Cf. P. HEGER, The Development, 52–53. 153 U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 309. Cf. also J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 399–400; M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 550. On the collocation of this passage, it is also pointed out by scholars that the emphasis of the tract is on its ritual mediation function. Hence, it is collocated in “the section on the Tent of Meeting where the focus is on ritual mediation as a means for humans to meet God, rather than the section on the Tabernacle where the approach of God into the sanctuary is described.” T.B. DOZEMAN, Exodus, 661.

1. The term ‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬in Exodus

223

On the archaeological aspect, Seymour Gitin has pointed out the widespread use of incense altars in the ANE from the Late Bronze Age onwards. And numerous examples of this, with their sizes close to the one described in this pericope, have been discovered in the Iron Age Palestine.154 Wellhausen’s position finds support, however, in Paul Heger’s study on the development of the incense cult in ancient Israel, “from the earliest use of fragrant substances as an auxiliary cultic rite, to the enhancement of the incense ceremony to a rite of prime significance.”155 He traces the philological development of the root ‫ קטר‬in the Bible and infers that it is used in non-cultic contexts at the earliest stages (cf. Gen 19,8; 25,1); used to refer to foreign cults in the prophets (cf. Isa 65,3.7); and by the post-exilic period, “the Israelite habit of absorbing foreign customs and creeds and refashioning them as their own led to the incorporation of incense into ‘legitimate’ cultic worship.”156 Not discounting the merits of Heger’s study, it is to be pointed out that analysing both biblical and archaeological data, burning incense appears incorporated early into Israel’s cultic worship. Thus, Eli is depicted as chosen to “burn incense before me” (1Sam 2,28), and Solomon continually offered incense ‫ לִ פְ נֵי ְיהוָה‬in the Temple (1kgs 9,25). However, this practice seems to have received a more central role by the post-exilic period. Furthermore, just as in the case of the incense altar, because of the paucity of biblical data on the pre-exilic celebration of the Day of Atonement, the Wellhausen School deems it a post-exilic development in Israel. But scholars have convincingly demonstrated that this ritual has pre-exilic roots. For instance, John Hartley’s succinct diachronic analysis – based on the studies of Klaus Koch who shows that ancient rites underlie the ritual of this day 157 and Kjell Aartun who finds the parallel of the goat for Azazel in ancient Ugaritic and Hittite rites;158 and considering the obscurity of the meaning of the term ‫ֲעזָאזֵל‬ which indicates its early origin, and the attested antiquity of the blood rites at the ‫ – כַפֹ ֶרת‬concludes that the complex of evidences “favours assigning an early origin to the basic rites of this day of expiation.”159 In all, scholars are generally united in the position that the rituals on the incense altar described in Ex 30,7–10 were performed in the post-exilic sanctuary. And though there are indications that incense altars existed in the preexilic Temple, there are no elaborate attestations of the daily offering of incense or for the rites on the Day of Atonement. It is however tenable that these rituals are deeply rooted in pre-exilic practices. And so, just as in the case of 154

Cf. S. GITIN, “The Four-Horned Altar”, 95–99. P. HEGER, The Development, 2. 156 P. HEGER, The Development, 5, 97–144. 157 Cf. K. KOCH, Die Priesterschrift, 92–96. 158 Cf. K. AARTUN, “Studien zum Gesetz”, 91–94. 159 Cf. J.E. HARTLEY, Leviticus, 217–220. 155

224

Chapter V: “Throughout Your Generations”

the daily offerings, one can deduce here that, in the early post-exilic period, emphasising the offering of a unique incense to YHWH and the special rituals of the Day of Atonement became tools for the Israel to re-create its battered identity. This implies that from the data available to the collective memory of the people, Israel created a theology that sets them apart from their neighbours in the ANE, a theology that elucidates the cultic relationship between a sinful people and the all-holy God. At the catastrophe of the Exile, one could imagine that the memory of the Day of Atonement became highlighted as it recalled the mercy of God in the face of the people’s failings.160 Most probably, it was assumed that the punishment of the Exile stemmed from not keeping these directives as given. Hence, it had to be underlined that these were injunctions explicitly directed by YHWH ab initio to be performed ‫לְ ֹדרֹ תֵ יכֶם‬. 1.4 The Anointing Oil (30,22–33) In Ex 30,22–33, still within the context Moses’ encounter with YHWH on top of the mountain at the Sinai (Ex 25–31), instructions are given on the preparation and the use of the holy anointing oil, meant exclusively for the consecration of the Tabernacle and its ministers – the priests. This exclusive cultic use of this oil is enjoined on the people to be observed ‫לְ ֹד ֹרתֵ יכֶם‬. 1.4.1 Ex 30,22–33 – A Translation 22

And YHWH spoke to Moses, saying: 23“You, take for yourself 161 choicest spices: five hundred (shekels) of flowing myrrh, and half as much – two hundred and fifty – of fragrant cinnamon, and two hundred and fifty of fragrant cane, 24five hundred of cassia – according to the measure [shekel] of the sanctuary – and a hin of olive oil. 25And you shall make of this a holy anointing oil, an ointment mixture as the work of a perfumer.162 It shall be a holy anointing oil to YHWH. 26With it you shall anoint the Tent of Meeting and the Ark of the Testimony, 27and the table and all its utensils, the lampstand and its utensils, and the altar of incense, 28and the altar of burnt offering and all its utensils, and the basin and its stand. 29You shall consecrate them, that they may be most holy; whatever touches them shall be holy. 30You shall anoint Aaron and his sons, and consecrate them to serve me as priests. 31 And you shall speak to the Israelites saying: ‘This shall be a holy anointing oil to me throughout your generations (‫)לְ ֹד ֹרתֵ יכֶם‬. 32It shall not be poured on any

160 Noteworthy here is the interesting relationship between memory and forgiveness. Recalling the past ritual of atonement for sins restores hope: remembering his past acts of forgiveness brings the confidence that God is capable of transforming even sin! 161 Heb: …‫וְ אַ תָ ה קַ ח־לְ ָך‬. That this instruction is directed to Moses is doubly emphasised. 162 The Hebrew construction – ַ‫ ֹרקַ ח ִמ ְרקַ חַ ת מַ עֲׂשֵ ה רֹ קֵ ח‬: “an ointment mixture, the work of a mixer” – emphasises that the anointing oil is to be well-compounded (root ‫ רקח‬occurs 3x).

1. The term ‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬in Exodus

225

person’s flesh; and you shall not make anything like it, according to its composition. It is holy, and it shall be holy to you. 33Whoever compounds anything like it, or whoever puts any of it on an unauthorised person, shall be cut off from his people’.” 1.4.2 Ex 30,22–33 – A Concise Analysis Immediately striking here is that the root ‫ קדש‬occurs 11x in this pericope,163 a clear indicator of the centrality of the holiness motif therein. A brief consideration of the notion of holiness is thus apposite here. In Milgrom’s description, the term “holy” generally refers to “that which is unapproachable except through divinely imposed restrictions, or that which is withdrawn from common use.” In the Hebrew Bible, he explains further, God alone is the source of holiness. As such, “Holiness is the extension of his nature; it is the agency of his will. If certain things are termed holy…, they are so by virtue of divine dispensation.”164 That a thing is holy therefore implies that it is set apart for certain functions relating to the divine. In Exodus, certain persons (e.g., priests; 29,1–37), places (e.g., locus of the burning bush; 3,5), items (especially items related to the wilderness sanctuary; chs. 25–31), are designated at holy.165 All these are marked with a special relationship with God. Interestingly, Israel is designated as “a holy nation” (19,6). This implies that Israel is a people set apart for a special relationship with YHWH – a point repeatedly underscored in the macronarrative of Exodus. And many of the important practices/institutions that portray this are remembered as having been ordained by YHWH to be carried out ‫לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬. The pericope consists of three parts: the preparation of the ‫( שֶ מֶ ן ִמ ְשחַ ת־ ֹקדֶ ש‬vv. 22–25); the anointing of sanctuary items and priests (vv. 26–30); and the directive not to use the oil for profane purposes (vv. 31–33).166 The speech is directed to Moses (v. 22), and it is doubly emphasised that he himself is to collect the materials enumerated in vv. 23–24 and process them into a holy oil of anointing ( ָ‫)וְ אַ תָ ה קַ ח־לְ ָך… וְ ָע ִׂשית‬.167 This indicates, ab initio, the importance of this oil. The materials for the composition of the oil and their quantities are

163 It occurs 1x as a noun: v. 24; 3x as a verb: vv. 29(2x).30; and 7x as an adjective: vv. 25(2x).29(2x).31.32(2x). 164 J. MILGROM, Leviticus 1–16, 730. On the notion of making things holy, see inter alia M. ELIADE, The Sacred and the Profane, 20–65. 165 For a discussion on the major loci and degrees of holiness, see D.P. WRIGHT, “Holiness. Old Testament”, ABD, III, 237–244. 166 Cf. M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 556. 167 See however 37,29 where the preparation of the oil is attributed to Bezalel (cf. 37,1). Priotto (Esodo, 557, n. 326) reasons here that this is probably to be understood in the more nuanced context of the general attribution of the construction of the sanctuary to Bezalel (see also 31,11).

226

Chapter V: “Throughout Your Generations”

carefully detailed.168 Its uniqueness comes from its blend. And this unique blend is reserved solely for cultic use (v. 25). The cultic use of the anointing oil is explicitly clarified in vv. 26–30. The Tent of Meeting and all the sanctuary utensils (explicitly itemised) are to be consecrated by anointing with this holy oil.169 And by this consecration, they shall become most holy (cf. 30,10) – ‫וְ הָ יּו קֹ דֶ ש ָ ָֽקדָ ִשים‬, “cioè appartenenti esclusivamente a YHWH, e di conseguenza partecipi e testimoni della stessa fragranza divina.”170 And not only shall they be holy themselves, they shall also possess contagious holiness,171 for whatever touches them shall become holy too (cf. 29,37). Also, Aaron and his sons are to be consecrated with this oil, a consecration that grants them a closer share in the holiness of YHWH and thus qualifies them to minister in his sanctuary as priests.172 “Through this anointing,” Dohmen remarks, “a clear assigning to the realm of the sacred is accomplished, because the anointed “works” like the sacred itself.”173 As such, “the dwelling and personnel become bearers of ‘his’ fragrance, stamped by YHWH’s personality.”174 It is deducible here, therefore, that for YHWH to dwell in this sanctuary – in the midst of his people, he is to dwell in the midst of holy things and served by holy people.175 The anointing oil confers this holiness to such dedicated persons and things 176 – so strategic a function! The third part of this pericope is a warning against the profane use of the holy anointing oil (vv. 31–33). Priotto detects here a concentric structure, at the centre which stands the double emphasis on the holiness of this oil: And you shall speak to the Israelites saying: a. This shall be a holy anointing oil to me throughout your generations. b. It shall not be poured on any person’s flesh; c. and you shall not make anything like it, according to its composition. d. It is holy, and it shall be holy to you. c'. Whoever compounds anything like it, 168

Analysing the composite ingredients of this oil is beyond the scope of this piece. Worthy of note is that though these spices were “rare and therefore expensive” (C. MEYERS, Exodus, 69), they were accessible materials, made unique by their mixture. 169 From the biblical tradition, it appears that anointing sacred objects is an ancient tradition. Thus, Jacob anoints a ‫ מַ ּצֵ בָ ה‬at Bethel (Gen 28,18; cf. 31,13). 170 Cf. M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 556. 171 On the concept of sancta contagion, see J. MILGROM, Leviticus 1–16, 443–456. 172 The use of this oil in the rites of priestly ordination is already described in the preceding chapter (29,7.21), and the fulfilment of this occurs in Lev 8. 173 C. DOHMEN, Exodus 19–40, 278; translation mine. 174 C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, III, 575. 175 This requirement that YHWH is to dwell among holy people/things underlines the place of purification rites in the cultic life of Israel. 176 It appears surprising that there is no rite of consecration for this oil which conveys holiness to the anointed objects. From the text, the oil acquires automatic holiness by compounding it correctly, as instructed by YHWH.

1. The term ‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬in Exodus

227

b'. or whoever puts any of it on an unauthorised person, a'. shall be cut off from his people.177

This section begins with the explicit directive to convey the ensuing warning to the Israelites. This underscores the necessity of not profaning the anointing oil. It continues by the assertion that the oil, compounded according the given specification will be “a holy anointing oil to me throughout your generations” – ‫( שֶ מֶ ן ִמ ְשחַ ת־ ֹקדֶ ש ִיהְ יֶה זֶה לִ י לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬v. 31).178 The idea of holiness as “separated, dedicated to YHWH”179 plays out clearly in this context. And so, YHWH explicitly commands here that this specially compounded mix of oil is to be used exclusively in his service, in the cultic circle, throughout the history of Israel. This requirement is clarified further in the statement that it is neither to be used as a body cosmetic nor is anyone allowed to compose anything like it (v. 32a).180 It is a unique mixture that produces a unique fragrance – YHWH’s fragrance! “By reserving the holy anointing oil for himself,” Houtman remarks, “YHWH claims that special fragrance as his very own. The fragrance manifests his personality.”181 The statement – It is holy, and it shall be holy to you (v. 32b) – underlines once more the special sanctity of the ‫שֶ מֶ ן ִמ ְשחַ ת‬. Not only is it holy in itself, it has to be also regarded as holy by the people by keeping their “distance” from it. This implies keeping from a profane use of it, and from composing any similar mixture (vv. 32.33). The pericope concludes with the stipulation of the punishment for the transgressor of this directive, who by so doing “erases the boundary between the holy and the profane, the divine and the human, and upsets the order and balance of the world.”182 Such person is to be cut off from the people (v. 33). “This punishment, which is tantamount to a death penalty under the circumstances of ancient agrarian societies,” Meyers remarks, “is found in the Hebrew Bible as punishment for a wide range of serious offenses in the priestly realm (cf. 12,15).”183 And, as Dohmen infers, this threat of expulsion from the people leaves no doubt that holiness is the basis of life for the 177

M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 556. That this oil is to be held holy ‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬argues against the position of Cassuto (Exodus, 400) that the anointing oil is to be produced once and for all. 179 Cf. BDB; W. KORNFIELD / H. RINGGREN, “‫”קדש‬, TDOT, XXII, 533–534. 180 Propp (Exodus 19–40, 483) detects here “a polemic against royal anointment” in the Priestly circle. This seems going a bit too far. Over and above the suggestion that a different oil mixture may be used for this, the idea of a king as YHWH’s anointed permeates the entire Hebrew Bible (cf. 1Sam 15,17; 16,6; 2Sam 24,7[Eng: 6]; Isa 45,1), and forms the basis of the messianic expectation. Also, the anointing of kings in the OT was also performed by priests (cf. 1Kgs 1,39; 2Kgs 11,12). 181 C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, III, 575. 182 C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, III, 578. 183 C. MEYERS, Exodus, 69. For a brief discussion on the import of this punishment, see comments on Ex 12,15 above. 178

228

Chapter V: “Throughout Your Generations”

people of God, in whose midst God himself wants to live.184 Altogether, the severity of this punishment points once more to the central place of this sacred oil in the cultic life of Israel. 1.4.3 The Use of the Anointing Oil in Israel The prohibition of the use of the holy anointing oil for cosmetic and other purposes hints at the widespread use of oil/ointment as a commodity in Israel. It has been attested that the spices from which the holy anointing oil is compounded came mostly from other nations of the ANE, the supply of which created a large network of trade in that region at the Iron Age.185 This implies that the use of these spices was not confined only to Israel but also to their ANE neighbours. Ointments are used both for secular and cultic purposes. In the secular sense, ointments are used, inter alia, for medicinal purposes (cf. Isa 1,6; Ezk 16,9), as cosmetics especially for festive occasions (cf. Rut 3,3; Eccl 9,8), for welcoming guests at banquets – as a mark of honour (cf. Ps 23,5; Amos 6,6). Used in this way, oil connotes joy (cf. Ps 45,8[7]), and is thus not applied in the times of fasting or mourning (cf. 2Sam 12,20; 14,2; Dan 10,3).186 The use of the anointing oil for cultic purposes was also prevalent among the peoples of the ANE. “According to the ancient oriental conception,” Noth observes, “oil contained vital energy. It is ‘life-giving oil’. This divine lifegiving power is carried over to the anointing itself.”187 The anointing of a sacred object is attested in an Ugaritic text.188 It is also attested in one of the Amarna letters that Pharaoh Thutmose III (15th century BCE) underwent a royal anointing.189 And Cassuto notes that “since the practice is in no way contrary to Israel’s faith, it continued also among the Israelites.”190 Jacob’s anointing of a ‫ מַ ּצֵ בָ ה‬in Gen 28,18 points to an ancient tradition of anointing sacred objects. And the parable of the trees in Jdg 9,7–15 also indicate that the anointing of kings is an ancient tradition (cf. esp. v. 8). From the above, the emphasis on the holiness of the anointing oil in Exodus, meant for exclusive cultic use as directed by YHWH himself, does not mark an innovation of practice. It is rather an adaption of an already existing practice into the cultic milieu of the Israelites emerging from the disaster of the Exile. In the absence of the monarchy, the people had to rebuild their identity around 184

Cf. C. DOHMEN, Exodus 19–40, 278. Cf. G.W. VAN BEEK, “Frankincense and Myrrh”, 106; R.R. STIEGLITZ, “Long-Distance Seafaring”, 141; see also Gen 27,25; 1Kgs 10,22–26. 186 On the uses of anointing oil in Israel and the ANE, see J.C. TREVER, “Oil”, IDB, III, 592–593; V.H. MATTHEWS, “Perfumes and Spices”, ABD, V, 226–228. 187 M. NOTH, The laws in the Pentateuch, 239. 188 Cf. UT 76 II, 22.23. 189 Cf. J.A. KNUDTZON, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln, no. 51, 4–5. 190 U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 396; see also S. SZIKSZAI, “Anoint”, IDB, I, 139. 185

1. The term ‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬in Exodus

229

the cult. From the pre-exilic rites, the people selected and developed a system of cultic worship that expressed the theology of their being a people specially chosen by YHWH in spite of their humiliation – a holy people! This theology underlines the link with the constitutive past when Israel was separated and chosen. The cultic use of the anointing oil – one of the markers of this chosenness – fits into this purpose, and is thus highlighted. Hence, the directives on its unique composition, its use, and the warning against its abuse are remembered as explicitly handed down by YHWH himself at the Sinai, to be observed by all Israel ‫לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬. 1.5 The Sabbath (31,12–17) At the conclusion of the long instructions in chs. 25–31, just before Moses receives the ‫לֻחֹ ת הָ ֵעדֻת‬, come instructions concerning the Sabbath. Actually, the instructions on the erection of the sanctuary are concluded by the directive to entrust the task of its construction to Bezalel and Oholiab (31,1–11). The directives on the Sabbath are exceptional here, as it forms the only part of the instructions not directly concerned with the establishment of the sacred precinct. Its collocation here points to the crucial place of keeping the Sabbath in the YHWH-Israel relationship. 1.5.1 Ex 31,12–17 – A Translation 12

And YHWH said to Moses, 13“You, speak to the Israelites,191 saying: “Indeed, you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations (‫)לְ ֹד ֹרתֵ יכֶם‬, that you may know that I, YHWH, sanctify you. 14 You shall keep the Sabbath, for it is holy to you. Anyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death. Indeed,192 whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. 15Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day, there shall be a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to YHWH.193 Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall surely be put to death. 16Therefore the Israelites shall keep the Sabbath – observing the Sabbath throughout their generations (‫ )לְ דֹ רֹ תָ ם‬as a perpetual covenant. 17It is a sign forever between me and the Israelites, for in six days YHWH made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.”194 191 Heb: ‫וְ אַ תָ ה דַ בֵ ר אֶ ל־בְ נֵי ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬. This formulation “emphasises Moses’ responsibility for teaching Israel about the Sabbath.” W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 19–40, 491. 192 The particle ‫ כִ י‬functions emphatically here (cf. HALOT; GK § 159ee), directing emphasis on the prohibition of profaning the Sabbath. 193 Note the nominal clause: ‫( ּובַ יֹום הַ ְשבִ יעִ י שַ בַ ת שַ בָ תֹון ֹקדֶ ש לַיהוָה‬the translation here follows the NJPS). As already noted above (§ 1.1.1; 1.2.1), these nominal clauses appear to have become fixed formulas at the time of the composition of Exodus. 194 To be noted here is the shift in this Jahwerede from the first person to the third person. As discussed in the analysis of 16,28–29 (Chap. IV, § 1.2.2), this does not necessarily imply

230

Chapter V: “Throughout Your Generations”

1.5.2 Ex 31,12–17 – A Concise Analysis In Exodus, outside this pericope, injunctions on the Sabbath appear in 16,23 – 29; 20,8–11; 23,12; 34,21; 35,1–3, an indicator of its central place in Israel’s religious life. Also noteworthy is that among these passages, it is only in 31,12– 17 and 35,1–3 that punishments are stipulated for profaning the Sabbath. And the collocation of these two tracts is of particular interest here. While 31,12 – 17 brings to a conclusion the series of instructions on the erection of the sanctuary, “a conclusion designed to call attention to the importance of stopping to reflect on the reality of the Presence of Yahweh, of providing a regular time for honouring that Presence in worship,” 35,1–3 “provides the introduction to the narrative of the implementation of those instructions.”195 Highlighted by this is a profound relationship between the sanctuary and the observance of the Sabbath. Childs comments further: The connection between the Sabbath and the Tabernacle is therefore an important one. The building instructions had outlined in detail the work to be done, but the Sabbath command, coming at the conclusion of the instructions, reminds the people of the limits of work…. The Tabernacle represents the fulfilment of the covenant promise: “I will make my dwelling with you… I will be your God and you shall be my people.” But the actual sign of the covenant is the Sabbath. Therefore, the observance of the Sabbath and the building of the Tabernacle are two sides of the same reality.196

Ex 31,12–17 unfolds in three steps (after the introductory v. 12) – vv. 13; 14– 15; 16–17 – each step introduced by the directive to “keep the Sabbath,” the import of which is progressively deepened. And the unit is delimited by a triple inclusio: “keep the Sabbath,” “a sign between me and you,” “throughout your/their generations” (vv. 13.16–17).197 As such, the whole pericope revolves around the injunction of observing the Sabbath as a perennial sign of fidelity to the covenant with YHWH. Also, as already noted above, Moses is particularly charged with relaying the Sabbath instructions to the Israelites (v. 13a), and noteworthy here is that he accomplishes this in 35,1–3.

provenance from difference sources. It is rather employed as a narrative technique to create a determined effect. 195 J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 412. Durham goes on to describe the relationship between the two tracts as “a repetitive bridge connecting command to obedience.” 196 B.S. CHILDS, Exodus, 541–542. On this, Houtman also observes: “The insertion of 31,12–17 and 35,1–3 in the account of the making of the sanctuary [is] aimed to convey a message: the establishment of sacred time (Gen 2,1–3; Ex 20,8–11) precedes in time that of the holy place; the holy place is therefore embedded in the sacred time…. The placement of 35,1–3 at the head [of the construction works] underscores this.” C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, II, 588–589. Cf. also M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 562. 197 Cf. M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 562.

1. The term ‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬in Exodus

231

The instructions in this unit begin with the emphatic ‫“( אַ ְך אֶ ת־שַ בְ תֹ תַ י ִת ְש ֹמרּו‬Indeed, you shall keep my Sabbaths”; v. 13b),198 the central motif around which this unit is built. The Sabbath is described as a sign ( ‫ )אֹות‬between YHWH and Israel ‫לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬. This implies that keeping the Sabbath will be a perennial sign of the special relationship between YHWH and Israel. Though not explicitly stated here, the Sabbath is in fact a sign of the covenant between Israel and YHWH (cf. v. 16).199 However, while the other covenantal signs are physical (rainbow: Gen 9,13; circumcision: Gen 17,11), the Sabbath is invisible, though inevitably cyclic.200 Still, the Sabbath can only actually be a sign if it is observed by the people,201 since a sign is generally an external fact that signifies an interior/spiritual reality. As such, keeping the Sabbath is not meant to be merely an external affair. Rather, “it was a spiritual attitude as well, since every Sabbath celebration was, in a sense, a renewal of the covenant relationship.”202 In keeping the Sabbath, therefore, Israel expresses the recognition of its chosenness as a gift of YHWH – that they “know that I, YHWH, sanctify you” (v. 13).203 Here, Durham pertinently remarks: Keeping his Sabbath is one way of realising that specialness, of keeping keen the sense of it…. The intention of this sign and the reason it must be kept so regularly and so conscientiously is that Israel might know Yahweh’s Presence by experience, in every generation, and be reminded constantly that only by that Presence are they a people set apart. It is for this reason that the Sabbath command is to be kept so strictly.204

Also, Propp points out that the last affirmation in v. 13, which identifies the God who sanctifies Israel by name, re-emphasises the Torah’s primary requirement to serve no other god but YHWH .205 Disregarding the Sabbath therefore amounts to disregarding YHWH himself.206

198

Scholars are divided on whether the particle ‫ אַ ְך‬here is emphatic “surely, indeed” or restrictive “nevertheless, however.” For those who adopt the latter, the instruction, following the preceding episode, restricts work on the Sabbath even as the Tabernacle is being constructed (so U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 404; B. JACOB, Exodus, 845–846; W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 19–40, 491; NJPS). Though this is quite tenable, considering the content of 31,12–17 as a unit, the emphatic use of this particle appears more probable here (so J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 411–412; T.B. DOZEMAN, Exodus, 676; V.P. HAMILTON, Exodus, 523). 199 Fit to note here is that before this point, the term ‫ אֹות‬has occurred 14x in Exodus, always related to the manifestation of the divine power. Hence, its use here indicates that YHWH’s choice of Israel as his own from among the nations implies a demonstration of his might (cf. 19,3–6). 200 Cf. M.V. FOX, “The Sign of the Covenant”, 577. 201 Cf. W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 19–40, 491. 202 H.H.P. DRESSLER, “The Sabbath in the Old Testament”, 32. 203 Cf. Ezk 20,12. On the motif of ‫ ידע‬in Exodus, see Chap. II, § 2.3, 2.4. 204 J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 412–413; emphasis mine. 205 Cf. W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 19–40, 492. 206 J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 412–413.

232

Chapter V: “Throughout Your Generations”

In vv. 14–15, the motive for keeping the Sabbath gets deepened, and strict punishments are stipulated for violating it. The Sabbath is to be observed because it is holy – “holy to YHWH and holy to you.” It is holy ‫ לַיהוָה‬because it is a consecrated day, dedicated to YHWH; and is holy to the Israelites because it is to be observed by them as a day different from all other days, a day of solemn rest from all types of work.207 And in this observation, the chosen people share more closely in the life of YHWH who hallowed the seventh day at creation (Gen 2,3; cf. Ex 16,23–26).208 And because of the elevated sanctity and profound significance of the Sabbath, its violation attracts very strict punishments: death and being cut off.209 The specific mention of these two punishments (with the death penalty repeated in vv. 14.15; cf. also 35,2) underlines the gravity of violating the Sabbath, and thus its central place in the religious life of the people. The explanatory statement ...‫ שֵ שֶ ת י ִָמים‬recalls 16,26; 20,9–10; 23,12; cf. 35,2; Lev 23,3. This continued reiteration also indicates its central importance. For the third time in the pericope, the Israelites are instructed to keep the Sabbath,210 to be “done” throughout their generations (‫)לְ ֹד ֹרתָ ם‬. This implies that the Sabbath is not something only to be passively remembered, but especially to be actively done. This point is also brought out in the wordplay on the verb ‫ עׂשה‬which occurs 5x in this unit.211 In v. 15, work is permitted to be done (‫) ֵי ָעׂשֶ ה‬ in six days, but the one who does ( ‫ )הָ עֹ ׂשֶ ה‬any work on the Sabbath incurs capital punishment. But in v. 16, the Sabbath is directed to be done ( ‫ ) ַלעֲׂשֹות‬through Israel’s history (see also Dt 5,14–15). Doing the Sabbath clearly implies observing the Sabbath rest. At this point, keeping the Sabbath is described as an everlasting covenant (‫)בְ ִרית עֹולָם‬, linking it again by this expression to Noah’s covenant (through the rainbow; Gen 9,11–17) and that of Abraham (through circumcision; Gen 17,7–

207

Noteworthy here is the pun on the root ‫ קדש‬in vv. 13–15: In v. 13, YHWH is the agent of the people’s sanctification. So as to remember this, the people are to observe a holy day, separated from the others (v. 14) and consecrated to the YHWH (v. 15). 208 Cf. G.F. HASEL, “Sabbath”, ABD, V, 851; comments on 16,23–26 (Chap. IV, § 1). 209 The specific mention of the punishment of being cut off distinctly from the punishment of putting to death suggests that they do not mean exactly the same thing. It appears that being cut off strongly implies being ostracised from the community. This may imply, as some scholars suggest, not only the physical excommunication of the transgressor but also “loss of posterity and alienation from the land.” So W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 19–40, 492; V.P. HAMILTON, Exodus, 524. 210 Noteworthy is that the root ‫ שבת‬occurs 8x in this short unit. The emphasis is clear! 211 Cf. U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 404. Again, the verb ‫ עׂשה‬connects this unit to the preceding one (31,1–11), where it occurs 4x (vv. 4.5.6.11). And the link between vv. 11 and 16 is specifically noteworthy – both are calls to obedience by doing. While in v. 11, Bezalel and Oholiab are to “do as I have commanded you”, in v. 16, the Israelites are to “do the Sabbath” as instructed.

1. The term ‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬in Exodus

233

14). “As the Noahic covenant has a “sign” (Gen 9,13.17) in the rainbow and the Abrahamic covenant has a ‘sign’ (Gen 17,11) in circumcision,” Hasel observes, “so the Sinai covenant has a ‘sign’ in the Sabbath.”212 The Sabbath would become a perennial sign ( ‫)אֹות לְ עֹ לָם‬213 of the covenant between YHWH and Israel, a covenant ratified there at the Sinai (see esp. 24,3–8), and summarised in the words: “You shall be my people, and I will be your God” (cf. Ex 6,7; Lev 26,12; etc.). Hence, keeping the Sabbath – in which Israel aligns itself to the divine rhythm of work and rest at creation (cf. 20,11) 214 – will continually be a sign that the people are keeping to the terms of the covenant, and also offer them regularly the opportunity to reflect on the gift of the covenant through which they are God’s chosen people – a holy people. Striking here is the added statement that YHWH got refreshed ( ‫ ) ַו ִי ָּנ ַפש‬by the rest on the seventh day, an anthropomorphism 215 that uncovers the image of God with whom Israel is going into a closer relationship. Priotto remarks: Through the audacious anthropomorphic symbolism, the expression – he rested and refreshed himself – outlines the image of a God, in whom work and rest harmoniously coexist. And this is the God whom Israel is called to discover and receive, thanks to the gift of the Sabbath, in the liturgy of a sanctuary where he himself has chosen to dwell and meet his people.216

It is pertinent to note here, as some scholars have pointed out, that the repose of God at creation has deep theological undertones. A. Wènin, for e.g., points out that the parallelism in Gen 2,2 is quite instructive: And God completed on the seventh day the work that he had done; and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done.

According to him, “to complete” and “to rest” are synonymous parallels here. As such, “è proprio il ritirarsi di Elohim, la cessazione del lavoro, che compie l’opera di creazione mettendovi un termine definitivo. Senza questo ritirarsi del Creatore, la creazione non sarebbe compiuta.” But this completion, Wènin

212 G.F. HASEL, “Sabbath”, ABD, V, 852. Fit to note here also is that the punishment stipulated for non-circumcision in Gen 17,19 is being cut off from one’s people. 213 Perpetuity is a Leitmotiv in this unit, occurring 4x, expressed in the terms ‫לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬/ ‫( לְ דֹ רֹ תָ ם‬vv. 13.16); ‫( עֹ לָם‬vv. 16.17). Underlined is that the Sabbath, which stretches back to creation, is meant for perpetual observance. 214 Within context, Dozeman (Exodus, 677–678) detects here a possible allusion to the mythological sequence of temple building and divine rest in the ANE, identified by V. Hurowitz as a common motif in the religions of this cultural milieu. Cf. V. HUROWITZ, I Have Built, 330–331; see also B.F. BATTO, “The Sleeping God”, 153–177. 215 The root ‫ ָּנ ַפש‬occurs again as a verb only in Ex 23,12 and 2Sam 16,14 in the Hebrew Bible, both applying to humans/living creatures (Cf. S.R. DRIVER, Exodus, 345). In Ex 23,12, the Sabbath is instructed so that humans and animals could get refreshed. This is thus in imitation of YHWH who also “refreshed himself” on the seventh day at creation. 216 M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 564; translation mine.

234

Chapter V: “Throughout Your Generations”

explains, does not imply a perfection of creation. Rather, God restricts his own dominion of creation so as to create the necessary space for the autonomy of the world, especially of humanity to whom he has given dominion over creation (1,28). In this way, God prepares, ab initio, the propitious terrain for the future covenant in which the different parties will assume their limits and respect the freedom of the other.217 1.5.3 The Sabbath in Israel From both biblical and extra-biblical data, the observance of the seventh-day rest appears to have a long history in Israel. And, interestingly, no tenable parallel to it has been found in the neighbouring cultures of the ANE. The earlier association of the Sabbath rest with the Akkadian šab/pattu218 has been faulted on both linguistic and historical counts. Linguistically, it has been poin ted out that the derivation of ‫ שַ בַ ת‬from šab/pattu is both etymologically and semantically difficult to establish.219 And historically, the discovery that šab/pattu referred to the fifteenth day of the month, the full moon day, distances it from the seven-day rhythm of the Sabbath.220 Connected to this is the notion, significantly promoted by J. Meinhold , that the Sabbath was originally a monthly celebration borrowed from the ancient Babylonian celebration of the šab/pattu on the full-moon day.221 And Robinson argues further that this monthly celebration was only changed to a weekly rhythm after the Exile. For him, the occurrence of the New Moon and the Sabbath together in many pre-exilic texts (cf. Amos 8,4–7; Hos 2,11–15[9–13]; Isa 1,10–14; 2Kgs 4,22–23) lends support to this position.222 On this, Hasel has convincingly argued that the sequence “feasts – New Moons – Sabbaths” in Hos 2,13[11] presents three different festivals in the rising order of frequency: yearly (feasts), monthly (New Moons), and weekly (Sabbaths); while a reverse order of the sequence is found in Ezk 46,3.9; 1Chr 23,31.223 In the Hebrew Bible, the observation of the Sabbath in the pre-exilic period is well-attested, “beginning with the early monarchy in connection with festivals and holidays in ancient Israel (2Kgs 4,23; Isa 1,13; Lam 2,6; Hos 2,13[11]; Amos 8,5).” It was a day in which “all agricultural work (2Kgs 4,23) and

217

A. WÈNIN, Da Adamo a Abramo, 25–26. See, for e.g., W. LOTZ, Quaestiones de Historia Sabbati, 24–38. 219 Cf. E. HAAG, Vom Sabbath zum Sonntag, 42, n. 48. 220 Cf. G.F. HASEL, “Sabbat”, ABD, V, 850. 221 Cf. J. MEINHOLD, Sabbat und Woche, 1–13; IDEM, “Die Entstehung”, 81–112. 222 Cf. G. ROBINSON, The Origin and Development, 55–60, 167. 223 Cf. G.F. HASEL, “New Moon and Sabbath”, 38–45. For a concise exposé of the other hypotheses on the extra-Israelite origin of the Sabbath, see G.F. HASEL, “Sabbath”, 850. Fit to note here is that, subjected to critical scrutiny, none of these hypotheses appears quite convincing. 218

1. The term ‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬in Exodus

235

commerce (Amos 8,5) ceased and that cultic events might be summoned.224 The scholarly discussion of the relationship between the Sabbath and the seventh day is beyond the scope of this piece. However, it is pertinent to note the tenable observation of Ernst Haag here: The unique character of the preexilic Sabbath in Israel consists rather in that this holiday was identical with the seventh day decreed in the ancient Israelite commandment concerning the day of rest (Ex 34,21), with the designations “Sabbath” and “seventh day” merely referring to two different stages in the development of this holiday. The designation “seventh day” thus belongs to the initial stage of this development.225

From the above, it appears that the seventh-day rest was originally a rest day, a holiday, so designated such for sociological reasons (cf. Ex 23,12; 34,21). This would gradually be identified with the Sabbath, with its faith-related connotations. As such, a previous sociological holiday is raised to a religious observation, grounded on the divine seventh-day rest at creation. And because this sabbatical rhythm is not found in the neighbouring cultures of the ANE,226 at the time of the Exile and the early post-exilic period, it was specifically remembered and reinforced as a marker of identity, demarcating the ingroup from the outgroup.227 The recurrence of the motif of keeping the Sabbath through the entire Hebrew Bible attests to this. Such recurrent emphasis indicates the centrality of the Sabbath in the social memory of the people at the period of the composition of the Hebrew Bible (especially the Pentateuch) in its present form – the exilic and early post-exilic period. As a result of its central significance, the development of the Sabbath receives a remarkable attention in biblical history. It is demonstrated by God right at creation (Gen 2,2–3), revealed to the chosen people – Israel – through the manna at the wilderness of Sin (Ex 16,23–30), repeatedly highlighted at the Sinai (Ex 20,8–11; 23,12; 35,1–3; etc.) and there proclaimed a sign of the covenant (31,12–17), and was a point of reference in the YHWH-Israel relationship through OT history.228 In fact, keeping the Sabbath would become a euphemism for keeping YHWH’s Torah generally (cf. Is 56,6; Jer 17,19–27). Hence, it became actually a sign of the covenant (Ex 31,13.17).

224

E. HAAG, “‫”שַ בָ ת‬, TDOT, XIV, 391. E. HAAG, “‫”שַ בָ ת‬, TDOT, XIV, 392. 226 The assertion of J. Morgenstern (“Sabbath”, IDB, IV, 137) – “There can be little question that this institution, the seventh-day Sabbath, was strictly observed by the Canaanites and was borrowed from them” – has been considered by scholars as unfounded. Cf., for e.g., H.H.P. DRESSLER, “The Sabbath”, 35; E. LOHSE, “σάββατον”, TDNT, VII, 3. 227 The ingroup refers to the people who belong to the group (here the Israelites), while the outgroup refers to those who do not belong there. On the functionality of these terms in defining social identity, see the exposé on social identity in Chap. I § 1.2.1; cf. also P.F. ESLER, “An Outline of Social Identity Theory”, 24–27. 228 The term ‫ שַ בַ ת‬appears over 190x in the Hebrew Bible. 225

236

Chapter V: “Throughout Your Generations”

Notably, the two accounts of the Decalogue in the Pentateuch (Ex 20 and Dt 5) highlight the commandment to keep the Sabbath holy: ‫זָכֹור אֶ ת־יֹום הַ שַ בָ ת לְ קַ ְדשֹו‬ // ‫( שָ מֹור אֶ ת־יֹום הַ שַ בָ ת לְ קַ ְדשֹו‬Ex 20,8 // Dt 5,12).229 In the two instances, however, the reasons for keeping the Sabbath differ. In Exodus, the reason is traced back to the rest of God at creation (20,11; cf. Gen 2), while in Deuteronomy, it is linked to the memory of the liberation from Egypt (5,15). Though they appear to differ, these reasons are not mutually exclusive. Peter Craigie finds rather in them a complement: The two reasons complement each other and both emphasise man’s dependence on God. To rest on the Sabbath day was to remember that man, as a part of God’s created order, was totally dependent on the Creator; man’s divinely appointed task to have dominion over the created order (Gen 1,26) carried with it also the privilege of sharing in God’s rest. The Exodus, too, was a type of creation and thus forms an analogy to the creation account in Genesis. The Exodus from Egypt marks in effect the creation of God’s people as a nation, and the memory of that event was also a reminder to the Israelites of their total dependence upon God.230

As a sign of the covenant, keeping the Sabbath became an indicator of belonging to the chosen people of God. One who does not to keep the Sabbath as stipulated does not belong to this privileged participation. As such, the people of other nations, who do not keep the Sabbath, are automatically disqualified. Along this line, one can understand the import being cut off as a punishment for violating the Sabbath. If the chosen people are marked by the covenant ratified at the Sinai, the sign of which is the Sabbath, whoever chooses not to keep it has to be excommunicated from the cultic community as he/she does not belong there. In this way, the ingroup-outgroup distinction is sharply kept, and the holiness of the people is preserved intact. In all, though the seventh-day rest has been a religious observance in preexilic Israel, it is deducible that in the bid to confront the identity crisis occasioned by the Exile, the Israelites highlighted its function as a sign of their covenant with YHWH at the Sinai. It could be reasonably imagined that the strict sanctions attached to the transgression of the Sabbath came, or at least became specially highlighted, at this time for the same reason. Because it is not a shared practice with the neighbouring cultures, keeping the Sabbath became for Israel a veritable tool of reasserting its identity, and was accorded the highest level of sanctity and attention. It is remembered to have been instituted by YHWH himself at creation, manifested to the chosen people in the wilderness, and commanded at the Sinai to be observed ‫לְ ֹד ֹרתֵ יכֶם‬.

229 Notably, the Sabbath commandment in Ex begins with the term ‫זָכֹור‬, while in Deut, it begins with ‫שָ מֹור‬. However, “to remember” is implicit in the command “to observe.” Again, the root ‫ זכר‬is linked to the ‫ שַ בָ ת‬in the Dt 5,12–15 (precisely in v. 15). 230 P.C. CRAIGIE, The Book of Deuteronomy, 157.

2. The Ark of the Testimony

237

Before rounding off reflections in this chapter, it is observable that all the practices discussed above are marked as holy. Now, besides the temporally regulated observances (pesaḥ-maṣṣôṯ and Sabbath), the other practices discussed above are tied to the Tabernacle. The wilderness sanctuary – the abode of YHWH – is marked by its special holiness. And the most essential object of this sanctuary is undoubtedly the Ark of the Testimony. It is thus apposite to consider briefly this object so central in Israel’s collective memory.

2. The Ark of the Testimony (Ex 25,10–22) In YHWH’s directives to Moses on the construction of the Tabernacle and its utensils in Ex 25–30, the Ark of the Testimony is the first to be described (25,10–22), an indicator of its prominence. An analysis of this description is taken here with particular attention, not on the physical qualities of the Ark, but on its function as a central site of memory in Israel, especially in the exilic/early post-exilic period. 2.1 Ex 25,10–22 – A Translation 10

They1 shall make an ark of acacia wood, two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high. 11And you shall overlay it with pure gold, inside and out you shall overlay it, and you shall make on it a moulding of gold all around. 12You shall cast four rings of gold for it, and you shall put them on its four feet; two rings on one side, and two rings on the other side. 13 And you shall make poles of acacia wood, and overlay them with gold. 14And you shall insert the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark, for carrying the ark (with them). 15The poles shall remain in the rings of the ark; they shall not be removed from it. 16And you shall put into the ark 2 the Testimony which I will give you. 17 Then you shall make a mercy seat3 of pure gold; two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its width. 18And you shall make two 1 The SamP and LXX have “you (sing.) shall make” ( ָ‫ ;וְ ָע ִׂשית‬so also in v. 17; cf. v. 8). This appears a harmonisation of the text with the subsequent verses. But the use of the plural here corresponds to vv. 8–9 (‫)תַ עֲׂשּו ;וְ ָעׂשּו‬. A theological motive is detectable here. Though the responsibility of the construction lies primarily on Moses, it is the whole Israel that constructs the Tabernacle for YHWH. In all, on the basis of lectior difficilior, the MT appears more original here. And most major commentaries and the major English Bibles follow the MT. 2 Noteworthy here is that the term ‫ ֲארֹון‬primarily means a chest/box (cf. BDB; S.R. DRIVER, Exodus, 268; W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 19–40, 378). In cultic terms in the Hebrew Bible, it refers primarily to the Ark of the Testimony. 3 The term ‫ כַפֹ ֶרת‬derives from the root ‫“ כפר‬to cover”, used in the piel to refer to making amendment (cf. 2Sam 21,3) or atonement (cf. Ex 32,30; 45,15). This sense of the term has

238

Chapter V: “Throughout Your Generations”

cherubim of gold; of hammered work you shall make them, at the two ends of the mercy seat. 19Make4 one cherub at the one end, and one cherub at the other end; of one piece with the mercy seat you shall make the cherubim at its two ends. 20And the cherubim shall stretch out their wings above, covering the mercy seat with their wings. And they shall face one another; the faces of the cherubim shall be toward the mercy seat. 21You shall put the mercy seat on top of the ark; and in the ark you shall put the Testimony which I will give you. 22 There I will meet with you;5 and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the Ark of the Testimony, I will speak to you all that I will command you for the Israelites. 2.2 Ex 25,10–22 – A Concise Analysis This unit evolves in three parts: description of the Ark (vv. 10–16), description of the mercy seat (vv. 17–21), and the purpose of both (v. 22).6 It begins with the directive ‫וְ ָעׂשּו‬, which sets the tone of chs. 25–31.7 The Ark is to be made of acacia wood but thoroughly overlaid with pure gold,8 that is, “gold more carefully freed from silver or alloy than ordinary gold.”9 This indicates the

influenced its traditional translation as “mercy seat/propitiatory” (or atonement seat; cf. R.E. AVERBECK, “Tabernacle”, 814). A few scholars however translate “cover/ Ark-cover” (cf. J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 356; NJPS). The LXX combines the two senses in 25,17: ἱλαστήριον ἐπίθεμα, but translates ἱλαστήριον “propitiatory” subsequently. 4 To the MT ‫( ַועֲׂשֵ ה‬impv. sg.), the SamP = LXX has ‫( ֵי ָעׂשּו‬nifal 3pers. plu.). As regards the MT, in the sequence of instructions in this pericope, there is no other explicit use of the imperative. On the other hand, though the SamP/LXX variant appears the lectio difficilior here, this option creates a complicated sentence. In all, considering the flow of the narrative, MT reading appears preferable here. 5 The LXX reads γνωσθήσομαί = ‫ וְ נֹודַ עְ ִּתי‬- “I will make myself known to you.” This could be deemed a case of accidental metathesis in the Vorlage of the LXX, but the same recurs in 29,42; 30,6.36. As noted by J. Wevers (Notes, 401), this appears a deliberate change meant to avoid the anthropomorphism implied in God meeting humans face to face. 6 Cf. M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 506. 7 The root ‫ עׂשה‬appears 112x in chs. 25–31, mostly in the directive “you shall make (build)”, coming from YHWH. The emphasis that the directive to construct the Tabernacle and its utensils comes from YHWH cannot be missed. 8 Pure gold is also to be used in the production of the mercy seat (25,11), the table of the bread of presence and its utensils (25,24.29), the lampstand and its utensils (25,31.36), the altar of incense (30,3), and some articles of the priest’s vestment (28,14.22.36). The central place of these objects in the cult of Israel in the Hebrew Bible is evident. 9 S.R. DRIVER, Exodus, 264. For Propp, however, the exact meaning of pure gold depends on when this text was written (which he assigns to P). In his words, “The mass refinement of gold was unknown before the sixth century BCE. If he [P] lived during or after the sixth century, as most believe, the Priestly Writer may have attributed an innovative metallurgic technique to Mosaic antiquity. But if P antedates the sixth century, the reference is doubtless

2. The Ark of the Testimony

239

preciousness of this object – “only the most valuable and perdurable metal befits God’s absolute Holiness.”10 The length, width and height are distinctly stipulated in cubits.11 The four rings at the feet of the Ark and the poles for carrying the ark are overlaid with gold. With these utensils, the Ark is to be moved without the contact of human hands, “an emphasis upon both its portability and the holiness of Yahweh’s Presence.”12 The poles are to remain always in the rings (v. 15), most probably to avoid profaning them by other uses. In v. 16, Moses is instructed clearly that he is to put “the Testimony (‫)הָ ֵעדֻת‬ which I will give you” in the Ark, the second occurrence of the term ‫ ֵעדֻת‬in the entire Hebrew Bible.13 In 24,12, YHWH promises to give Moses the ‫ לֻחֹ ת הָ אֶ בֶ ן‬on the mountain, containing ‫תֹורה וְ הַ ִמצְ וָה‬ ָ ַ‫ ה‬for the people’s instruction. And in 31,18, he fulfils this promise, giving Moses ‫“( ְשנֵי ֻל ֹחת הָ ֵעדֻת לֻחֹ ת אֶ בֶ ן כְ ֻתבִ ים בְ אֶ צְ בַ ע ֱאֹלהִ ים‬two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God ”). Moses, in turn, puts the ‫ ֵעדֻת‬into the Ark in 40,20.14 Analysing 24,12, the ‫ֵעדֻת‬ represents the gift of the Word: the Decalogue (20,1–27) and its application (20,22–23,33). Hence, as Priotto explains, the term ‫ הָ ֵעדֻת‬expresses the gift of the divine Word meant to be transmitted to all future generations precisely as a Testimony of the Sinaitic revelation. This gift is given in the form of stone tablets, signalling that it can be broken, given again or even lost.15 In broader terms, the ‫ ֵעדֻת‬testifies to the covenant between YHWH and the Israelites at the Sinai16 (hence the term ‫ ; ֲארֹון בְ ִרית־יְ הוָה‬Num 10,33).

to relatively pure gold in its natural state.” W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 19–40, 380. Cf. C.L. MEYERS, The Tabernacle Menorah, 28–43. 10 W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 19–40, 380. 11 A cubit is approximately half a meter. Cf. M.A. POWELL, “Weights and Measures”, 900. For S.R. Driver (Exodus, 268), a cubit = 18 inches. 12 J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 358. 13 In the Hebrew Bible, the term ‫ ֵעדֻת‬occurs first in Ex 16,34, indicating the connection between these two pericopes. As pointed out in the comments on 16,34, at the time of the composition of Exodus (as we have it today), this term and its theological significance appear well known to the audience. Cf. M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 508–509. 14 On the deposition of the Tablets in the Ark, Cassuto offers an insightful explanation: “It was the custom in the ancient East to deposit the deeds of a covenant made between human kings in the sanctuaries of the gods, in the footstool of the idols that symbolised the deity, so that the godhead should be a witness to the covenant and see that it was observed…. This custom makes it clear why the testimony to the covenant made between the Lord and Israel was enshrined in the ark.” U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 331. However, though the significance of this act is appreciated from Cassuto’s exposé, his submission that the mercy seat is God’s throne and the Ark his footstool is not quite convincing. Rather, this complex structure highlights the divine presence closely tied to his word (v. 22). 15 M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 509. 16 Cf. U. CASSUTO, Exodus, 330. Source-oriented critics however decipher that the expression ‫ ֲארֹון בְ ִרית‬is never used in P (cf., for e.g., W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 19–40, 384). As Seow explains, for P, while the ‫ ֵעדֻת‬depicts the covenant tablets, the ‫ בְ ִרית‬is eternal and

240

Chapter V: “Throughout Your Generations”

In vv. 17–21, directives are given for the construction of the mercy seat and the cherubim to be placed on top of it. The ‫ ַכ ֹפ ֶרת‬, of the same dimension with the Ark, is to be made of pure gold (v. 17) and placed on top of it (v. 21).17 However, the mercy seat does not just serve as a cover to the Ark. It has its own identity (cf. Ex 30,6; Lev 16,2.13), with specific ritual functions ascribed to it (cf. Lev 16,14–15). It is however closely linked to the Ark, constituting with it the very heart of the Tabernacle, the locus of divine presence.18 Further, two cherubim are to be made of hammered gold, facing each other, and placed at the two ends of the mercy seat. They “shall stretch out their wings above, covering the mercy seat with their wings” (v. 20), providing a protective function to the space in between, from where YHWH is to manifest himself.19 The unit concludes with the declaration of the objective of constructing this composite item: ‫“( וְ נֹו ַעדְ ִתי לְ ָך שָ ם‬And I will meet with you there”; v. 22a). This object will constitute the meeting point between YHWH and Moses, who functions here in a representative capacity for Israel. The Tabernacle is thus “a place where God both ‘dwells’ (šākan) with his people and ‘meets’ (yāʿad) with his people”20 (cf. v. 8). In fact, as Propp notes, the space over the ‫ ַכ ֹפ ֶרת‬constitutes the locus of YHWH’s presence on earth21 – a weighty indication of God’s choice of Israel as his special people (cf. Dt 32,9). The above statement is expanded in the later part of the verse. The exact location of the emphasised term ‫ שָ ם‬is described: “from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the Ark of the Testimony” (v. 22b).22 Clearly notable here is the mention of the three components of this construction – the Ark, the mercy seat and the cherubim, which form one composite object from where God manifests himself to Israel. Again, YHWH’s act in this meeting is also explained: “I will speak to you all that I will command you

indestructible. “In this way, then, P was able to speak of the eternal validity of God’s covenant with Israel, even in the face of the disappearance of the ark. The tablets may be shattered, but the covenant is eternal.” C.L. SEOW, “Ark of the Covenant”, 384. 17 To be noted here, as Durham (Exodus, 359) observes, is that the understanding of the term ‫ ַכפֹ ֶרת‬as “propitiatory” appears a later development in the cultic history of Israel. It probably derives “from the later function of the Ark-Cover and may indeed describe one way in which the Ark-Cover was thought of in later priestly ritual.” 18 Cf. M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 510; M. HARAN, Temples and Temple-Service, 247–253. 19 Cf. C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, III, 384; M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 510. 20 V.P. HAMILTON, Exodus, 460. Hamilton rightly points out also that, because of this meeting, the Tabernacle is also termed ‫( אֹ הֶ ל מֹו ֵעד‬cf. 27,21; 28,43; etc.). 21 W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 19–40, 392. 22 Noteworthy is that this is the first occurrence of the expression ‫ ֲארֹ ן הָ ֵעדֻת‬in the Hebrew Bible (it occurs 5x: Ex 25,22; 30,6; 39,35; Num 4,5; 7,89).

2. The Ark of the Testimony

241

for the Israelites.”23 This locus is therefore to be a place of the continual gift of the divine Word. Priotto pertinently comments: With this, the quality of the divine presence is highlighted – not a presence magically linked to an object or a space, but a presence linked to the Word, to that Word given by YHWH to Moses at the Sinai and now available to every Israelite…. And the presence of the Testimony (‫ )הָ ֵעדֻת‬will not be only a material presence, but a dialogical presence (‫ )וְ נֹו ַעדְ ִתי‬through which YHWH, thanks to Mosaic mediation, will be able to send all his words to the Israelites.24

2.3 The Ark in Israel’s Cult History The historicity of the wilderness sanctuary as described in Ex 25–31; 35–40 has generated a lot of scholarly discussions, especially since the 19th century.25 The analysis of this debate goes beyond the scope of this study. It suffices to note here that since the 19th century, the earlier held opinion that the Salomonic Temple was constructed after the pattern of the wilderness sanctuary was largely abandoned by scholars who, in fact, cast doubt on the historicity of such sanctuary. Very influential among the different scholarly positions here is the submission of the Wellhausen School that the wilderness sanctuary as described in Exodus texts was not the archetype, but a post-exilic copy, of the pre-exilic Jerusalem Temple.26 Noth, for e.g., elucidates: The description of the ark in P derives from the actual presence of the ark in the Jerusalem sanctuary during the monarchy…. We may expect from P neither historical information about the origin of the ark, which is for us so obscure, nor details of its original form. P probably knew no more than that the ark has stood in the innermost part of the pre-exilic temple, and from this made up a picture of the ark.27

The primary historical interest here, however, is whether there was an Ark in the pre-exilic cultic worship in Israel, and its significance therein. In the contemporary period, scholars generally find plausible the presence of an Ark in ancient Israel, even before the construction of the Jerusalem Temple. This acceptance is based, among other reasons, on the fact that the Ark is mentioned over 200x in the Hebrew Bible, and on “the evidence of the existence of chest sanctuaries in the cultural environment of ancient Israel.”28 As such, it could be inferred that the Israelites had also chest sanctuaries just as their ANE

23

Note the link between 25,22 and 29,42b: “where I will meet with you, to speak with you there.” The meeting at this locus is facilitated by the daily burnt offerings. 24 M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 511; translation mine. 25 For a summary of this debate, see C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, III, 325–335; H. UTZSCHNEIDER, Das Heiligtum, 55–70; IDEM, “Tabernacle”, 267–301. 26 J. WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena to the History, 34–38. 27 M. NOTH, Exodus, 203. 28 D. MARKL, “The Wilderness Sanctuary”, 237; cf. T. STAUBLI, Das Image, 222–229.

242

Chapter V: “Throughout Your Generations”

neighbours before the Exile. But this chest was not restored after the return from the Exile.29 Though it is widely accepted today that there was a “chest sanctuary” in the pre-exilic Israelite cult, its origin and exact description remains unknown. “The passage at hand,” Durham remarks, “has often been regarded a late and idealised description, entirely untrustworthy as a guide to the when, how and why of the Ark.”30 Hence, scholars tend to adjudge the descriptions of the Ark, nay the wilderness Tabernacle generally, as serving a theological function, especially during and after the Exile. Houtman locates the objective of the sanctuary texts in the aspiration for a return to theocracy: The motivation behind Ex 25–31; 35–40 is the ideal of the theocracy…. That ideal is projected back to the time in the wilderness (cf. Jer 2,2; Hos 2,16ff.): then YHWH dwelt as Lord among his people. The ideal is program for the future. The way things were, they must become again (cf. Rev 21,3). The envisioned ideal is the presence of YHWH himself as Lord of his people.31

In his diachronic review, Markl points out that the sanctuary texts came to fulfil the need for establishing continuity between the pre- and post-exilic cult in Israel. To achieve this, the biblical narrator depended on the handed-down memories of the pre-exilic cult. As such, the sanctuary texts “are likely to incorporate information about the pre-exilic cult that was handed down to its authors by their priestly ancestors, be it orally or in written sources.”32 But the narrator does not just reproduce the traditions received. He rather applies them for the resolution of current issues. Markl explicates further: While the description of the ark may rely on some source that preserved sacred memory of its dimension and design, its theological explanation as the container and space for divine revelation (Ex 25,22) may well be a later idealisation…. [T]he very conception of the sanctuary as originating at Sinai and its portrayal as an archetype, a “model” (Ex 25,9: ‫תבנית‬, παράδειγμα) revealed to Moses, is most likely to have originated with the need to create theological foundations for the new temple after Exile.33

A basic tenet of the social memory theory, as argued in this work, therefore plays out here. At the crisis of the Exile and its aftermaths, Israel needed to redefine and reinforce its identity. The Temple in Jerusalem was remembered as the centre of cult. And the most important object in this Temple was the Ark

29 Various reasons have been put forward by scholars on why the Ark was not restored after the Exile. Among them is the submission that “the cherubim connected with the Ark transgressed against the prohibition of images that became increasingly important during the Exile, so that an ark protected by cherubim became undesirable for the rebuilt temple.” D. MARKL, “The Wilderness Sanctuary”, 237. 30 J.I. DURHAM, Exodus, 357. 31 C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, III, 332. 32 D. MARKL, “The Wilderness Sanctuary”, 244. 33 D. MARKL, “The Wilderness Sanctuary”, 244.

3. Observations

243

of the Testimony. The history of this Ark is traced back to the constitutive event at the Sinai, where YHWH not only stipulated the instructions of its construction but also established it as the locus of his meeting with the Israelites. And though the Ark is not restored, the re-established cult is set as a continuum of what was established by YHWH at the Sinai (through the other utensils, especially the menorah), implying that the post-exilic Israel shares the same chosenness with the Israel at Sinai.1 The story in Ex 25 therefore is both backwardand forward-looking. Priotto toes this line of thought in his observation that the Priestly tradition in Ex 25 “is inserted into a rich ancient tradition, however with its own characteristic responding to the needs of its time. It does not completely invent, but certainly innovates and gives to the ancient a new vitality.”2

3. Observations It is clearly observable from above analyses that, in all the cases of its occurrence, the term ‫ לְ ֹדרֹ תֵ יכֶם‬is employed in divine speeches, in prime moments of the people’s constitutive past according to biblical historiography, to institute important practices in Israel. It is highlighted that these practices (and also the Ark of the Testimony) are designated as holy – dedicated to the service of YHWH. And they were all entrusted to the “holy people,” underscoring their being distinguished as YHWH’s chosen people (cf. Ex 19,6), as well-elaborated in Dt 7,6: “For you are a people holy to YHWH your God; YHWH your God has chosen you to be his people, his treasured possession, out of all the peoples on the face of earth” (cf. Dt 14,2). Again, the analyses taken above reveal that the records obtainable in Exodus correspond more to post-exilic practices. For some modern/contemporary scholars, this has constituted the grounds to express the opinion that the records in the Pentateuch are generally informed by post-exilic practices. However, a critical look at the above analyses, especially from a social memory point of view, suggests that this position does not tell the whole story. Indeed, the records of the practices discussed above reflect more of post-exilic practices. But it has also been observed that they appear to be actually shaped from the memories of pre-exilic ones. The destruction of the Temple and the humiliation of the Exile obviously shook the foundations of Israel’s pride and identity. The exilic/immediate postexilic period was understandably a period of identity crisis. Over and above the

1

In his analysis, D. Markl (“The Wilderness Sanctuary”, 241–243) argues that the existence of the menorah in the pre-exilic cult is historically doubtful. For him, the bringing together of the Ark and the menorah in the wilderness sanctuary of the Exodus is an advertent attempt establish continuity between the pre- and post-exilic Israelite cults. 2 M. PRIOTTO, Esodo, 508; translation mine.

244

Chapter V: “Throughout Your Generations”

perceived need to right the wrongs that brought about this catastrophe, there was an urgent need to restore the people’s pride – to reinforce their identity as God’s holy people, separated from all other nations on earth and specially chosen by him as his own.3 This also implies sharpening the line of demarcation between Israel and other nations. To achieve this, there was an attempt to (re)set up socio-religious and especially cultic activities in the exact way it was commanded by YHWH in the beginning.4 Israel thus drew attention to its constitutive events which depict its chosenness, and this served as a tool of social survival. This implied analysing what was obtainable in the pre-exilic cult, in the handed-down traditions that informed the collective memory of the people. The accepted practices became reinterpreted, standardised and scripted as normative. These practices also underscore the identity of the people as specially chosen by YHWH. The formula ‫לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ י ֶכם‬, coming always from YHWH, confers on these important practices the status of perpetual divine ordinances, to be handed down from age to age. This formula also points to the profound importance of keeping the memory of these practices continually alive, as a binding factor that inserts the present people into the flow of the continuum of these constitutive events of the past. The considerations on the Ark – the most important object in the wilderness Tabernacle – also reveal that the stories about its origin and function in Israel’s cult history serve this same purpose. In the pre-exilic times, though the Ark was invisible to eyes of the people, every Israelite worshipping at the Jerusalem Temple felt inserted into the crucial events at the Sinai, where the chosenness of Israel was sealed in a covenant. And at the exilic/post-exilic times, when the Ark was no more there, Israel still finds continuity with the birth-giving Sinaitic events through the words of the Covenant (which constitute actually the content of the Ark), and also through the other vessels of the wilderness sanctuary. It is therefore deducible that the post-exilic cultic/socio-religious practices of the Israelites derived from the selected memory of the people’s common past, and were set in the quest to reconnect with the pristine moments of Israel’s unique relationship with YHWH, thus reinforcing their identity as a chosen people. These practices find expression (and authority) in the Pentateuch. As such, both the practices themselves and the Pentateuch in which the stories are definitely told, are informed by the people’s collective memory. The correspondence of the post-exilic practices to Pentateuchal stipulations attests that these constitutive narratives were actually accepted by the people as their history. 3

With regards to the book of Exodus, Assmann highlights the function of being “separated” as an element identity creation. According to him, “Separation is the condition for being chosen.” J. ASSMANN, “Memory, Narration, Identity”, 13. 4 This is Hundley’s major point in his essay: M. HUNDLEY, “The Way Forward is Back to the Beginning”, 209–224. See also C. HOUTMAN, Exodus, III, 332.

3. Observations

245

Hence, their striving to keep the injunctions therein to the letter implies an endeavour to live their identity and privilege as a chosen people. Among these identity-defining memories of Israel’s constitutive past is the memory of the manna in the desert. As part of the remembered history of their constituent past, the people recall YHWH’s gracious feeding of their ancestors on their way from Egypt to the Promised Land, in spite of their murmuring. The identity (re)creating function of this narrative is considered in the next chapter.

CHAPTER VI

Social Memory in Ex 16 and the Quest for Identity One of the observations derived from the analysis of the occurrences of the term ‫ לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ יכֶם‬through Exodus in the last chapter is that the practices described therein correspond more to post-exilic practices than to pre-exilic ones. This finding gives us grounds to infer that the book of Exodus, as it is today, underwent a major compositional step sometime in the exilic/early post-exilic period. Actually, in modern biblical scholarship, it is commonly held that the final redaction of the Hebrew Bible happened after the Exile,1 though the approaches to this conclusion differ. This study arrives at this inference by applying the tools of social memory theory. This chapter aims at establishing that the manna-narrative of Ex 16 – as we have it today – consists of an “integrated and integrative” memory of God’s gracious provision of food for our ancestors in the wilderness, which functions to provide an identity-reinforcing response to the calamity of the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE and the consequent Exile. It begins with a brief consideration of the impact of this disaster on the people. And it is argued here that in response to this calamity, the memory of the Exodus became emphasised, resulting in an enhanced Exodus-Covenant theology which assumed a dominant position at this period. This theology, built on the memory of the past, brought meaning to the present and hope for the future; for in it, the people saw themselves as participants in the continuum of the marvelling constitutive events of the past. It is within this state of affairs that the theological narrative of the provision of manna in Ex 16 is appreciated. The chapter is concluded with brief considerations on the implications of the above findings for the agelong inquiry on the composition of the Pentateuch.

1. The Fall, the Impact and the Reaction One of the distinguishing marks of Israel as a chosen people, as portrayed in the Hebrew Bible, is that YHWH chose to dwell in their midst – in Jerusalem (cf. Ps 132,13–14). Zion is thus revered as the abode of YHWH (1Kgs 8,12– 13), the meeting point between the divine and the cosmos, through Israel (Ex 1

Even the classical documentary hypothesis arrives ultimately to this conclusion. A concise discussion on the composition of the Pentateuch is taken in Chap. I § 2.

1. The Fall, the Impact and the Reaction

247

25,22; 29,42–43). In relation to the gods of the other nations, Israel proclaimed its God – YHWH – as ‫( ֱאֹלהֵ י ָ ָֽה ֱאֹלהִ ים‬Dt 10,17; Jsh 22,22; Ps 136,2; etc.). This conviction got reinforced by the fact that Jerusalem continued to withstand the assaults of stronger military powers after the fall of the Northern Kingdom. Ultimately, though Jerusalem stood for over a century after the fall of Samaria, it eventually suffered the same fate. The profound impact of this disaster necessitated the setting up of survival strategies. The highlighted memory of the Exodus-Covenant served this crucial purpose. 1.1 The Fall and the Impact The fall of the Northern Kingdom to the Neo-Assyrian Empire in the late 8th century BCE certainly piled pressure on Judah. However, the continued standing of Jerusalem was deemed an evidence of YHWH’s special hand upon it. The unsuccessful campaign of Sennacherib against Jerusalem after his successful invasion of the neighbouring cities lent credence to this belief (cf. 2Kgs 18 – 19; 2Chr 32,1–23; Is 36–37).2 This campaign of Sennacherib is recounted in the Hebrew Bible against the backdrop of the fall of Samaria (cf. 2Kgs 17–19), which not only sets the historical stage but also provides an obvious contrast to the survival of Jerusalem, saved by YHWH.3 Though it is understandable that the biblical account presents a theological appreciation of this event, historical and archaeological findings attest to Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah and Jerusalem.4 This historical fact, theologically interpreted, apparently played a large role in strengthening the concept of Jerusalem as the eternal dwelling place of the omnipotent YHWH through the 7th century BCE and subsequently.5 Lipschits remarks:

2 For a recent intertexual biblical study of Sennacherib’s campaign against Jerusalem, see I. KALIMI, “Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah”, 11–50. 3 Cf. T.R. HOBBS, 2 Kings, 246. Pertinent to note here is that the point that Jerusalem is saved from this siege by YHWH is evidently highlighted in this narrative. Sennacherib makes it repeatedly clear that the conception of the Israelites that YHWH would save them is only a delusion (2Kgs 18,30–33; 19,10; cf. Is 36,15.18). In fact, the Israelites are told that, in trusting in YHWH, they are doomed “to eat their own dung and drink their own urine” (2Kgs 18,27; Isa 36,12). At this, the king Hezekiah turns to God in prayer, and then receives the definite promise of YHWH through the prophet Isaiah: “He shall not come into this city…. For I will defend this city to protect it, for my own sake and for the sake of my servant David” (1Kgs 19,32–34; Isa 37,33–35). 4 On Sennacherib’s campaigns in Judah/Jerusalem, see, for e.g., D.D. LUCKENBILL, The Annals of Sennacherib, 29–34; on his death, cf. ANET, 288; and for a historical/ archaeological inquiry, see D. USSISHKIN, “Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah”, 75–103. 5 Some Psalms (such as Pss 46–48; 76) are remarked for celebrating the reign/victory of YHWH over the nations (cf. M. DAHOOD, Psalms, II, 218). Ps 76, “a song, celebrating an ancient victory of Yahweh over enemies in Jerusalem itself” (C.A. BRIGGS / E.G. BRIGGS,

248

Chapter VI: Soc. Memory in Ex 16 & the Quest for Identity

The echoes of Sennacherib’s campaign more than a century earlier and the remembrance of Jerusalem’s rescue from the Assyrians were interpreted generations later as definitive proof of the manifestation of God’s power in the world, producing a feeling that God would protect his city. Among the military, political, and religious leadership in Jerusalem, the prevailing belief was that Jerusalem would continue to exist peacefully; it would never fall to an enemy oppressor.6

This conception was reinforced by the voices of false prophets who assured the people of the inviolability of Jerusalem (Jer 14,13–16). And thus, the warnings of Jeremiah, codified in the statement “Do not trust in these deceptive words: ‘This is the Temple of YHWH, the Temple of YHWH, the Temple of YHWH’” (Jer 7,4), went unheeded. But then, the “fatal mistake” of King Jehoiakim in rebelling against King Nebuchadnezzar towards the end of the 7th century triggered a series of events that culminated in the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE and the consequent Babylonian Exile (2Kgs 24–25). Finkelstein and Silberman describe this calamity: And so it was all over. Four hundred years of Judah’s history came to an end in fire and blood. The proud kingdom of Judah was utterly devastated, its economy ruined, its society ripped apart. The last king in a dynasty that had ruled for centuries was tortured and imprisoned in Babylon…. The Temple of Jerusalem – the only legitimate place for the worship of YHWH – was destroyed.7

Again, the murder of Gedaliah – the governor appointed by the Babylonian king for the remnants in the land – resulted in the people relocating to Egypt for safety (2Kgs 25,26). Remarkably both the movement back to Egypt and the dispersion to other lands are contained in the divine warning against disobedience recounted in Dt 28,15–48. Thus, against the backdrop of Dt 28, it could be deciphered that the whole exile scenario got interpreted as a fulfilment of divine wrath as forewarned.8 Symbolically speaking, it was a return to “Egypt”

Psalms, II, 165), is marked in the superscription of the LXX as composed after the defeat of the Assyrians. 6 O. LIPSCHITS, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem, 70. Again, most conceivably, this concept of Jerusalem as YHWH’s the eternal dwelling place provided theological grounds for Josiah’s centralisation of cult later in the century. On Josiah’s reform, Bright remarks: “Essentially an affirmation of Judah’s official theology, it must have been accompanied by heightened stress on Yahweh’s choice of Zion as the seat of his rule and the one legitimate national religious centre.” J. BRIGHT, A History of Israel, 320. 7 I. FINKELSTEIN / N.A. SILBERMAN, The Bible Unearthed, 295. Expectedly, a lot of studies have been made on this darkest period of the history of ancient Israel, both from the archaeological/historical and the theological points of view. Though scholars differ on the “ultimate” cause of the fall, the consensus is that this was a calamity of untold magnitude. 8 On this, see J.-P. SONNET, “The Siege of Jerusalem”, 76–83. As he aptly demonstrates, the curses elaborated in Dt 28,15–68 represent a reversal of the election of Israel. The preceding blessings (vv. 1–14) attest to Israel’s chosenness.

1. The Fall, the Impact and the Reaction

249

– a return to subjugation.9 As such, the whole idea of Israel’s chosenness was at stake! This was thus a national disaster in all its ramifications. And in the milieu of a religious/cultural Weltanschauung in which the defeat of a nation is regarded as a defeat of its gods by the gods of the conquering nation,10 the magnitude of this calamity on Israel – whose identity had lately been tied more strongly to the theology of God’s eternal dwelling in Jerusalem and his assurances on the everlasting Davidic dynasty – is simply unquantifiable. If the gods of other nations are actually “no gods” while ours is the one true God (cf. Ps 115), how then does one explain this defeat? In fact, there is no gainsaying the fact that with the destruction of Jerusalem, the situation of the people “reached a low point and it seems as if the history of the people of Israel has reached a bitter and irreversible end.”11 To make matters worse, many of the exiled people got exposed to the magnificent temples of the Babylonian gods for the first time. And this exposure must have raised questions in their minds if YHWH, the God of a comparatively small nation, is in fact God of gods after all. This understandably presented an allure for some of them to get integrated into these “superior” cults and culture.12 There was indeed a national emergency! The people were at the risk of losing their identity, built upon their special relationship with the omnipotent YHWH. As such, Israel “could not continue… clinging to status quo ante as if nothing had happened. It had to clarify its position vis-à-vis the great nations and their gods, vis-à-vis the national tragedy and its meaning – or perish.”13 1.2 Managing Collective Identity in Time of Crisis In the ANE (especially in Mesopotamia) at this epoch, Ska points out that as a strategy of identity redefinition and theological/psychological defence, nations devised means of explaining such defeats to other nations “rather than admitting the superiority of the victorious army’s gods.” Such can only happen if the divinity, angry with its people or as a punishment to them, has abandoned its residence.14 Such also was the case of Israel for whom, as recorded in biblical texts, “the cause of the catastrophe is surely with YHWH, not because he was unable to defend his city, but because he finds fault with Jerusalem and its

9

Also noteworthy is that within the described circumstance, the return from the Exile becomes reckoned as a new Exodus. Cf. D.M. CARR, Holy Resilience, 130–132. 10 Cf. A. ALTMAN, Tracing the Earliest Recorded Concepts, 185–187. 11 I. FINKELSTEIN / N.A. SILBERMAN, The Bible Unearthed, 297. 12 The encounter between Jeremiah and the Israelites who were making sacrifices to other gods in Egypt in Jer 44,15–19 illustrates this point. Cf. also Ezk 20,32. 13 J. BRIGHT, A History of Israel, 348. 14 J.L. SKA, “Why does the Pentateuch”, 116.

250

Chapter VI: Soc. Memory in Ex 16 & the Quest for Identity

inhabitants”15 (cf. Lam 3,42; 5,16). Though it was obviously not an easy task, Israel was able to pull through ultimately through its theological tenacity and dynamism. Bright’s elucidation here is very apt: When one considers the magnitude of the calamity that overtook her, one marvels that Israel was not sucked down into the vortex of history along with the other little nations of western Asia, to lose forever her identity as a people. And if one asks why she was not, the answer surely lies in her faith: the faith that called her into being in the first place proved sufficient even for this. Yet this answer is not to be given glibly, for the exile tested Israel’s faith to the utmost. That it won through was not something that transpired automatically, but only with much heart-searching and after profound readjustment.16

This “heart-searching and profound readjustment” constitutes the interest of this study. At the fall of Jerusalem and the Exile, Israel had to radically revisit its conventional theology and readjust it in order to accommodate this new reality while retaining its identity. The avenue of achieving this was to resort to the collective memory of the people, remembering therefrom certain theological strains that serve this purpose 17 and building them gradually but consistently into a grand theological narrative. As such, it is plausibly deducible that what we have today in the Hebrew Bible does not represent the totality of the theological trends in the immediate pre-exilic period, but a selection of the ones that align with the project at hand,18 a theology largely influenced by the calamity of the fall of Jerusalem.19 Along this line, Finkelstein and Silberman rightly posit that during the Exile and in the decades after it (in Jerusalem), “the texts of both the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History underwent far-reaching additions and revisions, arriving at what was substantially their final form”20. In the recent times, findings in trauma studies have been applied to the analysis of the Hebrew Bible. Carr describes trauma as “an overwhelming, haunting experience of disaster so explosive in its impact that it cannot be directly

15 J.-L. SKA, “Why does the Pentateuch”, 117. On this, see also T.C. RÖMER, “The Hebrew Bible as Crisis Literature”, 170. 16 J. BRIGHT, A History of Israel, 347. 17 Remembering here implies “pushing other things into the background, making distinctions, obliterating many things in order to shed light on others.” J. ASSMANN, Religion and Cultural Memory, 3; see also Chap. I, § 1.1.1. 18 J. Bright (A History of Israel, 331–339, 347–351) follows this line of thought in his review of the theological developments of this period. His convincing study focuses however on the developments in the prophetic literature. Also, in his seminal work, P. Ackroyd ’s reflection on the Israel’s response to this exile focuses more on the prophets. Cf. P. ACKROYD, Exile and Restoration, 39–200. 19 This is actually the crux of the arguments in the publication: P. DUBOVSKÝ / D. MARKL / J.-P. SONNET, ed., The Fall of Jerusalem and the Rise of the Torah (2016). 20 I. FINKELSTEIN / N.A. SILBERMAN, The Bible Unearthed, 296.

1. The Fall, the Impact and the Reaction

251

encountered, and influences an individual/group’s behaviour and memory in indirect ways.”21 Furthermore, as Caruth pertinently points out, Trauma is not simply an effect of destruction but also, fundamentally, an enigma of survival. It is only by recognising traumatic experience as a paradoxical relation between destructiveness and survival that we can also recognize the legacy of incomprehensibility at the heart of catastrophic experience.22

Hence, the paradox of trauma is that it is told by those who survive it. To be noted, however, is that the recount of the experience of trauma is mostly carried out indirectly. “While the traumatised are called upon to see and to relive the insistent reality of the past,” Caruth observes, “they recover a past that encounters consciousness only through the very denial of active recollection .”23 And it has been observed that “telling the disaster” in this way becomes a mechanism of survival for groups/individuals.24 Such appears the case in the emergence of the Hebrew Bible as we have it today.25 In Sonnet’s description, “The surprise of the survivor actually belongs to the Bible’s founding experiences.”26 Carr expounds further: In particular, the impact of exile is seen in the choice of Judean exiles to see themselves as the Israel that survived. When Judean exiles shaped the Pentateuch into their most central scripture, their Torah, they took on Israel’s chosenness as their own. Thus, reshaped by exile and its survival, the biblical Moses story and the rest of the Pentateuch helped Babylonian exiles, at least some of them, avoid assimilation and engage their survival into the next chapter of their story.27

Critically analysed, a close link between the tenets of trauma studies and the social memory theory could be deciphered here. Shunning from telling his harrowing experience directly, the traumatised often resorts to memory to reconstruct a past that both indirectly tells his story and also charts the way forward – a technique of survival. In the case of Israel, faced with the calamitous reality 21

D.M. CARR, Holy Resilience, 7. C. CARUTH, Unclaimed Experience, 58. 23 C. CARUTH, “Introduction”, 157. 24 D.M. Carr (Holy Resilience, 96) uses the expression “screen memory” – an expression he adopts from S. Freud – to describe the indirect recounting of trauma experiences. According to him, the Pentateuchal figures of the Patriarchs who lived in foreign lands “served as a form of ‘screen memory’ for the Judean exiles disinclined to speak directly about their present condition.” 25 On the impact of the Exile, Carr (Holy Resilience, 127) remarks: “The Judean community and its stories about itself were forever shaped by this near-death experience…. Judeans were forced to engage the precarious, inexplicable fact of their community’s survival. The exiled community in Babylon had gone up to the edge of the destruction it had seen Israel undergo... and lived” (second ellipsis original). 26 J.-P. SONNET, “Writing the Disaster”, 352. For Carr (Holy Resilience, 1–6), both the Hebrew and the Christian Bibles are products of response to profound collective trauma. 27 D.M. CARR, Holy Resilience, 127. 22

252

Chapter VI: Soc. Memory in Ex 16 & the Quest for Identity

of the Exile, as a strategy of survival, the people resorted to their collective memory of the past to tell their story. They had to hold on to the notion that they were YHWH’s chosen people, and they achieved this by correlating the present event to the constitutive events of the past. Consequently, the theology of Israel’s election – cast upon the memory of the past – received great attention at this period. Sonnet aptly remarks: It is a fact that the concept of election pervades the biblical corpus and it is tempting to correlate it with Israel’s traumatic experience of destruction-and-survival at the time of the exile. The Pentateuch, in particular, calls for such a reading. In its way of narrating the election of the patriarchs and of Israel, the Pentateuch looks like an elaborate dramatisation of Israel’s experience of chosenness amidst the crisis of the exile.28

In highlighting Israel’s election at this period, emphasis was laid on the motifs of covenant and the Exodus. Israel’s chosenness29 is not of its own making, but stems from the decision of YHWH himself who concretely expressed it in his covenant with Abraham (the sign of which is the circumcision: Gen 15; 17,1– 14);30 and the Sinaitic covenant (the sign of which is the Sabbath: Ex 19–24; 31,12–17). Understandably then, the circumcision and the Sabbath became highlighted at this period as markers (signs!) of Israel’s identity. A brief consideration on the functionality of circumcision within the circumstances is apposite here.31 Researches have indicated a long history of this practice among the NW Semites;32 but this was however not practiced in Babylon as at the time of the Exile.33 The Israelites thus found themselves in the midst of an uncircumcised people (just like their neighbours and perennial enemies – the Philistines), and they thus found in emphasising this practice a veritable tool of strengthening the ingroup-outgroup distinction. It is therefore

28

J.-P. SONNET, “Writing the Disaster”, 353. The term “chosenness” is used by C. Caruth (Unclaimed Experience, 71), D.M. Carr (Holy Resilience, 121–127) and J.-P. Sonnet (“Writing the Disaster”, 352–355) to depict Israel’s theology of its divine election. The term is evidently adopted in this work. 30 Lately, scholars have begun to question the “antiquity” of the Abraham tradition as presented in the Bible. A prominent example here is Van Seters who, after a long study, comes to the conclusion that “the tradition of Abraham as a means of corporate identity for Israel only came to the fore in the exilic period.” J. VAN SETERS, Abraham in History, 310– 311; more recently: I. FINKELSTEIN / T. RÖMER, “Comments on the Historical”, 3–23. For Hendel, the memory of Abraham was subject to revisions, counterclaims and reinterpretations through Israel’s history, and this accounts for the differing representations of Abraham in Genesis. In all, however, the memory of Abraham served “to articulate Israel’s identity”, providing the people at every period a sense of belonging and direction. Cf. R. HENDEL, Remembering Abraham, Chap. II, “Remembering Abraham”, 31–43. 31 The Sabbath as a vital tool of social identity in exilic/post-exilic Israel is treated in the preceding chapter: Chap. V, § 1.5. 32 Cf., for e.g., J.M. SASSON, “Circumcision in the Ancient Near East”, 473–476. 33 Cf. R.G. HALL, “Circumcision”, ABD, I, 1025–1026. 29

1. The Fall, the Impact and the Reaction

253

plausible to hold that this practice received a profound theological significance at this period, tied to the Abrahamic covenant. 1.3 The Revised Exodus as a Response It has been pointed out above that the Exodus became emphasised at the exilic/early post-exilic period as a tool of reasserting the people’s chosenness. It is to be underlined here, once again, that the idea of the Exodus was not formulated at this point, but was eminently remembered as a very crucial moment of a grand theological scheme.34 Scholars have recurrently pointed to the occurrences of the Exodus motif in the pre-exilic prophets as a proof of the existence of the Exodus tradition in pre-exilic Israel (cf. Amos 2,10; 3,1; 9,7; Hos 2,17[15]; 12,10[9];35 Mic 6,4; 7,15).36 A brief glance at the occurrences in Amos is apposite for our purposes here: 2,10:

Also, I brought you up out of the land of Egypt, and led you forty years in the wilderness, to possess the land of the Amorite. 3,1–2: Hear this word that YHWH has spoken against you, O people of Israel (‫)בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt. You only have I known (‫ = ידע‬special intimate relationship) of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities. 9,7: Are you not like the Cushites to me, O people of Israel (‫ – )בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬says YHWH. Did I not bring Israel up from the land of Egypt; the Philistines from Caphtor; and the Syrians from Kir?

The first point to note from the above is that the Exodus from Egypt constitutes a major motif in Amos – eminently remembered! Again, the motif of the fortyyear Wüstenwanderung is already known in the pre-exilic period (2,10). Also, the Exodus is already tied to the people’s election (3,1–2). However, the Exodus-experience is not peculiar to the Israelites. YHWH has also granted such favours also to the Philistines and to the Syrians! (9,7). Shalom Paul draws two important conclusions from the analysis of the above verses. According to him, the Exodus was a predominant theology in the Northern Kingdom before the fall of Samaria, such that “the existence of the people of Israel was predicated upon their being redeemed from Egypt, from the house of bondage.”37 He notes, however, that the Exodus theology did not 34

Ackroyd arrives at a similar conclusion in his analysis of the functionality of the Holiness Code at the exilic/post-exilic period. He notes that though some of the formulations therein may antedate the exile, “we have the indication that the compilation was seen as providing a basis for the building up of the new community.” P. ACKROYD, Exile and Restoration, 90; cf. also O. EISSFELDT, The Old Testament,238. 35 In Hosea, the motif of returning to Egypt is used as a deterring threat against Israel’s infidelity to YHWH (cf. 8,13; 9,3; 11,5). 36 Cf., inter alia, J.A. SANDERS, The Monotheizing Process, 13–19. 37 S. PAUL, Amos, 90. Shalom Paul rightly points out that Amos’ references to the Exodus are made in the context of polemics against the people’s “unwarranted assumption of

254

Chapter VI: Soc. Memory in Ex 16 & the Quest for Identity

gain the same prominence in the South at this time. Secondly, because the Exodus experience is attributed also to other nations, the uniqueness of Israel’s relationship with YHWH, clearly expressed in 3,2, does not derive from the Exodus but from the YHWH-Israel covenant.38 It is to be noted here, however, that it is difficult to establish from the book of Amos that the unique YHWH-Israel relationship derives from the covenant. The term ‫ בְ ִרית‬occurs just once in this book (1,9), and does not refer here to the relationship between YHWH and Israel. But, as Andersen and Freedman explain, The figure [of ‫ ידע‬in 3,2] is simply a vivid and dramatic expression of the covenant relationship of Yahweh and Israel, which constitutes the fundamental premise and point of departure for the prophets. It is the real meaning of that relationship that Amos expounds with characteristic vigour and irony in this verse…. Without the covenant background and the stipulations and sanctions imposed at Sinai, the prophet’s argument would be meaningless.39

It could be reconstructed from the above that with the fall of Samaria, the influx of Northerners to the South resulted in greater emphasis on the Exodus theology in Judah/Jerusalem (where it was not totally absent; cf. Mic 6,4; Isa 11,6). The significant references to the Exodus in Jeremiah (cf. 2,6; 7,22; 16,14; 23,7) attest to the fact that, by the early 6th century BCE, the Exodus motif has gained some prominence in Judah. And comparing the outcomes of the fall of the two kingdoms, Assmann observes here that while the Northern Kingdom lost its identity together with the homeland because it lacked something like a strong Moses mnemonic, the memory of the Exodus helped the Southern Kingdom survive the Babylonian Exile.40 Now, as social memory is the “socially integrative representation of the past… negotiated within a social group, and which holds it together,”41 following Assmann’s submission, one could reason that at the fall of Samaria, the people of the North needed a functional representation of their past to be remembered together as a tool of social cohesion.42 But the prevailing Exodus-Covenant theology was not adapted to provide them with such strong schema on which to recast their collective identity at this crucial time of crisis. As such, because a social group ceases to exist as a group once it ceases to collectively remember,43 the Northern Kingdom disappeared.

impunity”, on the basis of their being YHWH’s special people. Cf. also H.L. GINSBERG, The Israelian Heritage of Judaism, 26–27, 33. 38 Cf. S. PAUL, Amos, 101. 39 F.I. ANDERSEN / D.N. FREEDMAN, Amos, 381–382. 40 J. ASSMANN, “Memory, Narration, Identity”, 13–17. 41 E. BEN ZVI, “The Memory of Abraham”, 4. 42 The social memory theory highlights the point that the social act of remembering a common past plays a very crucial role in social cohesion. A society that “remembers together” is far more likely to “remain together”, that is, to socially produce itself in a successful way. Cf. E. BEN ZVI, “On Social Memory and Identity Formation”, 100. 43 Cf. J. ASSMANN, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization, 140.

1. The Fall, the Impact and the Reaction

255

Hendel observes here that in crisis situations, the revision of cultural memory is an important strategy for survival. “Such collective trauma creates a need to re-examine and update the inherited contents of cultural memory.”44 In such situations, because the resilience of any culture is bound to the people’s collective memory, the past has to be adapted to meet the needs of the present. However, these revised models have to establish a sense of continuity, blurring the perception that anything has truly changed, being essentially the same story.45 In this regard, Michael Schudson remarks that memories “are not credible unless they conform to an existing structure of assumptions about the past – an ‘available past’ that people accept as given and that possesses a self-sustaining inertia.”46 It could thus be explained that the while the Northern Kingdom lost its identity at the fall of Samaria because such update of its theologico-cultural memories did not happen,47 at the fall of Jerusalem, the catastrophe of the Exile elicited responses that notably included a revision of the cultura l memory of the Exodus.48 In this adjustment, the revised Exodus is still recognisable as Exodus, and the people identify themselves as participants in the continuum of the enhanced narrative – they are YHWH’s chosen people! Corroborating the above, D. Carr highlights the function of the “reshaped and expanded” Exodus story as a mechanism of surviving the trauma of the Babylonian Exile.49 He acknowledges the “older origins” of the Moses story, but underlines the point that “we now have a biblical Moses story because that Israelite story spoke to the experiences of much later, exiled Judeans.”50 On the plagues, for e.g., he notably remarks: God repeatedly declares that these plagues and hardening of heart will lead to both Israel and Egypt recognising that “I am Yahweh” (7,5; 8,22; 10,2; 14,4.18)…. We saw the theme of God demonstrating power already in Second Isaiah’s late-exilic prophecy. The appearance of this theme in the Exodus plague narrative is one of the main indicators that this plague narrative is a specifically exilic creation.51

Furthermore, Assmann submits here that the Exodus became the dominant religious view in Israel in the exilic/post-exilic period, when it also served to 44

R. HENDEL, “Remembering the Exodus”, 330. R. HENDEL, “Remembering the Exodus”, 331–332. 46 M. SCHUDSON, “The Present in the Past”, 105. 47 Lamenting the “forgotten kingdom”, Finkelstein (The Forgotten Kingdom, 1–6) points out that the Hebrew Bible was written by “Judahite authors” in Jerusalem, and this has led to the negligence of the more progressive Northern Kingdom even in contemporary scholarly circles. It is to be noted, however, that the final compilation of the Hebrew Bible happened in Jerusalem because the North lost its identity with its homeland at the fall of Samaria. 48 R. HENDEL, “Remembering the Exodus”, 330. 49 Cf. D. CARR, Holy Resilience, 110–127. 50 D. CARR, Holy Resilience, 114. 51 D. CARR, Holy Resilience, 116. For Römer (“The Hebrew Bible”, 172–175), however, the “construction of an exilic identity” took place during the (post-exilic) Persian period. 45

256

Chapter VI: Soc. Memory in Ex 16 & the Quest for Identity

provide the grounds for faithfulness to the covenant with YHWH.52 The destruction of the Temple necessitated a shift in theological emphasis. And this found expression in an amplified memory of the Exodus, linked strongly with the Sinaitic covenant. Assmann expounds: The Exodus is THE decisive memory never to fall into oblivion, and the Book of Exodus is the codification of that memory. “Remember the Exodus” means “remember the covenant” and vice versa. To remember the Exodus and the covenant means always to remember the promise, to look into the future.53

At this time also, the Exodus-Covenant theology became closely tied to the important cultural/cultic practices of Israel, which thus served to regularly commemorate these central constitutive events. And such liturgical/cultural memory provided the nation of Israel “with a connective structure working both in the social and temporal dimensions.”54 Assmann’s description of the book of Exodus as “the codification of that memory” is quite instructive here. It points to the fluidity of the Exodus story until it became definitely codified at some point after the Exile.1 It could be reasonably inferred here that in the exilic/immediate post-exilic period, the heightened emphasis on the Exodus-Covenant theology resulted in different currents of narratives on these epic nation-birthing events, narratives with the same basic schema but certain differences in details.2 These stories, which circulated both orally and in written form, continued to nurture the people’s faith and identity until they were definitely collated, streamlined and codified into one grand narrative. In all, the revised Exodus, built upon the people’s collective memory of their past, gave reason for the calamity of the fall, provided

52

Cf. J. ASSMANN, “Memory, Narration, Identity”, 7. J. ASSMANN, “Memory, Narration, Identity”, 11. 54 J. ASSMANN, “Memory, Narration, Identity”, 14. 1 Till date, scholars are of diverse opinions on the date of the “final composition” of the Pentateuch. Freedman (“Son of Man”, 261) makes a valid point here in his remark that the Torah served as an “aide-memoire” for the exiles. However, his placing the “final redaction of the major portion of the Hebrew Bible” at around 550 BCE is not quite convincing. Propp (“The Exodus and History”, 431) estimates the final compilation to have happened around 400 BCE. Many other contemporary scholars hold that, though the Torah underwent a significant development around this period, it continued to be fluid until well into the Hellenistic period. Cf., inter alia, D.M. CARR, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 159–166; L.M. MCDONALD, “Fluidity in the Early Formation”, 78–80. 2 Growing up in SE Nigeria, I had a personal experience of different versions of the same story of cultural memory. In my Igbo culture, folklores are used till date as veritable tools of instruction, and certain “histories” are still handed down in the oral form. And because I grew up in different locations of the same cultural area, I realised that popular stories were told with the same basic schema but with different details – differences that are sometimes quite significant. The phenomenon of different versions of the same Exodus story circulating during and after the Exile represents, for me, a true-life situation! 53

2. The Memory of the Manna

257

directions for the present, and brought hope for the future. In the book of Exodus, the memory of the manna in the wilderness played a significant role in this grand scheme. And we now turn to the identity-shaping function of remembering this magnanimous divine food in the desert.

2. The Memory of the Manna in the Quest for Identity The scheme of the book of Exodus consists basically of Israel’s subjugation in Egypt, its deliverance and exodus from there, and the Wüstenwanderung to the Promised Land in the context of which the covenant at the Sinai happened. However, the people’s wilderness sojourn is significantly remembered not only because of the Sinaitic covenant, but also because of other key events that took place therein, prominent among which is the manna-experience. A close reading of the Manna-Erzählung has been undertaken in Chaps. III and IV. Our task at the moment is to establish how the memory of this wondrous food in the wilderness functioned as an integrative factor for the people – hence reinforcing their identity – in the face of the calamity of the Exile. To achieve this, the social identity function of recalling some pivotal moments in the narrative of Ex 16 will be succinctly considered. Before proceeding, an observation on the manna tradition in the Bible is apposite here. Considering biblical evidence, as noted above, the tradition of YHWH leading Israel forty years through the desert is pre-exilic. Outside the Pentateuch, we find references to the forty-year wilderness wandering in texts generally considered pre-exilic (cf. Amos 2,10; 5,2; Ps 95,10). However, it is to be observed that the motif of feeding the people in the wilderness is hardly mentioned in these texts. Nevertheless, this does not imply that such motif did not exist in the pre-exilic times (cf. Hos 13,5; Ps 78,24–25). Also, source-oriented scholars, though they do not agree in the details, generally concur that the final text of Ex 16 originates from different traditions (see Chap . II, § 2). And this is an indicator of the long tradition of the manna in the desert. In postexilic texts, on the other hand, the manna motif is more emphasised (cf. Neh 9,15; Ps 105,40;3 Wis 16,20–29). It can therefore be plausibly deduced that the manna tradition, pre-exilic in origin, became highlighted – and so enhanced – during and after the Exile, as a tool of survival in the face of this catastrophe. And it is the enhanced narrative – as remembered – that is reflected in Ex 16. It is fitting to re-emphasise at this point that, taken into Babylonian Exile, the Israelites remembered the story of the subjugation in Egypt not as a piece of historical information concerning the past, but as a reality which we are

3

For the consideration of Ps 105 as post-exilic, see L.C. ALLEN, Psalms 101–150, 55; H.-J. KRAUS, Psalms 60–150, 309.

258

Chapter VI: Soc. Memory in Ex 16 & the Quest for Identity

re-living at present.4 Thus, reinterpreted within this context, the current situation assumes a new meaning. Babylon becomes the new Egypt, and its superior powers akin to the powers of Pharaoh; the Exodus from Egypt into the Promised Land mirrors the new Exodus from Babylon back to the land; and the sustenance through the wilderness journey raises the assurance that YHWH will continue to provide for his people outside the land until they come back into the land promised to our fathers5 (cf. Jsh 5,11–12). It is against the backdrop of this mindset that the manna-event acquires new significance at this period. 2.1 Precise Location and Time The exact spatio-temporal setting of the manna-event is explicitly given in Ex 16,1. It is precisely remembered that this event took place at ‫ ִמדְ בַ ר־סִ ין‬, further described: ‫“( ֲאשֶ ר בֵ ין־אֵ ילִ ם ּובֵ ין סִ ינָי‬which is between Elim and Sinai”). Also remembered is that the arrival at the Wilderness of Sin happened exactly “on the fifteenth day of the second month after their departure from the land of Egypt.” At the analysis of this verse in Chap. III (§ 1), it is well-highlighted that the unequivocal provision of the precise location and date of this event serves not only to indicate the importance of the events of this narrative but remarkably performs social memory functions. To be recalled here, first of all, is the emphasised description at the beginning of the narrative that ‫ כָל־עֲדַ ת בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬arrived at the wilderness of Sin where the events of the narrative unfold (the expression ‫ כָל־עֲדַ ת בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬is highlighted in this narrative, occurring 4x: vv. 1.2.9.10). Though apparently descriptive of the past, this reference to all the Israelites possesses an involvement potential. Introducing the narrative with this expression therefore, its real audience – the exilic/post-exilic Israelite – feels himself immediately drawn into the scenario of the unfolding narrative, not as a passive listener but as a participant. It is not about their experience, but about an experience in which we all share. As such, what is to happen in the narrative does not belong to the museum-piece past, but assumes meaning and relevance for the present. Within this circumstance, the Israelite in Exile sees himself from a new perspective. He identifies himself with ‫ כָל־עֲדַ ת בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬who came into the wilderness of Sin.6 And as the narrative reveals, God has a plan in leading the people 4

The statement of D.J.A. Clines (The Theme, 103–104) – “The Torah is an exilic document in terms of its content, regardless of how one dates its texts” – readily comes to mind here. Furthermore, D. Carr (Holy Resilience, 91–127) highlights the Pentateuch as Israel’s screen memory depiction of its exilic predicament. Cf. also J.-P. SONNET, “Writing the Disaster”, 351–355; P. ACKROYD, Exile and Restoration, 102. 5 V.H. Matthews (“Remembering Egypt”, 420), in fact, describes the Exodus story as “a paradigm for oppression and liberation that could be applied and reapplied as needed.” 6 It is quite inferable here that in the emphasis on the wilderness as the location of the manna-event (6x: vv. 1.2.3.10.14.32), the exilic Israelites see their present condition outside the land.

2. The Memory of the Manna

259

into this wilderness (v. 4). In the same way, God has a plan for bringing us here into this wilderness. All hope is not lost then. There is a future for us! Moreover, the particularisation of the location of the event stresses the historical value of this event. It is important to emphasise that this is not a fairy tale. It is our past, our heritage. Our actual situation at the moment therefore reflects the real, historical situation of our fathers. And this provides us the grounds to believe that we will be saved as they were saved. It can tenably be imagined that such collective memory helped define the exilic Israel as a people, “giving it a sense of its past and defining its aspirations for the future.”7 The same consideration applies to the stipulation of the exact time of the event. Set within a definite time, and placed in relation to the Exodus, the present Israelite outside the land finds himself inserted into the temporal continuum of the Exodus event,8 in which the wilderness plays a vital role. It is fitting to observe here that the other occurrences of the expression ‫כָל־‬ ‫ עֲדַ ת בְ נֵי־יִ ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬in Exodus serve similar memory functions as above. As noted in the preceding chapter, memorialisation is a very major motif in 12,1–13,16. In this pericope, this expression occurs 3x (vv. 3.6.47; cf. v. 19), functioning to incorporate the remembering audience into this major moment in Israel’s history. And it is fit to note here that the celebration of the Passover did contribute significantly in establishing the people as an assembly. This expression also occurs 3x In Ex 35, in which Moses engages “the whole congregation of the Israelites” on very significant issues in the life of the people. In v. 1, it introduces Moses’ recapitulation of the Sabbath command (vv. 2–3), described as a perpetual sign of the covenant (31,16–17). Here, the people are reminded of the binding obligation of the Sabbath on each of them, a message meant to resound in the ears of the real audience. The place of keeping the Sabbath in Israel’s quest for identity-definition at this critical period cannot be over-emphasised. The phrase occurs again in v. 4, in the context of Moses’ relay of YHWH’s request that the people to contribute from a generous heart to the erection of the Tabernacle. In this case, the expression is used to indicate the incorporation of the entire Israel into this pivotal task (vv. 4.20).9 The present Israelite, outside the land, would draw some sense of belonging here. Though there is no material request towards a “wilderness sanctuary,” the destruction of the

7

J. FENTRESS / C. WICKHAM, Social Memory, 25. Assmann underlines the temporal dimension of the connective function of social memory. It “creates meaning, memory, and expectation by integrating the images and stories of the past into an ever-progressing present.” J. ASSMANN, “Memory, Narration”, 14. 9 It is noteworthy here that in Ex 35,20–29, the people’s contribution “with a willing heart” to the construction of the Tabernacle is well-recounted. Such positive response within the desert conditions presents a challenge to the Israelite in Exile (and in the immediate postexilic period) to “contribute” generously in spite of the present difficulties. 8

260

Chapter VI: Soc. Memory in Ex 16 & the Quest for Identity

Temple necessitates a new reconstruction even in Exile. And this could be achieved by keeping to what is preserved at the very heart of this sanctuary – YHWH’s word, scribed in the ‫לֻחֹ ת הָ אֶ בֶ ן‬. In this way, though the Temple is lost, the people retain their identity as people of the covenant – a holy people. Noteworthy here is that, in this way, there began a shift in the history of Israel from a ritual-based to a Torah-based group identity. 2.2 The People’s Rebellions vs Divine Graciousness The Manna-Erzählung commences with a clear negative characterisation of the people. It is explicitly remembered that the very first act of the people at their arrival in the wilderness of Sin was to murmur against the divine design of the Exodus (vv. 2–3).10 Notably, it is plainly indicated that this rebellion was carried out by the entire congregation: ‫כָל־עֲדַ ת בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬. Hence, every Israelite who identifies with the Exodus experience – especially the present Israelite in Exile – has to identify also with this reality of rebellion.11 In fact, during the Exile, Israel looks back to acknowledge that the humiliation it is undergoing comes as a result of her iniquities. A good example here is found in Lam 1,5 (amidst bitter lamentations on the deplorable fate of Israel/Judah dispersed in Exile): “Her adversaries have become the master; her enemies prosper. For YHWH has afflicted her, because of the multitude of her transgressions. Her children have gone into captivity before the enemy.” Again, it is conceivable that such warnings as found in 1Kgs 9,6–7 became highlighted within the circumstances: 6

If you or your children you turn aside from following me, and do not keep my commandments and my statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods and worship them, 7then I will cut Israel off from the land which I gave them. And the house which I have consecrated for my name I will cast out of my sight. And Israel will become a proverb and a byword among all peoples.

In our narrative, the emphasis on murmuring12 and the other instances of disobedience therein (vv. 20.27) mirror the sins of the later Israelites which brought about the catastrophe of the Exile.13 But this memory is also a source of hope. In the manna narrative, the disobedience of the people is met by YHWH’s graciousness. In reaction to their 10

G.W. Coats (Rebellion in the Wilderness, 89–90) strongly underlines the point that the major substance of this complaint is not the hunger that the people faced in the wilderness but the Exodus itself. 11 Perhaps, the explicit indication in v. 2 that the murmuring took place ‫ בַ ִמ ְדבָ ר‬is meant to bring the rebellion experience closer to the Israelites in the wilderness of the Exile. 12 The root ‫ לון‬occurs 8x in the narrative: vv. 2.7[2x].8[3x].9.12. 13 The national confession of Israel at the return from the Exile in Neh 9 recounts the people’s repeated disobedience through their history, consequent punishment, and then divine compassion (see esp. vv. 16–31). These rebellions culminated in the punishment of the Exile.

2. The Memory of the Manna

261

murmuring in which the divine design of the Exodus is maliciously misconstrued as a ploy to kill the whole assembly with hunger, rather than meting out punishment on them which would have been deserved, YHWH makes the emphatic promise to provide them with a special bread – bread from heaven: ‫“( הִ נְ ִני מַ ְמ ִטיר ָלכֶם לֶחֶ ם ִמן־הַ שָ מָ ִים‬I myself will rain down bread from heaven for you,” v. 4). Again, at the Erscheinung episode, the motifs of murmuring and the divine graciousness are brought together in the speech of YHWH (v. 12): “I have heard the murmurings of the Israelites. Speak to them saying, ‘At twilight you will eat meat, and in the morning you have you shall be sated with bread. Then you shall know that I am YHWH your God’.” In this Jahwerede, it is emphatically recalled that the food comes from him in spite of the people’s murmuring, and that his identity is revealed through such benevolent act. Furthermore, at the two instances of disobedience as regards the gathering of the food, even when he expressed disappointment (v. 28), YHWH did not cease to be gracious to our fathers.14 Such consideration raises the concrete hope that our own rebellion will be met with God’s graciousness. This mindset is again reflected in the book of Lamentations in which YHWH’s steadfast love is recalled amidst the laments on this heavy punishment: “For the Lord (‫ ) ֲאדֹ נָי‬will not reject forever. For though he causes grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his loving-kindness” (Lam 3,31–32).15 In the book of Exodus, YHWH is depicted in such terms: “YHWH, YHWH, God compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness” (Ex 34,6; cf. Num 14,18; Pss 86,15; 103,8; 145,8). And, for our purposes here, the book of Nehemiah puts this compassionate love of God within context (Neh 9,15–17): 15

Bread from heaven you gave them for their hunger, and water from the rock you brought out for them for their thirst; and you told them to go in to possess the land which you swore to give them. 16But they – our fathers – acted arrogantly; they stiffened their necks and did not obey your commandments. 17They refused to obey, and did not remember of the wonders that you performed among them; but they stiffened their necks and resolved to return to their

14

It is also interesting to note that, considered in the light of 16,1, the occurrence of the expression ‫ כָל־עֲדַ ת בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬in 17,1 appears remarkable in this regard. In 16,1, ‫כָל־עֲדַ ת בְ נֵי־‬ ‫ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬arrives at the Wilderness of Sin and accuse Moses/Aaron of the plot to kill them all with hunger (v. 3). On the contrary, YHWH provides them with food that “tastes like honey”, shows them his ‫כָבֹוד‬, and introduces them into his Sabbath cycle. In 17,1, ‫כָל־עֲדַ ת בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬ departs from Sin. And so, rather than dying with hunger, the whole assembly leaves intact, fed and edified! (However, they will protest again in 17,2). The Manna-Erzählung depicts a most gracious God to an undeserving people. 15 In the post-exilic period, the rebuilding of Jerusalem (nay Israel generally) is deemed a divine act. This is well-expressed in Ps 147,2: “For YHWH rebuilds Jerusalem; he brings back Israel’s exiles.” And interestingly, further in the Psalm, the feeding motif is used to describe the restitution of Israel: “He gives to the animals their food, and to the young ravens that cry” (v. 9).

262

Chapter VI: Soc. Memory in Ex 16 & the Quest for Identity

bondage in Egypt. But you are a forgiving God, gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love; and you did not forsake them.

And so, the murmuring motif in the Manna-Erzählung of Ex 16 reminds the real audience ultimately of the merciful love of God who provides the special manna in spite of the rebellion.16 The narrative therefore presents an image of God who understands the weakness of the people, but still commits himself in deep relationship with them.17 Interesting to note here is that this divine faithful love in Ex 16 happened before the bond of the Sinaitic covenant. As such, even now that the covenant has been broken by us with its disastrous consequences, YHWH will not deny us his merciful countenance. In this, we see the power of social memory in making meaning of the past (as remembered!), adapting it to the present, and creating a positive mindset for the future. This substantiates the submission of Berge that collective memory implies “an intensively signifying and hermeneutic activity, which strives to fix the meaning and purpose of the past.”18 The identity-shaping function of such collective remembering goes without saying. 2.3 Manna-Instructions as Training As God declared that he will give the people bread from heaven, he immediately added an instruction for the collection for the manna – to be collected day by day, enough for each day. And the reason for this is explicitly given: ‫לְ מַ ַען‬ ‫תֹור ִתי ִאם־ל ֹא‬ ָ ְ‫“( ֲאנַסֶ ּנּו ֲה ֵילְֵך ב‬in order that I may test them, whether they will walk according to my instruction or not”; v. 4). It is therefore clear that God set a program in bringing the people in the wilderness. The reality of the harsh life in the desert appeared a punishment to the people, but it is actually a design hatched by God to train them – in the build-up to the Sinaitic covenant – on the necessity of trusting in his words and the futility of seeking self-sufficiency. In the narrative, such futility is remembered in the rotting of the manna preserved 16 In Ps 106, we find an example of remembering God’s graciousness vis-à-vis the people’s transgressions through Israel’s salvation history while in Exile. The purpose of this Psalm is to implore God’s mercy in the face of this disaster: “Save us, O LORD our God, and gather us from among the nations, that we may give thanks to your holy name and glory in your praise” (v. 47; NRSV). At the Exile, therefore, the merciful love of God is eminently remembered. And this reflects itself clearly in Ex 16. Again, the memory of the manna in Ps 78,24–25 – “He rained down on them manna to eat, and gave them the grain of heaven. Mortals ate of the bread of angels; he sent them food in abundance” (NRSV) – is recounted within the context of YHWH’s graciousness and the people’s ingratitude through Israel’s history. 17 Cf. N. PHAM, “The Image of YHWH”, 27–37. On the image of YHWH as a forgiving father, see P. BOVATI, “La Paternità”, 80–82; F. FICCO, «Mio figlio», 280–290. According to Ficco («Mio figlio», 290), in the familial setting, it is the father’s duty to intervene at the son’s transgression, to convince him of his error and draw him to conversion. 18 K. BERGE, “Sites of Memory”, 288–289.

2. The Memory of the Manna

263

overnight by some Israelites (v. 20), and in the fact that those who went out to gather on the seventh day found nothing (v. 27). On the contrary, those who kept divine instructions had enough to eat each day, for forty years, until they came to an inhabited land (v. 35). The whole manna-experience is thus remembered as a key training-step towards the all-important covenant at Sinai. It could be plausibly imagined that the memory of the above made a significant impact on the exilic Israelites in their current situation. Being brought into Exile is akin to being brought into the wilderness. Though this is interpreted as a punishment for the infidelity of the people as warned by the prophets (see also 1Kgs 9,6–9; Ps 89,32–35[31–34]), remembering the experience at the Wilderness of Sin casts the whole experience in a new light. Certainly, the destruction of the Temple and the overrun of Jerusalem have shown (as prophesied) the futility of trusting in “exterior” worship19 and of self-acclaimed righteousness. Now, coming into Exile acquires a new significance. It is not just a punishment (as our fathers thought at first at their arrival at the Wilderness of Sin). It is more importantly a divine design made to train us towards the renewal of the covenant, which will ultimately entail the rebuilding of the Temple just as the Sinaitic covenant entailed the erection of the wilderness Tabernacle. All the more, the climactic resolution in v. 30 – that the Israelites rested on the seventh day – which signifies acquiescence to divine instructions, presents a new challenge to the Israelite in Exile that it is possible to keep YHWH’s ‫ ִמצְ ֹות‬and ‫ תֹו ֹרת‬even outside the land. That the Manna-Erfahrung in Ex 16 brings the Israelites to realise that their shalom does not lie in their Klugheit but in following the will of YHWH made manifest in his words, is well-developed in Dt 8 – an inner-biblical exegesis of the manna event. Basically an exhortation to the Israelites to observe ‫ָכל־הַ ִמצְ וָה‬ of YHWH (8,1; cf. vv. 6.11.20), the pericope grounds this call on the memory and significance of the manna-experience: 8,2–3: 2And you shall remember all the way that YHWH your God has led you these forty years in the wilderness, in order to humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep his commandments or not. 3He humbled you, let you hunger, and then fed you 20 with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, so that he might make you understand that one 21 does not live by bread alone, but that one lives by everything that comes from the mouth of YHWH. 19 On exterior/formal worship, the words of YHWH in Is 29,13–14 come to mind here: “Because these people draw near with their mouths and honour me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their worship of me is a human commandment learned by rote; so I will again do amazing things with this people, shocking and amazing” (NRSV). 20 Noteworthy here are the three successive wayyiqtol (3 pers. sing.) that begin v. 3, the subject of which is God: ‫ ַו ְי ַע ְּנָך ַוי ְַרעִ בֶ ָך ַו ַי ֲאכִ לְ ָך‬. The direct agency of YHWH as regards this experience of the Israelites is highlighted. 21 The Hebrew term here is ‫“ – הָ אָ דָ ם‬man, mankind.” The translation “one” is meant to be more inclusive.

264

Chapter VI: Soc. Memory in Ex 16 & the Quest for Identity

8,16–18: [YHWH your God]…16who fed you in the wilderness with manna which your fathers did not know, in order to humble you and to test you, so as to do you good in the end22 – 17and you say in your heart, “My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth.” But you shall remember YHWH your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, so that he may confirm his covenant which he swore to your ancestors, as he is doing today.

Well-linked in the above are the motifs of the people’s helplessness in the face of the wilderness situation as a test programmed by God (cf. Ex 16,4) ultimately ordered to their good, the futility of self-sufficiency, and the crucial point that sustenance is found in walking in the light of the Word of God. Here, Driver pertinently comments: “Israel’s self-sufficiency was ‘humbled’ first by its being suffered to feel a want, and afterwards by the manner in which its want was supplied; it was thus taught how, for its very existence, it was daily (Ex 16,4) dependent on the (creative) word of God.”23 Also, on the training implications of the Prüfung of Israel in this pericope, Eckart Otto aptly points out that being humbled before YHWH (8,2.3.16) stands in contrast to the haughtiness of the heart in 8,14, the arrogance that makes one forget YHWH. And the forty-year Wüstenwanderung motif in 8,2 (and 8,4) links to Dt 2,7 24 (cf. 1,3), which underlines the fact that “being humbled” is basically about inner obedience.25 Notably, this pericope concludes with the warning on the disastrous consequence of forgetting YHWH and following other gods, after having entered the Promised Land (vv. 19–20). We thus find here a subtle allusion to the threat of the Exile. Jeffrey Tigay indicates this in his remark: Israel’s experience in the wilderness showed that man depends on God, not solely on natural forces, for sustenance. In the Promised Land, Israel will no longer have to overcome hardships of the sort that made this clear in the wilderness, but if it forgets this lesson and turns to other gods, it will suffer the same fate as the nations whose land it is now receiving.26

Furthermore, Cairns’ remark that the reference to the manna here “is yet another of Deuteronomy’s passing allusions to well-known tradition (cf. 4,3;

22 This point marks the conclusion of a parenthesis that begins from v. 14. After the clause (v. 14a): ‫“( וְ ָרם לְ בָ בֶ ָך וְ שָ כַחְ תָ אֶ ת־ ְיהוָה ֱאֹלהֶ יָך‬And then your heart becomes proud and you forget YHWH your God”), there follows a parenthesis of four participial clauses describing the acts of God for the people. The next clause here (v. 17a) – “and you say in your heart…” – continues from v. 14a. See E. OTTO, Deuteronomium 1–11, 898. 23 S.R. DRIVER, Deuteronomy, 107. 24 Dt 2,7: For YHWH your God has blessed you in all the work of your hand. He knows your wanderings through this great wilderness. These forty years, YHWH your God has been with you; you have lacked nothing. 25 E. OTTO, Deuteronomium 1–11, 907. 26 J.H. TIGAY, Deuteronomy, 91.

2. The Memory of the Manna

265

6,16)”27 is of interest here. It is inferable from this remark that – just like the traditions of the idolatrous worship of the Baal of Peor (Num 25; Dt 4,13) and the people testing God at the waters of Massah (Ex 17 and Num 20; Dt 6,16) – there was a strong memory of the manna in the subsequent history of Israel, especially at the exilic/early post-exilic period, when the book of Deuteronomy most probably received its present shape. The link between the manna-event and the Exile (see above) points also towards this direction. But the manna and its lessons are not just passively remembered at the distant land of the Exile. It is rather made present. Having experienced concretely the futility of self-sufficiency, Israel is called anew to realise that “one does not live by bread alone, but by everything that comes from the mouth of YHWH” (Dt 8,3). Again, the stress on the adverse conditions of the wilderness in this pericope betrays exilic undertones. However, recalling the fate of our fathers whose clothes on their back did not wear out nor did their feet did not swell through the forty years of wandering (v. 4), and who were led “through the great and terrible wilderness, an arid wasteland with poisonous snakes and scorpions” (v. 15), the Israelite in Exile is reassured of overcoming the difficulties of the current wilderness. No matter how difficult the present appears, the words resound: “Know then in your heart that as a parent disciplines a child, so YHWH your God disciplines you” (Dt 8,5). Such admonition resonates in the book of Proverbs: “My son, do not despise the discipline of YHWH, or loathe his reproof; for whom YHWH loves he reproves (!), just as a father the son in whom he delights” (Prv 3,11–12). It is to be noted here, as many scholars have observed, that Prv 1–9 (the first part of the book) “is later than the others because it serves as the introduction to the proverb collections. A Persian or early Hellenistic dating is likely for the latest strata of the book.”28 It is inferable, therefore, that in the post-exilic times, the lessons of the Exile as a Lernprozess continued to resound. And the Manna-Erzählung of Ex 16 reinforces this conviction. 2.4 The ‫ כְ בֹוד יְ הוָּה‬before Sinai Among the very significant “memories” in the Manna-Erzählung of Ex 16 is the appearance of the ‫ כְ בֹוד ְיהוָה‬in vv. 9–12. In the biblical tradition, the manifestation of YHWH’s glory testifies to his unique presence among his people, a presence that is essentially salvific,29 and reaffirms the status of Israel as God’s chosen people. Hence, one could appreciate better the profundity of the disaster 27 I. CAIRNS, Deuteronomy, 96. S. Paganini (Deuteronomio, 210–211) observes here that among all the works accomplished by YHWH for his people in the forty years in the wilderness, only the manna-event is remembered here. This is a clear indicator of the elevated significance of the manna in the people’s memory at the time of this composition. 28 M.V. FOX, Proverbs 1–9, 6; cf. also L. MAZZINGHI, Il Pentateuco sapienziale, 55. 29 Cf., inter alia, Ex 16,10–12; 24,15–17; 40,34–35; 1Kgs 8,10–11; see also Lk 2,9.

266

Chapter VI: Soc. Memory in Ex 16 & the Quest for Identity

spelt by the Ezekiel’s vision of the glory of YHWH departing the Jerusalem Temple (Ezk 10). And this symbolic vision got fulfilled in the destruction of the Temple and the consequent Exile.30 Against this backdrop, remembering the appearance of the ‫ כְ בֹוד ְיהוָה‬at the Wilderness of Sin becomes very significant at the Exile. It is noteworthy that this apparition of YHWH’s glory ‫ בֶ ָענָן‬happened before the covenant at the Sinai, the only instance of such. And one could infer that because it happened outside the land before the covenant/the Tabernacle, this particular apparition assumed a unique significance in the memory of the people during (and after) the Exile. The appearance of YHWH’s ‫ כָבֹוד‬at Sin does not depend on the covenant, nor is it tied to the Ark/Temple. And so, if YHWH manifested his glory in a cloud to proclaim his salvific act of providing food to his people facing the danger of hunger before the covenantal bond, he will also manifest his salvific glory to us in this situation arising from breaking the covenant. All the more, it is particularly indicated in the narrative that this apparition happened as the people “turned towards the wilderness.” The wilderness is an important locus in the constitutive events that formed the ‫ בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬as YHWH’s chosen people. And the pre-Sinaitic manifestation of YHWH’s glory ‫ בֶ ָענָן‬in the wilderness constitutes a remarkable moment in this process. A nexus is thus created here between the ‫כְ בֹוד יְ הוָה‬, the people’s chosenness, and the wilderness. Hence, the people do not lose their chosenness by their sojourn in the exilic wilderness. Rather, this memory furnishes the optimistic expectation that YHWH will manifest his glory anew, save the people from the present danger of annihilation and bring them back to Promised Land. One recalls here the narrative of the capture of the Ark by the Philistines in 1Sam 4 – a text frequently deemed exilic/post-exilic period by scholars (see below), and a significant pericope that reflects the departure of the glory of God during the Exile. The arrival of the ‫ ֲארֹון בְ ִרית־ ְיהוָה צְ בָ אֹות‬into the battle camp signified the saving presence of YHWH among his people, acknowledged both by the Israelite army (with shouts of joy) and by the Philistine army (with great trepidation; 4,5–8). But the resumption of the battle saw Israel roundly defeated with heavy casualty (including the priests: Hophni and Phinehas), and the Ark captured. The name Ichabod, given by Phinehas’ wife to her child born in distress at the reception of this news, summarises the import of the disaster to the nation of Israel: “The glory has departed from Israel, for the ark of God has been captured (4,22).” But the narrative does not terminate at this point. Brought into captivity into the Philistine territory, the Ark manifests its superiority over the people and their gods, and returns to his people without any army. YHWH indeed is the

30

It is noteworthy here that in later in Ezekiel’s prophetic vision, the glory of YHWH returned to the reconstructed Temple (43,18–21), expressing the hope of restoration.

2. The Memory of the Manna

267

Lord of hosts, and manifests his power through all the earth! Such memory has implications for the exilic Israel. Ralph Klein pertinently remarks: In this [exilic] context, the name Ichabod may take on new, contemporary meaning. The glory of Yahweh had again departed from Israel in 587, as Ezekiel made clear (10,18). However sad and shocking its departure was, it did not necessarily bring a condition without promise. Why not? When the ark had been captured in the days of the judges, it had provided an opportunity for a most dramatic display of Yahweh’s glory – in the eyes of one of the nations…. [The] exilic writers did expect the glory of Yahweh to manifest itself in the future as much as in the past.31

Also to be highlighted here is the bringing together of this apparition and the murmuring motif in Ex 16 (vv. 9.12). This underscores the point that the apparition happened in spite of (and in response to) the people’s murmuring. As such, this memory reinforces the hope, already expressed above, that YHWH will still manifest his glory and save his people, in spite of our iniquities that brought about the present calamity. However, for this to happen, it is important – as indicated in the narrative – that the people have to “draw near before YHWH” (v. 9). In the present exilic context, this cultic expression is certainly not to be interpreted concretely but metaphorically. The narrative thus also calls Israel to soul-searching – to repent of its sinful ways which has brought about this ichabod experience, and to “draw near to YHWH” who manifests himself presently in his Word. It is fitting to note here once more the shift in emphasis on the mode of divine cultic presence among his people – from his presence in the sanctuary/Temple (Ark) to his presence in his Word. From the Exile onwards, a greater significance becomes attached to the Torah as the locus of divine encounter. Further to be observed here is that the introduction of the Erscheinung episode with ‫ – וְ הִ ּנֵה‬the “free indirect perception” marker that introduces the audience into the direct sensory experience of biblical characters – points to its significant importance in the collective memory of the people at this critical period. With this “rhetoric of memory,”32 the Israelite in Exile is invited to relive this salvific apparition to our fathers and draw the needed strength from it – the reassurance of divine presence among the people even in this perilous situation outside the land. The wilderness (which the Exile recalls) is a place of test, but it is also a locus of (re)discovering God! 2.5 The Sabbath as Identity-Defining Ethics As exposed in Chap. 1 (§ 1.2.2), belonging to a group imposes expectations and boundaries to one’s acts. To identify oneself as a member of a group entails living according to the group’s established norms, described as those 31 32

2.4).

R.W. KLEIN, 1 Samuel, 46. Cf. R. HENDEL, “Cultural Memory”, 35; see also comments on Ex 16,10 (Chap. III, §

268

Chapter VI: Soc. Memory in Ex 16 & the Quest for Identity

“regularities in attitudes and behaviour that characterise a social group and differentiate it from other social groups.”33 The Sabbath performs such function in the manna-narrative of Ex 16. Enmeshed in the Manna-Erzählung is Israel’s discovery of the rhythm established by God at creation. Through the manna experience, the people do not only learn, for the first time, that the seventh day is ‫שַ בָ תֹון שַ בַ ת־קֹ דֶ ש לַיהוָה‬, they are also required to observe it in imitatio Dei. The observance of the Sabbath hence becomes for the individual Israelite a requirement for belonging to the chosen people (Ex 31,14–15), and for the nation a mark of its special belongingness to God.34 Again, as regards group identity, norms function to indicate how the members of a group comprehend the world35, as every society’s system of norms derives from its comprehension of the cosmos. It is based on such comprehension that it prescribes ways to live meaningfully in the world. Thus, observing the seventh-day rhythm indicates Israel’s “new” comprehension of the cosmos, occasioned by its first-hand experience of YHWH’s wondrous deeds at the wilderness of Sin. The Sabbath observance therefore inserts the individual Israelite into the Weltanschauung of the nation of Israel as a group, and thus reinforces his identity as belonging to YHWH’s “priestly kingdom and holy nation.” The central role of the Sabbath in (re)defining the identity of Israel in the exilic/immediate post-exilic period has been examined in the last chapter (Chap. V, § 1.5). It is observed that though there is enough evidence that the Sabbath was observed in the pre-exilic times, the practice received greater emphasis and took a deeper significance from the exilic period, as it sharpened a line of demarcation between the Israelites and the Babylonians, who did not have the culture of the seventh-day rest.36 Again, because the Sabbath observance is not tied to the Temple or any special locus, it was feasible to practice it away from the land. This combination of factors resulted in according the ethics of keeping the Sabbath a pivotal role in identity-definition at this

33

M.A. HOGG / S.A. REID, “Social Identity”, 7. That YHWH’s revelation of his will to Israel implies its special election is expressed in Ps 147,19–20: “He declares his word to Jacob, his statutes and ordinances to Israel. He has not dealt thus with any other nation; they do not know his ordinances” (NRSV). 35 Cf. P.F. ESLER, “An Outline of Social Identity Theory”, 32. 36 An analysis of the occurrences of the substantive ‫ שַ בַ ת‬in Isaiah is also instructive here. The substantive occurs only once (1,13) in Proto-Isaiah (chs. 1–39). But in chs. 55–66, commonly deemed post-exilic, it occurs 7x (56,2.4.6; 58,13[2x]; 66,23[2x]). This indicates the heightened emphasis on the Sabbath from the exilic period upwards. It is hence deducible that the obvious emphasis on the Sabbath in the Pentateuch (occurs 48x) reflects exilic/postexilic influences. As such, it could be plausibly inferred that the remarkable emphasis on the Sabbath in Ex 16 arises from exilic/post-exilic circumstances. 34

2. The Memory of the Manna

269

period.37 It is remembered in Ex 16 as revealed to the whole Israel by YHWH himself, a clear indication of its prime importance.38 Also, in the unfolding of this narrative, YHWH did not get angry at the disobediences of the Israelites until the instruction on the seventh-day rest. The message to the real audience is clear – though YHWH is compassionate and understanding, he does not tolerate the profanation of the Sabbath! It is also instructive to briefly analyse at this point the Sabbath motif in the book of Nehemiah (occurs 14x) – certainly a post-exilic text, to illustrate the prominence attained by the Sabbath in the post-exilic Israel. Praising YHWH for the covenant/law at the Sinai in 9,13–14, Ezra particularised the Sabbath command. And Blenkinsopp pertinently remarks: “The only legal prescription to be named is observance of the ‘holy Sabbath’, of major concern in the postexilic period.”39 Again, in 10,31–40[30–39], renewing their pledge of covenantal fidelity to God and as a mark of their separatedness from “the peoples of the land,” the Israelites highlight the observance of the Sabbath (vv. 32.34[31.33]). Further, the emphasis on the Sabbath comes to its crescendo in the book in the Sabbath reforms recounted in 13,15–22. Seeing people – both ‫ בְ נֵי ְיהּודָ ה‬and foreigners – profaning the Sabbath in Jerusalem by treading winepresses and engaging on trade, Nehemiah reprimands them: “What is this evil thing you are doing, profaning the Sabbath day? Did your fathers not do the same, and did our God not bring all this disaster on us and on this city? Yet you add wrath upon Israel by profaning the Sabbath” (vv. 17b–18). The clear emphasis here is on the profound consequence of profaning the Sabbath ( ‫)חלל אֶ ת־הַ שַ בָ ת‬. Depicted as the cause of the exilic catastrophe, this “evil thing” (‫ )הַ דָ בָ ר הָ ָרע‬thus deprives Israel of the privileges of its chosenness among the nations.40 And this 37

In Is 56,6–7, keeping the Sabbath qualifies one to partake in worship on Mt Zion, an exclusive Israelite privilege: “And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath, and do not profane it, and hold fast my covenant; these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer” (NRSV). We find here therefore an emphasis on ethical (rather than ancestral) identity. This recalls also the requirement of circumcision for non-Israelites to partake in the Passover (Ex 12,48). 38 For further on the highlighted significance of the Sabbath during/after the Exile, see B. GOSSE, “Sabbath, Identity and Universalism”, 359–370. Also, commenting on Is 56,2, J.D.W. Watts (Isaiah 34–66, 248) remarks: “‘Keeping Sabbath’ becomes a specific and symbolic example. The Sabbath commandment is one of the Ten (Ex 20,8–11; Dt 5,12–15), but it became central and important only in post-exilic Judaism. The emphasis here parallels that in Ezek 22,8; 23,38; 46,1; and Neh 9,14; 10,31; 13,15–21.” 39 J. BLENKINSOPP, Ezra–Nehemiah, 304. L. Batten (Ezra and Nehemiah, 366) also points to this in his observation: “One part of the law is emphasised: Thy holy Sabbath thou didst make known to them, indicating a supremacy for this law such as we find in NT times.” 40 To avert such recurrence of the consequences of the profanation of the Sabbath, Nehemiah puts very stringent measures in place (vv. 19–22a). And in v. 22b, he prays God to be

270

Chapter VI: Soc. Memory in Ex 16 & the Quest for Identity

points to the centrality of the Sabbath at this epoch. Blenkinsopp expounds further: While Sabbath was certainly an ancient institution, the origins of which have been the object of inconclusive speculation, it seems to have achieved what we might call confessional status only from the time of the exile…. It is therefore less surprising than it might seem that Nehemiah, following Ezk 20 and the late passage in Jer 17,19–27, should attribute the present unsatisfactory state of the people, namely, subjection to a foreign power (cf. Ezra 9,13; Neh 9,26–27), to non-observance of the Sabbath law throughout Israel’s history.41

In all, therefore, the observance of the Sabbath constitutes in the exilic and immediate post-exilic periods a crucial identity-defining ethics, stemming from YHWH and directing back to him. Observing the rhythm set by God himself at creation and revealed to our fathers in the desert counters the feeling that we are no more his chosen people because of the defeat. Hence, even at the difficult point of the Exile, this observance reminds the people – every seventh day – that they are YHWH’s specially chosen people, on whom he bestowed the privilege of being incorporated into his own temporal rhythm. The manna-narrative in Ex 16 reinforces this reminiscence. 2.6 Manna Preservation The narrative of Ex 16 concludes with the emphasised instruction to preserve an omer of the manna ‫לְ דֹ רֹ תֵ י ֶכם‬, with the reason for this preservation explicitly stated: “in order that they may see the bread which I fed you in the wilderness, when I brought you out of the land of Egypt” (v. 32b). The preserved manna is meant to be a perennial, concrete site of memory, recalling God’s paternal care for his people through their forty-year sojourn in the wilderness – the liminal phase between the departure from Egypt and the entrance into the Promised Land. This particular wondrous divine act is so significant that it is not only to be commemorated in narrative but also through a physical symbol. But what makes it this significant? In the constitutive events that gave birth to Israel as a nation, the forty-year wilderness sojourn constitutes a crucial phase. It is not an empty intermediate phase between Egypt and Canaan, but rather the locus of YHWH’s bringing the people to a closer knowledge of him, of forming them as his people, and of sealing their election – their chosenness – in a covenant. This crucial phase in Israel’s constitutive past is closely tied to the manna, as it is by this divine sustenance that Israel was able to live this experience (cf. Ex 16,35). Hence, the conserved omer of manna ultimately recalls the very fact of Israel’s divine election, realised through the divine provision of this extraordinary food. As gracious to him for having brought such reforms on the observation of such a central practice in the covenantal relationship between him ( YHWH) and Israel. 41 J. BLENKINSOPP, Ezra–Nehemiah, 360; cf. F.C. HOLMGREN, Israel Alive Again, 152.

2. The Memory of the Manna

271

such, at the difficult exilic/post-exilic period, the memory of the manna furnishes both the needed reassurance of divine election and the expectation of being sustained till the return to the Promised Land. Again, the name “manna” preserves the people’s deep astonishment at this divine providence, expressed in the question ‫( מָ ן הּוא‬v. 15). It recalls the people’s swing from utter disillusion at the realities of the wilderness to profound astonishment at the wondrous divine intervention, a memory that functions to sustain the positive mindset needed by the people facing the difficult realities of the Exile. However, though the manna is preserved to make the future generations see the salvific bread from heaven, it is ordered to be preserved in the ‫קֹ דֶ ש הַ קֳ דָ ִשים‬ of the sanctuary, out of the sight of the people. As explained in Chap. IV, this implies that it is the priests at liturgical duty who gaze upon the jar of manna on behalf of the people. The common Israelite, therefore, does not behold this token of memory (just as he does not behold the Ark).42 But he believes it is there from the testimony of the Word and of the priests. By the Exile, neither the Ark nor the jar of manna existed anymore. Hence, this important site of memory passes from the material to the immaterial, from concrete to mental,43 where it is to be preserved ‫לְ דֹ ֹרתֵ יכֶם‬. As such, though the future generations will no more see it even when the people re-enter the land, they can close always their eyes and visualise the jar of manna set ‫לִ פְ נֵי הָ ֵעדֻת‬, obediently placed there by Aaron in accordance to the command of YHWH.44 By highlighting this fact of keeping the jar of manna ‫ לִ פְ נֵי הָ ֵעדֻת‬therefore, the Israelite in Exile is invited to faith – not to see with physical eyes but to believe through the testimony of the Word. The emphasis on the obedience of Aaron in acting according to divine instructions in preserving the omer of manna – “According as YHWH commanded Moses, Aaron set it before the Testimony” (v. 34) – also performs significant memory functions. Aaron acts strictly according to divine directives, mediated through Moses. At the exilic/immediate post-exilic period, when ritual worship at the Temple was practically impossible, one could imagine that stress was given to obeying divine instructions. Aaron, acting in the capacity of the 42 In the preservation episode in Ex 16, the manna is brought together with the Ark of the Testimony. And the both got irreplaceably lost at the fall of the Jerusalem Temple. 43 Interestingly, as the preserved omer manna passes from sight to mental memory, manna-like substances are still found at the Sinai Peninsula. Though modern scientists tend to dismiss the biblical manna story as a mythologisation of this reality in the desert, one could imagine that for the post-exilic Israelite, the existence of such substance in this location presents a physical token of this divine mighty act of old. Hence, rather than counter the biblical narrative of the supernatural manna, the natural mann of the peninsula commemorates and confirms it. 44 As highlighted Prof Ehud Ben Zvi in my personal conversation with him, the most important sites of memory are not the physical ones but those that exist in the mind.

272

Chapter VI: Soc. Memory in Ex 16 & the Quest for Identity

representative of the people here (see comments on 16,34), embodies this aspiration. The people are called to strict observance of divine directives, mediated through their prophets and priests. 2.7 Observations In all the “moments” analysed above, it is clearly observable that the people, in recounting their past in Ex 16, express their aspiration for the future. This is in line with Ricœur’s submission that, with regard to its identity-bestowing functions, narratives serve to depict what is humanly possible, both for individuals and societies, and portray the possible manners of approaching realities.45 Narratives swing back to the past so as to articulate the possibility of a desired future. As Vanhoozer points out, “In creating possible worlds, stories and histories thus make up the “substance” of things hoped for.”46 From the results of the above analyses, the Manna-Erzählung in Ex 16 actually portrays the “substance” of the aspirations of the exilic/post-exilic Israel – divine sustenance in the Exile, guidance back into the land, and a renewal of the broken covenant, as happened the days of old. Also to be recalled here is Ricœur’s exposition that individuals and communities are constituted in their identity by adopting narratives – a blend of history and fiction – that become for them their actual history.47 From the foregoing, it is deducible that this consideration of Ricœur, which corresponds to Assmann/Hendel’s concept of mnemohistory, is applicable to the narrative of Ex 16. Again, it is to be observed that underlying the entire manna narrative is a consistent sense of “we-ness.” The narrative focuses on the fate of Israel as a nation, and not on the experiences of some individuals therein. The past that is recounted here pertains to the totality of Israel at present, and as such, functions as a tool of social cohesion. The narrative reaffirms the fundamental group belief that we are a special people, elected into a special relationship with God. Hence, as an important component of its constitutive events, the MannaErzählung contributes to providing the people with a connective structure which “binds people together by providing a symbolic universe – a common area of experience, expectation and action whose connecting forces provide them with trust and with orientation,”48 especially in the difficult period of the Exile and the early post-exilic period. In simpler terms, the members of a group are connected by the beliefs which they share. And as the above analysis shows, 45 Cf. P. RICŒUR, Time and Narrative, III, 244–247; see also the exposé in Chap. I, § 1.4. For Ricœur, narratives emanate from a mix of history and fiction, and tend to assign to individuals/communities “a specific identity that we can call their narrative identity.” 46 K.J. VANHOOZER, Biblical Narrative, 86–87. 47 Cf. P. RICŒUR, Time and Narrative, III, 247. 48 J. ASSMANN, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization, 2.

2. The Memory of the Manna

273

the manna narrative serves this function, especially at this challenging moment. It provides the people with a sense of uniqueness from their common past, and reinforces the identity which they derive from belonging to such uniqueness – YHWH’s chosen people. Furthermore, it is apposite to recall here, as a basic tenet of the social memory/identity theory, that “part of the social identity which we derive from belonging to groups inevitably includes the fact of their being situated in history, stretching backward and forward in time.”49 Fundamental to all the expositions above is that Israel as a group exist in time, possessing a past, a present and a future. And, at each particular point of its history, the Israelite immerses himself into the rich heritage of his past, identifying himself as “a participant in an ongoing drama.”50 This sense of temporal continuity is handed down from generation to generation, with past events taking on new meanings as they meet new circumstances. Narratives are veritable mediators of such “handing down,” and the manna-narrative of Ex 16 provides an eloquent example of this narrative function. The Manna-Erzählung (nay the whole macronarrative of Exodus) immerses the exilic Israelite into a relevant, crucial past in which he discovers himself a participant in a trajectory of hope.51 To be added here is that the events that led the return from the Exile lent credence to this theological mindset developed by the people. The sharp decline of the potency of the Babylonian empire after the death of Nebuchadnezzar and the rise of Cyrus were interpreted as YHWH acting at the world stage for the sake of his people.52 It is recounted with emphasis in the Hebrew Bible that, in the first year of his reign, Cyrus gave an edict allowing Israel to go back to the land and to rebuild the Temple, “to fulfil the word of YHWH by the mouth of Jeremiah” (Ezra 1,1; 2Chr 36,22; cf. Ezra 6,3).53 In fact, Cyrus is described 49

P.F. ESLER, “An Outline of Social Identity Theory”, 37; Cf. also S. CONDOR, “Social Identity and Time”, 289–303. 50 S. REICHER / N. HOPKINS, Self and Nation, 150. 51 It is also pertinent to note at this point that, in this function of Ex 16, we find a practical application of Ricœur’s three-step process in the development of narrative identity: prefiguration, configuration and refiguration (see exposé in Chap. I § 1.4). The circumstances of the Exile battered the people’s self-understanding of themselves as YHWH’s firstborn (Ex 4,22) – a specially chosen people (prefiguration). Within this state of affairs, the astonishing sustenance of our fathers in the wilderness is eminently remembered and enhanced. And the audience – the Israelite in Exile – is confronted anew by this past in which he belongs and finds in it a response to the present situation (configuration). Consequently, imagining himself as a participant in the events of the world of the narrative, he reinterprets the present situation in the light of the past brought alive, and draws therefrom strength, hope and directions for the future (refiguration). 52 Cf. J. BRIGHT, A History of Israel, 365–368. The narrative of the Ark captured by the Philistines in 1Sam 4 once more comes to mind here. 53 The historicity of this decree from Cyrus is disputed in some quarters. L.L. Grabbe (A History of the Jews, I, 355), for e.g., posits that, at the ascension of Cyrus to power, there

274

Chapter VI: Soc. Memory in Ex 16 & the Quest for Identity

as YHWH’s ַ‫( מָ ִשיח‬Is 45,1), a title applied mainly to Israelite kings, especially of the Davidic dynasty.54 It is through his instrumentality that YHWH executed, once more, the great feats he performed for our fathers of old, when he rescued them from the iron grip of Pharaoh (cf. Dt 4,20; 1Kgs 8,51).55 Israel thus returned from the Exile fully convinced of the theological implications of the constitutive events of their remembered past.1 Hence, back into the land, the collective memory of this key past, with its underlying theology, came all the more into focus. As such, it could be tenably imagined that, in the decades following the return to the land, the story of the past became told and retold. And with time, different versions of the same story became “standardised” in different locations, and some of such were even committed to writing. At a point in the post-exilic period (around 400 BCE is plausible here), it became necessary to have one, common “integrated and socially integrative representation of the past.” The biblical narrator had the task to create a distilled and yet integrated work that would be acceptable to the people as representing the collective memory of their past. And this necessarily implied incorporating different traditions into one major schema, creating therefrom an integrative theology that would continually answer today’s question in reference to the past, while charting the way for the future. The exilic/early post-exilic period was therefore of crucial importance to the emergence of the Pentateuch as we have it today. This submission is worth further considerations here.

3. Implications for the Composition of the Pentateuch “Ancient writing about the past,” Philip R. Davies incisively remarks, “is dictated by two considerations: what has been told before and what needs to be told now.”2 The application of the social memory/identity theory to the study of Ex 16, undertaken in this work, attests to this. Critically analysed, it is decipherable that essential to this analytical approach is the determination of the

was a “general policy of allowing deportees to return and to re-establish cult sites.” However, in the collective memory of the people, built into their theology, this is a manifestation of YHWH’s power to deliver his people, as in the day of old! 54 Blenkinsopp remarks here: “What this implies in concrete historical terms is that Cyrus has taken the place of the Davidic royal house, at least for the time being, an affirmation that we suspect not all of the prophet’s audience would have agreed with.” J. BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah 40–55, 249. 55 The motif of the “new Exodus” is highlighted in the prophetic activity of DeuteroIsaiah (Is 40–55), believed to have been active from towards the end of the Exile into the return to the land. 1 As rightly described by Carr (Holy Resilience, 130), the returning exiles “saw their exit from Babylon as a second exodus and their re-entry into the land as a new conquest.” 2 P.R. DAVIES, Memories of Ancient Israel, 142.

3. Implications for the Composition of the Pentateuch

275

period and circumstances of the composition of the narrative. This applies to the Pentateuch as a whole. As argued in certain contemporary studies,3 and established in this work, the fall of Jerusalem and the consequent Exile deeply influenced the shape and theology of the Pentateuch as we have it today. The Pentateuchal narratives are rooted in traditions that are evidently pre-exilic, but they ultimately reflect the collective memory of people’s past, retold to serve the needs of the early post-exilic Israel.4 Furthermore, the current “stalemate” on the scholarly debate as regards the composition of the Pentateuch (see Chap. I, § 2) borders considerably upon resolving the different tensions/complexities obviously present therein. The analysis of Ex 16 with the tools of social memory/identity highlights the point that at play here is the selective nature of social memory, a fundamental tenet of the social memory theory. In the bid to reconstruct the past for present relevance (as represented in the Pentateuch), Israel “remembered” what served its purposes from the past and “forgot” what did not. Also, the fact that in spite of the tensions detectable in the pericope (for e.g., repetitions and anachronisms), the text of Ex 16 presents a coherent narrative unit indicates that the Pentateuchal narrator had to create one “unifying” story from a diversity of sources. These sources furnished the memory of the past, from which the narrator selected what served his purposes and reshaped them in such a way that while people’s past appears actually represented,5 present questions are answered and the way to the future is charted.6

3

An example here is the volume: P. DUBOVSKÝ / D. MARKL / J.-P. SONNET, ed., The Fall of Jerusalem and the Rise of the Torah (2016). 4 Noteworthy here is that the memorialisation motif is noticeably of highlighted importance in the Pentateuch. It could in fact be said that the Pentateuch as a whole represents a central site of memory for Israel as a nation, serving to continually reinforce its collective identity. In this regard, Assmann (Cultural Memory and Early Civilization, 179–205) describes Exodus as a memory figure, and Deuteronomy as a paradigm of cultural memory. [In Deuteronomy, for e.g., the root ‫ זכר‬occurs 19x, while the exhortation not to forget the covenant/ YHWH’s mighty deeds of old occurs 8x (4,9.23.31; 6,12; 8,11.19; 9,7; 24,19; 25,19)]. Within the Pentateuch are contained different key sites of memory meant to be fallen back upon and applied in the different circumstances that the people encounter through their history. The manna-event is one of such. 5 To be underlined here is that the acceptability of the presented narrative as “our story” depends on how much it is perceived by the people as representing “our past.” 6 It is pertinent to re-emphasise here that the memories expounded by the Israelites in the Pentateuch were not created ex nihilo. They were among the memories already held by the people before the Exile, but became emphasised at this point, and most probably dilated, to respond to the present crisis. As social memory is unavoidably selective, it is deducible that what we have today represented in writing (in the Pentateuch) were not the only extant memories at this period. It is rather a crystallisation of relevant memories that have been handed down through generations, through diverse circumstances.

276

Chapter VI: Soc. Memory in Ex 16 & the Quest for Identity

Again, the critical review of the different positions of source-oriented analysts on the original provenance of the different sections of Ex 16 (taken in Chap. II § 2) supports the above submission. It is observed there that in spite of the apparent consistency of each individual’s exposé, there is a glaring lack of consensus in the different conclusions. Now, in analysing the text of Ex 16, a mix of motifs traditionally assigned to different sources has been pointed out. An example is the motif of the sixth day that forms the basis of the revelation of the Sabbath in the narrative. This motif which occurs in v. 5 – a verse commonly held as non-P, occurs here for the second time in the Pentateuch after its occurrence at the first creation account (Gen 1,31) – a pericope commonly attributed to P. The fact that, in both cases, this motif prepares the ground for the seventh-day rest indicates a conscious theological plot. Hence, though the diversity of sources cannot be discountenanced, it is important to uphold the “freedom” of the biblical narrator in utilising the sources available to him to create a theological narrative that answers the needs of the present. It is apposite to note here that this submission by no means resolves the knotty issues in Pentateuchal criticism.1 Rather, its contribution lies in bringing a new perspective into this age-long inquiry. This standpoint provides a platform which brings together and streamlines the different approaches put forward in this area of biblical criticism. It incorporates both the synchronic and diachronic methods,2 highlighting the crucial role of the people’s collective memory in the composition of the Pentateuch (nay the Hebrew Bible generally). Because the remembered past is expressed in narrative, the extant narrative provides the starting point of inquiry. And because what is narrated is shaped by the interplay between the people’s remembered past and their current life-situation, this approach necessarily entails a diachronic search.3 All the more, because the social memory theory employs the tools of different

1

An example here is the point raised Carr (“Changes in Pentateuchal Criticism”, 466) that even if it is generally agreed upon that the Pentateuch is composed from different traditions, it remains very important to clarify “the extent and character of these early, originally separate compositions (at each stage) and the process by which they were joined.” Applying the social memory theory, we cannot reconstruct the history of biblical texts with any certainty from the present narratives. And indeed, unless an archaeological breakthrough happens, such inquiries may never arrive at a conclusive result. 2 On the complementarity of these two approaches, Sonnet remarks: “Anyone who has approached narratives in a ‘synchronic’ way, knows how much ‘diachronic’ they imply, in their unfolding of a plot throughout represented time (dia-chronos), as in their resorting to an essentially ‘dia-chronic’ representing medium (language, in its discrete and linear characters).” J.-P. SONNET, The Book within the Book, 7, n. 11. 3 K. Schmid (“Distinguishing the World”, 341) notably remarks here that “there is no other method than carefully distinguishing between the world of the narrative and the world of the author for evaluating biblical texts in historical terms. Only in this way can we take steps forward in global Pentateuchal research and link it with other historical disciplines.”

4. Theological Implications

277

disciplines to arrive at its conclusions,4 it brings the richness of such diversity into Pentateuchal criticism.

4. Theological Implications It has been argued here that at the critical period of the Exile, Israel resorted to the collective memory of the past to reinforce its identity as a people – God’s chosen people – and as such, avoid assimilation into oblivion. This submission has obvious theological implications. B.S. Childs’ early study on Israel’s collective memory is very instructive at this point. According to him, “Israel’s remembrance became a technical term to express the process by which later Israel made relevant the great redemptive acts which she recited in her tradition.”5 As regards later Israel which “no longer had direct access to the redemptive events of the past,” Childs expounds further: Now, memory takes on central theological significance. Present Israel has not been cut off from redemptive history, but she encounters the same covenant God through a living tradition. Memory provides the link between past and present…. Israel’s redemptive history has not ceased. Her history continues only as present Israel established her continuity with the past through memory.6

Childs proffers that in difficult situations, the Israelites feel a sense of separation from God. In such situations, memory becomes the medium through which Israel encounters “the God of the past.” This is observable in lamentation/ complaint Psalms. And during the exilic/immediate post-exilic period, memory “became the means by which Israel found a new avenue to faith when the older cultic paths had become inaccessible.”7 Israel’s recourse to memory at this critical period has thus deep theological roots. The trauma of the Exile became a unique and extraordinary experience for Israel in its relationship with God. At the Exile, the people were made to encounter anew the God of our fathers, the God “who kills and makes alive, who wounds and heals” (Dt 32,39). Hence, the survival of Israel, though enabled by the dynamics of the social memory theory, has profound theological foundations. 8 4

One recalls here the remark of R. Hendel (“Cultural Memory”, 46) that that the social memory approach in biblical criticism “encompasses several areas of inquiry that sometimes seem resistant to one another: it includes literature, history, culture, and religion in a way that crosses disciplinary boundaries.” 5 B.S. CHILDS, Memory and Tradition, 74. 6 B.S. CHILDS, Memory and Tradition, 55–56. 7 B.S. CHILDS, Memory and Tradition, 80. 8 As a Christian, a reflection on the memory implication of the Christian faith becomes opportune here too. The Christian faith, described in the NT as “the conviction of things not seen” (Heb 11:1), is built principally on the earthly life and mission of Jesus Christ. Though

278

Chapter VI: Soc. Memory in Ex 16 & the Quest for Identity

It is opportune at this point to consider a prophecy of Jeremiah relevant to this theological discourse on Israel’s collective memory. In Jer 3,16, the prophet declares: “And when you have multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, declares YHWH, they shall no longer say, ‘The Ark of the Covenant of YHWH’. It shall not come to mind, or be remembered, or missed; nor shall another one be made.” Two considerations are apt here. First, on the period referred to in the prophecy, Peter Craigie et al. aptly submit: The verses clearly have a future, indeed eschatological focus. In this, they do not reflect the period after 586 B.C., but develop on older prophetic tradition in Israel, in which the transformation described here is already anticipated (cf. Isa 2,2–4; Mic 4,1–4)…. The verses imply nothing with respect to the actual location of the ark in the late seventh or early sixth centuries B.C., but rather anticipate a future age in which the ark would no longer have a function.9

Furthermore, as regards the actual destruction of the Temple and the disappearance of the Ark at the fall of Jerusalem, one can imagine that this important site of memory passed from physical to mental. And one has to recall here, once more, the important point well-highlighted by Prof Ehud Ben Zvi in my personal conversation with him that the most important sites of memory are not the physical ones but the ones that are preserved in the mind.

the present Christian is not a primary witness to the salvific events wrought by Jesus, he inserts himself into the continuum of such realities as a participant. This happens through the dynamics of social memory. He identifies himself as a Christian with others who profess the same faith because he “shares a common past” with them in Jesus. It could hence be tenably stated that just as “faith without good works is dead” (Jm 2,17), so also faith without memory is empty. 9 P.C. CRAIGIE / P.H. KELLEY / J.F. DRINKARD, Jeremiah 1–25, 61.

Conclusion Social memory is an emerging field in the area of social sciences/ humanities. Understandably then, the application of the tenets of the social memory theory to biblical analysis is relatively a recent development. And though this approach brings valuable insights into biblical criticism,1 its usefulness in this scholarly field has not been optimally explored. Employing this approach in this study of Ex 16 thus constitutes an endeavour to demonstrate its rich usefulness in biblical exegesis.

1. Recapitulation Navigating through the narrative of Ex 16, the questions naturally arise: Why the highlighted emphasis on the memory-function of the manna in this narrative? Why is it explicitly commanded that an omer of the ‫ לֶחֶ ם ִמן־הַ שָ מָ ִים‬be kept “throughout your generations”; and clearly recounted that, as divinely commanded, this stipulated measure was kept ‫ – לִ פְ נֵי הָ ֵעדֻת‬in the most sacred space of the wilderness sanctuary (and subsequently of the Temple)? This work has undertaken a study of the memory-function of the Manna-Erzählung, holding that the narrative represents an expression of the collective memory of the Israelites in the exilic/early post-exilic period which performs identity-reinforcing functions. From indications in the text, the study argues that the (present) narrative constitutes a theological response to the disaster of identity crisis into which Israel was plunged at the destruction of the Temple and the consequent Exile. 1.1 The Social Memory Theory Some considerable space is given at the beginning of this study to exposing the basic tenets of the social memory theory, its connection to social identity, the concept of narrative identity, and how these apply in biblical exegesis. Ben Zvi’s definition of social memory as “the public, integrated, and socially 1 The volume – Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspectives (2015), an outcome of a 2013 symposium organised at the University of San Diego, CA under the theme, “Out of Egypt. Israel’s Exodus between Text and Memory, History and Imagination” attests to the increasing recognition of the role of memory in the formation of the Pentateuch.

280

Conclusion

integrative representation of the past that is held, shaped, and negotiated within a social group, and which holds it together” 2 is instructive for the entire study. It is highlighted that social memory is essentially selective and focuses not on the “historical” past but on the past that is remembered at present.3 Also underlined is that social identity – the consciousness of belonging to a social group – depends very much on shared knowledge and shared memory, handed down through an organised system of symbols.4 The collective memory of a shared past gives members of a group the sense of belonging together, informs their approach to present exigencies,5 and illumines the way to the future. The social memory approach combines both the literary-critical and the historical-critical methods. It moves to establish the functionality of the text at the time of its composition, which invariably affect its literary schema. Because social memory focuses on the “present,” deciphering the period in which the (present) narrative is recounted constitutes a major step in this approach.6 However, the indications of the purposes of the narrative are garnered from the text itself – which represents what is remembered at the time of its composition. Hence, this approach starts necessarily with the analysis of the extant text (undertaken in Chaps. III and IV), on the basis of which it establishes its diachronic inferences.7 Applied to Ex 16, it is recognised that the manna-narrative is recounted in its present form for certain reasons which derive from the function it is meant

2

E. BEN ZVI, “The Memory of Abraham”, 4. As Halbwachs (On Collective Memory, 189) explains, the past in social memory is not a fixed, given reality. It is rather a collective reconstruction, continuously reconstructed in response to the situation at present. 4 Cf. J. ASSMANN, Cultural Memory, 119–120. 5 On shaping the attitude of the people to present exigencies, the social memory theory has similarities with the cognitive behaviour theory in psychology which postulates that people’s reactions to events depends on the underlying beliefs they have about themselves, the others and the world generally. This theory builds inter alia upon the tenets of stoic philosophy (esp. Epictetus). On the cognitive behaviour theory/therapy, see the volume A.T. BECK et al., Cognitive Therapy of Depression (1987). 6 Underlining the usefulness of determining the background of biblical narratives for a balanced analysis, Sternberg (The Poetics, 2) remarks that it is necessary to ponder: “What, then, does the biblical narrator want to accomplish, and under what conditions does he operate? To answer this question, both the universal and distinctive features of his communication must be taken into account. These features combine, in ways original and often surprising but unmistakable, to reveal a poetics at work.” 7 D. Edelman has rightfully noted that the hermeneutical method in biblical criticism that aligns with the social memory approach has to be a method that studies the text in its final form. As such, the methods that search into the different sources of the text or the history of the formation of the text do not offer much to this approach. The social memory approach thus embraces the literary criticism, focusing on the features of the narrative as presented. Cf. D.V. EDELMAN, Remembering Biblical Figures, “Introduction”, xxi–xxiv. 3

1. Recapitulation

281

to perform in the epoch of its composition – reinforcing the people’s consciousness of belonging to YHWH’s chosen people at the calamity of the fall of Jerusalem and the consequent Babylonian Exile. Besides, applying the tools of social memory/identity to the analysis of this narrative, this study takes cognisance of the fact that scholars have identified a number of significant difficulties in the text, for which the chapter has been frequently deemed composite. The dynamics of this social memory approach proffer explanations for these complexities. In different circles, the people’s memories of the manna event acquire certain peculiarities that metamorphose into strong traditions. The biblical narrative comes as a result of the narrator’s task to present one “integrated and socially integrative” narrative of the manna, acceptable to the Israelites of all “circles” as the representation of this crucial event of their constitutive past. 1.2 The Fall and the Exile: Surviving the Trauma The fall of the Jerusalem – the abode of YHWH on earth and the central marker of the Israel’s chosenness – and the subjugation of the people to foreign domination in the Exile raised serious questions on their core beliefs about themselves, especially in their relationship with YHWH. And their exposure to magnificent foreign cults did not help matters at all. The failure of the Sennacherib assault on Jerusalem (701 BCE) and the fact that the Temple continued to stand after the fall of Samaria, and after Nebuchadnezzar’s first siege of the city (598 BCE) had reinforced credence on the impregnability of the Temple (cf. Jer 7,4) and on the status of the Israel as God’s specially chosen people. Noteworthy here is that in the pre-exilic period, the most significant agent of Israel’s continuum with the constitutive past was the Temple. Especially through the Ark, a strong link is created with this crucial past. This explains why the bringing of the Ark into the ‫ קֹ דֶ ש הַ קֳ דָ ִשים‬receives a considerable emphasis at the recount of the dedication of the Temple in 1Kgs 8.8 It links the Israelite cult worship in the Jerusalem Temple to the constitutive events at the Sinai. As such, the presence and availability of YHWH as promised in Ex 25,8.22 in relation to the Ark continues through the Temple. In fact, Zion became the new Sinai.9 Also, the possession of the land served continually as the fulfilment of the covenantal promise made to Abraham (cf. Gen 15) and reiterated at the Sinai (cf. Ex 23,23–31).

8 The term ‫ אָ רֹון‬occurs 8x in 1Kgs 8,1–11, clearly highlighting the link between Sinai and Zion. 9 Cf. D. MARKL, “The Wilderness Sanctuary”, 234. Markl makes an inter-textual study between Ex 25 and 1Kgs 8,1–11 (pp. 232–234) and comes to the conclusion that the connections found therein “show a concerted effort to portray the inauguration of the Solomonic temple as both the continuation and re-institution of the divine presence as it was initiated at Sinai/Horeb.”

282

Conclusion

Hence, the destruction of the Temple (with the vanishing of the Ark) and the loss of the land at the Babylonian conquest occasioned deep trauma upon the people. Israel had to find new ways of re-establishing the continuum with the constitutive events of the past so as to preserve and propagate its identity. It also had to sharpen the demarcation between the ingroup and the outgroup, so as not to be absorbed into superior cultures. In Ska’s description, the people had to “develop a ‘resistance culture’ so as not to be absorbed and disappear. They seek their identity in a new definition of their relationship with the nations starting with the theological traditions of the berît and the exodus.”10 Israel achieved this by developing an identity-reinforcing theology built upon the people’s memory of their glorious past.11 To achieve this, the Israelite “theologians” did not just invent theologies. They rather transformed cultural memories of the people – described by R. Hendel as mnemohistory12 – into an identity-reinforcing salvation history.13 In Exodus, certain practices and rituals depicted as commanded by YHWH to be observed ‫ לְ ֹדרֹ תֵ יכֶם‬serve this purpose. These include the Passover (12,14.17), the manna (16,32.33), daily offerings/sacrifices (29,42), rituals on the altar of incense (30,8.10), the anointing oil (30,31), and the Sabbath (31,13).14 From the biblical accounts, these are all key practices instituted by YHWH himself at the crucial nascent period of Israel as a nation, explicitly commanded by him to be strictly observed as stipulated from age to age. Notably, they are particularly markers of the people’s chosenness, distinguishing them from all other peoples on the face of the earth as God’s holy people. However, considered diachronically, it is observed that the stipulations concerning these practices as recorded in Exodus correspond more to post-exilic observances than the pre-exilic ones. They are however not entirely innovations, but are rooted in pre-exilic practices. In their present form (as recounted), these practices are imbued with peculiarities that distinguish them from the practices of “other nations.”15 Marked as holy, they become veritable agents of distinction between the ingroup and the outgroup. It is therefore plausibly deducible here that, from the existing pre-exilic practices, Israel remembered

10

J.-L. SKA, “Exodus 19:3–6”, 151. This study therefore brings together trauma studies and the social memory theory – two recent approaches to biblical criticism. 12 R. HENDEL, “The Exodus in Biblical Memory”, 601–622. 13 Perceptible here is that the exilic experience became a unique and extraordinary phenomenon of divine encounter for the people (via negativa!). 14 These institutions/practices are considered in Chap. V. 15 Hendel’s remark is instructive here: “Israel was a people of the ancient Near East, but a self-consciously unique member of that cultural family. Israel differentiated itself from its ancient neighbours by constructing and maintaining a variety of cultural, religious and ethnic boundaries.” R. HENDEL, Remembering Abraham, 3. 11

1. Recapitulation

283

only the practices that would serve the need of the moment16 – reinforcing the identity of the people as God’s special possession while providing explanations for the present predicament. It is also to be remarked here is that these identitydefining institutions are generally brought together under the terms of the covenant. Going against them amounts to breaking the covenantal bond with YHWH, with disastrous consequences (cf. 2Kgs 17; 2Chr 36). In this way, the remembered past becomes determinant for the present and the future. In fact, analysing the whole scenario, one discovers that, for post-exilic Israel, “the way forward is back to the beginning”!17 Also considered in this regard, because of its central place in depicting the chosenness of Israel, is the Ark of the Testimony. This composite structure, whose design and components are specifically stipulated (Ex 25,10–22), is situated at the heart of the ‫ ֹקדֶ ש הַ קֳ דָ ִשים‬, and constitutes the central locus of YHWH’s meeting with Israel. Through the Ark, therefore, the Israelite sanctuary becomes the meeting point between divinity and humanity – a privilege granted to Israel, attesting to its unique holiness. A diachronic review however reveals the existence of chest sanctuaries in the pre-exilic times in the cultural environment of the ANE. Hence, in this case, once more, Israel builds its memory of the Ark on pre-exilic roots, emphasising therefrom the factors that stress its special divine election. Looking at the whole picture, one can infer – in consonance with the selective nature of social memory – that not all the earlier practices were incorporated into the new cultic rites. Remembered and incorporated were only those practices in consonance with the theology of the people’s chosenness, creating the needed self-esteem for the people to wade through the present identity crisis. Analysed critically, it is deducible here that the book of Exodus underwent a major compositional step at this epoch. Among these observances instructed in Exodus to be kept ‫לְ ֹד ֹרתֵ יכֶם‬, the manna is peculiar. While the others constitute practices to be performed or observed over and over again through the people’s history, the instruction on the manna entails a directive to be kept once and for all. Hence, in Ex 16,34, Aaron sets an omer of manna before the Testimony once and for all. The only task of the people appears to leave it there always: ‫לְ ִמ ְשמֶ ֶרת לְ ֹד ֹרתֵ יכֶם‬. However, a critical analysis reveals that keeping the manna ‫ לִ פְ נֵי הָ ֵעדֻת‬serves strong memory functions. 1.3 Remembering the Manna Applying the hermeneutical tools of social memory to the analysis of Ex 16, its identity-reinforcing function is immediately laid bare. Right from the setting

16 17

Social memory is essentially selective! This is the title of M. Hundley’s 2012 article on this subject. See bibliography.

284

Conclusion

(v. 1), there are apparent indications of the memory implications of the MannaErzählung. Recounting the arrival of ‫ כָל־עֲדַ ת בְ נֵי־ ִי ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬into the Wilderness of Sin at a precise point in the people’s history, the narrative inserts the present Israelite into the continuum of this epic experience of our fathers. And from the murmuring of the people (v. 2–3) to their acquiescence to the Sabbath command (v. 30), the narrative plot reveals a gradual Lernprozess in sequential episodes, the reminiscence of which is meant to create impacts in the minds of its real audience – the Israelite in Exile. The emphasis on the murmuring motif in the narrative highlights the gratuitousness of the manna. To the people’s murmuring – in which the fear of total annihilation in the wilderness is expressed and the whole design of Exodus implicitly rejected – YHWH’s intervention with an emphatic promise of ‫לֶחֶ ם ִמן־‬ ‫ הַ שָ מָ ִים‬reinforces the notion that his love for Israel is not necessarily built upon the people’s righteousness but on their election as his special possession (cf. Ex 19,3–6; Dt 7,6). The Israelite in Exile, acknowledging his present condition as a consequence of disobedience, thus finds grounds to believe in God’s enduring love for him (cf. Ps 89,32–35[31–34]). He will intervene again in extraordinary ways to save his specially chosen people. The promised food comes however with a test, a series of instructions meant to inculcate into the Israelites that “one does not live by bread alone, but by everything that comes from the mouth of YHWH” (Dt 8,3). In witnessing the futility of going against these divine instructions (Ex 16,20.27), Israel captures this lesson by first-hand experience. In the difficult period of the Exile (and the early post-exilic period), the Israelite is strongly reminded that survival and sustenance does not come from his Klugheit but by obedience to “everything that comes from the mouth of YHWH.” The appearance of ‫ כְ בֹוד ְיהוָה‬in this narrative (vv. 9–12) adds significance to the manna event.18 In the collective memory of the people (as recorded in the Hebrew Bible), the glory of YHWH appears ‫ בֶ ָענָן‬at pivotal events of their history, attesting to the salvific presence of God among his chosen people (cf. Ex 24,15–18; 40,34–35; Num 11,25; 17,7[16,42]; 1Kgs 8,10–11). Besides, that this is the only instance of such apparition before the Sinaitic encounter makes it also specially remarkable. To behold this apparition, the Israelites in the Wilderness of Sin are told to “draw near to YHWH” and they behold this appearance as they “turned towards the wilderness.” Hence, finding himself in the Exile (which recalls the wilderness in the people’s collective memory), the Israelite is also invited to “turn towards the wilderness” and re-live this epic experience. Even outside the land, he is assured of YHWH’s salvific presence as he “draws near to him” by keeping his ‫ ִמצְ ֹות וְ תֹורֹ ת‬. 18 Two significant appearances in this narrative – the ‫( כְ בֹוד ְיהוָה‬v. 10) and the manna (v. 14) – are introduced by ‫וְ הִ ּנֵה‬, a “rhetoric of memory” (R. HENDEL, “Cultural Memory”, 35) through which the narrator makes the reader a vivid witness to a crucial past event.

1. Recapitulation

285

Furthermore, the day-by-day rhythm of the manna occasions the introduction of the Sabbath into the history of Israel as a nation, described as ‫שַ בַ ת־ ֹקדֶ ש‬ ‫לַיהוָה‬. Ushered in also with definite instructions, disobedience to the Sabbath directives results once more in futility. Hence, by first-hand experience again, Israel learns the observance of the seventh-day rest (v. 30). And in observing this solemn rest, the people exercise the privilege of participating in the divine temporal rhythm, set by God himself at creation (Gen 2,2–3) – a mark of chosenness. The Sabbath is thus not an empty day of cessation from work. It is rather a day that the Israelites take time to appreciate the gifts of God in a special way, especially the gift of their chosenness. Designated sign of the covenant (Ex 31,13–17), observing the Sabbath marked belongingness to YHWH by the exilic/early post-exilic period, distinguishing the ingroup from the outgroup. It is thus remarkable that this all-important observance was introduced into Israel through the Manna-Erfahrung. The manna-event is so important in the people’s history that it is explicitly commanded to be perpetually commemorated by cultic preservation. Notably, the name ‫ מָ ן‬preserves the profound astonishment of the people at this appearance of this wondrous food, expressed in the unusual interrogation ‫( מָ ן הּוא‬v. 15). But, all the more, an omer of the manna is instructed to be preserved in no less a place than ‫לִ פְ נֵי הָ ֵעדֻת‬, in the ‫ – קֹ דֶ ש הַ קֳ דָ ִשים‬the most holy locus in the cult of Israel. The preservation of the manna in this hallowed place attests to the fact that the manna-event belongs to the heart of the constitutive events of Israel. However, stored in this restricted space accessible to priests alone, the common Israelite “sees” this special food only with the eyes of faith. At the destruction of the Temple, this preservation passes completely to the mind where it is conserved in memory “throughout your generations.” Though no more physically accessible, the memory of the omer of manna set ‫ לִ פְ נֵי הָ ֵעדֻת‬continually reassures the Israelites of all ages, especially the Israelite in Exile, of the divine special providence for his chosen people. 1.4 Social Memory and the Pentateuch Our analysis of the Manna-Erzählung of Ex 16 in this study indicates that the dynamics of the social memory theory are applicable to the composition of the Torah. First of all, the different tensions in the text of Ex 16 point to a long tradition of this narrative. If the notion of the Exodus and the forty-year Wüstenwanderung were already there before the Exile (cf. Amos 2,10; 3,1–2; 9,7), one could plausibly infer that there was also an account of the manna at this epoch too.19 And so, as the Exodus-Covenant theology was expanded in

19

Also, such expressions as ‫( מָ ן הּוא‬v. 15) appear to be fixed expressions that form the kernel of the story of the manna in the wilderness. Such could also be said of some notable

286

Conclusion

response to the trauma of the Exile (see Chap. VI § 1.4), the manna motif became also highlighted and expanded owing to its identity-reinforcing and hope-inspiring import. Back from the Exile, it is reasonable to imagine that this important story continued to be retold in different localities in Israel, naturally acquiring different emphases in different circles. And subsequently, these “stories” that have become traditions were put together in a narrative consciously composed to reflect Israel’s collective memory of their significant past – “integrated and socially integrative.” This same schema can be conceivably ascribed to the development of the Pentateuch. Furthermore, the events that led to the return from the Exile were interpreted as YHWH’s intervention to save his people, akin to the salvific acts in Egypt and in the wilderness. It is to be imagined that as the people relished this salvific intervention, they most likely sought out more carefully the cause of the calamity of “losing” the land, and set up strong institutions to prevent a repeat of such. These institutions, collocated to their constitutive past, were remembered as established by YHWH himself, designed to be kept by Israel from age to age. This remembered past finds expression and authority in the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch can therefore be described as an articulation of the collective memory of the people at the exilic/early post-exilic period, which simultaneously served theological and sociological purposes. Theologically, it provided the people with grounds for the faith they professed, and stipulated definite guidelines on their relationship with God. Sociologically, it offered the people the basis of their chosenness – their collective identity as God’s specially chosen people among all the nations on earth. The analysis of Ex 16 undertaken in this study illustrates this point. In all, therefore, it is inferable that as regards the composition of the Pentateuch – nay the Hebrew Bible in general – as we have it today, the project was eminently theological; the tool was the narrative; and the material was the collective memory of the people at the exilic/immediate post-exilic period. The Manna-Erzählung in Ex 16 provides a case in point here.

2. Limitations of Study / Further Research Evidently, this study does not exhaust all the issues arising from the consideration of the manna-narrative from the social memory/identity perspective. Hence, it opens up to further research. A few issues in this regard are noteworthy here.

nominal clauses in some narratives in Exodus, for e.g., ‫( שַ בָ תֹון שַ בַ ת־ ֹקדֶ ש לַיהוָה מָ חָ ר‬16,23); ‫ֶפסַ ח‬ ‫( הּוא לַיהוָה‬12,11).

2. Limitation of Study

287

2.1 The Memory of the Manna in the Biblical Tradition This study focuses on the manna-event in Ex 16 as a site of memory for Israel. Being an important site of memory for the people, the manna is recalled in different instances in the Bible, up to the NT. Again, in extra-biblical literature of the inter-testamentary period, the manna motif is remarkably prominent. An examination of the memory-implications of these occurrences would have enriched this study, considering its hermeneutical approach. Though some of these instances are discussed (esp. in Chap. VI), it is acknowledged that the work has not delved in details into such analysis. To be noted also is that though the link between the manna and the Eucharist in the theology of the Church is acknowledged, this work does not actually set out to explore this connection. 2.2 Application to Existential Issues It is mentioned in the introduction to this work that, coming from a background where cultural memory is still strong (Igbo in SE Nigeria), among the motivations of this research is to demonstrate how social/cultural memory can be applied at the theological level to resolve existential issues. The findings of this research suggest, for e.g., that the challenge of syncretism plaguing the Christian religion in SE Nigeria today could be effectively tackled by reviewing the inculturation approach in that area, applying the techniques of the social memory theory. However, such ventures are beyond the scope of the present study. They are appropriately projected for further research.

Bibliography AARTUN, Kjell, “Studien zum Gesetz über den grossen Versöhnungstag Lv 16 mit Varianten. Ein ritualgeschichtlicher Beitrag”, ST 34,2 (1980): 73–109. ABRAMS, Meyer Howard, A Glossary of Literary Terms, Fort Worth, TX 71999. ACKROYD, Peter R., Exile and Restoration. A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C., London 1968. –, “‫”יַד‬, TDOT, V, 393–426. ALBERTZ, Rainer, “Wilderness Material in Exodus (Exodus 15–18)”, in T.B. Dozeman / C.A. Evans / J.N. Lohr, ed., The Book of Exodus. Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, VTSup 164, Leiden / Boston 2014, 151–168. ALLEN, Leslie C., Psalms 101–150, WBC 21, Dallas 2002. ALT, Albrecht, Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, trans. R.A. Wilson, Oxford 1966. ALTER, Robert, The Art of Biblical Narrative, New York 1981. ALTMAN, Amnon, Tracing the Earliest Recorded Concepts of International Law. The Ancient Near East (2500–330 BCE), Leiden / Boston 2012. ANDERSEN, Francis I. / FREEDMAN, David Noel, Amos. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, New Haven / London 1989. ANDERSON, Gary A., “Sacrifice and Sacrificial Offerings. Old Testament”, ABD, V, 870–886. ARISTOTLE, Poetics, trans. A. Kenny, Oxford 2013. ASHLEY, Timothy R., The Book of Numbers, NICOT, Grand Rapids 1993. ASSMANN, Jan, Moses the Egyptian. The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism, Cambridge 1997. –, Religion and Cultural Memory. Ten Studies, trans. R. Livingstone, Stanford, CA 2006. –, “Memory, Narration, Identity. Exodus as a Political Myth”, in H. Liss / M. Oeming, ed., Literary Construction of Identity in the Ancient World, Winona Lake 2010, 3–18. –, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization. Writing, Remembrance, and Political Imagination, Cambridge / New York 2012. –, “Exodus and Memory”, in T.E. Levy / T. Schneider / W.H.C. Propp, ed., Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspectives, Cham 2015, 3–16. ASSMANN, Jan / CZAPLICKA, John, “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity”, New German Critique 65 (1995): 125–133. AVERBECK, Richard E., “Tabernacle”, DOT.Pent, 807–827. BADEN, Joel S., “The Original Place of the Priestly Manna Story in Exodus 16”, ZAW 122,4 (2010): 491–504. –, “The Structure and Substance of Numbers 15”, VT 63 (2013): 351–367. BAENTSCH, Bruno, Exodus–Leviticus–Numeri, Göttingen 1903.

290

Bibliography

BAKER, Coleman A., “A Narrative-Identity Model for Biblical Interpretation. The Role of Memory and Narrative in Social Identity Formation”, in J.B. Tucker / C.A. Baker, ed., T&T Clark Handbook to Social Identity in the New Testament, London / New York 2014, 105–118. BAR-EFRAT, Shimon, Narrative Art in the Bible, JSOTSup 70, Sheffield 1989. BARKER, Paul A., “Sabbath, Sabbatical Year, Jubilee”, DOT.Pent, 695–706. BAR-ON, Shimon, “Zur literarkritischen Analyse von Ex 12,21–27”, ZAW 107,1 (1995): 18–30. BARROIS, Georges A., Manuel d’archeologiebiblique, I–II, Paris 1939, 1953. BAR-TAL, Daniel, Group Beliefs. A Conception for Analyzing Group Structure Processes and Behavior, Berlin / New York 1990. BATTEN, Loring W., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, ICC, New York 1913. BATTO, Bernard F., “The Sleeping God. An Ancient Near East Motif of Divine Sovereignty”, Biblica 68,2 (1987): 153–177. BAUMGARTNER, Walter / STAMM, Johann Jacob / KOEHLER, Ludwig, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, trans. M.E.J. Richardson, Leiden 1994–2000. BEASLEY-MURRAY, George R., John, WBC 36, Dallas 21999. BECK, AARON T. et al., Cognitive Therapy of Depression, New York 1987. BECKING, Bob, Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Construction of Early Jewish Identity, Tübingen 2001. BEN ZVI, Ehud, “The Voice and Role of Counterfactual Memory in the Construction of Exile and Return. Considering Jeremiah 40:7–12”, in E. Ben Zvi / C. Levin, ed., The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and its Historical Contexts, BZAW 404, Berlin 2010, 169–188. –, “On Social Memory and Identity Formation in Late Persian Jehud”, in L. Jonker, ed., Texts, Contexts and Readings in Postexilic Literature. Explorations into Historiography and Identity Negotiation in Hebrew Bible and Related Texts, FAT II.53, Tübingen 2011, 95–148. –, “Remembering the Prophets through the Reading and Rereading of a Collection of Prophetic Books in Yehud. Methodological Considerations and Explorations”, in E. Ben Zvi / C. Levin, ed., Remembering and Forgetting in Early Second Temple Judah, FAT 85, Tübingen 2012, 17–44. –, “Exploring the Memory of Moses ‘The Prophet’ in Late Persian/Early Hellenistic Yehud/Judah”, in D.V. Edelman / E. Ben Zvi, ed., Remembering Biblical Figures in the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods, Oxford 2013, 335–364. –, “Othering, Selfing, ‘Boundarying’ and ‘Cross-Boundarying’ as Interwoven with Socially Shared Memories. Some Observations”, in E. Ben Zvi / D.V. Edelman, Imagining the Other and Constructing Israelite Identity in the Early Second Temple Period, LHB-OTS 456, London 2014, 20–40. –, “Memory and Political Thought in the Late Persian/Early Hellenistic Yehud/Judah. Some Observations”, in D.V. Edelman / E. Ben Zvi, ed., Leadership, Social Memory and Judean Discourse in the Fifth – Second Centuries BCE, Sheffield 2016, 9–26. –, Social Memory among the Literati of Yehud, Berlin / Boston 2019. BERGE, Kåre, “National Identity and Popular Sentiment in Genesis and Exodus”, in G. Eidevall / B. Scheuer, ed., Enigmas and Images. Studies in Honour of Tryggve N.D. Mettinger, Winona Lake 2001, 37–52. –, “The Anti-Hero as a Figure of Memory and Didacticism in Exodus: The Case of Pharaoh and Moses”, in E. Ben Zvi / C. Levin, ed., Remembering and Forgetting in Early Second Temple Judah, FAT 85, Tübingen 2012, 145–160.

Bibliography

291

–, “Sites of Memory and the Presence of the Past in Ehud Ben Zvi’s ‘Social Memory’”, in I.D. Wilson / D. Edelman, ed., History, Memory, Hebrew Scriptures, Fs. E. Ben Zvi, Winona Lake 2015, 287–300. BERLIN, Adele, “Parallelism”, ABD, V, 155–162. BEUKEN, Willem A.M., “A Rule Regarding the Keeping of the Sabbath”, JSOT 32 (1985): 3–14. BLENKINSOPP, Joseph, Ezra–Nehemiah. A Commentary, OTL, Philadelphia 1988. –, The Pentateuch. An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible, New York 1992. –, Isaiah. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. I. Isaiah 1–39. II. Isaiah 40–55. III. Isaiah 56–66, AYBC 19, 19A, 19B, New Haven, CT / London 2000, 2002, 2003. BLUM, Erhard, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, Berlin / New York 1990. –, “Issues and Problems in the Contemporary Debate Regarding the Priestly Writings”, in S. Shectman / J.S. Baden, ed., The Strata of Priestly Writings. Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, Zürich 2009, 31–44. BODENHEIMER, Friedrich S., “Über das Tamariskenmanna des Sinai”, in F.S. Bodenheimer / O. Theodor, Ergebnisse der Sinai-Expedition 1927, Leipzig 1929, 45–88. –, “The Manna of Sinai”, BA 10 (1947): 2–6. –, Animal and Man in Bible Lands, Leiden 1960. BOKSER, Baruch M., “Unleavened Bread – Passover, Feasts of”, ABD, VI, 755–764. BORGEN, Peder, Bread from Heaven. An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo, NovTSup 10, Leiden 1965. BOSMAN, Hendrik J., “‘What does this mean?’. The Exodus as Answer within the InnerBiblical Discussion of Exod 13,14 with Deut 6,20 and Josh 4,21”, in H. Ausloos / B. Lemmelijn, ed., A Pillar of Cloud to Guide. Text-Critical, Redactional, and Linguistic Perspectives on the Old Testament in Honour of Marc Vervenne, Leuven / Paris 2014, 31–44. BOTTERWECK, Gerhard Johannes / FREEDMAN, David Noel / LUNDBOM, Jack, “‫”דֹור‬, TDOT, III, 169–181. BOVATI, Pietro, “La paternità di Dio nell’Antico Testamento. Considerazioni ermeneutiche e sviluppi tematici a partire dal Cantico di Mosè (Dt 32,1–43)”, in M. Grilli / J. Oniszczuk / A. Wénin, ed., Filiation, Entre Bible et Cultures, Fs. R. Meynet, RBS 17, Leuven 2019, 55–82. BREKELMANS, Christian, “Joshua V 10–12. Another Approach”, in A.S. van der Woude, ed., New Avenues in the Study of the Old Testament, OTS 25, Leiden 1989, 89–95. BRIGGS, Charles A. / BRIGGS, Emilie G., Psalms, ICC, New York 1907. BRIGHT, John, A History of Ancient Israel, London 31981. BROCKELMANN, Carl, Hebräische Syntax, Neukirchen 1956. BROWN, Francis / DRIVER, Samuel Rolles / BRIGGS, Charles Augustus, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Oxford 1907. BUDD, Philip J., Numbers, WBC 5, Dallas 2002. BÜHRER, Walter, Schriftgelehrtes Murren. Schriftgelehrte Fortschreibungs- und Auslegungsprozesse in den Murrerzählungen in Exodus und Numeri, FAT 152, Tübingen 2021. CAIRNS, Ian, Word and Presence. A Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy, ITC, Grand Rapids 1992. CALVIN, John, Commentaries on the Last Four Books of Moses arranged in the Form of a Harmony, I–IV, trans. B.W. Bingham, Edinburgh 1853. CARASIK, Michael, ed., The Commentator’s Bible. II. Exodus, Philadelphia 2005.

292

Bibliography

CARR, David M., Time, Narrative, and History, Bloomington 1991. –, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible. A New Reconstruction, Oxford 2011. –, Holy Resilience. The Bible’s Traumatic Origins, New Haven, CT 2014. –, “Changes in Pentateuchal Criticism”, in M. Sæbø, ed., Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The History of Its Interpretation, Göttingen 2015, III/2, 433–466. CARROLL, Robert P., “Rebellion and Dissent in Ancient Israelite Society”, ZAW 89 (1977): 176–204. CARUTH, Cathy, “Introduction”, in idem, ed., Trauma. Explorations in Memory, Baltimore 1995, 151–157. –, Unclaimed Experience. Trauma, Narrative and History, Baltimore 1996. CASSUTO, Umberto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, trans. I. Abraham, Jerusalem 1967. CHILDS, Brevard S., Memory and Tradition in Israel, London 1962. –, The Book of Exodus. A Critical, Theological Commentary, OTL, Philadelphia 1974. –, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, Philadelphia 1979. CLINES, David J.A., The Theme of the Pentateuch, Sheffield 1978. COATS, George W., “Despoiling the Egyptians”, VT 18 (1968): 450–457. –, Rebellion in the Wilderness. The Murmuring Motif in the Wilderness Traditions of the Old Testament, Nashville 1968. –, Exodus 1–18, FOTL 2A, Grand Rapids 1999. COHEN, Mark E., The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East, Bethesda, MD 1993. COLE, R. Alan, Exodus. An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC, Leicester 1973. CONDOR, Susan, “Social Identity and Time”, in W.P. Robinson, ed., Social Groups and Identities, Oxford / Boston 1996, 289–303. COOK, John A., Time and the Biblical Hebrew. The Expression of Tense, Aspect and Modality in Biblical Hebrew, LSAWS 7, Winona Lake 2012. CRAIGIE, Peter C., The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT, Grand Rapids 1976. CRAIGIE, Peter C. / KELLEY, Page H. / DRINKARD, Joel F., Jeremiah 1–25, WBC 26, Dallas 2002. DAHOOD, Mitchell, Psalms. Introduction, Translation and Notes. I. Ps 1–50. II. Ps 51–100. III. Ps 101–150, AYBC 16, 17, 17A, Garden City, NY 1966, 1968, 1970. DALMAN, Gustaf, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina. VI. Zeltleben, Vieh und Milchwirtschaft, Jagd, Fischfang, Gütersloh 1939, Berlin / New York reprint2001. DAUBE, David, The Exodus Pattern in the Bible, London 1963. DAVIES, Graham I., “The Wilderness Itineraries and Recent Archaeological Research”, in J.A. Emerton, ed., Studies in the Pentateuch, VTSup 41, Leiden 1990, 161–175. –, Exodus 1–18. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary. I. Exodus 1–10. II. Exodus 11–18, ICC, London 2020. DAVIES, Philip R., Memories of Ancient Israel. An Introduction to Biblical History – Ancient and Modern, Louisville 2008. DEGUGLIELMO, Antonine, “What was the Manna?”, CBQ 2 (1940): 112–29. DEVER, William G., What did the Biblical Writers Know and When did they Know it? What Archaeology can Tell us about the Reality of Ancient Israel, Grand Rapids 2001. –, “The Exodus and the Bible. What was Known; What was Remembered, What was Forgotten”, in T.E. Levy / T. Schneider / W.H.C. Propp, ed., Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspectives, Cham 2015, 399–408. DILLMANN, August, Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, KEHAT 013, Leipzig 1886. –, Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus, Leipzig 1897.

Bibliography

293

DOHMEN, Christoph, Exodus. Übersetzt und ausgelegt. I. Ex 1–18. II. Ex 19–40, HThKAT, Freiburg 2004, 2015. DOZEMAN, Thomas B., Commentary on Exodus, ECC, Grand Rapids 2009. DRESSLER, Harold H.P., “The Sabbath in the Old Testament”, in D.A. Carson, ed., From Sabbath to the Lord’s Day. A Biblical, Historical and Theological Investigation, Eugene, OR 1982, 21–41. DRIVER, Samuel R., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, ICC, Edinburgh 1902. –, The Book of Exodus, Cambridge 1911. DUMOULIN, Pierre, Entre la Manne et l’Eucharistie. Étude de Sg 16,15–17,1a, AnBib 132, Rome 1994. DURHAM, John I., Exodus, WBC 3, Dallas 1987. EDELMAN, Diana V., “Exodus and Pesach-Massot as Evolving Social Memory”, in E. Ben Zvi / C. Levin, ed., Remembering and Forgetting in Early Second Temple Judah, FAT 85, Tübingen 2012, 161–193. –, “Introduction”, in D.V. Edelman / E. Ben Zvi, ed., Remembering Biblical Figures in the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods, Oxford 2013, xi–xxiv. EERDMANS, Bernadus D., Das Buch Exodus, Alttestamentalische Studien III, Gießen 1910. EHRLICH, Arnold B., Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel. Textkritisches, Sprachliches und Sachliches. I. Genesis und Exodus, Leipzig 1908 (I–VII). EISSFELDT, Otto, The Old Testament. An Introduction, trans. P. Ackroyd, Oxford 1965. ELIADE, Mircea, The Sacred and the Profane. The Nature of Religion, New York 1959. ELLISON, Henry Leopold, Exodus, Louisville 2001. ELLENBOGEN, Maximilian, Foreign Words in the Old Testament, London 1962. ELLIGER, Karl, “Sinn und Ursprung der priestlichen Geschichtserzählung”, TB 32, München 1966, 174–198. ENGNELL, Ivan, “Methodological Aspects of Old Testament Study”, VT 7 (1960): 13–30. ENNS, Peter, Exodus, NIVAC, Grand Rapids 2000. ESLER, Philip F., “Collective Memory and Hebrews 11. Outlining a New Investigative Framework”, in A. Kirk / T. Thatcher, ed., Memory, Tradition and Text. Uses of the Past in Early Christianity, Semeia Studies 52, Atlanta 2005, 1–24. –, “An outline of Social Identity Theory”, in J.B. Tucker / C.A. Baker, ed., T&T Clark Handbook to Social Identity in the New Testament, London / New York 2014, 13–39. FELIKS, Jehuda, “Wachtel”, BHH, § 2123. FENTRESS, James / WICKHAM, Chris, Social Memory. New Perspectives on the Past, Cambridge 1992. FICCO, Fabrizio, «Mio figlio sei tu» (Sal 2,7). La relazione padre-filglio e il Salterio, TG.ST 192, Rome 2012. FINKELSTEIN, Israel, The Forgotten Kingdom. The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel, SBL.ANEM 5, Atlanta 2013. –, “The Wilderness Narrative and Itineraries and the Evolution of the Exodus Tradition”, in T.E. Levy / T. Schneider / W.H.C. Propp, ed., Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspectives, Cham 2015, 39–53. FINKELSTEIN, Israel / RÖMER, Thomas, “Comments on the Historical Background of the Abraham Narrative. Between ‘Realia’ and ‘Exegetica’”, HeBAI 3 (2014): 3–23. FINKELSTEIN, Israel / SILBERMAN, Neil Asher, The Bible Unearthed. Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, New York 2002. FISHBANE, Michael, Text and Texture. Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts, New York 1979.

294

Bibliography

–, “Revelation and Tradition. Aspects of Inner-Biblical Exegesis”, JBL 99 (1980): 343–361. –, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford 1985. FISCHER, Georg, “Keine Priesterschrift in Ex 1–15?”, ZKT 117 (1995): 203–211. –, Theologien des Alten Testaments, Stuggart 2012. –, “Don’t Forget Jerusalem’s Destruction. The Perspective of the Book of Jeremiah”, in P. Dubovský / D. Markl, / J.-P. Sonnet, ed., The Fall of Jerusalem and the Rise of the Torah, FAT 107, Tübingen 2016, 291–311. FISCHER, Georg / MARKL, Dominik, Das Buch Exodus, NSK.AT 2, Stuttgart 2009. FOKKELMAN, Jan P., Narrative Art in Genesis. Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis, Assen 1975. FOX, Everett, Now these are the Names. A New English Rendition on the Book of Exodus, New York 1986. FOX, Michael V., “The Sign of the Covenant”, RB 81 (1974): 557–596. –, Proverbs. I. Prv 1–9. II. Prv 10–31, AYBC 18A, 18B, New York 2000, 2009. FRANKEL, David, The Murmuring Stories of the Priestly School. A Retrieval of Ancient Sacerdotal Lore, Leiden 2002. –, “The Priestly Conception of the Sabbath in Exodus 16”, Biblische Zeitschrift 59,2 (2015): 208–231. FRAZER, James G., The Golden Bough. A Study in Magic and Religion. IV. The Dying God, London 1911. FREEDMAN, David Noel, “Son of Man, Can These Bones Live?”, in J.R. Huddlestun, ed., Divine Commitment and Human Obligation. Selected Writings of David Noel Freedman. I. History and Religion, Grand Rapids 1997, 251–266. FRETHEIM, Terence E., Exodus, Louisville 1991. FREVEL, Christian, Geschichte Israels, Stuttgart 2016. –, “Die Geschichte ist zurück. Neuere Literatur im Umfeld der Geschichte Israels”, ThR 112,1 (2016): 3–24. FRITZ, Volkmar, Israel in der Wüste, MTS 7, Marburg 1970. FUHS, Hans F., “‫”ראה‬, TDOT, XIII, 208–242. GALBIATI, Enrico, La stuttura letteraria dell’Esodo, Rome 1956. GARCÍA LÓPEZ, Felix / FABRY, Heinz-Josef, “‫”תֹורה‬, ָ TDOT, XV, 609–646. GEIGER, Abraham, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwicklung des Judentums, Frankfurt 1928. GELLER, Stephen A., “Manna and Sabbath. A Literary-Theological Reading of Exodus 16”, Interp 59,1 (2005): 5–16. GERLEMAN, Gillis, “Was heisst ‫”? ֶפסַ ח‬, ZAW 88 (1976): 409–413. GERMANY, Stephen, The Exodus-Conquest Narrative. The Composition of the Non-Priestly Narratives in Exodus–Joshua, Tübingen 2017. GESENIUS, Wilhelm H.F., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, edited and enlarged by E. Kautzsch, Oxford 1910. GIANTO, Agustinus, “Mechanisms of Change”, EHLL, II, 611–614. –, “Mood and Modality in Classical Hebrew”, IOS XVIII (1998): 183–198. –, “Ancient Biblical Hebrew”, in W.R. Garr / S.E. Fassberg, ed., A Handbook of Biblical Hebrew. I. Periods, Corpora, and Reading Traditions, Winona Lake 2016, 19–29. –, “Some Notes on Evidentiality in Biblical Hebrew”, in idem, ed., Biblical and Oriental Essays in Memory of William N. Moran, Biblica e Orientalia 48, Rome 2005, 133–153. GINSBERG, Harold Louis, The Israelian Heritage of Judaism, TSJTSA 24, New York 1982.

Bibliography

295

GITIN, Seymour, “The Four-Horned Altar and Sacred Space. An Archaeological Perspective”, in B.M. Gittlen, ed., Sacred Time, Sacred Place. Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, Winona Lake 2002, 95–123. GORDON, Cyrus Herzl, Ugaritic Textbook. Grammar, Texts in Transliteration, Cuneiform Selections, Glossary, Indices, Analecta Orientalia 038, Rome 1965. GOROSPE, Athena E., Narrative and Identity. An Ethical Reading of Exodus 4, Leiden / Boston 2007. GOSSE, Bernard, “Sabbath, Identity and Universalism go together after the Return from Exile”, JSOT 29,3 (2005): 359–370. GRABBE, Lester L., Ancient Israel. What Do We Know and How Do We Know It?, London 2007. –, A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. I. Yehud. A History of the Persian Province of Judah. II. The early Hellenistic period (335–175 BCE). III. The Maccabean revolt, Hasmonean rule, and Herod the Great (175–4 BCE), London 2004, 2008, 2020. GRAY, George B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers, Edinburgh 1903. GRAY, John, “The Desert Sojourn of the Hebrews and the Sinai-Horeb Tradition”, VT 4 (1954): 148–154. GREEN, Alberto, The Role of Human Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East, Missoula, MT 1977. GRESSMANN, Hugo, Mose und seine Zeit. Ein Kommentar zu den Mose-Sagen, Göttingen 1913. GRUND, Alexandra, Die Entstehung des Sabbats. Seine Bedeutung für Israels Zeitkonzept und Erinnerungskultur, FAT 075, Tübingen 2011. –, “Und das Volk ruhte am siebten Tag (Ex 16,30). Sabbat, Gebot und Identität in der priesterlichen Komposition”, in E. Bons, ed., Identität und Gesetz. Prozesse jüdischer und christlicher Identitätsbildung im Rahmen der Antike, BTS 151, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2014, 51–72. GZELLER, Holger, “Northwest Semitic in General”, in S. Weninger, ed., The Semitic Languages. An International Handbook, HSK 36, Berlin 2012, 425–451. HAAG, Ernst, “‫”שַ בָ ת‬, TDOT, XIV, 387–397. –, Vom Sabbath zum Sonntag. Eine bibeltheologische Studie, TTS 55, Trier 1991. HAENCHEN, Ernst, A Commentary on the Gospel of John. I. John 1–6. II. John 7–21, trans. R.W. Funk, Philadelphia 1984. HALBWACHS, Maurice, On Collective Memory, trans. L.A. Coser, Chicago 1992. HALL, Robert G., “Circumcision”, ABD, I, 1025–1031. HAMILTON, Victor P., Exodus. An Exegetical Commentary, Grand Rapids 2011. HARAN, Menahem, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel. An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School, Winona Lake 1985. HARRIS, Monford, Exodus and Exile. The Structure of the Jewish Holidays, Minneapolis 1992. HARRISON, Roland K., Healing Herbs of the Bible, Leiden 1966. –, Leviticus. An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC, Downers Grove, IL 1980. HARTLEY, John E., Leviticus, WBC 4, Dallas 1992. –, “Holy and Holiness. Clean and Unclean”, Dictionary of the Old Testament. Pentateuch, 418–430. HASEL, Gerhard F., “‘New Moon and Sabbath’ in Eighth Century Israelite Prophetic Writing (Isa 1,13; Hos 2,13; Amos 8,5)”, in M. Augustin / K.-D. Schunk, ed., “Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden.” Collected Communications to the XIIth Congress of the International Organisation for the Study of the OT, Jerusalem 1986, Frankfurt 1988, 37–64.

296

Bibliography

–, “Sabbath”, ABD, V, 849–856. HEGER, Paul, The Development of Incense Cult in Israel, BZAW 245, Berlin 1997. HELFMEYER, Franz-Josef, “‫” ִנסָ ה‬, TDOT, IX, 443–455. HENDEL, Ronald, The Epic of the Patriarch. The Jacob Cycle and the Narrative Traditions of Canaan and Israel, Atlanta 1987. –, “Worldmaking in Ancient Israel”, JSOT 56 (1992): 3–18. –, “Finding Historical Memories in the Patriarchal Narratives”, BAR 21/4 (1994): 52–72. –, “The Exodus in Biblical Memory”, JBL 120,4 (2001): 601–622. –, “Israel Among the Nations”, in D. Biale, ed., Culture of the Jews. A New History, New York 2002, 42–75. –, Remembering Abraham. Culture, Memory and History in the Hebrew Bible, New York 2005. –, “The Archaeology of Memory. King Solomon, Chronology and Biblical Representation”, in S. Gitin / J.E. Wright / J. Dessel, ed., Confronting the Past. Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever, Winona Lake 2006, 219–230. –, “Cultural Memory”, in R. Hendel, ed., Reading Genesis. Ten Methods, Cambridge 2010, 28–46. –, “Culture, Memory, and History. Reflections on Method in Biblical Studies”, in T.E. Levy, ed., Historical Biblical Archaeology and the Future. The New Pragmatism, London 2010, 250–261. –, “The Exodus as Cultural Memory. Egyptian Bondage and Song of the Sea”, in T.E. Levy / T. Schneider / W.H.C. Propp, ed., Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspectives, Cham 2015, 65–77. –, “Remembering the Exodus in the Wake of Catastrophe”, P. Dubovský / D. Markl / J.-P. Sonnet, ed., The Fall of Jerusalem and the Rise of the Torah, FAT 107, Tübingen 2016, 329–345. HERMANN, Siegfried, Israel in Egypt, London 1973. HERTZ, Joseph Herman, Leviticus, London 1932. HOBBS, Trevor R., 2 Kings, WBC 13, Dallas 2002. HOFFMANN, David, Das Buch Leviticus. I. Lev 1–17. II. Lev 18–27, Berlin 1905. HOGG, Michael A. / REID, Scott A., “Social Identity, Self-Categorization, and the Communication of Group Norms”, Communication Theory 16,1 (2006): 7–30. HOLLADAY, William L., A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Leiden 1971. HOLMAN, Clarence Hugh, A Handbook to Literature, Indianapolis 41980, 376. HOLMGREN, Fredrick Carlson, Israel Alive Again. A Commentary on the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, ITC, Grand Rapids / Edinburgh, 1987. HOLZINGER, Heinrich, Exodus, Tübingen, 1900. HOOKE, Samuel Henry, The Origins of Early Semitic Ritual, London 1938. HOUTMAN, Cornelius, Exodus. I. Exodus 1,1–7,13. II. Exodus 7,14–19,25. III. Exodus 20–40. IV. Supplement, trans. J. Rebel / S. Woustra, HCOT, Kampen 1993, 1996, 2000, 2002. HUBERT, Henri / MAUSS, Marcel, Sacrifice: Its Nature and Function, Chicago 1964. HUNDLEY, Michael, “The Way Forward is Back to the Beginning. Reflection on Priestly Texts”, in E. Ben Zvi / C. Levin, ed., Remembering and Forgetting in Early Second Temple Judah, FAT 85, Tübingen 2012, 209–224. HUROWITZ, Victor, I have Built you an Exalted House. Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings, JSOTSup 115, Sheffield 1992.

Bibliography

297

HYATT, James Philip, Commentary on Exodus. Based on the Revised Standard Version, London 1971. INVERNIZZI, Laura, «Perchè mi hai inviato?». Dalla diacronia redazionale alla dinamica narrativa in Es 5,1–7,7, AnBib 216, Rome 2016. ISER, Wolfgang, The Implied Reader. Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett, Baltimore 1974. –, The Act of Reading. A Theory of Aesthetic Response, Baltimore 1980. JACOB, Benno, The Second Book of the Bible. Exodus, trans. W. Jacob, Hoboken, NJ 1992. JACOB, Irene, / JACOB, Walter, “Flora”, ABD, II, 803–817. JOHNSTONE, William, “From the Sea to the Mountain, Exodus 15,22–19,2. A Case Study in Editorial Techniques”, in M. Vervenne, ed., Studies in the Book of Exodus. Redaction – Reception – Interpretation, BETL 126, Leuven 1996, 245–263. JOOSTEN, Jan, “La critica testuale”, in M. Bauks / C. Nihan, ed., Manuale di esegesi dell’Antico Testamento, Bologna 2010, 15–43. –, The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A New Synthesis Elaborated on the Basis of Classical Prose, JBS 10, Jerusalem 2012. JONGELING, Bastiaan, “L’Expression My Ytn dans L’Ancien Testament”, VT 24 (1974): 32–40. JOSPE, Raphael, “Sabbath, Sabbatical and Jubilee. Jewish Ethical Perspectives”, in H. Ucko, ed., The Jubilee Challenge. Utopia or Possibility? Jewish and Christian Insights, Geneva 1997, 77–96. JOÜON, Paul / MURAOKA, Tamitsu, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Subsidia Biblica 027, Rome 2006. KAISER, Alfred, “Neue naturwissenschaftliche Forschungen auf der Sinai-Halbinsel”, ZDPV 53 (1930): 63–75. KAISER, Walter C., “Inner Biblical Exegesis as a Model for Bridging the ‘Then’ and ‘Now’ Gap. Hos 12,1–6”, JETS 28 (1985): 33–46. KASS, Leon R., Founding God’s Nation. Reading Exodus, New Haven / London 2021. KALIMI, Isaac, “Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah. The Chronicler’s View Compared with His ‘Biblical’ Sources”, in I. Kalimi / S. Richardson, ed., Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem. Story, History and Historiography, Leiden / Boston 2014, 11–50. KEEL, Othmar, “Erwägungen zum Sitz im Leben des vormosaischen Pascha und zur Etymologie von ‫” ֶפסַ ח‬, ZAW 84 (1972): 414–434. KEENER, Craig S., John, Grand Rapids 2003. KELLERMANN, Diether, “‫ ֹעלָה‬/‫”עֹולָה‬, TDOT, XI, 96–113. KIRK, Alan, “Social and Cultural Memory”, in A. Kirk / T. Thatcher, ed., Memory, Tradition and Text. Uses of the Past in Early Christianity, Semeia Studies 52, Atlanta 2005, 1–24. KIRK, Alan / THATCHER, Tom, “Jesus Tradition as Social Memory”, in A. Kirk / T. Thatcher, ed., Memory, Tradition and Text. Uses of the Past in Early Christianity, Semeia Studies 52, Atlanta 2005, 1–24. KLEIN, Ralph W., 1 Samuel, WBC 10, Dallas 1983. KNIGHT, George A.F., Theology as Narration. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, Grand Rapids 1976. KOCH, Klaus, Die Priesterschrift. Von Exodus 25 bis Leviticus 16; eine überlieferungsgeschichtliche und literarkritische Untersuchung, FRLATS 71, Göttingen 1959. KÖNIG, Eduard, Hebräisches und aramäisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, Leipzig 1936. –, Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebräischen Sprache, Leipzig 1897.

298

Bibliography

KORN, Joachim Hans, Peirasmos. Die Versuchung des Glaübigen in der griechischen Bibel, BWANT 72, Stuttgart 1937. KORNFELD, Walter / RINGGREN, Helmer, “‫”קדש‬, TDOT, XXII, 521–545. KRAUS, Hans-Joachim, “Zur Geschichte des Passah-Massot-Festes im Allen Testament”, EvT 18 (1958): 47–67. –, Worship in Israel. A Cultic History of the Old Testament, trans. G. Buswell, Oxford 1966. –, Psalms 60–150, trans. H.C. Oswald, Minneapolis, MN 1989. KUENEN, Abraham, “Manna und Wachteln”, in Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur biblischen Wissenschaft, Freiburg 1894, 276–294. KUHL, Curt, “‘Die Wiederaufnahme’. Ein literarkritisches Prinzip?”, ZAW 64 (1952): 1–11. KUPFER, Christian Daniel, Mit Israel auf dem Weg durch die Wüste. Eine leserorientierte Exegese der Rebellionstexte in Exodus 15:22–17:7 und Numeri 11:1–20:13, Leiden / Boston 2011. KUTSCH, Ernst, “Erwägungen zur Geschichte der Passafeier und des Massotfestes”, ZThK 55 (1958): 1–36. LAAF, Peter, Die Pascha-Feier Israels, BBB 36, Bonn 1970. LAMBDIN, Thomas O., “Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament”, JAOS 73 (1953): 145–155. LEE, Won W., “The Concept of the Wilderness in the Pentateuch”, in K.E. Pomykala, ed., Israel in the Wilderness. Interpretations of the Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions, Leiden 2008, 1–16. LEVENSON, Jon D., The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son. The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity, New Haven 1993, 3–52. LEVINE, Baruch A., “‫”מצְ וָה‬, ִ TDOT, VIII, 505–514. –, Leviticus. The Traditional Hebrew Text with the new JPS Translation, The JPS Torah Commentary, Philadelphia 1989. –, “Ritual as Symbol. Modes of Sacrifice in Israelite Religion”, in B.M. Gittlen, ed., Sacred time, Sacred place. Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, Winona Lake 2002, 125–135. LEVY, David / MILGROM, Jacob, “‫” ֵעדָ ה‬, TDOT, X, 468–480. LIPSCHITS, Oded, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem. Judah under Babylonian Rule, Winona Lake 2005. LIU, James H. / LÁSZLÓ, János, “Narrative Theory of History and Identity. Social Identity, Social Representations, Society and the Individual”, in G. Moloney / I. Walker, ed., Social Representations and Identity. Content, Process, and Power, New York 2007, 85–108. LIVERANI, Mario, Israel’s History and the History of Israel, London 2005. LOEWENSTAMM, Samuel A., The Evolution of the Exodus Tradition, Jerusalem 1992. –, From Babylon to Canaan. Studies in the Bible and its Oriental Background, Jerusalem 1992. LOHFINK, Norbert, Das Hauptgebot. Eine Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungsfragen zu Dtn 5–17, AnBib 20, Rome 1963. LOHSE, Eduard, “σάββατον”, TDNT, VII, 1–35. LOTZ, Wilhelm, Quaestiones de Historia Sabbati, Lepzig 1883. LUCKENBILL, Daniel David, The Annals of Sennacherib, Chicago 1924. LUNDBOM, Jack R., “God’s Use of the Idem per Idem to Terminate Debate”, HTR 71 (1978): 193–201. –, Biblical Rhetoric and Rhetorical Criticism, Sheffield 2013.

Bibliography

299

MAEIR, Aren M., “Exodus as a Mnemo-Narrative. An Archaeological Perspective”, in T.E. Levy / T. Schneider / W.H.C. Propp, ed., Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspectives, Cham 2015, 409–418. MAIBERGER, Paul, Das Manna. Eine literarische, etymologische und naturkundliche Untersuchung, Wiesbaden 1983. –, “Ein Konjekturvorschlag zu Ex 16,32”, ZAW 95 (1983): 112–118. –, “‫”מָ ן‬, TDOT, VIII, 389–395. –, “‫”ׂשלָו‬, ְ TDOT, XIV, 135–137. MALINA, Bruce J., The Palestine Manna Tradition. The Manna Tradition in the Palestinian Targums and its Relationship to the New Testament Writings, Leiden 1968. MARKL, Dominik, “No Future without Moses. The Disastrous End of 2Kings 22–25 and the chance of the Moab Covenant (Deuteronomy 29–30)”, JBL 133 (2014): 711–728. –, “The Wilderness Sanctuary as the Archetype of Continuity between the Pre- and the Post-Exilic Temples in Jerusalem”, in P. Dubovský / D. Markl / J.-P. Sonnet, ed., The Fall of Jerusalem and the Rise of the Torah, FAT 107, Tübingen 2016, 227–251. MATTHEWS, Victor H., “Perfumes and Spices”, ABD, V, 226–228. –, “Remembering Egypt”, in T.E. Levy / T. Schneider / W.H.C. Propp, ed., Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspectives, Cham 2015, 419–426. MAY, Herbert G., “The Relation of the Passover to the Festival of Unleavened Cakes”, JBL 55 (1936): 65–82. MAZZINGHI, Luca, Il Pentateuco sapienziale. Proverbi, Giobbe, Qoheleth, Siracide, Sapienza. Caratteristiche letterarie e temi teologici, EDB, Bologna 2012. MCCARTHY, Dennis, “The use of wehinneh in Biblical Hebrew”, Biblica 61 (1980): 330–342. MCDONALD, Lee Martin, “Fluidity in the Early Formation of the Hebrew Bible”, Hebrew Studies LXI (2020): 73–95. MCEVENUE, Sean, “Truth and Literature in Exodus 16”, ThPh 69 (1994): 493–510. MCKAY, Heather A., The Sabbath and the Synagogue. The Question of Sabbath Worship in Ancient Judaism, Leiden / New York / Köln 1994. MCKAY, John W., “The Date of Passover and its Significance”, ZAW 84,4 (1972): 435–447. MEINHOLD, Johannes, Sabbat und Woche im AT. Eine Untersuchung, Göttingen 1905. –, “Die Entstehung des Sabbats”, ZAW 29 (1909): 81–112. MEYERS, Carol, Exodus, NCBC, Cambridge 2005. –, The Tabernacle Menorah, ASORDS 2, Missoula, MT 1976. MEYERS, Eric M. / ROGERSON, John, “The World of the Hebrew Bible”, in B. Chilton / H.C. Kee et al., ed., The Cambridge Companion to the Bible, Cambridge 22008. MICHEL, Andreas, “Exodus. Historisch, mythisch, theologisch”, in C. Neuber, ed., Der immer neue Exodus. Aneignungen und Transformationen des Exodusmotivs, SB 242, Stuttgart 2018, 20–44. MILGROM, Jacob, Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology, SJLA 036, Leiden 1983. –, Numbers, The JPS Torah Commentary, Philadelphia 1990. –, Leviticus. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. I. Leviticus 1–16. II. Leviticus 17–22. III. Leviticus 23–27, AYBC 3, 3A, 3B, New York 1991, 2000, 2001. MILGROM, Jacob / HARPER, L., “‫”מ ְשמֶ ֶרת‬, ִ TDOT, IX, 72–78. MOMIGLIANO, Arnaldo, Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography, Oxford 1977. MORGENSTERN, Julian, “Sabbath”, IDB, IV, 135–141. –, “The Despoiling of the Egyptians”, JBL 68 (1949): 1–28. MURAOKA, Tamitsu, Emphatic Words and Structures in the Biblical Hebrew, Jerusalem 1995.

300

Bibliography

NA’AMAN, Nadav, “The Exodus Story. Between Historical Memory and Historiographical Composition”, JANER 11 (2011): 39–69. NICKLAS, Tobias, “Food of Angels”, in J. Zsengeller / G.G. Xeravits, ed., Studies in the Book of Wisdom, Leiden / Boston 2010, 83–100. NIEHR, Herbert, “‫”נ ִָׂשיא‬, TDOT, X, 44–53. NIELSEN, Kjeld, “Incense”, ABD, III, 404–409. –, Incense in Ancient Israel, VTSup 38, Leiden 1986. NIHAN, Christophe, “L’analisi Redazionale”, in M. Bauks / C. Nihan, ed., Manuale di Esegesi dell’Antico Testamento, Bologna 2010, 121–165. NORA, Pierre, “Between Memory and History. Les Lieux de Mémoire”, Representations 26 (1989): 7–12. NORTH, Robert, “The Derivation of the Sabbath”, Biblica 36 (1955): 182–201. NOTH, Martin, Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels, Stuttgart 1930. –, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, Stuttgart 1948; English trans., A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, trans. B.W. Anderson, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1972. –, “Die Vergegenwärtigung des Alten Testaments in der Verkündigung”, EvT 12 (1952/1953): 6–17. –, Exodus, trans. J.S. Bowden, OTL, Göttingen 1959. –, The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies, trans. D.R. Ap-Thomas, Edinburgh / London 1966. –, The Deuteronomistic History, JSOTSup 15, Sheffield 1981. NYE-KNUTSON, Alena, “Hidden Bread and Revealed Word: Manna Traditions in Targums Neophyti I and Ps-Jonathan”, in K.E. Pomykala, ed., Israel in the Wilderness. Interpretations of the Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions, Leiden 2008, 201–225. OGDEN, Graham S., “Idem per Idem. Its Use and Meaning”, JSOT 53 (1992): 107–120. OLICK, Jeffery K., “Collective Memory. The Two Cultures”, SocT 17 (1999): 333–348. OSBORN, Noel D. / HATTON, Howard A., A Handbook on Exodus, New York 1999. OTTO, Eckart, “‫” ֶפסַ ח‬, TDOT, XII, 1–24. –, Das Mazzotfest in Gilgal, Stuttgart 1975. –, “Forschungen zur Priesterschrift”, ThR 62 (1997): 1–50. –, Das Deuteronomium in Pentateuch und Hexateuch, FAT 30, Tübingen 2000. –, Deuteronomium. I. Deut 1–11. II. Deut 12–34, HThKAT, Freiburg / Basel / Wien 2012, 2016. PAGANINI, Simone, Deuteronomio. Nuovo Versione, Introduzione e Commento, LB-PT 5, Milan 2011. PAUL, Shalom, Amos. A Commentary on the Book of Amos, Hermeneia, Minneapolis 1991. PEDERSEN, Johannes, “Passahfest und Passahlegende”, ZAW 52 (1934): 161–175. –, Israel. Its Life and Culture, London 1940. PHAM, Nghia, “The Image of YHWH as Presented in Exodus 16”, in G. Fischer, ed., Gottes Wort im Menschenwort, Fs. G. Fischer, Frankfurt 2014, 27–36. POLA, Thomas, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift. Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von Pg, WMANT 70, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1995. POWELL, Mark Allan, What is Narrative Criticism, Minneapolis 1990. –, “Narrative Criticism”, in J.B. Green, ed., Hearing the New Testament. Strategies for Interpretation, Grand Rapids 2010, 240–258. POWELL, Marvin A., “Ancient Mesopotamian Weight Metrology. Methods, Problems and Perspectives”, in M.A. Powell / R.H. Sack, ed., Studies in Honor of Tom B. Jones, AOAT 203, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1979, 71–109.

Bibliography

301

–, “Weights and Measures”, ABD, VI, 897–908. PRIOTTO, Michelangelo, Esodo. Nuovo Versione, Introduzione e Commento, LB-PT 2, Milan 2014. PRITCHARD, James B., Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament, Princeton 3 1969. PROPP, William H.C., Exodus. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. I. Exodus 1–18. II. Exodus 19–40, AYBC 2, 2A, New York 1998, 2006. –, “Exodus and History”, in T.E. Levy / T. Schneider / W.H.C. Propp, ed., Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspectives, Cham 2015, 429–436. VON RAD, Gerhard, “‫ ָכ ֹבד‬in the OT”, TDNT, II, 238–242. –, Old Testament Theology. I. The Theology of Israel’s Historical Traditions. II. The Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions, trans. D.M.G. Stalker, Edinburgh 1962, 1965. –, The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, New York 1966. REICHER, Stephen / HOPKINS, Nick, Self and Nation. Categorization, Contestation and Mobilization, London 2001. RENDTORFF, Rolf, “The Concept of Revelation in Ancient Israel”, in W. Pannenberg et al., ed., Revelation as History, trans. D.M. Granskou, New York 1968, 23–54. –, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch, BZAW 147, Berlin 1976. –, “The Yahwist as Theologian? The Dilemma of Pentateuchal Criticism”, JSOT 3 (1977): 2–9. RESSEGUIE, James L., Narrative Criticism of the New Testament. An Introduction, Grand Rapids 2005. RICŒUR, Paul, Time and Narrative, I–III, trans. K. Laughlin / D. Pellauer, Chicago 1984–1988. –, “Narrative Identity”, in D. Wood, ed., On Paul Ricœur. Narrative and Interpretation, London 1991, 188–199. –, Memory, History, Forgetting, trans. K. Blamey / D. Pellauer, Chicago 2004. ROBINSON, Gnana, The Origin and Development of the Old Testament Sabbath. A Comprehensive Exegetical Approach, BBET 21, Frankfurt 1988. ROFÉ, Alexander, Introduction to the Literature of the Hebrew Bible, JBS 9, Jerusalem 2009. RÖMER, Thomas Christian, “Israel’s Sojourn in the Wilderness and the Construction of the Book of Numbers”, in R. Rezetko / T.H. Lim / W.B. Aucker, ed., Reflection and Refraction. Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld, Leiden / Boston 2007, 419–445. –, “The Hebrew Bible as Crisis Literature”, in A. Berlejung, ed., Disaster and Relief Management / Katastrophen und ihre Bewältigung, Tübingen 2012, 159–177. RÖSEL, Hartmut N., Joshua, HCOT, Leuven 2011. ROST, Leonhard, “Weidewechsel und altisraelitischer Festkalender”, ZDPV 66 (1943): 205–216. –, Das kleine Credo und anderen Studien zum Alten Testament, Heidelberg 1965. RUDOLPH, Wilhelm, Der “Elohist” von Exodus bis Josua, Berlin 1938. RUPRECHT, Eberhard, “Stellung und Bedeutung der Erzählung vom Mannawunder (Ex 16) im Aufbau der Priesterschrift”, ZAW 86 (1974): 269–307. RYLAARSDAM, J. Coert, “Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread”, IDB, III, 663–668. SAKENFELD, Katharin Doob, Journeying with God. A Commentary on the Book of Numbers, Grand Rapids 1995. SANDERS, James A., The Monotheizing Process. Its Origin and Development, Eugene, OR 2014.

302

Bibliography

SARNA, Nahum M., Exodus. The Traditional Hebrew Text with the new JPS Translation, JPS Torah Commentary, Philadelphia 1991. –, Exploring Exodus, New York 1986. SASSON, Jack M., “Circumcision in the Ancient Near East”, JBL 85 (1966): 473–476. SAVRAN, George W., Telling and Retelling. Quotation in Biblical Narrative, Bloomington, IN 1988. SCHART, Aaron, Mose und Israel im Konflikt. Eine redaktiongeschichtliche Studie zu den Wüstenerzählung, Freiburg / Göttingen 1990. SCHMID, Konrad, “Distinguishing the World of the Exodus Narrative from the World of Its Narrators. The Question of the Priestly Exodus Account in Its Historical Setting”, in T.E. Levy / T. Schneider / W.H.C. Propp, ed., Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspectives, Cham 2015, 331–344. SCHMIDT, Johann M., “Vergegenwärtigung und Überlieferung”, EvTh 30 (1970): 169–200. SCHMIDT, Ludwig, Studien zur Priesterschrift, BZAW 214, Berlin 1993. –, “Die Priesterschrift in Exodus 16”, ZAW 119,4 (2007): 483–498. SCHMIDT, Werner H., Einführung in das Alte Testament, Berlin 1979. SCHUDSON, Michael, “The Present in the Past versus the Past in the Present”, Communication 11 (1989): 105–113. SCHULT, Hermann, “Mān hū' und mah- hū' in Exodus 16,15”, DBAT, 1 (1972): 1–9. SCHUNCK, Klaus-Dietrich, “‫”לון‬, TDOT VII, 509–512. SCOTT, Robert B.Y., “Weights and Measures of the Bible”, BA 22 (1959): 22–40. SEEBASS, Horst, “Que reste-t-il du Yahwiste et de l’Élohiste”, in A. de Pury, ed., La Pentateuque en Question, Geneva 1989, 199–214. SEELIGMANN, Isac Leo, “Erkenntnis Gottes und historisches Bewußtsein im alten Israel”, in H. Donner / R. Hanhart / R. Smend, ed., Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie, Fs. W. Zimmerli, Göttingen 1977, 414–445. SEGAL, Judah B., The Hebrew Passover from the Earliest Times to A.D. 70, London 1970. SELLERS, Ovid R., “Weights and Measures”, IDB, IV, 828–839. SEOW, Choon Leong, “Ark of the Covenant”, ABD, I, 386–393. SHEAD, Andrew G., “An Old Testament Theology of the Sabbath Year and Jubilee”, RTR 61,1 (2002): 19–23. SIEGFRIED, Carl / STADE, Bernhard, Hebräisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, Leipzig 1893. SKA, Jean-Louis, Our Fathers Have Told Us. Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives, Subsidia Biblica 13, Rome 1990. –, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch, Winona Lake 2006, 109. –, “Exodus 19:3–6 and the Identity of Post-Exilic Israel”, in Idem, The Exegesis of the Pentateuch. Exegetical Studies and Basic Questions, Tübingen 2009, 139–164. –, “Why does the Pentateuch Speak so much of Torah and so Little of Jerusalem?”, in P. Dubovský / D. Markl / J.-P. Sonnet, ed., The Fall of Jerusalem and the Rise of the Torah, FAT 107, Tübingen 2016, 112–128. SMITH, Anthony D., The Nation in History. Historiographical Debates about Ethnicity and Nationalism, Hannover 2000. SMITH, Mark S., The Memoirs of God. History, Memory and the Experience of the Divine, Minneapolis 2004. SMYTH, Geraldine, “Sabbath and Jubilee”, in H. Ucko, ed., The Jubilee Challenge. Utopia or Possibility? Jewish and Christian Insights, Geneva 1997, 59–76. SOGGIN, Jan Alberto, “Kultätiologische Sagen und Katechese im Hexateuch”, VT 10 (1960): 341–347.

Bibliography

303

–, Introduction to the Old Testament. From its Origins to the Closing of the Alexandrian Canon, trans. J. Bowden, Louisville 1989. SOGGIN, Jan Alberto, An Introduction to the History of Israel and Judah, London 1993. SONNET, Jean-Pierre, The Book within the Book. Writing in Deuteronomy, Leiden 1997. –, “L’analisi narrativa dei racconti biblici”, in M. Bauks / C. Nihan, ed., Manuale di esegesi dell’Antico Testamento, Bologna 2010, 45–85. –, L’alleanza della lettura. Questioni di poetica narrativa nella Bibbia ebraica, Lectio 1, Rome 2011. –, Generare è narrare, trans. M. Porro, Milano 2015. –, “Writing the Disaster. Trauma, Resilience and Fortschreibung”, in P. Dubovský / D. Markl / J.-P. Sonnet, ed., The Fall of Jerusalem and the Rise of the Torah, FAT 107, Tübingen 2016, 349–356. –, “The Siege of Jerusalem between Rhetorical Maximalism (Deuteronomy 28) and Narrative Minimalism (2Kings 25)”, in P. Dubovský / D. Markl / J.-P. Sonnet, ed., The Fall of Jerusalem and the Rise of the Torah, FAT 107, Tübingen 2016, 73–86. –, “Generare, perchè? Una prospettive biblica”, Anthropotes 36 (2020): 139–190. STACKERT, Jeffrey, “The Sabbath of the Land in the Holiness Legislation. Combining Priestly and Non-Priestly Perspectives”, CBQ 73 (2011): 239–250. STAUBLI, Thomas, Das Image der Nomaden im Alten Israel und in der Ikonographie seiner seßhaften Nachbarn, OBO 107, Freiburg 1991. STERNBERG, Meier, “Point of View and Indirections of Direct Speech”, LaSt 15 (1982): 67–117. –, “Proteus in Quotation-Land. Mimesis and Forms of Reported Discourse”, PoeT 3 (1982): 107–156. –, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative. Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, Bloomington, IN 1985. STIEGLITZ, Robert R., “Long-Distance Seafaring in the Ancient Near East”, BA 47,3 (1984): 134–142. STRAHLBERG, Lesleigh C., “Time, Memory, Ritual, and Recital. Religion and Literature in Exodus 12”, RL 46,2–3 (2014): 75–94. STUART, Douglas, Exodus, NAC 2, Nashville 2006. SUELZER, Alexa / KSELMAN, John S., “Modern Old Testament Criticism”, in R.E. Brown / J.A. Fitzmyer / R.E. Murphy, ed., The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Bangalore 2005, 1113–1129. SZIKSZAI, Stephen, “Anoint”, IDB, I, 138–139. TAJFEL, Henri / TURNER, John C., “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior”, in S. Worchen / W.G. Austin, ed., Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Chicago 1986, 7–24. TALMON, Shemaryahu, “‫”מדְ בַ ר‬, ִ TDOT, VIII, 87–118. TALSTRA, Eep, “The Bible as Data and as Literature. The Example of Exod 16”, in H. Ausloos / B. Lemmelijn, A Pillar of Cloud to Guide. Text-Critical, Redactional, and Linguistic Perspectives on the Old Testament in Honour of Marc Vervenne, Leuven / Paris 2014, 549–568. TAYLOR, Edward B., Primitive Culture, I–II, New York 1971. THOMAS, Charles / LEON-DUFOUR, Xavier, “Desert”, Dictionary of Biblical Theology, 121–123. TIGAY, Jeffery H., Deuteronomy, Philadelphia 1996. TREVER, John C., “Coriander Seed”, IDB, I, 681–682. –, “Oil”, IDB, III, 592–593.

304

Bibliography

TUCKER, Gene M., Form Criticism of the Old Testament, Philadelphia 1971. TURNER, John C., “Social Categorization and the Self-Concept. A Social Cognitive Theory of Group Behaviour”, in E.J. Lawler, ed., Advances in Group Processes, Greenwich, CN 1985, 77–122. TURNER, John C., et al., Rediscovering the Social Group. Self Categorization Theory, Oxford / New York 1987. ULRICH, Eugene, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls. Transcriptions and Textual Variants, Leiden / Boston 2010. USSISHKIN, David, “Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah. The Archaeological Perspective with an Emphasis on Lachish and Jerusalem”, in I. Kalimi / S. Richardson, ed., Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem. Story, History and Historiography, Leiden / Boston 2014, 75–103. UTZSCHNEIDER, Helmut, Das Heiligtum und das Gesetz. Studien zur Bedeutung der sinaitischen Heiligtumstexte (Ex 25–40; Lev 8–9), Göttingen 1988. –, “Tabernacle”, in T.B. Dozeman / C.A. Evans / J.N. Lohr, ed., The Book of Exodus. Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, Leiden 2014, 267–301. UTZSCHNEIDER, Helmut / OSWALD, Wolfgang, Exodus 1–15, IECOT, Stuttgart 2015. VALERI, Valerio, Kingship and Sacrifice, Chicago 1985. VAN BEEK, Gus W., “Frankincense and Myrrh”, BA 23,3 (1960): 69–95. VAN SETERS, John, Abraham in History and Tradition, New Haven, CT 1975. –, The Life of Moses. The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers, CBET 10, Kampen 1994. VANHOOZER, Kevin J., Biblical Narrative in the Philosophy of Paul Ricœur. A Study in Hermeneutics and Theology, Cambridge 1990. DE VAUX, Roland, Les institutions de l’Ancien Testament. I. Le nomadisme et sessurvivances, Institutions familiales, Institutions civiles. II. Institutions militaries, Institutions religieuses, Paris 1958, 1960; English trans., Ancient Israel. Its Life and Institutions, Trans. J. McHugh, London 1961. –, Histoire Ancienne d’Israel. I. Des origines a l'installationen Canaan. II. La périod des juges. Paris 1971, 1973; English trans., Early History of Israel to the Exodus and Covenant of Sinai, I–II, trans. D. Smith, London 1978. –, The Bible and the Ancient Near East, Garden City, NY 1971. VERMEYLEN, Jacques, “Les Premières étapes de la Formation du Pentateuque”, in A. de Pury, ed., La Pentateuque en Question, Geneva 1989, 149–197. WAGENAAR, Jaap A., “The Cessation of Manna. Editorial Frames for the Wilderness Wandering in Exodus 16,35 and Joshua 5,10–12”, ZAW 112,2 (2000): 192–209. WALTKE, Bruce K. / O’CONNOR, Michael, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Winona Lake 1990. WATTS, John D.W., “Infinitive Absolute as Imperative and the Interpretation of Ex 20:8”, ZAW 74 (1962): 141–145. –, Isaiah. I. Is 1–33. II. Is 34–66, WBC 24, 25, Waco, TX 1985, 1987. WEIMER, Peter, Untersuchungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch, BZAW 146, Berlin 1977. WEINFELD, Moshe, “‫”כְ בֹוד‬, TDOT, II, 22–38. WEIPPERT, Helga, Palästina in vorhellenistischer Zeit, München 1988. WEISER, Artur, Psalms. A Commentary, OTL, London 1962. WELCH, Adam C., “On the Method of Celebrating Passover”, ZAW 45 (1927): 24–29. WELLHAUSEN, Julius, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, Berlin 1905; English trans., Prolegomena to the History of Israel, Atlanta 1994.

Bibliography

305

–, Die Composition des Hexateuchs, Berlin 1963, 78–79. WÈNIN, André, Da Adamo a Abramo o l’errare dell’uomo. Lettura narrativa e antropologica della Genesi. I. Gen 1,1–12,4, Bologna 2008. WEOR, Jonathan T., “The Theological Interpretation of the Book of Exodus as Narratives Concerning Origin and Migration as an ongoing Negotiation of Identity by the Tiv People of Nigeria”, Scriptura 108 (2011): 357–364. WESTERMANN, Claus, “Die Herrlichkeit Gottes in der Priesterschrift”, in H.J. Stoebe, ed., Wort – Gebot – Glaube. Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments, Fs. W. Eichrodt, Zürich 1970. DE WETTE, Wilhelm M.L., Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Halle 1806–1807. WEVERS, John, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus, SBL.SCSt 30, Atlanta 1990. WILSON, Ian Douglas, Kingship and Memory in Ancient Judah, New York 2017. –, History and the Hebrew Bible. Culture, Narrative and Memory, Leiden / Boston 2018. WHYBRAY, Roger N., The Making of the Pentateuch. A Methodological Study, JSOTSup 53, Sheffield 1983. WRIGHT, David P., “Day of Atonement”, ABD, II, 72–76. –, “Holiness. Old Testament”, ABD, III, 237–249. WRIGHT, George Ernest, Biblical Archaeology, Philadelphia 1962. YERUSHALMI, Yosef H., Zakhor. Jewish History and Jewish Memory, Seattle, WA 1982. YOUNG, Ian, “Starting at the Beginning with Archaic Biblical Hebrew”, Hebrew Studies 58 (2017): 99–118. ZENGER, Erich, Die Sinaitheophanie. Untersuchungen zum jahwistischen und elohistischen Geschichtswerk, Würzburg 1971. –, Gottes Bogen in den Wolken. Untersuchungen zum Komposition und Theologie der priesterschriftlichen Urgeschichte, Stuttgart 1983. –, “Aus der Suche nach einem Weg aus der Pentateuchkrise”, ThR 78 (1982): 353–362. –, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Studienbücher Theologie 1/1, Stuttgart 1995. ZERUBAVEL, Eviatar, “Social Memories. Steps to a Sociology of the Past”, QS 19 (1996): 238–299. ZERUBAVEL, Yael, Recovered Roots. Collective Memory and the Making of Israeli National Tradition, Chicago 1995. ZOBEL, Hans-Jürgen, “‫”מָ טָ ר‬, TDOT, VIII, 250–265. ZOHARY, Michael, “Flora”, IDB, II, 284–302. –, Plants of the Bible, Cambridge 1982.

Index of References Old Testament Genesis 1,24–31 1,26 1,28 1,31 2 2,1–3 2,2–3 2,2 2,3 2,5 2,19–20 7,4 7,19–20 9,11–17 9,13 10,9 15 17,1–14 17,7–14 17,11 18,21 18,22 19,8 19,24 22,1 23,6 25,1 25,25–26 26,20 27,7 27,25 27,28 27,39 28,18 28,19 29–30 31,13

152 236 234 108, 276 236 147, 152, 230 235, 285 233 232 106 167 106 125 232 231, 233 115 37, 252, 281 252 232 141, 233 111 115 223 106 64 144 223 167 167 115 228 126 126 226, 228 141 167 226

32,32 34,2 39,8 40,17 41–47 42,1 45,21 48,19 49,28 50,12 50,20

141 144 65 124 103 162 134 65 148 134 84

Exodus 1,8–16 1,12 1,14 2,23 2,24 2,25 3,1 3,5 3,7–8 3,10–12 3,14 3,17 3,19 4,13 4,16 4,22–23 4,22 4,23 4,30–31 5,1–2 5,2 5,13–14 5,20–21 5,21–22 6,1–8

104, 201 202 199 102 112, 119 111 93 225 102, 112, 119, 170 107 148 190 101 101, 148 109, 114 206 273 65, 159 100, 103 201 159 154 70 98 98

308 6,1 6,5 6,6–7 6,7 6,10 6,12 6,30 7,1 7,4–5 7,5 7,10 7,14 7,20 7,27 8,2 8,6 8,13 8,17 8,18 8,22 9,2 9,3 9,14 9,15 9,18–23 9,29 9,33–34 9,35 10,1–6 10,2 10,3 10,4 10,12 10,24 10,28 10,33 11,1–8 11,4–10 12 12–14 12–13 12,1–15,21 12,1–13,16 12,1–20 12,4 12,6 12,11–14 12,11 12,14–17

Index of References 101 119 107 164, 177, 215, 233 103 115 115 114 101, 111 255 134 65, 159 134 159 124, 125 111 134 106 111 255 159 101 111 101 106 111 106 101 112 120, 255 65, 159 106, 159 122 201 201 233 114 193, 201 93 159 33 85 259 193–198 133 93, 95, 119 161 286 174, 192, 282

12,15 12,18 12,29–42 12,42 12,43–51 12,47 12,48 12,50 13 13–14 13,1–16 13,3–16 13,4 13,5 13,9 13,14–15 14–15 14,4 14,8 14,10–30 14,10–12 14,11–12 14,17–18 14,18 14,24 14,31 15–17 15 15,1–18 15,7 15,20 15,22–18,27 15,22–27 15,22–24 15,22 15,25 15,26 15,27 16 17 17,1–7 17,1–3 17,1 17,3 17,6 17,12 18,15 19–40 19–24

227 96 201–202 174 202–203 93 269 98 118 117, 126 203–207 101 95, 96 105, 170 101 200 100 111, 255 101 89, 105 98 70, 100, 102 106, 110, 111 255 98 101 107 40 130 101 98 85 84, 89, 90, 96, 159 97, 98, 105 70, 118 64 161 69, 70, 92 passim 265 85, 89 97 93 100 106 192 212 85 118, 252

Index of References 19,1 19,3–6 19,5 19,6 19,9 20–22 20,1–27 20,2 20,2–7 20,5 20,6 20,8 20,8–11 20,9–10 20,10 20,11 20,20 22,16 23,12 23,16 23,23–31 24,3–8 24,12 24,15–18 24,16–17 24,18 25–31 25 25,1–9 25,8 25,9 25,10–22 25,22 25,37 26,12–13 25,16 25,22 26,33.34 27,2 27,21 28,43 29,1–37 29,37 29,38–46 29,42–43 29,42 29,43 29,46

96 36, 162, 231, 284 216 191, 212, 225, 243 118 118 239 177 161 2 184 236 230, 235, 269 154 195 233, 236 64, 90, 107 65, 159 230, 233, 235 195 281 233 239 118, 220, 265, 284 112; 117, 155 188 225, 229, 242 281 132 281 242 184, 219, 237–241, 283 212, 226, 247, 281 220 149 183 183, 216, 242 183 144 174, 183, 220, 240 240 225 226 211–216 247 174, 212, 282 212 120

30,1–10 30,3 30,6 30,7–10 30,7 30,8–31 30,8 30,10 30,22–33 30,33 30,34–38 30,36 30,38 30,31 31,1–11 31,2 31,11 31,12–17 31,13 31,13–17 31,14–15 31,14 31,15 31,16–17 31,16 31,18 32–34 32,5 32,11 32,15 32,19–20 32,31 33,3 33,9 33,19 33,22 34,1–9 34,11 34,14 34,21 34,22 34,24 34,25 34,29 34,29 35–40 35–37 35,1–4 35,2

309 218–222 238 183, 212, 240 223 139 174, 192 282 221, 282 224–228 198 220 212 198 282 229 162 225 229–234, 252 174, 282 161, 284 268 198 144, 147, 154 259 174 72, 182, 184, 239 91, 157 195 101 182 138 93 170 99 148 108 184 106 2 153, 230, 235 195 161 196 182 101 72, 242 178 134, 147, 230, 235 232

310 35,4–9 35,27 35,29 35,30 37,1–9 37,1 37,26 37,29 38,21 38,26 39,32–43 39,35 39,38 40 40,1–33 40,2 40,3 40,5 40,15 40,16 40,17 40,20 40,21 40,26–27 40,34–38 40,34–35

Index of References

40,38

132 144 101 162 184 225 219 225 101 133 134 183 219 185 184 96 183 183, 219 174 134 96 183, 239 183 219 73, 126 112, 117, 118, 121, 183, 216, 265, 284 168

Leviticus 1,14 3,17 5,11 6,2–6 6,11 6,13 8,5 9,23 10 10,6 10,9 16,2 16,12–13 16,13 16,12 16,14–15 16,16–20 16,29–31 16,31

124 192 190 214 192 190 132 112, 117 220 168 192 118, 183, 240 220 240 219 240 221 222 147

17,2 19,36 22,3 22,31 22,33 23,10–15 23,3 23,13 23,14–41 23,17 23,24–39 24,3 24,20 25,3–4 25,4–5 25,21 25,27 25,38 26,3 26,11 26,12 26,13

132 177 192 184 177 133 147, 154, 232 190 192 190 147 192, 220 154 154 147 154 149 177 184 216 164, 215, 216, 233 177

Numbers 1,2–22 1,4 1,53 3,24–35 3,46–49 3,47 4,34 5,15 7,3–12 9,10 10,4 10,8 10,28 11,4 11,6 11,25 11,31–32 14 14,10 14,11 14,18 14,22 14,26–38 14,28–35 15,14–23

133 144 173 144 149, 205 133 144 190 144 192 144 192 73 102, 125 187 284 125 122, 185 117 159 261 112 187 72, 73 192

311

Index of References 15,16–19 15,41 16 16–17 16,2 16,19 17,7 17,19–25 17,21–25 18,23 19,2 20 20,6 20,21 20,22–29 20,29 21,5 22 22,4 22,13–14 25 28–29 28,3–8 28,5 28,9–28 30,1 33 33,8–15 35,29

190 177 122, 220 73 144 117 74, 117, 284 183 183 192 132 265 117 65 73 168 187 185 70 65 265 217 213 190 190 132 94 95 192

Deuteronomy 1,3 264 2,7 264 4,3 264 4,9 275 4,13 265 4,20 274 4,23 275 4,31 275 5 206 5,6 177 5,10 184 5,12–15 236, 269 5,14–15 232 5,29 100, 184 6,12 275 6,16 265 6,20–25 200 7,6 162, 191, 243, 284

8 8,1 8,2 8,2–5 8,2–3 8,3 8,5 8,11 8,19 8,16–18 8,16 9,1 9,7 10,17 11,10–17 14,2 16,1–8 16,4–6 24,19 25,19 26,17 27,9 28, 1–14 28,12 28,15–68 28,38 28,67 29,10 30,15 32,9 32,10 32,39 33,13 33,28

263 263 264 108 263 129, 265, 284 265 275 275 264 129 206 275 247 106 243 209 119 133, 275 275 206 206 248 106 248 124 100 206 206 240 93 162 126 126

Joshua 4 4,6–7 4,21–22 5,1–12 5,11–12 5,12 18,3 22,5 22,22 22,30 24,5

201 200 200 209 258 188 159 108 247 144 206

312

Index of References

Judges 6,24 7,12 9,7–15 9,29 21,10–16

141 124 228 100 93

Ruth 2,7.15 3,3

133 228

1 Samuel 2,28 4 5,6 15,17 16,6 17,54

223 266 100 227 227 185

2 Samuel 8,2 12,20 13,4 14,2 16,14 24,7 24,14 1 Kings 1,39 2,3 3,14 4,23 8 8,1–11 8,1 8,5 8,6 8,9 8,10–11 8,12–13 8,51 9,6–9 9,6–7 9,25 10,22–26 18,29.36 19,32–34

135 228 139 228 233 227 101

227 184 184 160 281 281 144 93 183 183 117, 265, 284 246 274 263 260 223 228 218 247

2 Kings 3,20 4,22–23 10,31 11,12 16,15 17–19 17 18–19 17,13.19 18,6 18,27 18,30–33 19,10 24–25 25,26

218 234 108 227 218 247 283 247 184 160 247 247 247 248 248

1 Chronicles 23,31

234

2 Chronicles 2,3 13,11 32,1–23 36 36,22

219 139 247 283 273

Ezra 1,1 3,3 6,3 9,4 9,13

273 218 273 218 270

Nehemiah 9,13–14 9,15–17 9,15 9,26–27 10,29 10,31–40 11,23 13,3 13,15–22 19,4

269 261 257 270 108 269 160 202 269 202

313

Index of References Job 18,2 19,2 24,10 28,5

159 159 133 106

Psalms 13,2–3 14,5 19,2 23,5 44,2 45,8 62,4 68,8–9 73,15 78,1 78,3 78,10 78,24–25 78,24 78,27 78,27–30 86,15 89,32–35 95,7–9 95,10 103,8 104,14 105,40 115 119,1 132,13–14 136,2 136,13–16 145,8 147,2

159 192 112 228 190 228 159 94 192 160 190 108 257, 262 106 106 102 261 263, 284 206 227 261 106 257 249 108 246 247 94 145 261

Proverbs 1–9 1,8 3,1 3,11–12 13,14

265 160 160 265 160

Ecclesiastes 9,8

228

Wisdom 16,20–29

257

Isaiah 1,6 1,10–14 1,11–14 1,13 2,2–4 6,3 10,24 11,6 27,20 29,13–14 36–37 36,12–18 37,33–35 43 45,1 56,2–4 56,2 56,6–7 56,6 58,13 64,9 65,3.7 66,23

228 234 216 234, 268 278 112 40 254 93 263 247 247 247 37 227, 274 268 269 269 147, 235, 268 268 94 223 268

Jeremiah 2,2 2,6 3,16 7,2 7,4 11,4 14,13–16 16,14 17,19–27 22,6 23,7 25,20 26,4 31,9 33,24 44,15–19 47,6 50,37

242 93, 254 278 254 281 164, 215 248 254 147, 235, 270 94 254 202 108 206 162 249 159 202

314

Index of References

Lamentations 1,5 3,31–32 2,6 3,42 4,9 5,16

260 261 234 249 103 249

Ezekiel 8–11 10 10,18 16,9 20 20,32 22,8 23,38 30,5 36,28 42,16–19 43,18–21 46,1 46,3–9 46,13–15 47,13

222 266 267 227 37, 270 249 269 269 202 164, 215 135 265 269 234 218 135

Daniel 10,3

228

Hosea 2,11–15 2,13 2,16 2,17

234 234 242 253

11,1 12,10 13,5 14,6

38 253 257 126

Amos 2,10 3,1–2 5,2 5,21–23 6,6 8,4–7 8,5 9,7

38, 253, 257, 285 253, 285 257 216 228 234 234, 235 253, 285

Micah 4,1–4 6,4 6,6–7 7,11–15 7,15

278 38, 253, 254 216 40 253

Habakkuk 1,2 2,1

159 162

Haggai 1,10

126

Zechariah 8,12

126

New Testament Mark 1,13

188

Luke 2,9 2,23

265 207

Hebrews 9,4

182

James 2,17

278

Revelation 21,3

242

Index of Authors Aartun, Kjell 223 Abrams, Meyer Howard 81 Ackroyd, Peter 101, 250, 253, 258 Albertz, Rainer 93 Allen, Leslie 257 Alter, Robert 3, 81, 82, 98 Altman, Amnon 249 Andersen, Francis 254 Anderson, Gary 217 Aristotle, 80, 86 Assmann, Jan 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 26, 28, 29, 30, 36, 37, 38, 41, 175, 244, 250, 254, 255, 256, 259, 272, 275, 280 Averbeck, Richard 238 Baden, Joel 58, 61, 72, 73, 169, 185, 187 Baentsch, Bruno 63, 71, 116, 133, 143, 148, 173, 179, 180, 189, 197, 213, 215 Baker, Coleman 11, 19, 20, 21 Bar-Efrat, Shimon 3, 80, 92 Bar-On, Shimon 197 Barrois, Georges 133 Bar-Tal, Daniel 14 Batten, Loring 269 Batto, Bernard 233 Beck, Aaron 280 Ben Zvi, Ehud 7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 17, 32, 33, 34, 41, 254, 271, 278, 279, 280 Berge, Kåre 8, 17, 32, 33, 34, 35, 262 Berlin, Adele 163 Beuken, Willem 148, 149 Blenkinsopp, Joseph 21, 269, 270, 274 Blum, Erhard 22, 23, 24, 66 Bodenheimer, Friedrich 124, 127, 139, 140 Bokser, Baruch 209 Bosman, Hendrik 206 Bovati, Pietro 164, 262 Brekelmans, Christian 188

Briggs, Charles 247 Bright, John 248, 249, 250, 273 Brockelmann, Carl 50 Cairns, Ian 264, 265 Calvin, John 118, 128, 134 Carr, David 15, 24, 249, 250, 251, 252, 255, 256, 258, 274, 276 Carroll, Robert 94 Caruth, Cathy 251, 252 Cassuto, Umberto 79, 95, 99, 100, 104, 110, 115, 116, 117, 124, 126, 135, 139, 140, 143, 149, 152, 154, 155, 162, 164, 167, 168, 182, 189, 194, 199, 201, 202, 215, 220, 222, 227, 228, 231, 232, 239 Childs, Brevard 25, 26, 27, 44, 45, 47, 50, 51, 52, 56, 57, 64, 72, 95, 97, 102, 105, 109, 110, 115, 116, 122, 125, 127, 129, 133, 135, 143, 146, 171, 174, 184, 186, 192, 194, 196, 197, 199, 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 230 Clines, David 258 Coats, George 58, 60, 61, 79, 89, 90, 97, 138, 161, 171, 176, 201, 260 Cohen, Mark 195 Condor, Susan 15, 273 Craigie, Peter 236 Czaplicka, John 11 Dahood, Mitchell 247 Dalman, Gustaf 170, 178 Daube, David 197 Davies, Graham 44, 47, 53, 54, 64, 99, 128, 135, 148, 171 Davies, Philip 1, 8, 9, 16, 274 deVaux, Roland 119, 133, 146, 195, 197 Dever, William 38, 39, 40

316

Index of Authors

Dillmann, August 116, 119, 124, 129, 135, 151, 180, 185, 196, 197, 202, 203, 212 Dohmen, Christoph 44, 45, 47, 50, 52, 95, 110, 116, 122, 124, 130, 133, 135, 136, 138, 141, 143, 149, 154, 155, 160, 161, 176, 183, 190, 226, 227, 228 Dozeman, Thomas 44, 45, 47, 50, 52, 54, 118, 135, 147, 157, 170, 175, 188, 194, 195, 205, 206, 207, 208, 219, 220, 222, 231, 233 Dressler, Harold 231, 235 Driver, Samuel 63, 64, 143, 148, 197, 199, 200, 203, 205, 213, 215, 221, 233, 237, 238, 239, 264 Durham, John 44, 45, 47, 50, 53, 79, 94, 116, 124, 135, 143, 148, 157, 186, 195, 197, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 208, 209, 213, 214, 215, 222, 230, 231, 238, 239, 240, 242 Edelman, Diana 32, 34, 37, 280 Eerdmans, Bernadus 99 Ehrlich, Arnold 180 Eissfeldt, Otto 253 Eliade, Mircea 225 Engnell, Ivan 22 Esler, Philip 13, 14, 15, 235, 268, 273 Fabry, Heinz-Josef 160 Fentress, James 16, 259 Ficco, Fabrizio 262 Finkelstein, Israel 30, 248, 249, 250, 252, 255 Fischer, Georg 23, 25, 85, 95 Fishbane, Michael 3 Fokkelman, Jan 3 Fox, Everett 200 Fox, Michael 231, 265 Frankel, David 48, 49, 53, 54, 55, 56, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 95, 99, 101, 102, 113, 114, 117, 127, 129, 135, 136, 138, 143, 147, 149, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 161, 171, 178, 179, 185, 186 Frazer, James 207 Freedman, David 192, 254, 256 Frevel, Christian 95 Fritz, Volkmar 54, 63 Fuhs, Hans 162

Galbiati, Enrico 79, 89 García López, Felix 160 Geiger, Abraham 179 Geller, Stephen 57, 61, 62, 63, 78, 103, 106, 110, 115, 118, 148, 169 Gerleman, Gillis 197 Germany, Stephen 126 Gianto, Agustinus 116, 130, 139, 153, 163, 187 Ginsberg, Harold 254 Gitin, Seymour 30, 223 Gosse, Bernard 269 Grabbe, Lester 273 Gray, George 170, 213 Gray, John 124 Green, Alberto 206 Gressmann, Hugo 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 113, 133, 143, 145, 146, 171 Grund, Alexandra 165 Gunkel, Herman 22, 23 Gzeller, Holger 139 Haag, Ernst 146, 234, 235 Halbwachs, Maurice 9, 10, 26, 175, 280 Hall, Robert 252 Hamilton, Victor 44, 45, 50, 52, 106, 110, 125, 127, 143, 147, 155, 183, 184, 185, 194, 198, 216, 231, 232, 240 Haran, Menahem 240 Harper, L 150, 173 Harris, Monford 201 Harrison, Roland 170, 221 Hartley, John 221, 223 Hasel, Gerhard 146, 232, 233, 234 Hatton, Howard 117 Heger, Paul 222, 223 Helfmeyer, Franz-Josef 108 Hendel, Ronald 9, 17, 19, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 40, 41, 117, 141, 167, 210, 252, 255, 267, 272, 277, 282, 284 Hermann, Siegfried 201 Hertz, Joseph 220 Hobbs, Trevor 247 Hoffmann, David 221 Hogg, Michael 14, 268 Holman, Clarence 82, 98 Holmgren, Fredrick 270 Holzinger, Heinrich 51, 185 Hooke, Samuel 207

Index of Authors Hopkins, Nick 15, 96, 273 Houtman, Cornelius 44, 45, 51, 56, 60, 90, 93, 99, 100, 101, 103, 106, 108, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 119, 122, 124, 127, 129, 135, 137, 143, 144, 148, 153, 155, 158, 159, 168, 170, 171, 172, 175, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 189, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 200, 202, 203, 206, 207, 210, 211, 212, 213, 215, 216, 217, 220, 226, 227, 230, 240, 241, 242, 244 Hubert, Henri 217 Hundley, Michael 12, 19, 33, 244, 283 Hurowitz, Victor 233 Hyatt, James 185 Invernizzi, Laura 114, 121 Iser, Wolfgang 83, 180 Jacob, Benno 50, 116, 121, 128, 139, 161, 162, 168, 172, 175, 190, 231 Jacob, Irene 170 Jacob, Walter 170 Jongeling, Bastian 100 Joosten, Jan 43, 185 Jospe, Raphael 155 Kaiser, Alfred 127 Kaiser, Walter 3 Kalimi, Isaac 247 Kass, Leon 53, 95, 100, 118, 131, 136, 137, 138, 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 167, 173, 180, 188 Keel, Othmar 197 Kellermann, Diether 217, 218 Kirk, Alan 7, 8 Klein, Ralph 267 Koch, Klaus 223 Korn, Joachin 107, 108 Kraus, Hans-Joachim 197, 209, 257 Kuenen, Abraham 71 Kuhl, Curt 54 Kupfer, Christian 79, 89, 93, 95, 104, 105, 107, 109, 112, 114, 117, 123, 131, 137, 143, 145, 150, 151, 157, 163, 166, 175, 177, 187 Kutsch, Ernst 209

317

Laaf, Peter 197 Lambdin, Thomas 190 László, János 20, 167 Lee, Won 93 Leon-Dufour, Xavier 93, 94 Levenson, Jon 206 Levin, Christoph 23, 32, 33, 61, 106, 169 Levine, Baruch 147, 160, 214 Levy, David 1, 37, 93 Lipschits, Oded 247, 248 Liu, James 20, 167 Loewenstamm, Samuel 179, 207 Lohfink, Norbert 200 Lohse, Eduard 235 Lotz, Wilhelm 146, 234 Luckenbill, Daniel 247 Lundbom, Jack 25, 148, 192 Maeir, Aren 39 Maiberger, Paul 48, 53, 55, 58, 68, 115, 116, 124, 127, 132, 143, 184, 189 Malina, Bruce 79 Markl, Dominik 95, 241, 242, 243, 275, 281 Matthews, Victor 40, 41, 228, 258 May, Herbert 208 Mazzinghi, Luca 265 McCarthy, Dennis 116, 117 McDonald, Lee 256 McKay, John 195 Meinhold, Johannes 234 Meyers, Carol 125, 140, 160, 167, 227, 239 Meyers, Eric 24 Michel, Andreas 95 Milgrom, Jacob 93, 150, 173, 198, 225, 226, 298 Momigliano, Arnaldo 25 Morgenstern, Julian 201, 235 Muraoka, Tamitsu 50, 106 Niehr, Herbert 144 Nielsen, Kjeld 146, 220 Nihan, Christophe 24, 54 Nora, Pierre 11 North, Robert 146

112, 144,

250,

226,

222,

318

Index of Authors

Noth, Martin 22, 44, 45, 47, 50, 52, 54, 63, 64, 75, 94, 95, 96, 113, 116, 124, 127, 133, 135, 138, 141, 144, 149, 171, 174, 189, 195, 200, 213, 228, 241 Olick, Jeffery 10 Osborn, Noel 117 Otto, Eckart 73, 189, 210, 264 Paganini, Simone 265 Paul, Shalom 7, 17, 253, 254 Pedersen, Johannes 207, 209 Pham, Nghia 131, 164, 181, 262 Pola, Thomas 73 Powell, Mark Allan 3, 25, 79, 80, 133, 134, 180, 213, 239 Priotto, Michelangelo 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 79, 93, 95, 96, 98, 101, 106, 107, 108, 110, 111, 114, 115, 116, 117, 124, 125, 127, 135, 138, 140, 143, 145, 148, 150, 152, 157, 158, 159, 163, 169, 170, 173, 174, 175, 182, 184, 186, 188, 189, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 204, 222, 225, 226, 227, 230, 233, 238, 239, 240, 241, 243 Propp, William 1, 37, 39, 44, 45, 46, 47, 50, 51, 52, 55, 57, 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 72, 79, 94, 95, 102, 106, 107, 110, 111, 115, 118, 119, 122, 124, 127, 129, 135, 141, 143, 145, 148, 149, 152, 154, 170, 171, 178, 180, 183, 184, 185, 187, 190, 194, 195, 197, 198, 201, 203, 205, 207, 210, 212, 213, 214, 216, 217, 220, 227, 229, 231, 232, 237, 238, 239, 240, 256 Rad, von, Gerhard 22, 117, 136 Reicher, Stephen 15, 96, 273 Rendtorff, Rolf 22, 23, 117 Resseguie, James 3, 80, 81, 82 Ricœur, Paul 7, 17, 18, 19, 20, 272, 273 Ringgren, Helmer 227 Robinson, Gnana 234 Rofé, Alexander 21, 23, 78 Rogerson, John 24 Römer, Thomas 61, 62, 73, 169, 186, 250, 252, 255 Rost, Leonhard 209

Rudolph, Wilhelm 69, 170 Ruprecht, Eberhard 54, 55, 57, 65, 66, 67, 97, 98, 100, 103, 105, 110, 113, 115, 120, 121, 122, 126, 128, 131, 135, 140, 143, 153, 166, 167, 171, 179, 189 Rylaarsdam, J. Coert 195, 210 Sanders, James 253 Sarna, Nahum 114, 135, 195 Sasson, Jack 252 Savran, George 114 Schart, Aaron 54, 65, 66, 89, 97, 98, 104, 108, 116, 128, 130, 131, 132, 134, 137, 138, 140, 147, 154, 158, 166, 170, 172, 187, 188, 189 Schmid, Konrad 276 Schmidt, Ludwig 23, 57, 65, 67, 68, 114, 121, 133, 148, 168, 206 Schudson, Michael 255 Schult, Hermann 128 Schunck, Klaus-Dietrich 97 Seebass, Horst 23 Seeligmann, Isac 162 Segal, Judah 209 Sellers, Ovid 133, 213 Seow, Choon 239 Shead, Andrew 155 Silberman, Neil Asher 248, 249, 250 Ska, Jean-Louis 3, 21, 23, 36, 81, 99, 185, 249, 250, 282 Smyth, Geraldine 155 Soggin, Jan Alberto 21, 23, 206 Sonnet, Jean-Pierre 3, 5, 9, 10, 80, 83, 84, 86, 116, 117, 138, 165, 166, 192, 200, 248, 250, 251, 252, 258, 275, 276 Stackert, Jeffrey 153 Staubli, Thomas 241 Sternberg, Meier 3, 4, 25, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 95, 109, 114, 116, 119, 122, 131, 145, 165, 181, 280 Stieglitz, Robert 228 Szikszai, Stephen 228 Tajfel, Henri 12, 13 Talmon, Shemaryahu 94 Taylor, Edward 217 Thomas, Charles 93, 94 Tigay, Jeffrey 264 Trever, John 170, 228

Index of Authors Tucker, Gene 24 Turner, John 13 Ulrich, Eugene 43, 46 Ussishkin, David 247 Utzschneider, Helmut 196, 241 Valeri, Valerio 217 Van Seters, John 23, 27, 53, 54, 55, 69, 70, 71, 110, 112, 114, 132, 169, 252 Van Beek, Gus 228 Vanhoozer, Kevin 18, 272 Vermeylen, Jacques 23 Wagenaar, Jaap 69, 71, 188, 189 Watts, John 204, 269 Weimer, Peter 23 Weinfeld, Moshe 117 Weippert, Helga 220

319

Weiser, Artur 192 Welch, Adam 208 Wellhausen, Julius 22, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 133, 148, 155, 158, 168, 189, 207, 209, 222, 223, 241 Wevers, John 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 178, 238 Whybray, Roger 21 Wickham, Chris 16, 259 Wilson, Ian 34 Wright, George 30, 221, 222, 225 Yerushalmi, Yosef 27, 35 Young, Ian 130 Zenger, Erich 1, 24, 25, 110, 189 Zerubavel, Eviatar 8 Zeruvabel, Yael 10 Zobel, Hans-Jürgen 106 Zohary, Michael 170

Index of Subjects Abraham, memory of 27, 29, 32–33, 254 Ark of the Testimony 5, 182–184, 186, 237–243, 244, 266–267, 271, 278, 281–282, 283 Calendar, Israel-ANE 194–196, Canonical Criticism 25 Characterisation 99, 102, 113, 135, 138, 150, 164, 181, 187, 260 Chosenness 147, 165, 192, 202, 213, 216, 231, 246, 251, 254, 266, 270, 281– 283, 286 Circumcision 68, 202, 232–233, 252– 253 Commemoration 10, 175 Communicative Memory 10–11 Coriander Plant/Seed 170 Curiosity 84, 109, 114, 146, 172, 178 Cut off, to be: punitive 200, 229–230, 234 Depersonalization 13–14 Diachronic Analysis 3 Documentary Hypothesis 21–22 Ephah 88, 189–190, 212–213 Exodus, book – and Israel’s identity 36–37, 245–246, 248, 255–257 – and prophecy 32 – as memory figure 28 Exodus, event – memorialisation 38–40, 193–198, 203– 207, 212–213 – narrative (exegesis) 201–202, 257, 258 – and Israel’s identity 248, 249, 254, 253–257 Exposition, narrative 92

Firstborn, consecration 204–206 Form Criticism 22–23, 24 Fortschreibung 23–24, 26 Forty Years, significance 188–189 Free Indirect Perception 116–117, 126, 267 Gap/Ellipsis, narrative 82–83, 109, 122, 138, 146, 165, 172 Generation 186–187, 193 Glory of God 111–112, 117, 120–121, 265–267, 284 Group Beliefs 14 hin, measure 215–216 History – and fiction 18, 26, 30 – and (social) memory 7–8, 30 Holiness 146, 214–215, 227–228, 283 Idem per idem, meaning 148 Ingroup / Outgroup 13, 237, 238, 255, 282, 285 Inner biblical Exegesis 3 Jubilee Year 144–145 mann, “natural manna” 127, 139–141 Manna, event – as training 138, 151, 166, 262–265 – salvific significance 98 Manna, narrative – and identity reconstruction 17, 245, 257–274, 280–281, 285–286 – and Passover narrative (Ex 12) 211 – as crystallisation of cultural memory 42, 190, 246 – as response to the exile 2–3, 21, 246, 279–280 – historicity 41

Index of Subjects Manna, substance – and Israel’s dependence on God 88, 108 – and mann 139–141 – and Sabbath 147–148, 151–158, 285 – as foretaste of the Promised Land 188 – as manifestation of divine glory 111– 112, 117–118, 120–121 – as site of memory 175–176, 180, 186 – etymology 128–131 – name as tool of memory 167–171 – natural description 127, 170–171 – paradox of bread from heaven 106–107 – perpetual preservation 172–184, 270– 272 Mercy Seat 240, 242–243 Mnemohistory 30, 40, 272, 283 Mnemotechnics 17, 29 Murmuring, Israelites 97–99, 111, 113, 116, 137, 166, 168, 181, 187, 188, 260–262, 267, 284 Narrative Analysis 3, 25, 80–83 Narrative Identity 17–20 Narrative Plot 80–81 New Year, Israel 195–196, 208 Norms, Group 14–15, 267–268 omer – capacity 133, 190 – as a special measure 135–136, 173 Passover – Seder 10, 16–17, 38, 96, 188, 202–203 – pesaḥ-maṣṣôṯ 193–198, 202, 205, 212 Pentateuch, composition 21–30, 35, 246, 274–277, 285–286 Pillar of Cloud 98, 117–118 Quail, description

124

Rain, symbolic import 106 Redaction Criticism 24 Remembering/forgetting 9, 19, 24, 26, 31, 246, 252, 275, 283 Repetition 55, 81–82, 99, 122, 179, 189 Revelation Plot 5, 86, 130 Rhetoric of Memory 117, 284

321

Rhetorical Criticism 25, 80 Sabbath – etymology 146, 236 – as identity marker 78, 147, 162, 237, 238, 259, 267–270, 285 – and creation 147, 152–153 – as imitatio Dei 147, 153, 157, 162, 165, 234, 268 – evolvement history 236–237 – sign of the covenant 231–235, 238, 259, 285 Sabbatical Year 144–145 Sacrifice – general / in ANE 219 – in Israel 215–220 Self-Categorization 13 Self-Sufficiency, futility 108, 137, 262– 265, 284 Sennacherib’s campaign 249–250 Sin, wilderness of 85, 94–95, 258 Site of Memory 11–12, 175, 180, 186, 270 Social Identity – theory 12–17 – and otherness 32, 34 Social Memory – and social identity 16–17, 32, 243–244, 246–247, 262–263, 265, 266, 267, 270 – counterfactual 32 – narrative, medium of 19–20, 31, 42, 154, 167, 186, 272–273 Surprise 84, 109 Suspense 83, 96, 105, 114, 115, 125, 137, 172, 177, 178, 193 Temporality, group 15–16, 38, 204, 256, 258–259, 273 Tenth Plague 201–202 Test, divine: as training 108, 137, 262– 265 Trauma, studies 252–254 Wilderness, symbolism 93–94, 258–259, 265, 267, 270 Yom Kippur 224–226